Close-ups/ lenses

[MissRed]

Which lens will be better for close ups and for photographing birds not for BIF just normal birds on the ground?
Canon 70-300mm IS USM or Sigma 70mm?

[Andrew76]

Hey Mariola. Do you mean 'close ups' like macro photography, or 'close ups' like taking zoomed in photos of subjects that are far away?

They are very different things, and will require very different lenses. If you clarify for us, you will get many more specific answers.

[chauncey]

I would not buy any lens without first checking the MTF characteristics, Canon's are here http://software.canon-europe.com/fil...Book_10_EN.pdf

And, you would be better served posting your query here...http://photography-on-the.net/forum/...play.php?f=122 as they are Canon specific.

Getting the "correct" answer is kinda like herding cats...tough job.

[woof woof]

Which lens will be better for close ups and for photographing birds not for BIF just normal birds on the ground?
Canon 70-300mm IS USM or Sigma 70mm?

Close up and zoom are different things

If you want to take a picture of something in the far distance and make it BIG in the frame you need a loooooooong zoom. 300mm is a good length for many things but even so some people who specialise in photographing birds go for even longer lenses.

If you want to take a close up picture of a small thing like an insect or flower a macro lens is a good choice as you can fill the frame with quite small things. The Sigma 150mm f2.8 is a good macro lens as are several others in the 50-180mm range

As has been said, close up as in macro - shooting something small... is quite different from close up as in shooting something that's far away.

As you asked about the Canon 70-300mm - I have one of those and I'd describe it as an average performer and nothing more. The IS is however quite good IMVHO but it does grumble and groan in use, the USM isn't the modern variety and doesn't allow full time manual focus and the front element rotates when focusing. Overall to me it's an average optical performer with mechanicals that seem to be a generation or two behind the best on the market today.

[AB26]

Mariola,

When buying lenses it is always better to buy the brand lens. Canon will be better than Sigma.

Did you get the camera yet? The 18-135mm overlaps the 70mm Sigma lens. If the 70mm lens is a macro lens you might want to add that to your kit – later.

[Geoff F]

How close can you get to the birds? I would consider 300 mm to be a bit on the small side. But if you can get close, for example by using a hide, or they are really tame, that might be just large enough.

Or large reasonably tame birds like gulls etc.

Otherwise I would recommend at least 400 mm which starts to get expensive.

I did start macro photography with a Canon 70-300 lens but added a 25 mm extension tube to get me a bit closer. It worked fairly well, although always on a tripod. Not quite so good as a 'proper' macro lens, but once again, this is starting to get a bit more expensive and specialised.

Worth the expense though if you are going to get serious about this type of photography.

[woof woof]

Mariola,

When buying lenses it is always better to buy the brand lens. Canon will be better than Sigma.
Did you get the camera yet? The 18-135mm overlaps the 70mm Sigma lens. If the 70mm lens is a macro lens you might want to add that to your kit – later.

What a load of utter tosh.

Mariola, please ignore brand snobbery like this and buy the best lens for you at the price you're willing to pay. If that lens happens to be a Canon then that's great but if it happens to be a Sigma it's equally Whoopie Doo.

And to prove I'm no brand snob or Sigma fan boy I've owned the following lenses...

Nikon, Canon, Sigma, Tamron, Panasonic, Olympus, Voigtlander, Minolta, Vivitar and probably others if I think a little harder.

[Donald]

What a load of utter tosh.

I don't think the tone of this response is quite what we aspire to on CiC.

However, in addition to that, Andre is not suggesting that people should not, "buy the best lens for you at the price you're willing to pay." What I understand him to be saying is that, in general terms, the overall quality of the brand lens; e.g. Canon, is better than 3rd party lenses; e..g Sigma.

There are, of course, exceptions to that and if people are very happy with 3rd party lenses that they have purchased, so be it. For example, I own the Sigma 120-400 F4.5-5.6 APO DG OS and have been more than happy with its performance. And I bought it because, in my view, "...it was the best lens for (me) at the price (I was) willing to pay."

So, I don't think there was any brand snobbery being demonstrated. Rather, there was an objective statement being made which people can use to inform decision-making.

[woof woof]

I don't think the tone of this response is quite what we aspire to on CiC.

However, in addition to that, Andre is not suggesting that people should not, "buy the best lens for you at the price you're willing to pay." What I understand him to be saying is that, in general terms, the overall quality of the brand lens; e.g. Canon, is better than 3rd party lenses; e..g Sigma.

There are, of course, exceptions to that and if people are very happy with 3rd party lenses that they have purchased, so be it. For example, I own the Sigma 120-400 F4.5-5.6 APO DG OS and have been more than happy with its performance. And I bought it because, in my view, "...it was the best lens for (me) at the price (I was) willing to pay."

