Canon EF 28-90mm f/4-5.6 lll lens

I am thinking about buying a Canon EF 28-90mm f/4-5.6 lll lens. How compatible is it to the EOS Rebel T3i? Thank you for your time.
Solved!
Go to Solution.

I don't remember it's exact lineage but neither the 28-90mm or the 28-105mm are spectacular performers.
The 28-135mm is whole different story.
EOS 1Ds Mk III, EOS 1D Mk IV EF 50mm f1.2 L, EF 24-70mm f2.8 L,
EF 70-200mm f2.8 L IS II, Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 EX APO
Photoshop CS6, ACR 8.7, Lightroom 5.7

Similar Messages

Canon EF 70-210mm F/4.0 Macro Zoom Lens

Can a Canon EF 70-210mm F/4.0 Macro Zoom Lens previously used on a Canon EOS 630 be used on modern DSLR like the Canon 6D?
Solved!
Go to Solution.

georgey, the key here is "EF". If the lens in question is labeled EF, it will bolt up. But the real question, like the observation above, is it a good idea?
You are the one to decide that. If the results you get suit your needs than go for it.
EOS 1Ds Mk III, EOS 1D Mk IV EF 50mm f1.2 L, EF 24-70mm f2.8 L,
EF 70-200mm f2.8 L IS II, Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 EX APO
Photoshop CS6, ACR 8.7, Lightroom 5.7

Canon 100m f/2.8 L IS USM Macro Lens - What's in the Box for real?

I want to purchase the Canon 100m f/2.8 L IS USM Macro Lens, and the website says the only thing in the box is the lens itself and a manual.
I realize that at the very least the Lens Cap and Cover MUST be included, but then I called customer service to confrim the rest, and they said the contrary, "only the manual and lens, with no cap or cover".
Obviously that was an non-conscientious rep who didn't care if the answer was accurate or not, so I need some help from those of you who are owners... or at least a BestBuy rep who is conscientious.
Canon confirms that what is supposed to be in the box with this "L" series lens
Lens + Lens Cap + Lens Cover + LENS HOOD + LENS POUCH (the capitalized items are included because its an "L" Series lens.
Can someone confirm What's in the Box for real? Does it have these items or not?
Thanks
Solved!
Go to Solution.

Hi mikewinburn,
I definitely apologize for the inaccurate information given to you from the customer service representative you spoke to. This lens is sent to us directly from Canon, and should have everything inside their packaging that they told you would be in the box. I have no direct knowledge of what comes packaged with this lens (although I wish I did, and this is actually one of the lenses that I intend on purchasing in the near future). If Canon told you that there would be the lens, the lens cap, the lens cover, a lens hood, and a lens pouch inside the packaging then that is what should be inside the box if you purchase this lens from us. I hope this clears this up for you, but if you need any personal assistance from me just send me a private message by clicking on the link in my signature.
Thanks for posting,
Allan|Senior Social Media Specialist | Best Buy® Corporate
Private Message

Canon EOS 5D Mark III Using a 70-300mm Lens without a flash?

I just recently purchased a Canon EOS 5D Mark III and would like to know what you would recommend as a good setting to take photos of someone bowling at a center with the camera using a Canon 70-300mm Lens without a flash? Thanks in advance!

Yes the black one since that is the one I have at this time and it seems to work! Why wouldn't I want to use this one?

I have an old AE-1 and want to buy a Canon EOS Rebel T3 and wonder if my AE lens will fit the T3

Well my AE-1 lens fit into a new EOS Rebel T3 body to save on buying new lenses.

Not advisable for many reasons. Use the search box if you want more details.
"A skill is developed through constant practice with a passion to improve, not bought."

Lens Profile for Canon 16-35

Using Canon Mark11 camera and Canon 16-35 lens. I can not find a profile for it in Lightroom Lens Correction. Any thoughts on where I can find a profile for this lens?
Thanks,
Matthew Kraus

I also don't see the Canon 16-35 f2.8 II listed in the lens corrections popup list, using the Lightroom 4 Demo downloaded a week ago. How can get this profile to show up?

Canon 200 f/2 manual focus

Hi all,
This question is related to the Canon 200mm f/2.0 lens.
Does focusing work by moving the black rubber focusing ring
if the lens is in manual focus mode AND IF there is no
canon body attached to the end of the lens (i.e. it is not
under current/power)?
Say I want to project a source in an optical lab with this lens onto a detector,
and want to use it in fully manual focus mode.
This did not work with the Canon 200 f/1.8 AF lenses.
Regards,
Bogar

Hello ebiggs,
Thanks for your response.
You say "on external focusing Canon lens" the focus works when set to MF.
The Canon 200 f/2 counts as an "external focusing lens"?
I am asking this, because the manual focusing definitely does not work
on the older Canon 200 f/1.8L USM lens, even when turned to MF mode, but
without a Canon camera attached. So I guess with your definition the 200/1.8 is
not an external focusing lens. When a Canon body is attached to the 200/1.8,
then the MF works fine, but one needs to power up the lens and its CPU so that
it converts the motion of the rubber ring into electronics, and ultimately motion
of internal lens elements.
I understand that this is not a standard use of the lens, so hoping that
Canon afficionados will know this. Clearly, the lens does not change
its outer dimensions while focusing. But one can see the focus changes
when projecting e.g. a landscape on a piece of white paper.
Best regards,
Bogar

Canon EOS 5D Mark III and Tamron lens

I have just ordered a EOS Mark III body and a Canon 70-200 F/2.8 II USM IS lens. Now I want a wide angle zoom lens to complete the package. I'm interested in a 24-70 f/2.8 lens. Canon's version does not have an image stabalizer and is over $2000. Tamron offers the same focal and aperture in their 24-70 f/2.8 with an image stabalizer for around $1300. Are there any issues concerning using a Tamron lens on a Canon body?

