180 macro 3.5 L series for 20D

Discussion in 'Australia Photography' started by Don, Mar 11, 2005.

  1. Don

    Don Guest

    Folks
    I wish to get into macro photography of flowers particularly and have
    admired the work of Steve Parish. He use a 200 Nikon lens and the results
    are spectacular. I am told the Canon is a good lens. Does anyone have any
    views on possible other brand macro lenses that with the 1.6 crop factor are
    around the 200mm mark with the sharpness of the Canon? Please I do realise
    the crop factor is not the same as multiplying to the same focus length of a
    lens on a non crop factor cameras.

    All advice and comments welcome as always.

    regards
     
    Don, Mar 11, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Don

    Scott Coutts Guest

    Do you mean that you havnt got a camera yet either, or do you already
    have a Canon camera? If you have the a Canon, then the 180mm is really
    your only choice.

    Scott.
     
    Scott Coutts, Mar 11, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Don

    theprofb Guest

    Don,

    You might try the Sigma 180 EX HSM. Sharp and contrasty lenses. About
    $750 new. I use one on Nikon D70 and F100. See reviews of all lenses at
    photographyreview.com.

    With the Nikkon 1.5 factor it's a 270mm lens. Hence depth of field
    suffers. Why not get a 100-105 lens that will be equivalent to a 150mm
    lens. Also a cost saver.

    Bob
     
    theprofb, Mar 11, 2005
    #3
  4. Don

    Phil Cole Guest

    isn't 180mm 'around the 200mm mark' ? 20mm difference in focal length
    isn't going to make a difference to your images. The main advantage of a
    longer focal length macro is the increased working distance - depth of
    field is so small you're almost never going to shoot wide open.

    get yourself the 180mm macro, or a 100mm f/2.8 if you don't want to
    spend that much money (but stay away from the 50/60mm macros, as with
    such a small working distance it gets awkward)

    Hope that helps,

    Phil
     
    Phil Cole, Mar 11, 2005
    #4
  5. Don

    Don Guest

    Scott

    I have a 20D. Looking for a cheaper alternative to the 180 3.5 macro L
    series.

    regards

    Don
     
    Don, Mar 12, 2005
    #5
  6. Don

    Stew Hunt Guest

    Stew Hunt, Mar 13, 2005
    #6
  7. Don

    Don Guest

    Stew

    thanks I will have a look at the review.

    regards

    Don
     
    Don, Mar 13, 2005
    #7
  8. Don

    Mick Guest

    Thread hijack...

    I have a 300D that I am wanting to buy bits for.

    I am tossing up between a tripod, macro lens and flash - or a 100-400
    L series lens. (None of which I have)

    The macro lens in particular is the Tamron 90mm Di but I had decided I
    would probably prefer the L series lens while I have the money, and
    buy the rest of the bits later. as bargains came up.

    ( I haveI found the Tamron lens for $690, BTW)

    What I want advice on is what should go with - the L lens or the bits?
    Are there other options for a macro lens for taking images of bugs and
    critters are there?

    Cheers,
    Mick.
     
    Mick, Mar 15, 2005
    #8
  9. Don

    paul the 2nd Guest

    G'day mick

    I would go to sites like fred miranda & read...read...read... all the
    reviews to help make the choice. I can give you ideas but they are biased &
    you need to decide for yourself.

    The choices you are talking about are chalk & cheese.
     
    paul the 2nd, Mar 15, 2005
    #9
  10. Don

    petal666 Guest

    I got the Sigma 180 macro for AU$700 but it was bought 2nd hand. I'd
    serioulsy suggest this if you are buying Sigma lenses. Their quality
    control is non existant so letting someone else test and use it for 6
    months before you get hold of it is a great way to wade through all the
    misaligned and poorly calibrated lenses. If you want to buy it new
    ensure that you will be able to return it is it is cr*p.

    I bought a 100-300f4 new from the US and it worked poorly, it went back
    to Sigma for 2 months and came back slightly better but not worth the
    money I paid for it. I sold it and got a used 120-300f2.8 after taking
    photos with it first.
     
    petal666, Mar 22, 2005
    #10
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.