Jump to content

Camera advise/opinions


reefnjunkie
 Share

Recommended Posts

So logging into the site I loathe to pay my "sellers fees" I did a little surfing-like 3 mouse clicks-(laugh)

and stumble upon this;

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/USA-Canon-Rebel-XS-Digital-SLR-Camera-6-Lens-MEGA-SALE-/160457004004?cmd=ViewItem&pt=Digital_Cameras&hash=item255bfb93e4

 

Not knowing even enough to be dangerous I was curious as to if this is any type of a deal.

 

Not seeing any names on the additional lenses MAY be a flag-I dunno but I am tires of complaining about not taking decent pics and a new camera will happen just not sure what type etc.

 

My wife has a good friend who is a amatuer photograpgher who I am going to talk to, I know Rick has a lot of camera knowledge, and Alex, Frank etc.

 

Looking for opinions/ideas-

 

Grassi has a lens that Frank is using that is plain sick-the macros or zoom shots that thing takes-OMG, lets just say I think the camera will be paid for by some coral sales once I get some quality shots-I have a few chalices I want to frag soon that should not last a day at R2R or 3Reef-and hopefully the few packs I put together will pay for the camera-or a big portion

 

Sorry to digress...

 

Any input if this is a sale of "outdated" "so-so equipment".

 

I have a lot of research to do, I just saw this which is my price range and I was surprised to see all the gear-

 

Input????

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You will not get good macro shots with those lenses. You would need and additional macro lens that would cost $400-1000.

 

That s what I had thought, the one lense (macro) I was told would be about 500-600 and the 400-500 for the camera, so when I saw this I figured "great price" not so great of a deal/package-

 

I also save 8% off of anythng I buy on Fleabay-

 

At least I wont get to flamed about not buying locally for the camera on a fish/reef forum-(nono)

 

Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Get a cheap old Rebel. Even used. Then get a good new macro lens (or used, especially from a shop which can give you guarantee).

I love my EF-S 60 macro ultrasonic. New is about $500.

When you are on a budget for photography equipment go cheap for the body and spend all your money on lenses. I'm sure you can find a similar nice macro lens for the Nikon world as well. Probably Rick can help you if you are gonna go that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can get an older Nikon (D series) and fit on an older (1970 or so) 105 Micro-Nikkor (app. $125.00 for a good example?). These lenses, if manufactured now, would be $2,000 because of the quality of the glass and construction.

Ya gotta focus and set exposure manually which is better anyway.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

After using the T2i for a couple of months I would have a hard time suggesting anything else for the type of photos we are taking. Primarily this is due to the improvements in picture quality at high ISO settings (Up to ISO 6400). This allows you to take photos in low light that are not possible with anything else other than perhaps the 7D and several tests even show the T2i to be slightly better than it is. For Macro shots there are a few different options. First is to get an expensive macro lens, next is to use extension tubes, and last is to use a diopter lens. For what we are doing you can get by with just the 18-55mm IS kit lens that comes with the Canon cameras now and then add a +2 diopter. This changes the focus distance to about 1/2 meter. A +3 may also be good as it changes it to about 1/3 meter. These allow you to get right up to the glass and shoot very close to it. If you buy extra lenses there are many options however you have to research them carefully to get a good one. Prices range from about $75 for a 50mm f1.8 lens up to several thousands for some "L" lenses.

 

Here are a few pictures to show what this camera is capable of. Note that all except the macro shot of the flower were taken with a non IS 28-105mm lens. (Can be found for about $200). The macro shot was taken using a 75-300mm lens (also about $200) with a +2 diopter lens added to it. It was low light and taken at ISO 4000 so it is a bit grainy but still quite impressive. The last 2 shots are actually my favorites because they were taken at night with nothing but campfire lighting the first and lantern light in the second. ISO settings on them are ISO 6400.

post-5811-141867756031_thumb.jpg

post-5811-141867756035_thumb.jpg

post-5811-141867756039_thumb.jpg

post-5811-141867756042_thumb.jpg

post-5811-141867756046_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is that even if you have a camera capable of high iso setting you are gonna end up with a lot of grain, which is nice for some portrait, like wedding pictures.

