50mm, 100mm macro lens use(s)

Conrad wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I'm interested in what a 50mm or 100mm macro lens can be used for. Is
> is strictly (or, primarily) for macro work? Or, may they also be used
> for portraits and landscapes?
>
> Presently, I have 18-55mm and 70-300mm lenses for my Canon DSL camera
> and am looking for an additional lens to add. Any suggestions or
> recommendations will be appreciated.

Other than the 65mm (a highly specialized lens), any of the current Canon
macros work fine as general purpose lenses.

Personally I'd avoid the Canon 50, as it needs a special extender to
actually serve its macro function--the 60 would be a better bet IMO. The
100 is getting a bit long for indoor portrait use--you'd have to get back
quite a distance to use it for that purpose. The 50 mm f/1.8 would be
another option--it's inexpensive (enough so that you might be able to
afford it in addition to another lens), sharp, and several stops faster
than anything that you have. The 50, 60, and 100 are really a bit long for
landscapes--you might want to consider extending the wide end with the
10-22 if that is your major interest.

> TIA,
>
> Conrad
> Camp Sherman, Oregon

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
 >> Stay informed about: 50mm, 100mm macro lens use(s) 

Conrad wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm interested in what a 50mm or 100mm macro lens can be used for. Is
> is strictly (or, primarily) for macro work? Or, may they also be used
> for portraits and landscapes?
>
> Presently, I have 18-55mm and 70-300mm lenses for my Canon DSL camera
> and am looking for an additional lens to add. Any suggestions or
> recommendations will be appreciated.
>
> TIA,
>
> Conrad
> Camp Sherman, Oregon

You have some good lenses for general work. But most macros work well
for general work as well . That 50-65 range is great for portraits. For
macro work most of the time the 100mm range would be a big advantage over
the shorter lenses. Being able to get further away is good. I the case of
living creatures they are more comfortable with you further away. Even
inanimate objects are usually easier to work with with a little more
distance. Getting too close will also cause more difficulties with
lighting.

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia duit
 >> Stay informed about: 50mm, 100mm macro lens use(s) 

"Conrad" <cweiler1 DeleteThis @mac.com> wrote in message
news:1154778318.356308.301740@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Hi,
>
> I'm interested in what a 50mm or 100mm macro lens can be used for. Is
> is strictly (or, primarily) for macro work? Or, may they also be used
> for portraits and landscapes?
>
> Presently, I have 18-55mm and 70-300mm lenses for my Canon DSL camera
> and am looking for an additional lens to add. Any suggestions or
> recommendations will be appreciated.
>
> TIA,
>
> Conrad
> Camp Sherman, Oregon


I've used my EF 50 f2.5 macro both as an excellent "standard" lens when
shooting landscapes and architecture, and when shooting flowers when out
walking. I also have the EF 100 macro which is much heavier, but allows
greater working distance and can be better for shooting garden butterflies
(still difficult as they seem to have eyes everywhere), moths etc.
The 50 has a well recessed front element so a lens hood isn't strictly
necessary - unless you've got filter in place, and this certainly isn't
recessed.

--
M Stewart
Milton Keynes, UK



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 >> Stay informed about: 50mm, 100mm macro lens use(s) 

"Conrad" <cweiler1.DeleteThis@mac.com> wrote in message
news:1154778318.356308.301740@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Hi,
>
> I'm interested in what a 50mm or 100mm macro lens can be used for. Is
> is strictly (or, primarily) for macro work? Or, may they also be used
> for portraits and landscapes?
I certainly don't think you need permission from anybody to use macro lenses
in whatever way you wish.

Macro lenses are designed to minimize the various problems that are more
noticeable in the extreme closeup range. They are not necessarily "better"
that normal lenses for subjects at more ordinary. For example, comparing a
shot made with my 105mm f2.5 lens with a shot made with my 105mm f2.8 macro
lens would show very very little difference (assuming that one could in fact
make the shot with the 105mm f2.5 lens).
Jim
>
> Presently, I have 18-55mm and 70-300mm lenses for my Canon DSL camera
> and am looking for an additional lens to add. Any suggestions or
> recommendations will be appreciated.
>
> TIA,
>
> Conrad
> Camp Sherman, Oregon
>
 >> Stay informed about: 50mm, 100mm macro lens use(s) 

On 5 Aug 2006 04:45:18 -0700, "Conrad" <cweiler1.DeleteThis@mac.com> wrote:


>Presently, I have 18-55mm and 70-300mm lenses for my Canon DSL camera
>and am looking for an additional lens to add. Any suggestions or
>recommendations will be appreciated.
>
>Conrad

I use an EFS Canon 60MM Macro for my "standard" lens. It's one of the
sharpest I've ever owned.

