Hey folks..
Just wanted to let you know that I am saving up my money now.. i wanna buy the eos 20D 18-70 kit and a sigma 50 mm macrolens.
All the best,
Tom B
SAVING
Moderators: MacroMike, nzmacro, Ken Ramos, twebster, S. Alden
- MikeBinOKlahoma
- Posts: 1491
- Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2004 4:30 pm
- Location: Umm....Could it be Oklahoma?
On my first attempt at macro photography, I was so frustrated with failure to get the sharp depth-of-field where I wanted it that I didn't try again for a year (seriously!). However, once I went back to it, I did pretty well at it! Patience and not giving up is the key.
I suspect you'll not be happy with a 50mm lens for macro shots of insects, even on a 20D (which gives the illusion of more focal length). I am pretty sure the focusing range listed is a range from the film plane (sensor, in your case) to the insect, and the actual distance from the front of the lens to the insect would be much less. Many insects are very intolerant of you getting close, especially the glamor-girl butterflies, dragonflies, and damselflies.
I suggest a 100mm lens (or more). The Canon 100mm or Sigma 105mm are the obvious choices. A very good, but cheaper option is the Vivitar 100/3.5 macro (often sold under the brand name Phoenix). I owned one as my main macro lens for about a year, and was pleased with it. Image quality is excellent when stopped down as you are for macro. Build quality was not so good, but good enough. Only major disadvantage of the lens is that it will go on it's own to just 1:2 image size. You can get 1:1 image size by putting an included diopter on the front of the lens. The diopter screws on like a filter, and reduces the focusing distance some.
I highly recommend the lens if you're on a budget, and it sells for well below half what the Canon or Sigma versions go for.
I suspect you'll not be happy with a 50mm lens for macro shots of insects, even on a 20D (which gives the illusion of more focal length). I am pretty sure the focusing range listed is a range from the film plane (sensor, in your case) to the insect, and the actual distance from the front of the lens to the insect would be much less. Many insects are very intolerant of you getting close, especially the glamor-girl butterflies, dragonflies, and damselflies.
I suggest a 100mm lens (or more). The Canon 100mm or Sigma 105mm are the obvious choices. A very good, but cheaper option is the Vivitar 100/3.5 macro (often sold under the brand name Phoenix). I owned one as my main macro lens for about a year, and was pleased with it. Image quality is excellent when stopped down as you are for macro. Build quality was not so good, but good enough. Only major disadvantage of the lens is that it will go on it's own to just 1:2 image size. You can get 1:1 image size by putting an included diopter on the front of the lens. The diopter screws on like a filter, and reduces the focusing distance some.
I highly recommend the lens if you're on a budget, and it sells for well below half what the Canon or Sigma versions go for.
Mike Broderick
_____________________________________________________________
"I must obey the inscrutable exhortations of my soul.....My mandate includes weird bugs."--Calvin
(reposts on this site of my images for critique or instruction are welcome)
_____________________________________________________________
"I must obey the inscrutable exhortations of my soul.....My mandate includes weird bugs."--Calvin
(reposts on this site of my images for critique or instruction are welcome)
Hey folks,
Another question for you,
Which flash is more adviseable a Canon MT-24EX twin-lite or a Sigma EM-140 DG ringflasher?
I don't care much about difference in price you know I want good stuff.
I havent's found any qualitycamparison sites that enable you to compare these two, let alone to view comments by people that use either of them.
Does anyone have experience with either of these flashes or have another way.. like sideflashing with a detached "normal" flash.
All the best,
Tom B
Another question for you,
Which flash is more adviseable a Canon MT-24EX twin-lite or a Sigma EM-140 DG ringflasher?
I don't care much about difference in price you know I want good stuff.
I havent's found any qualitycamparison sites that enable you to compare these two, let alone to view comments by people that use either of them.
Does anyone have experience with either of these flashes or have another way.. like sideflashing with a detached "normal" flash.
All the best,
Tom B
-
- Posts: 727
- Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 11:57 pm
- Location: Richland, WA, USA
- Contact:
I sideflash.nephiliim wrote:Does anyone have experience with either of these flashes or have another way.. like sideflashing with a detached "normal" flash.
In more detail, I use an ancient off-brand strobe in full manual mode, handholding the flash at wherever position makes sense -- typically just at the end of the lens, but left, right, above, below, 10 o'clock, whatever seems most likely to model the subject well. See my aphids and the last round of frost spikes for examples of the results.
Why ancient & full manual? Because when I bought my Canon 300D system, a couple of years ago, I discovered that it had some deficiencies in its flash metering and control, such that all the fancy new auto flashes just flat failed (bad exposures) when used with my funky full manual lens systems. I went through three models of new auto flash units before realizing (duh!) that full manual is just fine for what I do, given the instant feedback of digital photos. It has the pleasant side effect that my whole flash system fits in a Ziploc sandwich bag that's easy to pack.
I am not recommending this scheme, just describing it. It works good for me, but it has some clear deficiencies and I'm sure there are a zillion dependencies against what I do and how I do it, that I haven't even thought about.
--Rik