Otherwise you have to spend a lot of time with Noise Ninja or similar software and the result is not always good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is that even if you have a camera capable of high iso setting you are gonna end up with a lot of grain, which is nice for some portrait, like wedding pictures.

Otherwise you have to spend a lot of time with Noise Ninja or similar software and the result is not always good.

 

FWIW, There isn't any noise reduction applied to any of the pictures above. (I even have it set to zero in the camera) It is for this reason that I would have a hard time suggesting any other camera. I.E. Because the pictures exhibit much less noise with this camera it often doesn't require using any noise reduction at all. Here is another example at ISO 6400 although I did use some noise reduction with it. Nothing like Noise Ninja though. I just dialed up a few notches of noise reduction using the Canon software on it. This picture was taken using just the moonlights in the tank.

post-5811-141867756049_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably it is just the jpeg compression, but there is visible noise.

But I think that for the usage that Brad is planning to do, this is not gonna be an issue.

 

Talking about photography in general, professional and semi-pro, high iso settings are always to avoid if you want to have the chance to resell your pics someday (which you should, considering the subjects and composition of the pics you published).

Sorry, but I worked for a few years in the noise reduction, photo digital archives, drum scanners, color management and so on and I'm a PITA when it comes to this field lol

We weren't accepting more than iso 800 and in a rare occasion iso 1600 from our photographers. So it is still doing nowadays istockphoto, imagebank and similar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK-LOL

 

I think I recognize, or actually I do recognize some of those words "Cannon" "Nikon" "Lens" "ISO"

 

Keep in mind I have been using Panasonic's DMC-FZ7 which I have a link for here;

 

http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/panasonic/dmc_fz7-review/

 

In that link it mentions additional lenses- Is the camera I have worth "building onto" with additional lenses-or is the end result I seek not going to be possible-I don't think it is

 

My end goal is to get some sweet looking close ups that are rather difficult presently-

 

I cant get good real close macro shots, when I use macro I can manually focus which is in "clicks" so I cant fine tune it plus in macro I can not adjust the white balance or the shutter speed-

 

Not sure if aperture the same as what I referred to as white balance-It is what is making the photo brighter or darker?

 

So really I am looking to go a step above what I have now and not to crazy costs wise.

 

I had heard buying used bodies can be bad since they wear out, so many shots before they are bad-This was totally a surprise.

 

and it sounds like the lenses are brand specific-that sucks but it is what it is-if that is true-

 

I'd love to stay in the 6-8 hundred range if at possible cheaper would be nice

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably it is just the jpeg compression, but there is visible noise.

But I think that for the usage that Brad is planning to do, this is not gonna be an issue.

 

Talking about photography in general, professional and semi-pro, high iso settings are always to avoid if you want to have the chance to resell your pics someday (which you should, considering the subjects and composition of the pics you published).

Sorry, but I worked for a few years in the noise reduction, photo digital archives, drum scanners, color management and so on and I'm a PITA when it comes to this field lol

We weren't accepting more than iso 800 and in a rare occasion iso 1600 from our photographers. So it is still doing nowadays istockphoto, imagebank and similar.

 

I understand what you are saying and up until 2 months ago I would have agreed 100% with what you are saying and I would still agree in general and for most stock photos. (I even posted something to the same effect in the thread where I discussed the camera settings) Keeping in mind that grain and noise are two different things though I'll fall back on a comment you made previously that indicated that it depends somewhat on what the picture is used for. I.E. Grain is not necessarly a bad thing in pictures and sometimes even adds to them. Once again though it will depend upon the desired result. While I still try to take pictures at lower ISO settings I am finding that with this particular camera I am no longer afraid to take an occasional picture where the ISO setting is 3200 or even 6400.