Dave
East Englewood

The proof is in the print.
 >> Stay informed about: 50mm, 100mm macro lens use(s) 

Hi,

Thanks for all the excellent suggestions for lens use and choices.
Really appreciated.

Best,

Conrad
Camp Sherman, Oregon
 >> Stay informed about: 50mm, 100mm macro lens use(s) 

Conrad wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I'm interested in what a 50mm or 100mm macro lens can be used for. Is
> is strictly (or, primarily) for macro work? Or, may they also be used
> for portraits and landscapes?
>
> Presently, I have 18-55mm and 70-300mm lenses for my Canon DSL camera
> and am looking for an additional lens to add. Any suggestions or
> recommendations will be appreciated.
>
> TIA,
>
> Conrad
> Camp Sherman, Oregon
>

Seems to depend on the macro lens. Some are better than others at
non-macro.

I have a Pentax 100mm f/2.8A Macro (manual focus) that's a superb
portrait lens in addition to its utility for macro and closeup work.
Works equally well with my Pentax manual focus, auto focus and DSLR bodies.

I guess it would be ok at infinity, but I've never really tried to use
it for that.

Don't really know what Canon might offer, or what anyone else might
offer in a Canon mount that would compare.
 >> Stay informed about: 50mm, 100mm macro lens use(s) 

In news:jnrCg.13526$4c7.9720@tornado.southeast.rr.com,
no_name <no_name.DeleteThis@no.where.invalid> typed:
| Conrad wrote:
|
|| Hi,
||
|| I'm interested in what a 50mm or 100mm macro lens can be used for. Is
|| is strictly (or, primarily) for macro work? Or, may they also be used
|| for portraits and landscapes?
||
|| Presently, I have 18-55mm and 70-300mm lenses for my Canon DSL camera
|| and am looking for an additional lens to add. Any suggestions or
|| recommendations will be appreciated.
||
|| TIA,
||
|| Conrad
|| Camp Sherman, Oregon
||
|
| Seems to depend on the macro lens. Some are better than others at
| non-macro.
|
| I have a Pentax 100mm f/2.8A Macro (manual focus) that's a superb
| portrait lens in addition to its utility for macro and closeup work.
| Works equally well with my Pentax manual focus, auto focus and DSLR
| bodies.
|
| I guess it would be ok at infinity, but I've never really tried to use
| it for that.
|
| Don't really know what Canon might offer, or what anyone else might
| offer in a Canon mount that would compare.

I have the 50mm f1:8 lens and have used it with landscapes - regular
walk-about settings- its good on low light so in the bush, shady
settings. It feels like using the old 35mm film camera since the absence
of zoom requires that the human body shifts around to attain the
position. The focus feature has a sound as the lens gets into focus and
isn't particularly smooth but it produces a decent image. Some folks
have moved to the f1:4 for a smoother movement in the focusing etc and
gave good reports .
I had the same range of lens that you have and some experienced people
with similar photography habits as myself (out in the wilds, landscape,
some close-up,) recommended the 28-85mm or the 25-105mm. I got the 28-85
and have been quite satisfied with it while out on hikes in the bush or
at events. Used this 28-85 lens at the Calgary Stampede indoor
Saddledome events with minimal lighting (IS0 1600) and it did well. The
50mm worked with the lighting the best but I didn't have physical moving
around space. The 300 was fine but the 28-85 fitted into the arena floor
where one sheep dog was running around managing a group of sheep. Well,
80 sheep dogs one after another were doing this exercise at a major
Stockdog competition.
Rose
Canon RebelXt 350D
 >> Stay informed about: 50mm, 100mm macro lens use(s) 

