Help with lens selection

[Andy C]

Hi, I've been down to the club twice now and am very impressed with what you have to offer, I'm looking forward to joining and hopefully improving my photographic skills and knowledge.

So Firstly I thought I should introduce myself, Seeing as I am a new member, or atleast will be once i have paid up. . You may have guessed from my user name, but my name is Andy and I am completely new to photography. I have had my camera for several months and think I now have a very basic understanding of how its all supposed to work. I have also started to dabble with Photoshop.

Anyway on to my question.

I currently have an 18-200mm f3.5/6.3 lens. I am intrested in trying to take portrait shots and was thinking of getting a 50mm f1.8 lens. However, I have also seen a 50mm f2.8 macro lens. The macro lens is more expensive, but macro photography is also something I am intrested in trying. So my question is, would the macro lens produce good portrait photographs enabling me to cover the 2 types of photography with one lens or would I be better going for the lower f number lens?

I would really apprecaite your thoughts/experiences, as I have mentioned this is all new to me and I want to try and avoid wasting money on unnecessary bits of kit.

Much appreciated, Andy

[Paul Jones]

Hi Andy and welcome to the forum.

I'm no expert on lenses - I'll leave that to the others... However, some of my favourite images were taken with the Nikon 50mm f1.8 - it's a superb lens and pin sharp.

Best regards

Paul

[HarryG]

The macro lens is fine to cover the two kinds of photography that you intend to become involved in. If your main intrest is in portrait then I would take Paul's advice and go for the 50mm 1:8. I have one of these and do use it quite a lot, the wide aperture enables me to use a faster shutter speed when taking pictures of the grand children.
If your leanings are to macro then definitely stick to the macro lens although expect to pay quite a bit more.
H.

[John]

Welcome Andy.

I've used many lenses over the years including macros. They are incredibly useful as both macro lenses and also as general purpose ones. However, one conclusion I have reached is that the 100mm Macro is generally much more useful than the 50mm one. This is because the working distance is greater, leaving more room for lighting small subjects or portraits. It also works very well as a landscape lens.

[sunsworth]

If you have an interest in both portrait and macro, I'd go for the macro lens.

A friend who uses a very high quality 50mm f2 'normal' lens bought a 60mm f2.8 macro last year and since buying it had used it all the time in preference to the f2 lens.

John's point about the 100mm lens is valid, but if you want to dip your toes into both portrait and macro - and only buy one lens - then the 50mm macro would allow you to do just that.

[Theo Dibbits]

To confuse you even more, I use a Sigma 70mm EX f2.8 macro lens for both portrait and macro work.
If you are a Canon camera user let me know and I will bring it in.
Theo

[Andy C]

Apologies for the slow reply, I've been laid up with tonsillitus.

Thanks for all your feedback, Gives me a lot more to think about now.

Theo, appreciate your offer and I do have a canon camera (400d). However as today is the first day I have started to feel better, I think it would be wise if i stayed at home this week. Certainly dont want to pass on any germs

Andy

[Theo Dibbits]

Andy
What you need is one of the clubs portrait nights.
They tend to be a little manic but it would be a good opportunity to find out what works for portrait work.

Anyway when you feel better let me know and I will bring the lens in.

Theo

[oakeycoke]

The Canon 50mm macro is only a 1:2 ratio and needs its add-on lens to get to a 1:1 ratio, which is the start of true macro, i.e. the image is produced at real life size on the cmos sensor.

The Canon 50mm f1.8 lens has good optical quality, naf build but is very good value available for less than £70. Doesn't do macro though.

The Canon 65mm macro f2.8 efs lens is again very good optical quality suitable for your 400D but not full frame sensors, Its around £280 ish.

The Canon 100mm macro f2.8 is also excellent an 'L' lens in disguise but priced around £350ish and suitable for full frame should you ever upgrade.

Really they are all good for portraits, but be aware of the 1.6 factor for your camera, i.e the 100mm is like a 165mm on a 35mm camera, though depth of field isn't quite the same. The Bokeh is better on the macro lenses due to more blades in the shutter compared to the 50mm f1.8. The 50mm f1.4 non macro will set you back a few hundred pounds if you want better bokeh ( out of focus background ).

Of these the 65mm efs would be the best compromise (equivalent to 100mm on a cropped sensor)if price is a factor though its like a 100mm which is a good portrait length, for macro you will be quite close to the subject, small insects would probably take flight. Unfortunately the true macros from Sigma and Tamron aren't much cheaper.

You can get a screw on filter which will make a 50mm f1.8 into a macro for a lot less than the true macro lenses or a 25mm extender which will do similar, but quality will suffer.

All these lenses though recommend for portraits are very good optically and will show all the blemishes etc, so some softening/gaussian blur may be needed post processing. Though thats better than the zooms which are generally a compromises unless you spend loads.

Phil

[oakeycoke]

This is taken with the Canon 100mm f/2.8 macro lens, however just to confuse you its not at macro length, but as a portrait. In macro it would have just shown the detail of part of one individual flower. The file size has been reduced by 30 times for the web, I think it gives an indication of the quality available from a true macro lens, i.e. excellent optics.

Phil

[Andy C]

Thanks for that Phil, the macro lens i was looking at was from sigma. I belive it 1:1

I am very imressed with the build and optical quality (from my very limted experience it looks and feels good) of the 18-200mm lens i currently have, which is also made by sigma. The lens is also optically stablised, which really helps me as well.

Price is obviously a factor, i just didnt want to rush in and purchase lenses that are not fully up to what i need. I have no specific types of photography i want to get into at the moment, but do fancy portraits of the kids/family and macro always seems impressive, just thought i may be able to combine both in one.

I am thinking i will need to look into it a lot more and improve my understanding of lenses.

Andy

[oakeycoke]

Andy,

Take a look at http://photography-on-the.net/forum/sho ... p?t=160960
Thats a Canon part of the forum on photography on the net for Macro, the Canon 100mm has 50% of the votes by users. There's also stuff on portraits/flash etc on the same forum. Paul has also put some links on the 'links' tab under 'photography help'

This site will give you loads of info on suitable lenses for Canon dslr's including third party lenses, five of the true Sigma macros have been tested, http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos.

That should keep you busy for a few days lol!

Phil

[oakeycoke]

Andy,

Oops forgot to mention, though all the macros have good optics, you'll find the Canon ones have lens barrels which don't extend (internal focusing - less chance of dust getting inside) and they have usm motors so they focus quickly and quietly. Looking at the Sigma 70mm f/2.8 EX DG its autofocus is a micro motor, slower and noisier.

Not as i've anything against Sigma as I have their 18-50 f/2.8 zoom, just be aware that its not all down to resolution/chromatic aberrations etc.

Sigma/Tamron tend to reverse engineer their lenses so its possible that when newer cameras come out they may not function properly on them, I dont think thats as much of a problem now as it used to be though. I inherited a Sigma 500 fixed zoom (at least 12 yrs old) and neither of my digital cameras would even take a photo with it, however i've got round that by taping one contact over and manually focusing, similar to 1.4x and 2.0x convertors on certain Canon lenses but thats another story.

Phil

[Andy C]

Thanks for all the info Phil, its much appreciated.

I will have a look at the links 2day.

Andy