Shootin macro 100mm vs 50mm + extension tubes

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Sdashiki, Nov 22, 2006.

  1. Sdashiki macrumors 68040

    Sdashiki

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Location:
    Behind the lens
    #1
    Im in the market, again, for a Canon macro lens.

    Gotta be FD mount as Im still ol' school and manual.


    Two choices that always come up and are pretty much my only two options are:

    FD Macro 50mm f/3.5
    FD 100mm f/4.0 Macro

    The 100mm scares me in that it would, plus the extension tube, be quite long and hard to hold with my hands AND still focus and not shake too much.

    is there an advantage id gain from using the 100mm over the 50mm that flowers, bugs and generic nature macro would benefit from?
     
  2. failsafe1 macrumors 6502a

    failsafe1

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2003
    #2
    The 100 would allow for the benefits you get from a longer lens. You can be close to your subject but have the camera farther away with the 100 than you can with the 50. This is an advantage in nature photography. You also get a shallower depth of field with the longer lens and that helps isolate your small bugs and animals. A tripod is a must even with the 50 so the extra length of the 100 is not a problem on a tripod. Just get a real tripod not one of the junk cheap units that have plastic legs of tapering size and a small diameter telescoping middle section.
     
  3. macgfxdesigner macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    #3
    macro lens

    I would recommend the 100mm, focal length is 6 inches and super sharp at 2.8 and up. Great portrait lens too!

    about ext tubes, yes they do shorten your focal length but you can only use them in certain focal lengths, meaning you can get close to something but say then you need to shoot something far away, you can't!

    I recommend the 100mm macro lens! and its actually 160 mm cause of the 1.6 crop on the camera too
     
  4. failsafe1 macrumors 6502a

    failsafe1

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2003
    #4
    A FD mount is for older film cameras. No AF here? Unless there is a FD to AF mount for newer cameras?
     
  5. ChrisA macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2006
    Location:
    Redondo Beach, California
    #5
    You are right, no way can you hand hold a camera if you are doing 1: 1 macro shots. At that level of magnification even 1mm of fore to aft camera shake will change the focus. It does not matter if the lens is 50mm, or 100mm you need a good camera support. Depth of field is measured in millimeters.

    Now if you back off and shoot subjects the size of your hand or a 4x5 index card then you have a hope of hand holding. but you really want some kind of support. Even a poor student can afford a zip lock bag filled with beans or pea sized aquarium gravel. bean bags and bricks make decent supports.

    the 100mm lens give you more subject to camera distance. some times you need this to avoid casting a shadow on the subject or so you can fit in some kind if lighting or strobe or reflector.

    The 60mm lens actually has more camera to subject distance than you might think and is the "standard"
    If the 60mm lens were a "simple" one element lens then then it is 120mm from the canera it would be focused on a subject 120mm from the lens and doing a 1:1 magnification ratio.
     
  6. Sdashiki thread starter macrumors 68040

    Sdashiki

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Location:
    Behind the lens
    #6
    Sounds like 100mm is the way to go

    thanks for all the input.

    "here dad, buy me this for xmass. now stop asking what to get me."
     

Share This Page