 

Getting back on track (I'm sure we could keep discussing this but don't want to get too far off topic, perhaps when you get the glass bit we can compare notes more) I want to be sure that no one misunderstands my suggestion for a camera. While I think this particular camera is great I also do not want anyone to think I believe there are not other cameras that will work. In fact almost any decent camera can be used to take great pictures. Even many P&S cameras and they will often be easier since it takes a bit of practice and knowledge to use an SLR effectively. The XS shown in the ad at the beginning of this thread would be great as well although I would shop around for a good used one instead. For a new one I would stick to the Kit which sells for $550 and comes with one decent lens and then use the remainder towards another decent lens. Perhaps one of the macro lenses or a telephoto zoom to go beyond 55mm up to 200 or 300mm. (Choice of lenses depends on the different types of pictures to be taken) Used ones can be had for a good bit less right now as many are selling theirs to upgrade to the T1i or T2i. (The T1i Kit is selling used for $500 to $600 now which is another good option)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK-LOL

 

I think I recognize, or actually I do recognize some of those words "Cannon" "Nikon" "Lens" "ISO"

Let us know which parts you don't understand and we can try to clarify. (We kind of got off track)

 

Keep in mind I have been using Panasonic's DMC-FZ7 which I have a link for here;

 

http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/panasonic/dmc_fz7-review/

This is supposed to be a pretty good camera.

 

In that link it mentions additional lenses- Is the camera I have worth "building onto" with additional lenses-or is the end result I seek not going to be possible-I don't think it is

You might be surprised at what can be done with it.

 

My end goal is to get some sweet looking close ups that are rather difficult presently-

I would add a macro lens to it and see how much difference it makes.

 

I cant get good real close macro shots, when I use macro I can manually focus which is in "clicks" so I cant fine tune it plus in macro I can not adjust the white balance or the shutter speed-

I would need to check to see what all the macro mode is doing however I would look for a lens solution instead and stick to modes that allow setting aperture, shutter, and focus. (Although I prefer auto focus as long as it does a good job as it is often more accurate than the eye)

 

Not sure if aperture the same as what I referred to as white balance-It is what is making the photo brighter or darker?

White balance is different. White balance adjusts the tint and color of the picture. While it is best to do it using the camera it can also be done in post processing with good results. A lot depends on how well the auto white balance in the camera does as to how easy it is afterwards. Aperture on the other hand is how wide the opening is in the lens and determine the amount of light entering the camera. This effects the depth of field (how far in front and back of the focus point is also in focus) and how much light is needed to take the photo.

 

So really I am looking to go a step above what I have now and not to crazy costs wise.

Be sure that you understand that stepping up to a regular DSLR will require a bigger learning curve. I see that your camera has aperture, shutter, and manual settings so if you already understand all of these then your well on the way to an SLR. How much you spend though can vary greatly (though you can stretch it out some). A 70-200mm IS "L" lens costs around $1600 and is a great lens however it isn't necessary to spend that much. There are diamonds in the rough that can be had for a lot less such as the 28-105mm I used for most of the shots above. It's an older lens and doesn't have IS however the optics are really good if you get the right version for a lens on a budget. Others include the 50mm f1.8 for about $75 used ($100 or so new), the 85mm f1.8, and a number of others.

 

I had heard buying used bodies can be bad since they wear out, so many shots before they are bad-This was totally a surprise.

This is true although a little shopping around will get a good one. Many people buy them and really don't know how to use them so they often don't get a lot of use. Shutter actuation ratings are somewhere around 80,000 or 100,000 clicks though and it will take a long time for most to come even close to that. I take a lot of photos and it will still take me 4 or 5 years to reach that.