In news:x%rCg.33942$43.11464@nnrp.ca.mci.com!nnrp1.uunet.ca,
RoseW <wdmn.RemoveThis@nshurontel.on.ca> typed:
| In news:jnrCg.13526$4c7.9720@tornado.southeast.rr.com,
| no_name <no_name.RemoveThis@no.where.invalid> typed:
|| Conrad wrote:
||
||| Hi,
|||
||| I'm interested in what a 50mm or 100mm macro lens can be used for.
||| Is is strictly (or, primarily) for macro work? Or, may they also be
||| used for portraits and landscapes?
|||
||| Presently, I have 18-55mm and 70-300mm lenses for my Canon DSL
||| camera and am looking for an additional lens to add. Any
||| suggestions or recommendations will be appreciated.
|||
||| TIA,
|||
||| Conrad
||| Camp Sherman, Oregon
|||
||
|| Seems to depend on the macro lens. Some are better than others at
|| non-macro.
||
|| I have a Pentax 100mm f/2.8A Macro (manual focus) that's a superb
|| portrait lens in addition to its utility for macro and closeup work.
|| Works equally well with my Pentax manual focus, auto focus and DSLR
|| bodies.
||
|| I guess it would be ok at infinity, but I've never really tried to
|| use it for that.
||
|| Don't really know what Canon might offer, or what anyone else might
|| offer in a Canon mount that would compare.
|
| I have the 50mm f1:8 lens and have used it with landscapes - regular
| walk-about settings- its good on low light so in the bush, shady
| settings. It feels like using the old 35mm film camera since the
| absence of zoom requires that the human body shifts around to attain
| the position. The focus feature has a sound as the lens gets into
| focus and isn't particularly smooth but it produces a decent image.
| Some folks have moved to the f1:4 for a smoother movement in the
| focusing etc and gave good reports .
| I had the same range of lens that you have and some experienced people
| with similar photography habits as myself (out in the wilds,
| landscape, some close-up,) recommended the 28-85mm or the 25-105mm. I
| got the 28-85 and have been quite satisfied with it while out on
| hikes in the bush or at events. Used this 28-85 lens at the Calgary
| Stampede indoor Saddledome events with minimal lighting (IS0 1600)
| and it did well. The 50mm worked with the lighting the best but I
| didn't have physical moving around space. The 300 was fine but the
| 28-85 fitted into the arena floor where one sheep dog was running
| around managing a group of sheep. Well, 80 sheep dogs one after
| another were doing this exercise at a major Stockdog competition.
| Rose
| Canon RebelXt 350D
Sorry mistyped the numbers for the 28 lens...its a 28-105
Rose
 >> Stay informed about: 50mm, 100mm macro lens use(s) 

Conrad wrote:
> I'm interested in what a 50mm or 100mm macro lens can be used for. Is
> is strictly (or, primarily) for macro work?

No.

> Or, may they also be used for portraits and landscapes?

Yes.

But, macro lens use a large portion of focus range for macro, so it may
not focus as accurately at non-macro range. And macro lens's aperture
is smaller than non-macro prime.

If you do a lot of macro, then get a macro lens. Otherwise, get a
normal prime, and use extension tube for macro.

> Presently, I have 18-55mm and 70-300mm lenses for my Canon DSL camera
> and am looking for an additional lens to add. Any suggestions or
> recommendations will be appreciated.

Canon 50/1.8
Canon 85/1.8
Canon 28-135/3.5-5.6 IS

Canon 135/2
Canon 300/2.8 IS
Canon 1.4x
Canon 2x
Canon 17-55/2.8 IS
Canon 70-200/2.8 IS

http://digitcamera.tripod.com/#slr
 >> Stay informed about: 50mm, 100mm macro lens use(s) 

<bj286 DeleteThis @scn.org> wrote in message
news:1155529097.095005.68630@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> Conrad wrote:
>
>> Or, may they also be used for portraits and landscapes?
>
> Yes.
>
> But, macro lens use a large portion of focus range for macro, so it may
> not focus as accurately at non-macro range. And macro lens's aperture
> is smaller than non-macro prime.
>
>

John Shaw, in his classic work "Landscape Photography," assures readers that
macro lenses make excellent landscape lenses.
 >> Stay informed about: 50mm, 100mm macro lens use(s) 

jeremy wrote:
> <bj286 RemoveThis @scn.org> wrote in message
> news:1155529097.095005.68630@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> > Conrad wrote:
> >> Or, may they also be used for portraits and landscapes?
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > But, macro lens use a large portion of focus range for macro, so it may
> > not focus as accurately at non-macro range. And macro lens's aperture
> > is smaller than non-macro prime.
>
> John Shaw, in his classic work "Landscape Photography," assures readers that
> macro lenses make excellent landscape lenses.

For portrait, 1 stop brighter non-macro primes are more useful.

http://digitcamera.tripod.com/#slr
 >> Stay informed about: 50mm, 100mm macro lens use(s) 

"AaronW" <bj286.DeleteThis@scn.org> wrote in message
news:1155575655.580940.28020@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> jeremy wrote:
>> <bj286.DeleteThis@scn.org> wrote in message
>> news:1155529097.095005.68630@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>> > Conrad wrote:
>> >> Or, may they also be used for portraits and landscapes?
>> >
>> > Yes.
>> >
>> > But, macro lens use a large portion of focus range for macro, so it may
>> > not focus as accurately at non-macro range. And macro lens's aperture
>> > is smaller than non-macro prime.
>>
>> John Shaw, in his classic work "Landscape Photography," assures readers
>> that
>> macro lenses make excellent landscape lenses.
>
> For portrait, 1 stop brighter non-macro primes are more useful.
>
> http://digitcamera.tripod.com/#slr
>

Agreed. Macros are too unforgiving on aging skin, especially on faces.
 >> Stay informed about: 50mm, 100mm macro lens use(s)