Really folks, when I joined this forum I had no idea it was for only Canon related issues and did not mean to insult the hosts. I am a Canon gal. I also own a Canon 7D. I wish all my equipment could be Canon. I have just spent a great deal of time and money researching and purchasing a Canon 5D Mark III and the Canon 70-200 F/2.8 II USM IS lens. I don’t want to settle for less. But now to complete the package I really want a 24-70mm f/2.8 lens. I would have no doubts whatsoever about the Canon even at their price if it had IS. I do not want to regret not having the f.2.8 as I may be in some low light situations during my travels, or the IS as I may not be able to handle a camera and lens of that weight without a tripod. I bought the best tripod I could find made of carbon fiber( I won’t mention the name). It is compact, very light and has a load capacity of 25lbs. I plan on using it most of the time but there will be times that I just won’t have time to set it up.
I have read a lot of reviews and 90% of them regret not having IS. After comparing the Tamron with the Canon on other sites that test different products, there didn’t seem to be too much difference in performance of either lens. Canon was favored as it should be, but for the price comparison and no IS it failed to make that big of an impression. I think the manufacturers of Canon know this and will probably come out with another version that includes IS. As Bob said…“if a competitor's lens is well regarded for whatever reason, it's in Canon's interest to know that and to understand why. And if a Tamron lens makes a 5D3 affordable by someone who would otherwise buy a Sony, I think Canon would gladly take his money.” That’s an excellent point. And Bob, I have considered the Canon 24-70 f/4 but I really feel that maximum aperture over the total focal range is a plus that only 2.8 can give.
Ebbigs 1, I have considered the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 but it doesn’t have IS. The price certainly is appealing, but the Tamron even though more expensive is a better lens (from what I‘ve read). I do agree about the L quality and durability of the Canon lens however and I would buy it if not for the IS. I am getting ready for a long trip and am in need of a wide angle zoom lens as soon as possible.
I came here to find out if anyone knew if there were any issues with the Canon mount accepting a Tamron as I have never used anything but a Canon lens on my Canon cameras. Thank you for reading my rather long winded response and I apologize if I have offended anyone.

CANON EF 85 f/1.8

Hello,
I notice on line that you carry the 'L' Series Canon - 85mm f/1.2L II USM Telephoto EF Lens which has a price of about $2200 but you do not seem to carry the subtantially less expensive CANON EF 85 f/1.8 version ($300- $400). Will the less expensive version ever be offered through Best Buy? Is there a reason wht the less expensive option is not offered? I have gift Card and would like to use is to purchase the less expensive lense.
Thank you for your help.

Hi jcagrj,
The Canon 85mm f/1.8 lens is an older lens design from Canon, and it is unlikely that we would be carrying it anytime in the future. This focal length is generally used for portraiture, and given our market share on prime lenses we most likely have opted to carry the L series 85mm f/1.2 professional lens instead of this one.
I don't doubt at all that this lens would work very well for low-light indoor sports photography, but as Rrrrrrr said you would need to be very close to the action in order to fill the frame with your subject. I would also worry about shooting sports at an extreme aperture like f/1.8. The depth of field would be very shallow, and you could end up with blurry images due to any slight movement out of the depth of field during the moment of exposure.
I will be honest that indoor available light sports photography is one of the most challenging types of photography, and to be really successful at it the equipment you have really does make a difference. You usually need a long lens with a wide aperture to, which will allow you to set fast enough shutter speeds to stop the action. Even the lenses with the widest apertures won't allow you to set a fast enough shutter speed to stop action at a relatively normal ISO setting.
You are going to need to set the ISO to a very high number (at least ISO 1600 or higher), which means you are going to need to have a camera body that has a sensor that does well at high sensitivity. This usually means you need a "Full Frame" sensor camera like the Canon 5D mark II or the Nikon D700 (the larger the sensor is the better results you will get at high ISOs).
This equipment is typically very expensive, and out of most people’s reach financially. In most types of photography the equipment is less important than the vision and dedication of the photographer, but when it comes to sports and wildlife photography the right equipment makes all the difference in the world.
It does sound like you are on a limited budget. Keeping this in mind I would suggest looking at the Canon 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM, or the L series Canon - 70-200mm f/4L USM. Both of these lenses will have a much longer reach for sports photography, and if I was to pick one of them I would choose the L series lens. The advantage the Canon 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM lens has over this L series lens is that it does have image stabilization (which will allow you to boost your shutter speed without increasing your ISO as much), but I always opt for construction over convenience when it comes to my equipment. When spending the kind of money that DSLR photography equipment costs I want it to last a very long time.
I hope this helps!
Allan|Senior Social Media Specialist | Best Buy® Corporate
Private Message

Canon 800mm EF lens

I am considering purchasing the 800mm lens for long distance wildlife photography but didn't want to make the purchase if there was talk of Canon coming out with a f/2.8 in that lens. Can anyone tell me if there is a chance this lens will be updated with a newer version in the near future? I haven't done much research on the subject yet. Thanks for your help.
Amy Cato
Fort Worth, Texas
GEAR: 7D & 5D Mark III, Canon 100-400/5.6, Canon 70-200/2.8, Canon EF 100/2.8L Macro, 24-70/2.8 Tamron
Wildlife & Outdoors Nut!