 

and it sounds like the lenses are brand specific-that sucks but it is what it is-if that is true-

 

I'd love to stay in the 6-8 hundred range if at possible cheaper would be nice

Yep, the exception are some of the add on filters and diopters. I.E. If you get a 58mm diopter set then it will fit any 58mm lens that accepts 58mm filters. Because of the specific lens mounts your choice will often dictate what brand you use for life. Especially if you invest a lot of money into lenses.

 

For your range you can get a number of different options both new and used. The T2i that I use sells for $900 with the Kit lens which is pretty good. (They had a $50 rebate but I think it's over now) The T1i is $100 less and the XS is $550. Any of these are good cameras and they all come with the same kit lens. Keep in mind I am only listing Canon here because that is what I keep up on. There are also many good options for Nikon and other manufacturers.

 

You might also consider trying to rent or borrow the lenses for your camera and see if they will make enough difference. If so you might find that you don't need to spend as much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was joking about the not understanding the words-I did think when I used "white balance" that was incorrect-It was the aperture I was meaning to refer to. So yes I do understand "some basics"

When I take my pics with my present camera the shutter is usually 2.8-whatever that means-If I understand it is closing faster than it would say on 8 or a higher number where I need the shutter to stay open longer to allow for low lit shots-actually I think that is aperture, the shutter is for speed if I recall so I close the aperture to allow less light in so it does not "white wash" my corals

 

So I have been surfing around, I think the XS or Nikon D50 or D60 is plenty of camera for me-I am leaning towards Cannon just because of name recognition-but I know Nikon makes some sweet optics, I have a few rifle scopes by Nikon and they will stand toe to toe with the Lieca and Swarovski or however it is spelled.

 

Anyway I still think Cannon may be best-

 

I need to read on the differences between lenses from the 18-55 to the 75-300. I think I could guess but that wont work.

 

Any suggestions as to the type of lens that would be used for nice macros???

 

Thanks for the input folks (Rick-Grassi)

 

 

how about this package 585.00 delivered;

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/NEW-Canon-EOS-Rebel-XS-10-1MP-18-55-75-300-Lens-Kit-/290454702781?cmd=ViewItem&pt=Digital_Cameras&hash=item43a0730abd

 

If that extra lense is not what I want I can get this and add a lens;

http://cgi.ebay.com/NEW-Canon-EOS-Rebel-XS-10-1-Megapixel-18-55-Lens-Kit-/300446838474?cmd=ViewItem&pt=Digital_Cameras&hash=item45f406eeca

 

I have not shopped around just surfed Fleabay-I'll check overstock.com etc....

 

advise on the additional lens would be greatly appreciated(clap)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was joking about the not understanding the words-I did think when I used "white balance" that was incorrect-It was the aperture I was meaning to refer to. So yes I do understand "some basics"

When I take my pics with my present camera the shutter is usually 2.8-whatever that means-If I understand it is closing faster than it would say on 8 or a higher number where I need the shutter to stay open longer to allow for low lit shots-actually I think that is aperture,

Yep, that would be aperture.

 

the shutter is for speed if I recall so I close the aperture to allow less light in so it does not "white wash" my corals

Yes, shutter determines the speed. This goes hand in hand with the aperture. With a larger opening to allow more light in (smaller aperture number) you will use a faster shutter speed. Rule of thumb is 1 over the focal length for handheld shots although that is a only a starting point. (for 55mm you would use about 1/60 shutter and adjust from there)

 

So I have been surfing around, I think the XS or Nikon D50 or D60 is plenty of camera for me-I am leaning towards Cannon just because of name recognition-but I know Nikon makes some sweet optics, I have a few rifle scopes by Nikon and they will stand toe to toe with the Lieca and Swarovski or however it is spelled.

 

Anyway I still think Cannon may be best-

Either one are good choices.

 

I need to read on the differences between lenses from the 18-55 to the 75-300. I think I could guess but that wont work.

