Lens help

[Saltysteele]

My wife wants me to take some pic's of my stepson for his senior pics (these kinds of shots i can do, tank and coral shots - not so good )

is there a lens that would take good coral pics and be able to take good pic's of my son? doesn't have to be a canon, as i'd like to do it as cheaply as i can without sacrificing quality.

 

[Poseidon]

I find this to be my most useful lens when doing senior pictures:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/91680-GREY/Canon_2569A004_70_200mm_f_2_8L_USM_Autofocus.html

It isn't very cheap though!

 

[Saltysteele]

oooooooo, that's pretty :dribble:

 

[JuniorMC8704]

yeah, thats going to be similar to the next lens i get after i upgrade my tamron 90mm to the Nikon 105mm macro

 

[saltwaternewb]

Speaking of the Tamron 90mm...it has good potential as a portrait lens plus the double duty of being a macro lens so you can use it on your tank as well. I shoot all kinds of stuff with my Tamron other than macro. This is a candid shot of my sister I took last weekend. It was rainy and overcast so the lighting is not great but you can see that the Tamron can handle people as well as bugs and coral...lol

 

[JuniorMC8704]

yep, I used it all the time for portraits until i got my 85mm 1.8.

 

[Saltysteele]

is that (tamron 90) capable of taking good coral shots?
i don't take enough regular photo shots to warrant a new lens for portraits. but, if i could get one that did portraits and close to macro action,.....

i've got a thick skull when it comes to this stuff. i know we've been through this before

 

[Saltysteele]

so, is the "mm" important for macro, or the "f"?

 

[JuniorMC8704]

the lower F-stop the "faster" the lens.

The mm is the focal length of the lens. For tank use, 90-105 is the sweet spot.

60 is too short, and 150 is too large. In my opinion, having had all of the above.

 

[Saltysteele]

and, the faster the lens, the more its ability to focus on close objects, correct?

is 2.8 fast enough? (i think that's what the tamron is, maybe a 2.4)

now that i look at the lens again, it is shown as a macro. hmm.

 

[Poseidon]

Nope. The F stop does not play a direct role in focus distance. (It does have an effect on what is in focus, but that is called Depth of field.)

Yes, 2.8 is plenty fast for a macro lens, as at that aperture your depth of field will be very narrow.

Oh, and the mm also has little to do with close focus ability. Usually, the longer the focal length the farther away you have to be, to get focus. There are of course exceptions, my 24-70 2.8L will focus MUCH closer (feet) then my 70-200, but Jr's 90 or 105mm MACRO lens will focus MUCH closer then my 24-70. It is all determined by the internal optics of the lens.

It is also confusing because LOTs of lenses say "macro" on them, even though they are far from being true macro lenses. (Kinda like calling aiptasia infested liverock, "polyp rock".)

 

[Saltysteele]

am i going to regret buying the tamron instead of the canon?

 

[Poseidon]

I don't think so. The Tamron is a very capable lens, I think the Canon is marginally better, but it is more money too. One of the advantage's to buying OEM glass is in resale value for the lens when you no longer use it. Most Canon lenses hold 80% of their value or more for 5 years or so, third party glass seems to be closer to the 50% mark for that same time frame. Of course everything changes when a "new and improved" model is released.

Have you ever heard the expression, "to go 10% faster, you need 200% more money"? Same thing applies with lenses as race cars it seems!

 

[Saltysteele]

:haha: yeah, i see your point

the tamron here: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/330641-USA/Tamron_AF272C700_SP_90mm_f_2_8_Di.html has a $90 rebate, and is the one i was thinking about getting. i've done some research, and to my naive eye it seems to take pictures with just a tad less color than the canon (barely legible), and does better than the sigma. the lenses are recessed more with the tamron, and it comes with a lens hood. whereas, the canon's lens is right out there and hood is separate.

i think i'm going to go with the tamron.

Thanks for all your help, it is truly appreciated!!! :haha:

 

[Poseidon]

Yup, I think you got it! The Tamron is better then the sigma, and I would give a slight nod to the Canon over the tamron, but it is very slight.

Canon does have a tendency to make you buy things separate.... They make more that way!

 

[JuniorMC8704]

For a canon i would go with the canon as the price is only slightly higher.

However I have a nikon, and the Nikon 105 is almost twice the price of the tamron.

All my pics are with a tamron 90mm....so that should give you an idea of what it can do.

 

[BeakerBob]

Here is a comparison of both Canon and Tamron lenses:
http://photo.net/equipment/canon/can-tam-macro/

I use the Tamron and have been very pleased with it all around. As with Junior, I use a Nikon and find that the Tamron does as well as the 105mm Nikon with a better price.

If there is little difference in price between the Canon and Tamron, go with the Canon lens.

 

[Poseidon]

I think the rebate makes the Tamron cheap enough to make the difference in price favor the Tammy. But, if budget was no concern, then YES get the Canon.

 

[Saltysteele]

thanks, guys! very useful info!

i really liked the article, bob - very helpful!

if it there were no rebate, it'd be 450 for the tamron and 490 for the canon. with the rebate, though, it's 360 for the tamron, and no rebate on the canon.

i won't be using it professionally, just some shots of my son and my daughter (3yo). i guess for 130 dollars i'm willing to sacrifice the slight difference.

hopefully before too long i'll have some good pics of corals for you, too!

btw, i checked out your site, Mike. you do a VERY nice job!! if it weren't for my want of a new lens, i'd just hire you to come take pic's (well, and the distance )

thanks for all your help, guys!!

Bret

 

[Poseidon]

Thanks Bret! Yes... South Haven is a bit far for me. (Unless it was a Wedding, but those pay a little more!)