Canon macro lenses

[Roger Bunting]

Thanks for the link, WG. I\'ve got a couple of other financial dealings to sort out before I get the camera so I have a few weeks to thoroughly check out everything.

EDIT: How\'s this one?

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/NEW-D80-Digital-SLR-Camera-28-80-75-300-LENS-PRO-PACK_W0QQitemZ140208571672QQihZ004QQcategoryZ31388QQcmdZViewItemQQ_trksidZp1742.m153.l1262

Considering it has all the gubbins, including a macro lens, I may be able to free up enough money for something like that.

 

[Beelzebrush]

The two lenses are worth about £160.00, the camera body you can get for about £500.00. I looked at the macro lens (it\'s 70-300mm btw) and read reviews online and the opinion wasn\'t that high. The rest of the stuff looks a bit cheap (I may be wrong though!)

I reckon that if it was me, I\'d get the body and buy a sigma 50mm macro, which is a true 1:1 macro (about £190.00) and then add a Nikon 50mm f 1.8 lens, which is supposed to be the mutts nuts and only about £75.00 - having said that, it depends on what you want to photograph when not pointing at minis. If you add about £30.00 for a basic but solid tripod, you\'d be in business... you can always add stuff later when the budget permits.

You could also do this with a Canon 400d and replace the Nikon 50mm with the canon version, which costs about the same. You\'d save about £150.00 on the Nikon. (thus giving you £150.00 for other bits or even as a fund towards another lens)

I\'d definitely prefer to buy 2 good lenses than two so-so ones and a bundle of extras!

 

[War Griffon]

Looking at the price of that and considering it has two cheap lenses why not try this one for the same price http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/NEW-NIKON-D80-18-55-70-300-LENS-DIGITAL-SLR-CAMERA-KIT_W0QQitemZ140208799356QQihZ004QQcategoryZ31388QQcmdZViewItemQQ_trksidZp1742.m153.l1262

 

[Roger Bunting]

Well, there\'s a couple of new cameras out very soon, the Canon EOS 450D and the Nikon D60, both before I actually buy one, so I can add those to the list to compare. I put a question to the forums on dpreview as well. An alternative suggestion for a camera was the Olympus 510. Any opinions on that one here?

EDIT: I found a 400D with kit lens for £379.
http://www.bestpricedbrands.co.uk/index.php?act=viewProd&productId=188

 

[War Griffon]

Well if it helps here are two shots I just tookwith the D80 and the Nikon 18 - 55 lense using the macro setting on the camera and set at 10meg and an auto ISO. If you use the camera\'s macro mode it sets shutter and arperture automatically so probably a dedicated macro lense or a macro filter type thingy is the way ahead as Beezlebrush suggested.
Not the best of shots I am still playing with the camera and lighting settings and I haven\'t set things like white balance etc yet but given Libbies size...all I have done is auto levels and crop in Photoshop.

 

[Legacy Account]

Those Tamron lenses are shite. Not that Tamron don\'t make some cracking lenses, but I bought one of those 70-300mm zooms off Ebay very cheaply indeed and I won\'t use it. It\'s cheap and nasty and drains all the saturation from colours. Zooms of that focal length either need image stabilisation or a massive aperture to be any good at longer focal lengths anyway.
That or you take a tripod wherever you go and miss plenty of shots!

Depending on what sort of pics you want to take, a long range zoom would be at the bottom of my list. You want a decent macro lens (obviously!) and a quality \'do-it-all\' lens - somewhere in the region between 18-80mm.

I personally don\'t really bother with prime lenses - the crop factor of any body you buy distorts the focal length and the quality of a decent zoom will almost match that of a prime these days whilst giving you massively more flexibility. Canon do a good quality 50mm f1.8 for 60 quid. That\'s the only one that\'d tempt me. I\'d rather spend my cash on uber-quality \'L\' zooms from now on!

My top (cheapish) Canon recommendations for walk-round zooms:

Tamron AF 17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical (£250) - I bought one of these and it shafts on almost every one of my old man\'s Canon lenses, as well as every other lens I own. Fantastic value and very well built. Highly recommended!

Tamron AF 24-135MM F/3.5-5.6 AD Aspherical (£300) - bit slower, but if you need a little bit more range....

Tamron AF 28-75MM F/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (£240)

Sigma 28-70mm f2.8 EX Aspherical DF (£200) - Careful with Sigma stuff. They make some beauties, but quality control is not great. Test any Sigma lens before (or immediately after!) you buy it. If it seems dodgy then it\'s probably a bad copy. Get it changed! Same for Tamron, but to a much lesser extent...

Canon EF 28-105 F/3.5-4.5 II USM (£200) - you can pick these up well cheap on Ebay. I got one for £70 - not a bad lens for the money.

Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM (£600) - expensive, but superb lens!

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM (£500) - you might pay a bit more for this, but they\'re brilliant.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM (£600) - same here, expensive, but brilliant. Image stabiliser gives you equivalent to 3-4 more stops....

As for macro lenses, try these:

Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 USM Macro (£250)

Canon EF 50mm f/2.5 Macro (£200)

Tamron SP AF 90mm F2.8 Di MACRO (£250)

Something that\'ll do both maybe??

Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4.5 DC MACRO (£240) - Never used one, but might be worth testing in the shop for it\'s macro performance.

 

[Roger Bunting]

Thanks for the list. I\'ll check some of those out (obviously not the most expensive ones as those are way out of my estimated budget).

EDIT: Incidentally, what do you think of the standard kit lenses you get with the various cameras already mentioned?

 

[Legacy Account]

I used the 18-55mm that comes with EOS 300/350/400D for several years and got some good results with it - I\'ve got some pics that are absolutely pin sharp at 100% with it. So it\'s useable - if you get a good one....

