DSLR Camera Advice Pleeeease

[YorkieBen]

the sigma 70-300mm has a macro level of 1:2 rather than true macro level of 1:1, however it is better than nothing - how much were they asking/what mount is it?

[Saracen]

...... I thought the 70-300mm lens was a telephoto one ?? so how come in the descriptions it says "macro" ? Am I being a real dumb dumb ?
Heres the link by the way Enjoy! Digital SLR camera

The 70-300 is a telephoto (or rather, a zoom), but some telephotos have a 'macro' capability as well.

There's no official definition (that I'm aware of) of what a "macro" lens actually is, and where it starts and stops. But a commonly held definition is one capable of at least 1:1 reproduction. What I mean by that is that if you are photographing something of a specific size, say 0.5", it'll be at least that size on the film, or digital sensor.

So what most photographers mean by a true "macro" lens is one that meets that requirement, and if there's a generic zoom lens like that Sigma that will actually do that, I'm not aware of it.

Anything that falls short of that definition but still gives a close-up shotr of something is often referred to as a "close up" lens.

And here's the thing .... a lot of lens manufacturers have a close-up facility of maybe 1:3 or even 1:4 (where the image on the film or sensor will be a third or a quarter of the size of the actual object) and they call it a "macro". Really, it's just marketing hype when they do that, because all they're really saying is that that zoom lens will focus close enough to give a "close up" sized image. They don't specify how good it will be though.

But also bear in mind you don't necessarily need a macro lens for either close-up or macro shots. There are other ways of doing it, which may not be as convenient, but nonetheless can be very effective and a lot cheaper too ..... such as reversing rings, extension tubes ad bellows. A lot will depend on just how fussy you want to be.

Another thing to bear in mind is that not all lenses of a given focal length are as good as each other. That's true of that 70-300mm lens, and it's true of macro lenses. You could buy a vehicle with a 6 litre engine, and it could be a truck, a 4x4 or an Aston Martin. Much the same is true of lenses too. The results you'll get from a good quality proper macro lens will be far better than you'll get from a macro capability on a generic lens .... but you'll pay for it.


I'm sorry if that muddies the water a bit, but the best time to do the learning is now, before you spend the money.

[brammers]

There's no official definition (that I'm aware of) of what a "macro" lens actually is, and where it starts and stops.

There kind of is actually. Originally the term used to mean that the lens produced a very flat image with no degredation due to field curvature, therefore making it suitable for close-up applications. Because producing an extremely flat image isn't much use if it doesn't close-focus too, the term kind of got tagged to close focusing lenses. One of the finest macros around, the Zeiss 100 f2, only does 1:2 reproduction.

2 things to worry about in a macro imo, with the most important not reproduction size, but working distance. Working distance is how close you have to position the end of your lens from the object you're shooting to get the macro reproduction. A shocking example of a macro lens imo is the Sigma 17-70. It does indeed give quite decent reproduction... ...if you jam the object you're shooting against the front element. Although I've not done any tests at macro distances I can't imagine the sharpness so close to the lens is anything to write home about - see the field curvature issue up above.

The Siggy 70-300 is a fairly decent budget macro lens because it not only does 1:2 macro, but it does it at a very useful working distance - around 1m IIRC. That means that rather than squashing the butterfly on your front element to get a macro shot, you can stalk it from a distance. You're going to need some method of camera support - a tripod or monopod - if you want to make the most out of its IQ, but for 100quid with an ok 70-300 lens thrown in as well it's probably worth the money. Also look out for the Tamron 70-300 which does the same trick but is said to be a touch better in terms of build and IQ.

[joeted]

Thanks alot everyone for not agreeing that Im a dumb dumb lol.Sorry for the delay in replying also, Ive had a few things to sort out lately but Im back now and looking for the new lens to get me properly started .
Thanks so much for all the advice,Im just looking for the new lens now.I'll give the tamron a look Brammers cheers.Is there a cheapish 400mm lens ?

[Whiternoise]

I guess it depends what you define as "cheapish". Short answer is no, i'm afraid. There is, however, a vast difference in the prices! You could get a Sigma 135-400 for around £350-400, conversely a top of the range Canon or Nikon lens will set you back over a grand (the f/2.8 Nikon will set you back several!).

However, you should really consider what you're going to be using it for. If you're shooting serious nature stuff at long distance, or things like airshows then you'll probably get some use out of it - but, 300mm is more than enough for most people. The shots taken in my recent thread were all with a 55-200mm and that was plenty of reach for me (perhaps 300 will be a nice upgrade next year, but!).

Sorry if this is a stupid question, but what camera did you end up buying (i read through a couple of times but i couldn't find anything)?

[joeted]

I guess it depends what you define as "cheapish". Short answer is no, i'm afraid. There is, however, a vast difference in the prices! You could get a Sigma 135-400 for around £350-400, conversely a top of the range Canon or Nikon lens will set you back over a grand (the f/2.8 Nikon will set you back several!).

However, you should really consider what you're going to be using it for. If you're shooting serious nature stuff at long distance, or things like airshows then you'll probably get some use out of it - but, 300mm is more than enough for most people. The shots taken in my recent thread were all with a 55-200mm and that was plenty of reach for me (perhaps 300 will be a nice upgrade next year, but!).