So, I don't think there was any brand snobbery being demonstrated. Rather, there was an objective statement being made which people can use to inform decision-making.

Well, thanks for taking the worst possible slant on a post which was made, believe it or not, in friendly manner. Maybe you could ask before jumping in next time? Or maybe I should include smilies...

Anyway, argue about my tone if you must but the statement is tosh and not the sort of thing that should be posted in responce to someone looking for advice IMVHO as there are quite a few price points / focal lengths / lens types - however you want to cut it - at which what is thought by many to be the "best" isn't the camera manufacturers offering.

[Donald]

Well, thanks for taking the worst possible slant on a post which was made,

You mean there was a different interpretation possible!?

[Andrew76]

We still haven't heard from the OP as to what she actually wants to take photos of.

[jcuknz]

There is another variable to the question ... are you going to stalk the birds and hope you get close enough or would you be prepared to attract the birds to you ...

....in the first situation I doubt if the 70-300 will be long enough [ I have 950mm AoV ], in the second the kit lens is plenty. In the first situation a super-zoom camera such as Panasonic's FZ70 would probably cost less than another lens and give you 1200mm Angle of View with the ability to crop to achieve 2000AoV provided you are able to use an editing programme to finish the job.

Editing is a skill you will need to learn parrallel with learning to use the camera.

I am wrong ... checking Amazon UK I find the lens is cheaper.

This was taken with an old film camera's kit lens 30-70mm and Canon D60 [ 6.3Mp ] by attracting the bird to me and a bit of cropping. "Waxeye" ... about the size of a sparrow.

And with 950mm reach and some cropping "No room here matey!"


EDIT ... an afterthought the FZ70, one of the latest in Panasonic's staable has an F/5.9 l;ens at full zoom where my older FZ50 and Raynox telephoto adaptor gives me f/4.5 at 950mm which could be useful in low light woodland situations. The 70-300 is only f/5.6 at full zoom ... but my rig, even 2/h, would cost more than the 70-300, about twice as much.

[ajohnw]

You mean there was a different interpretation possible!?

It's interesting to see what one gets for the extra money - independent test on a 5D Mk11 by some one who tests lenses that people buy to use and take to him.

Canon 100-400 USM EF L IS lens



Sigma AF 120-400mm DG HSM IS



In real terms there is very little in it especially net across the full frame. Only 2 I could find but that sort of result isn't unusual. However all manufacturers including Canon have their moments. I once particularly wanted a specific Canon L zoom. As it turned out great for wedding photographers but not what I wanted. There is that aspect too.

John
-

[jcuknz]

MissRed .... to try and briefly answer the first part of your question .... there are three basic ways of taking close-ups when you want to go 'closer' or as I prefer to call it 'tigher framed' than what a lense enables you in itself.

1] you buy the modern convienience tool which is the 'macro' lens which will enablee to to fill the sensor with a subject 23mm across, at the same time you can use it at any distance upto infinity. Macro lens come in various focal lengths of approximately 40-50mm,90mm,180mm and probably a few slightly different becuase having other ways to do the exercise I have no 'macro' lens or interest in them.

2] to get tight framing the lens has to move forward relative to the sensor. This is called 'extension' ... so there are extension tubes enabling this. Since the modern lens is usually automatic controlled fom the camera body to use such lenses you must have an 'auto extension tube' which electrically connect camera to lens. There are cheaper plain tubes which can only be used with older lenses which have an 'aperture' ring. This seems to be favoured by those using shorter lens and has the advantage that you have not added anything to the optical path. So if you went this way probably the 70mm prime would be the better lens.

3] Bearing in mind that we only go in close to achieve a tight framing, if we can achieve it without going in 'that close' there are several advantages to doing so. Since for a lens to focus close it needs 'extension' and the longer the lens the more is needed so the longer lens is normally quite restricted how close it will focus becuase of manufacturing consideration.
However there are things called 'close-up' lenses which people place on the front of their camera lens which overcomes the focus closwe problem with some restriction. ie I have a 420mm Angle of View lens which only focuses to six feet normally but add a 2 dioptre 500mm CU lens it now thinks objects at 500mm are at infinity [ auto focusing does] and using its own focusing range can come as close as 330mm.
Not very good you say but the point is I use the narrow angle of view of the 420 lens to achieve the 'tight framing' of something about 38mm across filling the sensor [ a 250mm 4 dioptre would give me better than 'true macro' [ 1:1 ] with a similar set-up on an APS-C camera ... 19mm filling the sensor]
If you went this way then the 70-300 lens is the better option.

Over the years I have purchased the gear to work in different ways and while some ways are better for extreme close-ups for day to day use I find the 2 dioptre added to my camera lens as the quickest and simplest way to go .... that is my bias


Nikon Coolpix 5700 with 2 dioptre CU lens to keep me back from them. 5Mp camera about a 1/4 crop.