What 400mm do you use? Also what camera?
A crop camera gives you more "reach" with any given focal length. In part, this is a myth (the image area is actually just cropped).... but fact is that using an APS-C camera "puts more pixels on target" with distant subjects, due to a sensor that's much more densely packed with pixel sites.
The angle of view of a 300mm lens on a crop camera is roughly equal to the angle of view of a 420mm lens on a full frame camera. However, a crop camera has more than double the number of pixel sites per square millimeter than a 21MP full frame camera. The result is a bit of "free teleconverter" effect... "extra reach" without the penalty of lost light (as with an actual teleconverter).
Full frame sensor is approx. 24x36mm image area, or about 864 square millimeters. With a 21 or 22MP camera, that makes for roughly 25,000 pixel sites per square millimeter. An APS-C crop sensor is approx. 15x22mm, or about 330mm. WIth an 18 or 20MP camera, that makes for around 54,000 or more pixel sites per square millimeter.
So, the first thing I'd recommend is to try using one of the recent 18 to 20MP crop sensor cameras, if you aren't already doing so. A full frame camera gathers more fine detail by it's very nature, but if you have to crop the heck out of the image to frame a distant subject the way you want, you are going to lose that and more. A crop camera can work better in these situations. (Note: you mention making really large prints.... And for enlargment purposes a full frame camera would be better, but only if you can get closer and "fill the viewfinder" with the subject.)
Next is the resolving power of the lens itself. The Canon 500/4 and 600/4 IS Mark II lenses are incredibly sharp. They also work very well with teleconverters. One of the advantages of using a more modest focal length with a teleconverter (Canon calls them Extenders), is that you get two focal lengths. This can be handy when you simply don't know what distance you'll be working.
For example, say you want to photography large wildlife like deer or elk and set off with an 800mm. At 100 yards, the field of view of that lens on an APS-C camera is about 5.5 x 8 feet. On a full frame camera, FOV is roughly 9 x 13 feet. So with deer, you might be able to get a "tight" shot of a smaller mule deer at 100 yards with the APS-C camera, but would need to "back up" to fully frame a larger subject like an elk or moose. With a full frame camera, you would be able to photograph the larger subjects at 100 yards, but not much closer.
By using a shorter lens with a teleconverter, you are better equipped to handle both situations.... subjects that are closer as well as those more distant. But, adding a teleconverter "costs" both light and some image quality. You have to weight these factors against each other and make a decision, which will work best for you.
Some examples...
700mm (EF 500/4 IS "Mk I" with EF 1.4X II, on 8 MP APS-C Canon 30D camera)...
Now, the 500/4 lenses are pretty big and heavy.... even the "Mark II" which Canon did a great job reducing in size and weight a bit. They are largely "tripod only" or at least "monopod" lenses. A 500/4 pretty much fills a large backpack. The tripods I use with mine are sturdy carbon fiber, lighter than most, but still about 9 or 10 lbs including head and other accessories beefy enough to safely accomodate my 500/4 and 300/2.8 lenses. The 800/5.6 IS is slightly larger than a 500/4, but not as large/heavy 400/2.8 or 600/4. These last two lenses can require more specialized support. There are backpacks designed to accomodate just the 600/4 lenses, with a camera body, a couple much smaller lenses and a tripod.
For more portability, I do a lot of handheld shooting with a 300/4 IS lens, sometimes pairing it with the same 1.4X teleconverter. This lens isn't much bigger or heavier than a 70-200/2.8 zoom.
Here are a couple shots done with the 300mm alone (no teleconverter), on a crop sensor camera (18 MP 7D)...
300/4 IS with 1.4X II Extender (on 7D crop camera)....
Of course it works well on a full frame camera, too. 300/4 IS alone (on 5D Mark II, some cropping done)....
300/4 IS plus 1.4X II Extender (on full frame 5D II)...
Shooting really long distances with very long focal lengths complicates getting a steady shot (more likely to need a sturdy tripod), plus you are shooting through a lot more atmosphere and will see effects from that. Purely experimentally, I stacked both 2X II and 1.4X II teleconverters behind my 500/4 IS and used that rig with a crop camera (6MP 10D).... all on a sturdy tripod, and roughly 500 yards from the subject...
Would have been better with a more current, higher megapixel camera. But, even so, it's equivalent to a 2240mm lens on a full frame camera, there's considerable loss of IQ to using two teleconverters, and even more loss to all the atmosphere between me and the subject. Not really practical, for a number of reasons.
I've been pretty much a "prime only" shooter when it comes to lenses longer than 200mm. However, today there are some excellent zooms that give a lot of flexibility and are worth consideration.
On a crop sensor camera, the Canon EF 100-400L IS is a lot of lens. Very handhholdable and portable, too. (When zoomed and focused so the barrel is retracted, it's not much bigger than a 70-200/2.8 zoom). Sigma has the 120-400 OS, and Tamron has just introduced an affordable 150-600mm. Neither of these are "Canon L-series", by any means.
However, since you are considering an EF 800/5.6 IS, I'm guessing you have a pretty sizeable budget for a lens. That being the case, you might want to consider the EF 200-400/4 IS 1.4X.... This is a pretty amazing zoom that Canon just recently introduced. It's not small or compact by any means, but with a built-in/matched 1.4X teleconverter, it becomes a 280-560/5.6 IS lens at the flip of a lever. That would be a very versatile zoom on a full frame camera, and quite a beast on a crop sensor camera. I'd want at least a monopod, for anything more than a quick handheld shot or two. A sturdy tripod with a gimbal mount would be even better, though it's not as big as a 500/4 IS.
I haven't used the 200-400 1.4X personally, but have seen some people making great images with it. I found an interesting comparison and fairly thorough review of the 200-400 here (I got an obnoxious pop-up banner ad... hope you don't). This is bound to be one of the most versatile lenses Canon has ever offered.
In the end, there is no substitute for simply getting closer to your subjects. Stalking skills, blinds, attractants... and a lot of patience... are necessary for wildlife photography. I worked with the coyote for four months, to be able to shoot portraits of her with a 135mm lens. The black tail mule deer, safe in a county park and somewhat acclimated to people, also allowed me to approach closely (I kept my monopod handy just in case I needed to defend myself!). The ground squirrels were shot at a busy park where they're accustomed to people and tend to ignore them. It's also a great location to photograph birds. .
No matter how long a lens you have, there will always be subjects just out of practical reach. Those are the times I just sit back and enjoy the show.
Alan Myers
San Jose, Calif., USA
"Walk softly and carry a big lens."
GEAR: 5DII, 7D(x2), 50D(x3), some other cameras, various lenses & accessories
FLICKR & PRINTROOM

Canon 2ti Help

I need some help with night time car photos:
Equipment I have: Canon T2i, 18-55mm lens, 55-250mm lens, wireless remote and tripod. I like shooting in manual mode as it is a challenge.
So my question: I am at a car show full of hot rods and I want to take photos at night of them driving by. Problem is that even when I use a tripod they still come out blurry to the point of streaking. I do not mind the streaked photo as I have 2 cool shots I did, but I would like the non-streaked blurry free photo at night. Any help on this?
Also, for still, up close car photos I am looking at getting the Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Standard AutoFocus Lens. I like the lower F/Stop and would use it instead of my 18-55mm. Is this a good idea?
Your help would be greatly appreciated.
Sincerely, Michael