Sorry if this is a stupid question, but what camera did you end up buying (i read through a couple of times but i couldn't find anything)?

Ok thanks mate I'll stick with the 300mm then.i'll order it tonight,what 1 do you recommend ? Brammers said the tamron so i'll look at that and the sigma seems to be popular.
I ended up with the Nikon D60 in the end.

[Whiternoise]

Ah ok, i suggest checking out Brammers' recommendation - i personally only have the 55-200mm VR because it was a lot cheaper than getting a 70-300mm VR (made by nikon rather than sigma) and i figured i could cope without the extra 100.

Now, sadly you're in the same boat as me - if you're getting a telephoto you should only be considering lenses with AF-S or HSM, or whatever the equivalent is for different manufacturers. It can be a pain manually focussing using the nifty fifty at the best of times, but with a telephoto it's bordering on impossible unless you're shooting static things (so wildlife is a no no). So, as you can't autofocus with a lens that doesn't have a built in motor, you're faced with these:

http://www.bristolcameras.co.uk/p-si...o-dg-macro.htm That would be the Siggy brammers meant i think - definitely get the APO version if you can afford it. And wherever you get it from get the HSM version!

http://www.bristolcameras.co.uk/p-ta...i-ld-macro.htm And that would be the Tamron.

Sticking with Nikon and you're looking at a lot more expensive: http://www.bristolcameras.co.uk/p-ni...00-vr-lens.htm

[joeted]

Ah ok, i suggest checking out Brammers' recommendation - i personally only have the 55-200mm VR because it was a lot cheaper than getting a 70-300mm VR (made by nikon rather than sigma) and i figured i could cope without the extra 100.

Now, sadly you're in the same boat as me - if you're getting a telephoto you should only be considering lenses with AF-S or HSM, or whatever the equivalent is for different manufacturers. It can be a pain manually focussing using the nifty fifty at the best of times, but with a telephoto it's bordering on impossible unless you're shooting static things (so wildlife is a no no). So, as you can't autofocus with a lens that doesn't have a built in motor, you're faced with these:

http://www.bristolcameras.co.uk/p-si...o-dg-macro.htm That would be the Siggy brammers meant i think - definitely get the APO version if you can afford it. And wherever you get it from get the HSM version!

http://www.bristolcameras.co.uk/p-ta...i-ld-macro.htm And that would be the Tamron.

Sticking with Nikon and you're looking at a lot more expensive: http://www.bristolcameras.co.uk/p-ni...00-vr-lens.htm

Thanks alot buddy,im looking now and it seems quite hard to find a Sigma 70-300mm APO lens that also has HSM,do you also find that ? it seems that mostly you can only find 1 or the other.
I have found a few but not loads.

[Bobster]

Thanks alot buddy,im looking now and it seems quite hard to find a Sigma 70-300mm APO lens that also has HSM,do you also find that ? it seems that mostly you can only find 1 or the other.
I have found a few but not loads.

you're looking at the 120-300mm 2.8 Sigma for the HSM

[Whiternoise]

Actually "Only Nikon fit version has HSM focusing." from the 70-300 page, surely that's ok (and it's the APO version too)? In the dropdown box where you have to pick what mount, it lists Nikon HSM anyway..

If in doubt, the link i sent you should be fine as somewhere that sells it!

[joeted]

Actually "Only Nikon fit version has HSM focusing." from the 70-300 page, surely that's ok (and it's the APO version too)? In the dropdown box where you have to pick what mount, it lists Nikon HSM anyway..

If in doubt, the link i sent you should be fine as somewhere that sells it!

Yeah mate your link was perfect thanks but I was just trawling every camera website that exists to find a cheaper one but your link is the cheapest by the looks of things.

[brammers]

No budget 70-300s have HSM. They will have a budget form of motor instead called a micro-motor. Occasionally Sigma might brand it HSM just to avoid confusion, but don't be disappointed when you only get a micro-motor. Where Bristol cameras say: 'Only Nikon fit version has HSM focusing' they're 100% wrong - it has micro-motor focusing instead.

Both the Sigma & Tamron 70-300s existed before the D40/D60 and that means there's 2 versions around - one with a screwdrive focusing system and one with a micro-motor. You need the micro-motor one - sometimes it's just labelled 'for Nikon D60'. Both of the links you posted earlier say 'for Nikon D60' so both should be fine. For the 50 quid saving more than anything else I'd take the Tamron!

[BUFF]

you're looking at the 120-300mm 2.8 Sigma for the HSM

also the 100-300 f4 http://www.bristolcameras.co.uk/p-si...apo-if-hsm.htm

[joeted]

ok everyone I ordered this 1 last night and it will be here tomorrow - http://www.microglobe.co.uk/catalog/...telephoto-zoom
Please tell me thats the right one lol

[BUFF]

Only thing to watch is that I believe that Microglobe sometimes sell grey imports which Sigma UK won't support if you need service.

[joeted]

Only thing to watch is that I believe that Microglobe sometimes sell grey imports which Sigma UK won't support if you need service.

Really ?? that doesnt sound good, whats grey imports ?