[revi]

Indeed, very little difference in this aspect.
Still, the Canon is better (if only very little, if different copies of each lens were tested, the results might have been inverted...).
What we don't see here is other aspects, like build quality (which I hope is better for the Canon) and things like AF speed and distortion. Even things like homogeneity over the image area aren't shown (and as there's no link or other reference to the original data, we cannot check; or did you do the tests?)

And then: a 4x telezoom is a rather easy lens to design from what I understood. An 18-135 mm zoom is a 7.5x zoom, which is a lot more complicated.
Bottom line, you might pay some for the right to have 'Canon' or 'Nikon' written on the lens barrel, but I'm convinced that that does not explain the full price difference. For instance, wanting a higher quality also means accepting more rejects at each production stage => higher costs per delivered lens. And the higher price will limit the number of items sold, so that also increases the price (nice circle here )

[ajohnw]

Zooms are of great interest to me. As a rule of thumb 3:1 can give very near to prime performance. Go to 4:1 and there will generally be a trade off. Optics aren't magic and cost considerations come into it. eg the newer exotic glasses biggest effect really is that they lead to fewer pieces of glass in the lens and reduce the weight and complexity as well.

The tests are here. As you can see the Sigma is better in some instances but does have a little more vignetting. There can be surprising variations in that area. Something up to around 1 stop has been acceptable for a long time. Given software some go further. That aspect put me off Panasonic for m 4/3. Cowboy outfit, Olympus are more traditional. Lens correction in the camera = more profit. There is even talk of ensuring own brand lenses always work more effectively on their cameras.

http://www.photozone.de/all-tests

There is the profit margin aspect as well. I wonder how many people are aware that this area is a very major source of revenue for the corporations involved. To such and extent that the camera market is the major source of their profits. Sigma on the other hand make lenses. Olympus are in some respects envious of the others. I suspect that makes them try harder.

Test results can be difficult. I recently bought an Olynmpus 45mm F1.8. Hard decision. The Sigma 60 mm is some what better in some respects. Went for the 45mm in the end because 120mm in 35mm terms is in no mans land.

Build build quality - Sigma have been a better none camera manufacturer brand of lenses for a long time. Probably better than Tamron. These days the differences in price between these makes and the camera brands is a lot less than it used to be. Part profit and part quality. I doubt if anyone would notice and difference in any respect on both of the to 400mm lenses in actual use other than the colour. That of course makes the Canon's stand out - great marketing ploy making them a have to have because it's pretty obvious when some one is not using one - cheap skates. That aspect leads to even bigger profit margins.

John
-

[AB26]

the statement is tosh and not the sort of thing that should be posted in responce to someone looking for advice

And if Mariola was asking me about tyres for her car I would say: "stay away from retreads and fit Pirelli or Michelin."

If the statement is tosh you should explain to Mariola why Tamron and Sigma lenses are better than Canon, Nikon, Carl Zeiss and Leica. And while you are at it also explain why she should rather buy a Yongnuo flash and not Canon.

[ajohnw]

Really if some one wants to shoot "macro". It's probably best to ask people on the post your insect thread. It doesn't seem to be as active as it was but if some one questions what gear was used no doubt some one will answer.. It's here

Post your insects

From memory one of the very proficient contributors to that thread uses a longish Sigma zoom and extension tubes plus flash. The reason for the focal length is working distance and the zoom aids framing. The post where I asked him what he uses should still be their. With a suitable lens a cameras in built flash can sometimes be used. Depends on the diameter of the lens and the working distances. There is often adequate power as the distances are so short.

John
-

[ajohnw]

And if Mariola was asking me about tyres for her car I would say: "stay away from retreads and fit Pirelli or Michelin."

If the statement is tosh you should explain to Mariola why Tamron and Sigma lenses are better than Canon, Nikon, Carl Zeiss and Leica. And while you are at it also explain why she should rather buy a Yongnuo flash and not Canon.

I use a brand of Korean tires on my car - increasing numbers of manufacturers fit them OE too. Why because the cost less and perform just as well. Michelin in particular are a myth, in there hay day when the got their long life + quality reputation their wet grip was awful. Pirelli - look what's been going on in Formulae One. I wouldn't touch them from past experience. One or two other makes as well.. What am I - design engineer. What have worked on for about 15 years ABS.

Have to admit that if some one runs a Citroen that handles rather well it's probably best to fit Michelin.

Flashes - well maybe some can't do the sums.

Lenses - a fool and their money are easily parted.

John
-

[chauncey]

My lens use, not what I bought and don't use, is limited to Canon's 70-200 f/2.8, 180 macro, 300mm f/2.8 and Photoshop for WA lens work. With those three, there is virtually nothing I can't shoot. IMHO