A tripod will make sure there's no blur due to CAMERA movement... but wont do anything to help with SUBJECT movement. If the cars are driving by and the shutter speed is slow then its going to be blurry. But there are two things you can do about this.
1) Learn to take "panning" shots. Panning is (and you did say you like 'manual' because you enjoy the challenge) going to be another challenge.
You can imply motion in a still photo by showing effects which make it clear that the subject was in motion. A time exposure of a waterfall renders the water in a blur -- making it obvious that the water is in motion (whereas a fast shutter speed would freeze every individual water droplet). With cars (or really any object moving -- as long as it's moving in "more or less" a straight line) you can learn to follow the subject with the camera as you take the shot.
Here are two examples I took:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/thevirtualtim/6290685372/
And just in case that one wasn't obvious, here's a more obvious panning shot:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/thevirtualtim/8981989420/lightbox/
In the first image, the car isn't moving that fast, but I'm using a 1/50th second exposure and rather than holding the camera steady, the camera is "panning" to follow the car... giving a reasonably sharp image of a car (except fo the wheels) and rendering the background blurry.
In the 2nd image, the cyclist is actually moving faster than the car was -- and I'm going even a bit slower on the shutter at only 1/40th sec.
Panning takes some practice to be smooth and steady as you follow the subject. It's probably best to practice during the day... start with a fast shutter and gradually just keep slowing the shutter speed. With practice you should be able to get a "sharp" subject with a blurred background for a nice "motion" effect in your images.
2) The other method is to use flash -- provided your flash is powerful enough. The built-in pop-up flash is only good for short distances (it's not very large or powerful). If you have an external flash, this may work well for you.
The shutter speed has to be at OR below the flash sync speed (and I cannot remember if that's 1/200th or 1/250th on a T2i). But even if it's much slower (say... 1/60th) you may be surprised at how well the flash will "freeze" action. This is because MOST of the shutter exposure time is just the time it takes for the curtain shutter to completely slide "open" and also completely slide "shut". The flash can only fire AFTER the shutter has completely opened and must fire BEFORE the shutter can begin closing (otherwise any part of the sensor that was covered by the partially opened/closed shutter speed will be dark.) The actual amount of time that the flash is providing illumination is remarkably short... often significantly less than 1/1000th second (which is why a flash can "freeze" action even when the shutter speed was much much slower.
But there is one tip... many flashes support a mode called "2nd curtain sync". Here's the idea behind that:
Suppose you have a very slow exposure time -- let's say it's a full 1 second.
Normally when a flash is used, the camera begins opening the shutter and, after IMMEDIATELY after the shutter has completely opened, the flash will fire. Meanwhile the camera is counting off the 1 second exposure time. When the exposure is complete, THEN the shutter beings to close. That's the default. It's also known as "first curtain sync".
There is an option to use "second curtain sync". In that mode, the shutter opens while starting the clock running on the 1 second exposure time. When the curtain shutter has completely opened, the flash... does NOT actually fire. Instead it keeps waiting... and in that last moment just BEFORE the shutter is about to close... THEN the flash fires.
This has two very different effects on any blur caused by objects moving in the frame.
Suppose I take a photo of a car rolling slowly from left to right in a dim (but not completely black) location. If my flash fires with 1st curtain sync, I'll get the full effect of flash on the car (creating a very vivid car) and then the flash goes dark but the shutter stays open as the car continues to roll forward. So this "ghosting" or streaking of the car continues to expose on my sensor/film because there was some dim light.
You will end up with a car... and a streak of the blurred car which is oddly IN FRONT of the car (and not behind it.)
BUT... if you use 2nd curtain sync... the dim streak exposes first (as the car is rolling) and THEN the flash fires and the shutter closes. This causes the "ghosting" or streaking of the car to be BEHIND the well-illuiminated (when the flash fired) image of the car. This makes it look like the car was in motion and looks a bit more like what you'd expect. But you have to use 2nd curtain sync (which is NOT the default mode) to get this.
Tim Campbell
5D II, 5D III, 60Da

My EF-s 18-200 IS lens died. Frankly it was the worst lens Canon ever made, horrible vignetting.

I want to get a different lens instead for my Rebel xti, or maybe two. I'm an amateur but want good quality photos, mostly landscapes but also close-ups, so I like a versatile lens. I was thinking of going to the L series but considering the cost, is that overkill for both the intended purpose and the adequate-but-not-extraordinay Rebel body? Would appreciate any guidance.

Hi, Jim0
You have seen the optical compromises needed to make a "does everything" lens, and you didn't like it. Rather than grab another one try getting two more specialized ones.
You want to do landscapes, so you want something wide. Wide on a crop needs to be wider than wide on full frame.
A Canon or Sigma 10-20 or 10-22 would be good for the wide landscapes.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/buy/Cameras/N/0/Ntt/CA102235EF
For just a bit more you could have the incredibly wide aperture (for a zoom) new Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 lens. No one has ever made a zoom with anything even close to an aperture this bright. .
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-18-35mm-f-1.8-DC-HSM-Lens.aspx
For the long end, I'd consider going with a 70-200 L lens. They are all good, and they range in price from just $700 for the very sharp f/4 non-IS version to $2300 for the f/2.8 and IS version.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-4.0-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
The old advice of buying new glass instead of new bodies is good advice.
Good luck!
Scott
Canon 6D, Canon T3i, EF 70-200mm L f/2.8 IS mk2; EF 24-105 f/4 L; EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS; EF 85mm f/1.8; Sigma 35mm f/1.4 "Art"; EF 1.4x extender mk. 3; 3x Phottix Mitros+ speedlites
Why do so many people say "fer-tographer"? Do they take "fertographs"?

Lenses not listed in the Lens Optimizer in Digital Photo Professional

As the topic title states my lenses are not listed in the Digital Lens Optimizer. I've placed the CD in the tray, and yet the program says it's connecting to the server, and when done, they are not found in the list. The lenses are:
EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS II
EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS II
Why are they not listed? How do I get them?
DPP version 3.13.0.1
EOS 70D / EOS Rebel t4i / EF-S 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 IS II / EF-S 55-250mm f4-5.6 IS II / Sigma 17-50 f2.8/ Canon EF-S 60mm f2.8 macro/ Canon EF 100mm f2.8 macro/ Tamron 70-300mm / 430EX II Speedlite / Canon FS 300
Canon Pixma MG 3100 / Canon LiDE 2100
Adobe Lightroom 4, Canon DPP, Corel Paintshop Pro X4

Of the lenses I have, the following are not supported by DPP 4 (However, they are supported "in camera" with EOS Utility 3)
Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II USM
Canon EF 20-35mm f/3.5-4.5 USM
Canon EF 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM
Canon EF 28-90mm f/4-5.6 USM
Canon EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM
Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM
Canon EF 75-300mm f4.5-5.6 USM
I don't care if they are "old" lenses or not. Why have the correction profiles for "in camera" correction (when saving/converting to JPG) and not in DPP 4? They have the data, they could just port it over from the database used in EOS Utility 3.
These lens correction profiles bring new life to some of the old "film" lenses like the Canon EF 20-35mm f/3.5-4.5 USM lens. That lens has lots of distortion. However with in camera correction, it now produces good pictures.
I am not a professional photographer. I am a photography enthuisasts. I'll NEVER spend $1,000.00 or more for an "L" series lens (in fact I sold the Canon 24-105 f/4 L "kit lens that came with my EOS 5D. It was way too heavy, and the zoom on the low end was cramped (only 4mm movement between 24mm and 28mm). I like/use my Canon EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM and Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM better.
Maybe my mistake is that I am using a program call Digital Photo Professional and I am not a professional. I noticed that that software leans heavily and supports the "L" series lenses.

