Options
My very first ever macro shots . . . warning butt shot here
wholenewlight
Registered Users Posts: 1,529 Major grins
Been shooting photos for 35 years, on and off, but never have tried any macro shots.
I needed a faster lens than my zooms to shoot some theater (community musical) shots. Since I've always wanted a macro lens, my thought was to try to "kill two birds with one stone". I decided that I would buy a prime macro lens in the 100mm range that would be faster than my 3.5 - 4.5 zoom. The jury is still out as to how my choice will perform for both functions . . .
The lens I decided on was a Sigma 105mm Macro EX that I found used at B&H photo (condition "ex"). The lens cost was $239.
Here's my first macro shots:
an almost sharp eye shot - more dof needed
Whoo hoo, my first bee butt shot - definitely more dof needed - I think this is at 5.6 - cool wing though.
A little resin decorative figurine - at least the eyes are sharp.
Fun lens! Kudos to B&H Photo for a great used lens at a nice price.
I needed a faster lens than my zooms to shoot some theater (community musical) shots. Since I've always wanted a macro lens, my thought was to try to "kill two birds with one stone". I decided that I would buy a prime macro lens in the 100mm range that would be faster than my 3.5 - 4.5 zoom. The jury is still out as to how my choice will perform for both functions . . .
The lens I decided on was a Sigma 105mm Macro EX that I found used at B&H photo (condition "ex"). The lens cost was $239.
Here's my first macro shots:
an almost sharp eye shot - more dof needed
Whoo hoo, my first bee butt shot - definitely more dof needed - I think this is at 5.6 - cool wing though.
A little resin decorative figurine - at least the eyes are sharp.
Fun lens! Kudos to B&H Photo for a great used lens at a nice price.
john w
I knew, of course, that trees and plants had roots, stems, bark, branches and foliage that reached up toward the light. But I was coming to realize that the real magician was light itself.
Edward Steichen
I knew, of course, that trees and plants had roots, stems, bark, branches and foliage that reached up toward the light. But I was coming to realize that the real magician was light itself.
Edward Steichen
0
Comments
However I'm not to sure it will serve you well for both. Most macros concentrate on DOF (small fstops). For what your talking about in IMHO you would need f2.8 or better, macros don't do well at that setting not meant too. I could be wrong so take with grain of salt and give it a try
My Galleries
Flicker
G+
This lens is 2.8. Not great for low light work but a little better than my 3.5 zoom. And I can't afford a Nikon 85mm 1.4 at $1100 for a freebie photo shoot! Sharpness tests are good at both ends of aperture range (but always better when stopped down). I noticed that in many reviews on this lens, folks were using it as a "normal", non-macro lens as well for portraits, etc. Hence my reason for trying it for a multi-purpose lens.
But it does focus sloooow because of the increased macro range. . .
I knew, of course, that trees and plants had roots, stems, bark, branches and foliage that reached up toward the light. But I was coming to realize that the real magician was light itself.
Edward Steichen
Most of the macroholics around here post in the cool shots section rather than here.
For more DOF you will probably need to go to flash photography- I use F11-F16 with my 105mmEX with the camera in manual (1/200) and a sigma flash gun in ETTL mode.
Brian V.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lordv/
http://www.lordv.smugmug.com/
regards
alan
Bugs
Spiders
Flowers
I knew, of course, that trees and plants had roots, stems, bark, branches and foliage that reached up toward the light. But I was coming to realize that the real magician was light itself.
Edward Steichen