18-55mm is more a general purpose lens that will work at shorter distances. the 75-300mm is for longer distance photos. Without a diopter it isn't very good for aquariums due to the minimum focus distance. (4 feet or so if I recall right) The 18-55mm focuses pretty close (9" I think) so it is a pretty good lens for the aquariums.

 

Any suggestions as to the type of lens that would be used for nice macros???

There are a few options. The 60mm Macro Grassi mentioned is good and there is also a good 100mm Macro. (My choice would be the 100mm as I think it is a true 1:1 Macro while I think the 60mm is 1:2 but I'm not certain) Keep in mind these are Canon lenses. If you go with a Tamron or Sigma they will cost less however be sure to research them first to get an idea of the focal quality since some are great (Rivaling the Canon "L" lenses in focal quality) and some are poor and belong in the trash. Alternatively on a budget you can either use extension tubes which reduce the focal distances or a good diopter lens. (Often refered to as a Macro filter) If you go with the latter I suggest a +2 and +3 since they put the focal point about where they are needed for shooting next to the glass. They will be more effective with a longer focal length (75-300mm) than a shorter one. Keep in mind though that the tubes and diopter reduce available light some. (Will probably require a tripod and longer shutter speeds)

 

Note: If you get the kit with both lenses I'll let you try out the diopters if you want (I have both the +2 and +3) to see if those will work for you. Originally I was going to get the extension tubes but I stumbled on these on CL for a great deal. ($10 for both)

 

Thanks for the input folks (Rick-Grassi)

No problem. As you can probably tell it's a subject I enjoy talking about.

 

The 18-55mm IS lens is a pretty good lens. The 75-300mm is okay but not great. I have the USM version which is a little better but still not a great lens. Between these two packages though I would get the one with the 75-300mm since you can sell it quick for $100 on CL.

 

I have not shopped around just surfed Fleabay-I'll check overstock.com etc....

 

advise on the additional lens would be greatly appreciated(clap)

 

I think I would start with one of the kits above and then go from there. Shoot for a few weeks with them and then see what you still want. It may turn out that you find the need for a 10-22mm or similar size instead. (My next big purchase will likely be in that range) Renting lenses is a good option to test a few lenses as well before deciding to invest in one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sweet Rick thanks for the info-

 

The 75-300 doesn't sound like a lens I would use often, I think back to all the pictures I have taken at distances greater than 15 feet and they are some but 15-20%.

I'll have to compare the cost to but the lens outright vs the package.

Since I really want a close up lens maybe I skip the packeage for now and get the "base" unit and add a second close up lens-

 

Time to do some reading on different lenses and what all I need to know as far as basic knowledge/understanding-ie what type of lens will be good for a specific application/situation.

 

Thanks again man

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sweet Rick thanks for the info-

 

The 75-300 doesn't sound like a lens I would use often, I think back to all the pictures I have taken at distances greater than 15 feet and they are some but 15-20%.

I'll have to compare the cost to but the lens outright vs the package.

Since I really want a close up lens maybe I skip the packeage for now and get the "base" unit and add a second close up lens-

 

Time to do some reading on different lenses and what all I need to know as far as basic knowledge/understanding-ie what type of lens will be good for a specific application/situation.

 

Thanks again man

 

You will probably want one decent walk around lens. The 18-55mm kit lens is a decent one for the price. If the difference is $75 or less then I would pay that much to buy it from you. (I sold mine for $80 and wish I would have kept it now) Another option would be the 28-105mm I mentioned that I use or the 28-128mm IS. (The 28-105mm is sharper but doesn't cover as much range and doesn't have IS) I actually use the 28-105mm the most.

 

Your welcome to come up and shoot a few pictures with my camera if you want to get a feel for the camera and the lenses I have. (There are only minor differences in the way they operate) Just shoot me a PM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Thanks for all the advise/help gang, Rick especially.

 

I went and bought the EOS Rebel XS Kit with EF-S 18-55mm IS Lens and am quite happy with it 380.00 brand new was a smoking deal.