Macro possibilities?

Thanks for reading this.
I really like taking photos of things like insects and little lizards. I found a really cool praying mantis yesterday in the garden and took a few shots of it. I used my 70-200 with the 1.4 tc which was pretty good, but obviously I couldn't get very close 'cause of focus depth limitations. I am considering getting the canon extension tubes: EF 12 II and EF 25 II. Is this a good way to go? Are these something that you'd use as well as a tc on a 70-200? Or is that the wrong kind of lens for this kind of work? I've also had an initial investigation of circular macro flash rings. But I'm assuming they wouldn't work with my 70-200 cause of the large diameter of the front element. There seems to be so many options for macro set ups. What kind if setup should I be aiming for to do fairly decent macro shots? I've been a big fan of Igor Siwanowicz' work for a very long time.
Cheers,
Cg.
Canon 6D,Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM, Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG OS HSM, Sigma 1.4 x EX DG Teleconverter, Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 macro USM, Canon EF 50mm f/1.8, EF 40mm f/2.8 pancake, Sigma AF 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 DC HSM, Pentax 400mm f/5.6
Solved!
Go to Solution.

Hi,
As ebiggs says, there are many ways to achieve macro shots.
Personally I use a number of extension tubes (a Kenko set of three - 36, 20 & 12mm - plus one Canon 25mm and two Canon 12mm). These are always handy to have and I wouldn't be without a few in my camera bag, all the time. They are inexpensive and can allow you to get that macro or close-up shot when you don't happen to have a macro lens with you, or can be used to increase the magnification capabilities of a true macro lens beyond it's 1:1 (typically) potential, or just used to get closer minimum focus distance with a telephoto.
For example, this was shot with EF 70-200/2.8 IS, Canon 25mm extension tube, and 550EX flash (fill)...
I was out shooting birds and didn't have a macro lens with me.
For the below image, to frame the tiny bush *i* (replace the astericks with "t"... the cyber censors won't allow me to use this bird's actual name) as tightly as I wanted, I needed to add a 36mm extension tube to an EF 500/4 IS lens, to enable that lens to focus closer...
While they aren't necessarily designed for macro or near macro work, teleconverters (Canon calls them Extenders) change the effective focal length of a lens, but leave it's closest focus distance uneffected.... so will increase potential for magnification. In order to get the below shot of a tiny fence lizard, I had to use both - Canon EF 1.4X II and a 25mm extension tube - on 300/2.8 IS lens...
The longer the focal length of your lens, the less effect any particular amount of extension will give. A 25mm extension tube only slightly changes the magnification and closest focusing distance of a 300mm lens.... But the same amount of extension on a 50mm lens would have dramatic effect. Following image was shot with 12mm extension on EF 50/1.4 lens...
Even more extreme, the following was shot with 12mm extension on an EF 20/2.8 lens (I wanted extra depth of field to retain more background detail)....
When shooting the above, the flower petals were actually touching the front element of the lens! Can't get much closer than that!
All the above macro or near macro shots were done using "non-macro" lenses that were made to focus closer than normally possible, using extension tubes. Those can work well, but there are some advantages to true macro lenses, too. Personally I use four in my Canon kit: Tamron SP AF 60mm f2.0, Canon MP-E 65mm f2.8, Canon 100/2.8 USM (not the L/IS), and Canon 180/3.5L. I also use a Canon TS-E 45/2.8 for close-up work, and occasionally a vintage, adapted Tamron SP 90/2.5 1:2 macro lens.
When you force non-macro lenses to focus closer than intended, there can be side-effects. For example, the shot of the rose bud above has fairly strong vignetting and softer edges. This is characterisic of the EF 50/1.4 lens when it's made to focus very close and a larger aperture is used.... It's not necessarily a bad thing. I used the lens with extension deliberately for that shot, because I wanted both the vignetting and softening effects.
One thing you don't need to worry about with "true" macro lenses is image quality. In general, they are all very capable of making great images. It's more down to the other features of macro lenses that set them apart from each other.
Focal length is probably the main consideration. Too short a macro lens can put you awfully close to your subjects, which might scare living critters away, or cause you to cast an unwanted shadow on the subject, or even get you bit or stung! . A longer focal length gives you more working space, but too long a lens is difficult to get a steady shot and renders extremely very shallow depth of field.
If I could only have one, I'd choose my Canon EF 100/2.8 USM macro lens. It's the best all around for my purposes, on both crop cameras (like yours, though I use 7Ds) and full frame (5D MkII). 90 to 105mm gives reasonable working distance, yet is pretty easily handheld for quick shots. DOF is still shallow, but pretty manageable without having to resort to ridiculously small apertures where lighting is a problem and optical diffraction robs fine detal from images.
Here's an example shot with my 180/3.5L, that demonstrates how razor thin depth of field can get with such a long focal length....
Even though that's a fairly large bee, the plane of sharp focus is only a few mm deep. This was shot near 1:1 on full frame (with a film camera, actually). The lens and camera were resting on the ground to help keep them steady. Something closer to 100mm is much more easily handheld, not too big and renders a little more depth of field.
There are other features of the Canon EF 100/2.8 USM that make it a great macro lens, IMO.
It's "internal focusing" (IF), which means it doesn't grow in length when you focus it closer, so doesn't cut into your working distance (note: the 100L, Tamron 60/2 and 180/3.5L also are IF lenses). There's no such thing as a free lunch, though, with optics. In order for the 100/2.8 to be IF, it starts out larger than some other lenses of similar focal length. And, the focal length actually changes a bit as it's focused closer. I have heard that at max 1:1 magnification it's closer to 70mm lens.... but this isn't particularly noticeable in the field working with the lens.
100/2.8 USM macro lens on crop sensor camera, with 550EX flash, handheld...
