I have a Canon macro and a Canon 50mm, and if it's cost you're concerned about, I'd go with the 50. You won't be disappointed. It does lovely portraiture and DOF rocks! It can't go as macro as a macro lens, but it's still pretty fantastic. Buy the 50, cause it's cheap, and if you think you need a macro after that, look into it. But seriously, you'll get a LOT of use out of your 50.
The Canon 50 and the Tamron 55-200 are not true macro lenses. If you truly want to do macro shots, get a lens which does 1:1 or 1:2 reproduction. The Tamron 90 is one such and receives stellar reviews.
I've the Tamron 180 and love the extra working distance it gives.
From the first day I used it.
Alright, I did a quick and dirty demo to show the difference between lenses that may be labeled macro and true macro.
Both were shot as close as the lenses would allow and still be in focus. No cropping done. Important to note the shallow depth of field is, in part, because I had to shoot wide open with the available light and no tripod. If I had stopped down, more would be in focus.
The upper is true macro and the lower is a lens labeled macro, but in reality creates an image that is less than 1/3 life size. That is close to the ratio of the Tamron 55-200. I am not saying the 55-200 is a bad choice, just that it does not do the same thing as a real macro lens.
Thanks for that - got it (I think)!
I have been playing around with some screw on macro filters today so need to get the hang of them before I decide to purchase! I also need to decide how often I will use a new lens before parting with cash but am glad I now understand it all a bit better
Write a Reply
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
http://www.ebay.com/itm/52MM-MACRO-REVERSING-RING-CANON-EOS-DSLR-REVERSE-/280750578043?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item415e09d97b
I've the Tamron 180 and love the extra working distance it gives.
From the first day I used it.
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-EF-S-Macro-Digital-Cameras/dp/B0007WK8KS
Both were shot as close as the lenses would allow and still be in focus. No cropping done. Important to note the shallow depth of field is, in part, because I had to shoot wide open with the available light and no tripod. If I had stopped down, more would be in focus.
The upper is true macro and the lower is a lens labeled macro, but in reality creates an image that is less than 1/3 life size. That is close to the ratio of the Tamron 55-200. I am not saying the 55-200 is a bad choice, just that it does not do the same thing as a real macro lens.
I have been playing around with some screw on macro filters today so need to get the hang of them before I decide to purchase! I also need to decide how often I will use a new lens before parting with cash but am glad I now understand it all a bit better