Since buying more expensive glass, I\'ve noticed it\'s limitations. Accuracy of focus is a bit hit and miss, build quality is abysmal and the bayonet is plastic. Very slow considering the focal length as well. If you can afford it, I\'d certainly recommend getting whatever body and the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 (if you go for Canon - can\'t speak for Nikon!)

Come you Nikon-heads, let\'s hear what budget gear you rate - I\'m interested myself!

 

[Roger Bunting]

Okily dokily. It looks like one setup has been determined. A Canon eos xx0D with the Tamron 17-50mm lens and the canon 50mm compact macro. Let\'s hear the verdict for the Nikon (or any other for that matter).

 

[Beelzebrush]

It depends on your budget relly Roger

If you could stretch to a D80 - it\'s supposed to be a great camera.

Also, whilst the canon compact macro is supposed to be a great lens... I\'d really recommend looking at the Sigma 50mm macro too... you get true 1:1 macro capability and it costs about the same. (the canon lens is 1:2 magnification - which is half life-size). For a general day-to-day zoom, the Tamron that Scott mentioned is supposed to be a very decent lens too.

Again, it really depends what you are going to use the camera for. If you want to shoot bugs and insect type things with your macro too, I\'d recommend getting a longer focal length (Tamron 90mm (which I have and is a very nice lens) or maybe a Sigma 105mm.... both of which are highly rated lenses - obviously, these are going to eat the budget a bit more than the 50mm.

I still quite like the Nikon 50mm prime - It\'s a classic lens, fast and cheap too (well, the f1.8 one is). As far as I\'m aware, Robert Capa used this lens for a lot of his war photography.

Anyway, you won\'t be disappointed with either a Canon or a Nikon.

 

[Roger Bunting]

Thanks, Beelzebrush. I won\'t know my budget until I\'ve sorted out the computer, which is in the process of being done. If I can stretch to the D80 I certainly will consider it but that will definately be at the top end of what I\'ll be able to afford.

I\'m not entirely sure what I\'ll end up photographing, but landscapes, bugs (I don\'t like them but they\'re fascinating :-D), and anything that interests me at the time. My health issues may hamper where I can go but I\'m looking to be positive about it all. Of course it\'ll be used for minis. I enjoyed the little bit of photography I did at college (both at Chesterfield and at uni).

 

[Roger Bunting]

I\'ve been comparing prices for the cameras and lenses, and I have a question about the Sigma macro lens. On one site it has two versions, one with the letters DG, the other without. What is the DG bit?

Here\'s the site.

http://www.priceisking.co.uk/index.php?target=products&mode=search&type=extended&match=any&q=&pname=Y&pshort=Y&pfull=Y&cid=111&subcats=Y&mid=216&pcode=&price_from=&price_to=&weight_from=&weight_to=&page=4

Is it just something to do with the bit that says \"Optimized for digital SLR cameras\" ?

 

[Legacy Account]

DG lenses are coated for optimal digital use - still work on 35mm or full frame DSLRs.

Sigma DC lenses are for APS-C sensors and won\'t work on 35mm or full frame bodies.

Whilst that Sigma is supposed to be 1:1, you\'ll find that you have to be stupidly close to actually achieve that. The Tamron 90mm would be better for bug-shots....

 

[Roger Bunting]

Primarily the macro will be for minis at first, so being close is fine. I could always get the 90mm later on when I\'ve learnt a bit more and my health has hopefully improved to get out and about in the countryside more.

I\'ve been doing my sums. I could possibly stretch to the d80 but I\'m due for an eye test, and I\'m pretty sure I\'ll be needing new lenses in those so I probably need to hold some money back for that. It\'s no good having a good camera if I can\'t see whether it\'s in focus or not. lol

Therefore that left the list at the d40, d40x, d60, eos 350d and 400d.

Seeing as I can afford the 400d I guess there\'s no point in the 350d, especially as I can\'t seem to find one with just the body so I\'d be wasting a few quid on the kit lens.

So we\'re down to the other 4.

I\'ve read some mixed reviews on the d60. Trusted Review only gave it about a 7/10, where they had given the d40x a 10 (I don\'t know if it\'s the same reviewer). Another review said that the d40 is better than either the 40x or 60. Of course, I can\'t find the d40 without kit lens either, except on DigitalRev, which I\'m not sure about where you have to send the camera back if I had to as it\'s a Honk Kong based company, I think. They do have UK call numbers. The other thing is I wouldn\'t get the postage back if I wanted a refund.

dpreview pretty much put the d40x and 400d on an equal par overall and they\'re a similar price.

I\'m leaning towards the 400d as I\'ve found a good price and seeing Spacemunkie\'s and Mod\'s pics taken with one helps deal with the whole \"which is the better nikon\" conundrum. I was up too late reading reviews last night and I\'m feeling a bit worse for wear today, so I think I\'m taking that as a sign to get the 400D.

So, here\'s my thoughts on what I\'ll get.

Canon EOS 400D
Sigma 50mm Macro
Tamron 17-50mm

Sound good?

 

[Legacy Account]

You won\'t be disappointed with any of that kit.

Try 7 Day Shop for Compact Flash and an extra battery. 2gb Kingston cards are only 7 quid and you can get an extra battery for a fiver I think.

:beer:

 

[4trickpony]

Just chiming in a bit to mention that though longer lenses (effective 90 or longer) are generally considered better for tabletop AND for portrait (due to the compression of space), minis might do better with a much shorter lens, because they are often sculpted to be over-the-top and thus exaggeration of extremities might not be a *bad* thing.

That said, I\'d prefer something like effective 200 mm, to give me plenty of working distance for a nice solid tripod.