The 100/2.8 version I use has got USM focus drive, which gives it reasonably quick auto focusing for a macro lens. Macro lenses tend to be slower focusing for a couple reasons. One is that they have to move their focusing elements a long, long way to go all the way from infinity to 1:1 magnification. Another is that most emphazise precision over speed, so use what's called a "long throw" focus mechanism. In the old days of manual focus, you would have to turn the focusing ring a lot farther with a long throw lens. Short throw lenses were built for speed and might be used for sports photography. The 100mm's USM drive (which the EF-S 60/2.8, 100L and 180/3.5L also have) makes it more of a dual purpose lens, more usable for non-macro purposes. In spite of having USM, the 180/3.5L is noticeably slower focusing and not as useful for non-macro work.
I make the distinction between macro and non-macro focusing because often macro shooting is more easily focused manually. I use AF sometimes, but just as often or more often use manual focusing of one method or another. But if you want to use the lens as a non-macro, moderate telephoto too, it can be nice if it's reasonably fast focusing. Another benefit of USM is that you don't have to turn off AF before overriding it manually. (Note: there was an earlier version of EF 100/2.8, discontinued years ago, that doesn't have USM).
To me, one of the most important features of the Canon 100mm macro lenses is that they can optionally be fitted with a tripod mounting ring. The 100/2.8 USM uses Tripod Ring B (b) and the 100L uses Tripod Ring D. I'm not aware of any other macro lenses shorter than 150mm that an be fitted with a tripod ring, and to me that's a very important feature. A lot of macro photography is done from a tripod or monopod. Which is one reason I don't really feel the need to upgrade to the newer, IS version... plus it costs a lot more. Besides, stabilization is of limited effectiveness when shooting macro.... though it might be very nice when using the lens for non-macro purposes (except that I have several other lenses, so don't rely on the macro for dual purpose that much). The 180/3.5L and most other 150mm and longer macro lenses come with a tripod ring.
Speaking of stabilization, the Canon 100L uses a hybrid form developed especially for macro, which by all accounts is one of the most effective. Even so, at 1:1 mag it might only be good for one or two stops of assistance. For non-macro shots, the IS might give three or four stops assistance.
I got the Tamron SP 60/2.0 recently because it's quite small and light, easy to pack in my camera bag when I don't know if I'll be taking any macro shots or not, have other gear to haul around. The same is true of the Canon EF-S 60/2.8 USM, it's equally compact. I opted for the Tamron for it's f2 aperture, mostly in order to use the lens for portraiture, as well. Both the Canon and the Tamron 60mm lenses are "crop only" (all the other macros mentioned are FF capable). I don't have images uploaded online from it yet, but have found quality to be quite good. It is a little slow focusing.... no problem for macro or portraits, but not a lens I'd use for sports and action shooting. I imagine the Canon with its USM is faster focusing.
I used to use the vintage (25-30 year old) Tamron 90mm as my "compact" macro (shown on one of my 7Ds, above).... and it served well for that purpose but was less useful for portraiture. Still, for a lens that cost me all of $60 US. That was $20 for the lens - like new with hood, 1:1 adapter, caps and a Nikon Adaptall mount - plus $40 for an Adaptall-EOS mount from China. It's slower to work with. Manual focus, as well as manual aperture control, but does a pretty good job (here with 36mm extension tube to increase magnification)...
The other lenses I mentioned using are more specialized. The Canon MP-E 65mm macro is an ultra-high magnification, manual focus lens. The least magnification it can give is 1:1, where most other macro lenses are at their maximum (unless you add extension tubes to them). It goes up to 5:1 or 5X life size, so essentially can fill the frame on one of my 7Ds with a grain of rice. Below image made with the MP-E 65mm is of a tiny, newly hatched snail that was smaller than the nail on my pinky finger, at about 2X magnification...
I gotta say, I wouldn't recommend the MP-E 65mm as a first macro lens. It's mostly going to be a tripod-only lens. Depth of field is incredibly shallow. Due to the extension of the lens, it's smallest f16 aperture becomes something like an effective f96 at the highest magnification. I'm going to have to work on focusing stacking techniques with this lens (and will need something a lot slower moving than a snail, to shoot those!).
I use the TS-E 45mm "Tilt Shift" lens primarily for small product close-ups.... Tabletop studio shoots, such as this which was one of hundreds done for a client's website...
Magnification with the 45mm alone is not really macro territory, but it allows unique control over the plane of focus with the tilt movements, as well as means of dodging reflections with the shift movements. It's manual focus lens, too. For higher magnfication work, the TS-E 90mm might be a better choice, and either lenses' magnification can be increased using extension tubes.
As to flash, there are choices with those, too. There are specialized macro flashes, or ways to use standard flashes for macro shots.
I used a Canon MR-14EX Ringlite for the snail shot, above. I mostly only use a ring light with really high magnificatioin shots.... at lower mags the light just seems to flat and "clinical" for me. As far as I know, the MR-14EX is pretty much dedicated to Canon lenses, since it clips directly onto the lens, latching in a groove only found on the Canon lenses.
MR-14EX on MP-E 65mm lens, on 7D...
More often, especially for 1:1 and lower magnification shots, I either use Canon MT-24EX Twin Lite or a single, standard flash with some minor modifications. The Twin Lite is great, but a rather large kit and not widely useful for non macro purposes. It also is designed to clip onto the front of Canon lenses, but is more flexible in that it can be used with a more generic dual flash bracket, too.
LH image: MT-24EX normally mounted. Center: Lepp/Stroboframe dual flash bracket. RH image: MT-24EX on Lepp bracket.
But you don't have to use a dedicated macro flash either. Often I'll simply use a single, standard flash, on an off-camera shoe cord so that I can hold it off to the side of and/or above the subject...
Note that I've put a couple layers of white qauze bandage over the flash head, held in place with a rubber band. This reduces and diffuses the flash output so that it can be used close to a small subject. A single flash works surprisingly well, because relative to a small subject it's like a giant softbox in the sky. This mantis was shot using something similar to the above setup (and EF 100/2.8 USM macro lens)...
Have fun shopping!
Macro is a lot of fun... and a lot easier today than it was back in the good/bad old days of film! One of my old rigs...
Alan Myers
San Jose, Calif., USA
"Walk softly and carry a big lens."
GEAR: 5DII, 7D(x2), 50D(x3), some other cameras, various lenses & accessories
FLICKR & PRINTROOM