 

I am looking at these to lenses and need to determine what would be better.

 

If you had your choice what would you choose and why-if you would not mind...

 

Canon EF-S 60mm 60 f/2.8 Macro

 

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro Auto Focus

 

I need to be sure the 100mm is also a manual focus-showing my "nubeness" I would think all lens are manual and auto but I have read some have fixed aperature, or at least I think I read that-I have been injesting TONS of reading-my head hurts, but I know so much more now than I need to I am sure-(nutty)

 

LMK your thoughts on lens

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for all the advise/help gang, Rick especially.

 

I went and bought the EOS Rebel XS Kit with EF-S 18-55mm IS Lens and am quite happy with it 380.00 brand new was a smoking deal.

 

I am looking at these to lenses and need to determine what would be better.

 

If you had your choice what would you choose and why-if you would not mind...

 

Canon EF-S 60mm 60 f/2.8 Macro

 

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro Auto Focus

 

I need to be sure the 100mm is also a manual focus-showing my "nubeness" I would think all lens are manual and auto but I have read some have fixed aperature, or at least I think I read that-I have been injesting TONS of reading-my head hurts, but I know so much more now than I need to I am sure-(nutty)

 

LMK your thoughts on lens

 

I personally would choose the 100mm for a couple of reasons. First is that it also would work well as a portrait lense although the f2.0 100mm one would be a little better for my needs (It's not Macro though). Next is that I think it is a true 1:1 Macro and if I recall right the 60mm is 1:2 instead. The last reason is that it's an EF-S lense instead of an EF lense. I.E. It will only work on the EF-S cameras where the EF will work on both. Both can be focused manually. Do not confuse Full Time Manual "FTM" with the ability to manual focus. FTM just means you can grab the focus ring and focus it without switching off auto focus. FTM lenses do tend to have better auto focus mechanisms though. FWIW, I seldom use manual focus. AF is usually more accurate than what my eyes are capable of. Fixed aperture usually just means the aperture will stay the same throughout the zoom range. If you check your 18-55mm you will see that it starts at f3.5 at 18mm (minimum) but as you zoom out to 55mm the minimum aperture increases. Higher quality lenses are often fixed at something like f2.8 minimum so it would allow f2.8 at both ends of the zoom range. (This amounts to more light being able to enter the lens even at telephoto lengths) Note that the fixed aperture doesn't apply here since these are both fixed length lenses instead of zooms. Also keep in mind this refers only to the minimum aperture. You can still set higher apertures. IQ starts to degrade around f11 though so avoid smaller apertures (higher numbers) whenever possible. This doesn't mean to never use them though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally would choose the 100mm for a couple of reasons. First is that it also would work well as a portrait lense although the f2.0 100mm one would be a little better for my needs (It's not Macro though). Next is that I think it is a true 1:1 Macro and if I recall right the 60mm is 1:2 instead.

I thought I saw they were both 1:1

 

 

The last reason is that it's an EF-S lense instead of an EF lense. I.E. It will only work on the EF-S cameras where the EF will work on both.

 

Clear on that

 

Both can be focused manually. Do not confuse Full Time Manual "FTM" with the ability to manual focus. FTM just means you can grab the focus ring and focus it without switching off auto focus. FTM lenses do tend to have better auto focus mechanisms though. FWIW, I seldom use manual focus. AF is usually more accurate than what my eyes are capable of.

 

Fixed aperture usually just means the aperture will stay the same throughout the zoom range.

 

Read that as well

 

If you check your 18-55mm you will see that it starts at f3.5 at 18mm (minimum) but as you zoom out to 55mm the minimum aperture increases. Higher quality lenses are often fixed at something like f2.8 minimum so it would allow f2.8 at both ends of the zoom range. (This amounts to more light being able to enter the lens even at telephoto lengths) Note that the fixed aperture doesn't apply here since these are both fixed length lenses instead of zooms.

