So this happen

greenflygreenfly Beginner grinnerUnited StatesPosts: 7Registered Users Big grins


The love of my macro life is now gone....
I am going back and forth about getting the 35mm macro of 60mm macro...
Any feedback on these two?

" The world is not always a beautiful place; it's how you envision it to become beautiful" ~alice mary herden
Tagged:

Comments

  • Lord VetinariLord Vetinari Smugbug Posts: 15,396Registered Users Major grins

    That does not look good.

    I would go for the longer focal length lens.

    Brian v.

  • ziggy53ziggy53 Still learnin'still lovin Posts: 21,187Super Moderators moderator
    edited June 1, 2019

    It's always good to mention what camera body you use and your intended application for the lens.

    I generally recommend true macro lenses (magnification ratio of 1:1) in the 90-100mm range for APS-C and FF bodies. This gives a nice working range and allows a bit more space between the lens and the subject. This has several tangible benefits:

    • A longer working distance is less likely to scare/intimidate timid insects.
    • The extra distance gives you an extra margin of safety from stinging/biting insects.
    • There is less likelihood of the lens casting a shadow on the subject.
    • It's easier to add light from a flash or reflector onto a subject.

    I wound up getting a used Tamron SP AF MACRO 90mm 1:2.8 f/2.8 172E and I'm very pleased with the image quality and general performance of the lens.

    For flowers and other other larger subject matter, which don't require a true "macro" lens, I tend to use a Canon close-focus diopter attached to the front of a Canon 70-200mm "L" series zoom.

    ziggy53
    Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Sign In or Register to comment.