Best reasonably priced macro lens for a 70d

Hi i have got a canon 70d and have just started doing alot of macro photography (Flowers bugs etc) i've been using the the 18-135mm kit lens but now i know im enjoying it im going to get a mocro lens. Cant afford nothing to major as saving for wedding and house. Was just looking for some advice on reasonably priced macro lenses. Any Advice welcome..
Thanks in advance
Darren

amfoto1 wrote:
Actually, it's hard to go wrong with macro lenses... Most give excellent image quality, so it tends to be the other features that are deciding factors. I have no idea what you consider "reasonably priced".... To one person that might be no more than $100, while to another it might be anything under $1000.
Canon EF 50/2.5 Compact Macro is currently about $270... As an EF lens, this can be used on both your crop camera and on full frame cameras. But this is a micro motor focus drive lens (slower, hunts more), and on it's own it only goes to 1:2 or one half life size magnification. To get full 1:1 magnification with it, there's a separately sold converter that costs another $270. You also could use macro exension tubes - that sell for between $70 and $200 for a set - to increase the lens' magnification. All the other macro lenses listed here are able to do 1:1 without need for any adapter. 50mm is fairly short focal length, putting you relatively close to your subject. This lens' closest focus is about 4 inches (with 1:1 adapter... compare to 12 inches with a 100mm lens). Personally I use shorter macro focal lengths mostly in-studio where they can work well.... but prefer a longer focal length in the field. Uses 52mm filters. No lens hood offered or supplied, it doesn't really need one because the front element is deeply recessed into the lens.
SIgma 50/2.8 Macro lens sells for about $350. I don't know much about this lens, it's been around for a while. I know it's 1:1 capable, both crop and full frame capable and has a micro motor focus drive. Comes with a lens hood. Uses 55mm filters.
Canon EF-S 60/2.8 USM Macro is on sale at the moment for $420. It's an EF-S lens, which will work fine on your 70D, but is not usable on a full frame camera. USM focusing drive is a bit faster, quieter and more precise (see below about focus speed). It's full 1:1 capable, a little longer focal length than 50mm, but not a lot. It's relatively compact and it is "internal focusing" or IF, which means it doesn't change length when focused. It uses 58mm filters and the matched lens hood sells separately for $24 (third party hoods are available for less).
Tamron SP 60/2.0 "Di II" Macro/Portrait lens is selling for about $525 and, like the Canon 60mm Macro, is a "crop only" lens. Fine for your 70D, but not usable on full frame cameras. It's also IF, but using a micro motor type focus drive. I've been working with one of these lately, giving it a try. I find it's focus slower than Canon USM, but generally plenty fast for most macro/portrait usage. The main attraction of this lens is its f2.0 aperture... fully a stop larger than most other macro lenses (Zeiss makes a couple f2.0 macro lenses, but they are manual focus only and quite expensive). This is nice particularly when using the lens for portraiture. It uses 55mm filters and comes with a lens hood.
Canon MP-E 65mm is not a lens I'd recommend to anyone just starting out shooting macro. This is an ultra high magnification lens... actually can do no less than 1:1 and goes as high as 5:1. That's a range well beyond what many people shoot. It's also about $1000 and stricly manual focus. It's a superb lens, usable on both crop sensor and full frame cameras, and one I use personally. But it's still not something I'd recommend to anyone just starting to shoot macro. It's rather challenging to work with, pretty much a "tripod only" lens. Comes with a tripod mounting ring, uses 58mm filters and an odd little lens hood sells separately for around $40.
Sigma 70mm f2.8 EX DG macro lens.... is another I don't know a whole lot about. Like their 50/2.8 macro, it's been around a long time and uses a micro motor type focus drive. It is the first lens in this list that has a Focus Limiter (2 ranges), which is a feature that can be helpful speeding up auto focusing. It sells for about $470, uses 62mm filters and comes with a matched lens hood.
Tamron SP 90mm f2.8 Di is another excellent design that's been around a long, long time. I've still got and use manual focus versions of this lens dating back to the 1980s. The currently available micro motor version sells for $500 and, as a Di lens is usable on both crop and full frame cameras. It's got a focus limiter (2 ranges), uses 55mm filters and includes a matching lens hood. It is not an IF lens.
Tamron SP 90mm f2.8 Di VC USD is an updated version of their venerable 90mm, now with both an improved AF system (USD is similar to Canon's USM) and image stabilization (Tamron calls it VC). It is said to be better sealed against dust and moisture, and also uses an aperture with 9 curved blades to make for smoother background blurs. This lens is Internal Focusing (IF), has a Focus Limiter (4 ranges!), was introduced within the last year or so selling for about $750, uses 58mm filters and comes with a matched lens hood.
Canon EF 100/2.8 USM is another excellent lens I use personally. This is the older version of this lens without IS (and not L-series, but you would be hard pressed to tell any difference in build quality, comparing it to some L-series such as the 180/3.5L macro). A key feature here is that it can optionally be fitted with a tripod mounting ring.... something that's not possible with most of the other lenses mentioned here. For macro work, I consider a tripod mount a very important feature, though some of the smaller lenses might be fairly usable on a tripod without one. This lens has USM focus drive, is IF, has a Focus Limiter (2 range), sells for about $550 presently, and uses 58mm filters. A matched lens hood is quite large and sells separately for about $40. Tripod Ring B to fit it sells for about $140 (there are cheaper third party hoods and tripod rings).
Canon EF 100/2.8 L IS USM is a newer model that primarily is upgraded with the addition of Image Stabilization (IS). Now designated an L, it includes a matched lens hood. Like the older model, a tripod ring can be optionally fitted. It has an improved Focus Limiter (increased to 3 ranges). It uses 62mm filters and is currently on sale for $900. Tripod Ring D sells for $172 (cheaper 3rd party ring is avail.).
Tokina 100/2.8 ATX is both crop and full frame compatible and sells for about $400. I haven't used it, but it's another venerable design that's been around for a lot of years. It has a Focus Limiter (2 range), uses 55mm filters and comes with a matched lens hood. I don't believe it's IF.
Sigma 105/2.8 OS HSM is currently on sale, heavily discounted, for about $670. I suspect Sigma is about to introduce a new version and that's why they are blowing out the current model with a large instant rebate. It is both crop sensor and full frame camera compatible. The current version has OS, which is Sigma's version of image stabilization, as well as HSM which is similar to Canon's USM focusing drive. This lens has a Focus Limiter (3 ranges), uses a 9 blade aperture, 62mm filters and comes with a matched hood. It cannot be fitted with a tripod ring.
