Quote:
Originally Posted by Ledgem
What sort of lens(es) are you using? I recently came across some amazing macro photography shots, which is why I was really excited by your cat's eye shot (I'll see if I can do something similar with my own cat, or perhaps my dog as he's a bit friendlier). I'm still looking into the mechanics behind lenses, but I've been wondering whether it'd be worth it to go for a macro lens. As of now I have a 14-42 mm lens, a 40-150 mm lens, and recently bought a 70-300 mm lens (for bird and wildlife photography). The first two lenses are kit lenses, and all three are from Olympus' "low-end" line. The main benefit that I can see in using lenses from even one level up is that they're faster and they're dust/splash-proof. Of course, they also cost a fair bit more than the "low-end" lenses but they're not as insanely priced as the pro-level lenses. I've been using my 14-42 mm for instances of macro photography, but Olympus' designated macro lenses are pretty cheap. Their "low end" macro lens is just under $200 (35 mm, 1:1, f3.5), and a macro lens from one level up is around $420 (50 mm, 1:2, f2.0 - that's fast!). But if you can't adjust the zoom, doesn't that mean you'd need to stick the camera up close to anything you wanted a macro shot on?
I still need to read up on all of the lens statistics and what they mean, I suppose. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on it.
|
The macro shot was taken with Tamron 70-300mm F/4.0-5.6 macro. Cheap as hell. I'd estimate roughly 150$. However I think it's not available for Olympus cameras. I managed to get a reasonably good specimen so bang for the buck is quite excellent. Other lenses that I have are the basic Canon EF-S 18-55mm F/3.5-5.6 kit lens which is pretty much a piece of shit, FD-bayonet Canon 50mm F1.4 and FD-bayonet Tamron 100mm F2.8. For the FD-lenses I have an adapter for EF-bayonet so I can use them with the 300D as well. Adapterd drops an aperture and softens the draw a bit though which kinda sucks because the 50mm would actually be a really nice lens.
50mm macro can be a bit difficult. You usually need to get really close to the target, if you want shot's like the cat's eye, which can make lighting a bit of a hassle. With that short macro I'd say that macro flash is pretty much a must and they tend to be quite costly. Cheap ones are generally crap. I'd go for one with longer focal length for starters. Much less hassle as you don't need to stick your nose into the target. However the closest focusing distance tends to be rather long especially in cheap lenses as the magnification ratios aren't high regardless of long focal length. In my tamron it's about 35 inches or so. At that distance the magnification ratio at 300mm is 1:2. If I were a rich man I'd buy Canon EF 180mm f/3.5 L USM Macro. 1:1 magnification ratio at 180mm is just insane. *drool*
I think the focal length in the cat's eye shot was around 180-230mm and god only knows the distance.
Don't have the EXIF-data anymore.
Actually the crop helps with macro photography quite a bit. I think in Olympus the crop is 2 so you'd get an actual 1:1 magnification ratio with the 50mm as well and the F2.0 aperture is very tempting. Depth of field may be really shallow using the largest aperture size though...