 

Read and understand and played around with what I have and saw that as well

Also keep in mind this refers only to the minimum aperture. You can still set higher apertures. IQ starts to degrade around f11 though so avoid smaller apertures (higher numbers) whenever possible. This doesn't mean to never use them though.

 

I have been reading a lot ( and then more) and understood all you posted.

 

I just was not sure the difference between to 600mm and the 100mm, I assumed it had to do with the max focal length being they were both macro and a 2.8f.

I stopped in Camera Connection, I think it was called on Macadam and spoke to the guy about a few lensesIt was noce to see they rent lenses if you want. He also got me thinking about getting a Sigma or Tameron, he said they really a very similar in quality and what you lose is the resale value-Cannon will retain its value longer and net more dollars when you sell it-Which I doubt I will ever do-

 

Anyone want to but my old 35mm or my polaroid, or how about my-you get the idea

 

Have you heard anything neg. about either?

 

Am starting to lean towards this, I get basiclly 10% of of the selling price;

http://cgi.ebay.com/Tamron-AF-90mm-f-2-8-Di-SP-Macro-Lens-Canon-KIT-/130412159363?cmd=ViewItem&pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item1e5d2ba183

 

and possibly-not likely but I need to see what all I can do with this that the other cant or wont;

http://cgi.ebay.com/TAMRON-70-200mm-f-2-8-Di-LD-CANON-XSi-T1i-50d-70-200-/370413427798?cmd=ViewItem&pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item563e5c5c56

 

I still need to look at the Sigma line as well

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been reading a lot ( and then more) and understood all you posted.

 

I just was not sure the difference between to 600mm and the 100mm, I assumed it had to do with the max focal length being they were both macro and a 2.8f.

Watch the minimum focus distance since a lot of our pictures are better when they are taken at or under a foot or so. The 60mm wins with about 7 inches compared to the 100mm at about a foot. I would still go for the 100mm instead. Your 18-55mm focuses around 9" if I recall right so it's already a good lens around that range. It just doesn't have as wide of an aperture at 55mm as the 60mm does. Note: After looking at it I see the 50mm Macro is the one that isn't 1:1. The 60mm is.

 

I stopped in Camera Connection, I think it was called on Macadam and spoke to the guy about a few lensesIt was noce to see they rent lenses if you want. He also got me thinking about getting a Sigma or Tameron, he said they really a very similar in quality and what you lose is the resale value-Cannon will retain its value longer and net more dollars when you sell it-Which I doubt I will ever do-

 

Have you heard anything neg. about either?

Canon usually does better with the AF system which tend to be faster and quieter. Optics vary from one to the next so check out the reviews on any lens before buying. (This includes the Canon lenses as some are junk) FWIW, The sharpest lens I own is actually a 20-40mm f2.8 Tamron. The AF is slower and noisier than the upper end Canon's but the optics make up for it.

 

 

Am starting to lean towards this, I get basiclly 10% of of the selling price;

http://cgi.ebay.com/Tamron-AF-90mm-f-2-8-Di-SP-Macro-Lens-Canon-KIT-/130412159363?cmd=ViewItem&pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item1e5d2ba183

 

and possibly-not likely but I need to see what all I can do with this that the other cant or wont;

http://cgi.ebay.com/TAMRON-70-200mm-f-2-8-Di-LD-CANON-XSi-T1i-50d-70-200-/370413427798?cmd=ViewItem&pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item563e5c5c56

 

I still need to look at the Sigma line as well

 

That first one looks like a good option. Check this review:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Tamron-90mm-f-2.8-Di-Macro-Lens-Review.aspx

 

I would need to dig up some reviews on the second one to give an opinion. It really isn't much use for aquarium pictures due to the minimum focus distance though. (3 or 4 feet away).

 

I think Tamron tends to be a little better than Sigma however Sigma does make some lenses that get good reviews.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...