DSLR macro lenses and minimal focus distance from lens

[jph]

i'm about to jump into the world of DSLR, and i'm not sure how this works.

the lenses that i'm looking at seem to have a minimum focus distance from the lens that about 0.5 meter away.

how do you take macro shots of your tank, are you holding the camera about a foot (or two) in front of it?

the reason i'm asking is because my current camera can focus on objects that are about one inch in front of the lens. i basically press the lens up against the tank to brace it, and then snap away nice and close.

will i need to learn a different technique when i switch to a DSLR and a macro (85 or 100mm) lens?

i'd like to get the right lens, before i decide to spend A LOT of cash on a new camera setup


J.

[wharyat]

What brand are you considering?

The minimum focus distance AKA working distance is the distance you can be away from your subject while still maintaining focus at the highest magnification normally 1:1.

High quality lenses will give you more working distance at 1:1; which is very important when photographing skittish subjects, i.e. bugs, etc. The farther away the less disruption you cause.

SLR photography is expensive, especially if your buying lenses that make SLR photography worth the extra expense over P&S (fast, sharp lenses).

[jph]

Originally Posted by wharyat

What brand are you considering?

The minimum focus distance AKA working distance is the distance you can be away from your subject while still maintaining focus at the highest magnification normally 1:1.

High quality lenses will give you more working distance at 1:1; which is very important when photographing skittish subjects, i.e. bugs, etc. The farther away the less disruption you cause.

SLR photography is expensive, especially if your buying lenses that make SLR photography worth the extra expense over P&S (fast, sharp lenses).

i'm planning to get an EOS 40D
and a Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM lens

on top of that i'd like to add a dedicated macro lens.

the 24-70mm is listed as having a "closes focus" at 38cm.
which means that i'm not going to be leaning against the glass anymore, and will need to re-learn taking pictures in a different way. is this true?


J.

[wharyat]

Awesome camera and great lens (I have both). I slightly prefer the 24-105 over the 24-70 tho.

A normal zoom lens will give you decent "macro" ability, but it won't give you what a 1:1 macro will. Refer to this thread for explanation of "1:1" and comparison shots. The closest focus is the minimum distance that the lens will focus, anything closer than that can not come into focus.

Another good thing to consider is a personal items/camera insurance policy, only around $12/$1000. With that, you don't have to worry as much about theft or dropping a $3000 lens and body.

[jph]

Originally Posted by wharyat

Awesome camera and great lens (I have both). I slightly prefer the 24-105 over the 24-70 tho.

A normal zoom lens will give you decent "macro" ability, but it won't give you what a 1:1 macro will. Refer to this thread for explanation of "1:1" and comparison shots. The closest focus is the minimum distance that the lens will focus, anything closer than that can not come into focus.

Another good thing to consider is a personal items/camera insurance policy, only around $12/$1000. With that, you don't have to worry as much about theft or dropping a $3000 lens and body.

thanks!

how does the 24-105 lens perform indoors with low light?
think family parties at night, or even museums where you can't use a flash, and they light things in such a way that you either get blurry or grainy pictures (unless you're using the right gear)


J.

[wharyat]

If your planning mainly on indoor flash-less shooting, the 24-70 is probably the way to go. The IS on the 24-105 drops your f-stops by 3, making it a virtual f2.8; but this mostly helps on still life as images will blur pretty bad at 1/30 (iso 100) second. The 24-70 will give you 1/50 (iso 100) second on moderately lit rooms wide open at f2.8 -- the only downside is that your shooting at f2.8, which narrows your focal plane quite a bit and it's quite difficult to keep everything of importance in focus.

The 24-105 is on my camera a lot more than the 24-70. If I need lots of DOF the 24-70 comes out, but then again the 70-200 2.8 IS is my first choice.

The noise reduction on the 40D allows for pretty decent shots at iso 800, 1600 and especially 3200 need very short exposures to get a clean image.

Here is a very good lens review site.

[jph]

Originally Posted by wharyat

the only downside is that your shooting at f2.8, which narrows your focal plane quite a bit and it's quite difficult to keep everything of importance in focus.

that's the only thing that i'm a little bit afraid of.
how does the shallow DOF work out shen shooting outdoors (city street shots, visiting a zoo, or one of our nice national parts with nice vistas?

also, can you point me to a dedicated photography forum that's nice and friendly for people like me? kinda like TRT but for DSLR


thanks again!

J.

[wharyat]

Here is an explanation on f-numbers. Much easier linking than paraphrasing.

Distance to subject and focal length are the secondary variables in DOF. Basically, the closer you are to the subject, the more bokeh.
On a bright sunny day, you can run f-stop up to 22 and keep the entire picture in focus.

One of my prerequisites for a lens is that it is the fastest lens in it's class. Yet some factors (mainly zoom range, sharpness, and obviously reviews of performance) will sway my choice.

I don't belong to any photo forums. I normally just google and end up reading posts about whatever topic I'm searching for. www.phototakers.com pops up a lot.

[jph]

thanks!

i'm pretty familiar with what all the numbers mean (currently have a canon powershot pro-1.

i attached shot that i took last night.
the only light on the zoas was the glow of a couple blue moonlight LED's (not the very bight ones either)

it's a 10 second exposure, with the camera pressed up against the tank, while i hold my breath

i did a bit more reading, and the 24-105mm lens DOES seem very interesting. the

i did some more reading, and the IS on the 24-105mm lens should make up for it being a bit slower, although it won't stop subject motion that a faster one will do. shooting at a higher ISO might just make up for that as i'm sure that 40D will perform much better with less noise than my current camera.

anyway, keep the suggestions and critiques or any other pointers coming. i don't want to waste ~$2500 on equipment i might regret buying down the road.

how good if that 24-105mm lens at taking macro shots of the tank? do you have any example shots handy?


J.

[wharyat]

I just grabbed this shot with the 24-105 focused as close as possible. Don't mind the fuzzyness the glass is dirty and I'm lazy.


Uncropped.
40D w/ 24-105 @ 105mm IS on, f4, 1/60s, iso400.

[Fat Tony]

this is a handheld image... HOLY CRAP at 10 Seconds!!



You need to be a sharpshooter or something if you kept it that stable by hand for 10 seconds, i can't get that kind of stabilization at 1/30th of a second, let along 10!

[MAXreefer]

Hope I am not invading this thread with some pics but I just want to illustrate what is possible with a Canon Rebel XTI and a EF100mm F2.8 Macro USM lens

Michael
MAXreefer

[jph]

Originally Posted by Fat Tony

this is a handheld image... HOLY CRAP at 10 Seconds!!



You need to be a sharpshooter or something if you kept it that stable by hand for 10 seconds, i can't get that kind of stabilization at 1/30th of a second, let along 10!

maybe i should say "hand braced" the lens was pressed up against the tank. i just had to hold it in place, and not breathe for 10 seconds


J.

[jph]

Originally Posted by MAXreefer

Hope I am not invading this thread with some pics but I just want to illustrate what is possible with a Canon Rebel XTI and a EF100mm F2.8 Macro USM lens

please, feel free to post as many example shots as you like
can you get any closer shots of the corals? with that kind of lens i would expect to see more "macro" shots


J.