Canon, Sigma and Tamron all offer longer macro focal lengths... 150mm and 180mm. In general I'd say those are pretty long to use on a crop sensor camera such as your 70D or my 7Ds. They all come with tripod rings, which is good because longer macro lenses can be difficult to keep steady. But they all are also considerably more expensive, so I won't go into the details about them.
Regarding auto focus speed... All macro lenses with AF are slower focusing for a couple reasons. One is that they have to move their focusing mechanisms a long, long way to go all the way from infinity to 1:1 magnification. Another is by design, they use "long throw" focus mechanisms that emphasize accuracy over speed, which is necessary because depth of field can be quite shallow at high magnifications. So, in general, don't expect a macro lens to offer the same AF speed as a non-macro lens with similar focus drive mechanism. What can help a lot are the type of focus drive and if the lens offers a Focus Limiter. Canon's USM, Sigma's HSM and Tamron's USD all will give faster focusing than micro motor drive systems on other lenses. Properly used, a Focus Limiter can really speed up focusing performance, too.
When shooting macro, auto focus speed usually isn't all that critical. In fact, I often just focus manually. Accuracy often is more important, due to the shallow depth of field. So AF perfomance might be a bigger consideration if planning to also use the lens a lot for non-macro purposes.
Image Stabilization (Canon OS, Sigma OS and Tamron VC) is offered on a few premium models. Canon's is a special hybrid version developed just for macro purposes, which most feel is a bit more effective than other forms of stabilization. Nikon actually was the first to put stabilization (they call it VR) on a macro lens, but most agree that while it's useful for non-macro shooting, it is of little practical assistance at 1:1 magnification. The Canon hybrid IS is considered to be a bit better at higher magnifications, but even it will be of limited effectiveness at 1:1. In other words, there may be times when you want to use a tripod or at least a monopod. And in those cases, particularly on some of the larger lenses, a tripod mounting ring can be a very nice thing to have (among all the above, only the Canon 100mm macro lenses can be fitted with a t'pod ring).
There are other options to "do macro", too. For example, you could simply get some Macro Extension Tubes to use with your current lens, to make it focus closer. Canon offers quality individual tubes in 25mm and 12mm lengths ($84 and $140 respectively). Kenko does too, but also offers a set of three that includes 12mm, 20mm and 36mm lengths (set sells for $200). The Kenko are very close to the Canon in design, quality and performance.
There are also less expensive sets (under $100) from Zeikos and Opteka. The Zeikos set includes 13mm, 21mm and 31mm and sell under a bunch of different brand names (Vivitar, Bower, Dot Line, ProOptic and many more). The Opteka set was just recently introduced and includes 12mm, 20mm and 36mm. All these sets are more plasticky than the Canon and Kenko tubes, but they do support autofocus and direct control of the aperture.
AFAIK, all the currently sold macro extension tubes for Canon mount are compatible with both EF and EF-S lenses. (If you were shopping used you'd have to be careful because some of the older tubes were EF only and could not be used with your EF-S 18-135mm lens).
Canon's TS-E 45mm and TS-E 90mm lenses also are usable for near-macro and, with extension tubes added, macro shooting. These are Tilt-Shift lenses that give additional control over the plane of focus which can be used to good effect with macro and shallow depth of field. I use a TS-E 45mm a lot for table top studio shots of small products. However, these are manual focus only, largely tripod-only and rather pricey lenses, so I just wanted to mention them here. They are probably not something I'd recommend for a first time macro shooter or general purpose, outdoor, walk-around macro work.
Personally, my two most-used macro lenses are a Canon EF 100/2.8 USM (the older model) and a Tamron SP 60/2.0. When I'm planning to shoot a lot of outdoor, walk-around macro shooting, the Canon lens is my first choice. However, it's rather large so when I'm not planning macro, but want to have a macro lens just in case, I'll substitute it with the much more compact Tamron lens. (Which also can replace two portrait lenses in my camera bag, so reduces my load by one lens serving in place of three.)
Another key consideration is flash. Often when shooting macro it's a challenge to get enough light to allow a stopped down lens, desirable ISO and adequately fast shutter speed. So you probably will find yourself wanting to use flash sooner or later. Canon offers two macro-specific flashes: the MR14 EX Ring Lite and the MT24EX Twin Lite. I use both for different purposes. I prefer the Twin Lite for macro shots up to about 1:1, maybe 2:1 (double life size) magnification. The Ring Lite I mostly use for very high magnification shots with the MP-E 65mm lens.
All the Canon lenses above have provision for, or can be adapted to allow for direct mounting of the two Canon macro flashes (Note: I believe there is a new "Mark II" version of the Ring Lite coming out soon). There also are adapters available to mount these flashes on non-macro Canon or onto third party lenses. It also is possible to use a single "standard" flash, along with an off-camera shoe cord and some sort of diffusion to hold back the flash, when shooting macro. I do that often with 550EX and 580EX II flashes.
There are other macro-specific accessories you may want to consider eventually. Often I'll use a diffusion panel and/or a reflector when out in full sun, to reduce too extreme contrast and help fill too-deep shadows. A focusing stage is another useful thing, when shooting macro with a tripod.
Finally, I recommend you pick up some books on macro photography. John Shaw's "Close-Ups in Nature" is perhaps the "Bible" among them and likely the most comprehensive. I also found books about macro by Tim Fitzharris and Joe & Mary MacDonald very helpful and interesting. I'm sure there are others, but those came immediately to mind.
Alan Myers
San Jose, Calif., USA
"Walk softly and carry a big lens."
GEAR: 5DII, 7D(x2), 50D(x3), some other cameras, various lenses & accessories
FLICKR & PRINTROOM
Almost 2,400 words to answer a macro lens post? Alan, nobody can believe you can write so much (except TCampbell, ha ha) but you risk nobody wanting to read. See the link that follows for the sort of difficulty readers have with this sort of post, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Too_long;_didn't_read

Canon EF 28-90mm f/4-5.6 lll lens

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for