Macro lenses 550D (canon)

[knixpix]

Hi there,

My partner is buying me a new camera soon, as i love taking photos, she is getting me the canon 550D also known as the TSi. I will have a few lenses for it primarily the 18-55 standard, 18-135 and 55-250. I would really like to have a macro lens in there, as I love taking close up shots of nature/flowers etc and feel very held back by the lenses I currently have.

I really haven't got a clue about lenses, I have never really got my head round it at all, so when looking I have become mightily confused. I am shopping on a budget in the UK, but wondered if you guys could give me an idea how best to choose my lens and what to look for.

To give you an idea, I often roam the woods taking pictures of unusual things I find, so can be in low light on occasion, I also love to goto places with flowers on show, like recently I went to the Eden project, places with outdoor gardens, I love to get right in there, with the flowers but obviously my lens I currently have often struggle with focussing.

I really am a bit ignorant of the terminology of theses things, and don't want to go into a camera shop and be taken for a ride, all because I havent a clue what I am looking for. So would appreciate your help.

[OsmosisStudios]

First question: Why would you get the 18-55, 18-135 and 55-250? Get the first/last or the middle one, but not all three.

As for macro lenses: Canon has a few options: The 60mm f/2.8, 65mm MP-E, and several 100mm versions.

Best case scenario? The 100mm f/2.8L Macro.

[knixpix]

I already have the 18-55 (from my 350D) and the 18-135 comes with the new camera (550D) and I do a lot of equestrian photography and I was recommended the 55-250, but as I said I dont know much about lenses and my own research suggested a 70-200 would be more suitable but again, I haven't got a clue.

My horse magazine recently did an article with an equestrian photographer and the consensus seemed to be the 70-200. Sometime though horses can get in your face un-expectantly, this happened to me when I was doing a free reining shoot, and so I wondered if a 70-200 would be too constricting as obviously I cant physically back off, I need the lens to back off, but also be able to zoom in from them being farish away...told you I didnt know the terminology, I hope you know what I mean.

Basically to explain... in free reining the horse is not controlled with a lunge rope they are running in the school free, only controlled by the schooling whip, they can turn and move towards you without warning and get quite close. This has resulted in some amazing shots, but frustrated by the fact that I cant move backwards and my lens couldn't either...does this make sense or am I talking gibberish lol

So if you know of something far more suitable than what has been suggested then advise away!

[OsmosisStudios]

The 70-200 (either in f/4 or f/2.8 guise) would be a considerably better choice. I'd also be tempted to sell both the 18-55 and 55-250 to fund it, keeping the 18-135 and then getting a 70-200. If you do go for the f/4, though, I strongly encourage the IS version.

[knixpix]

Ok, so you have confirmed my own research, about the 70-200 could you tell me tho what the difference is between the f/4 and f2.8? I was considering, I dont mean to be thick, but I still haven't got my head round everything, although I am getting there slowly lol Ok from what I understand the lower the F stop the faster the lens the more light it lets in....I could be wrong, but I read an article about it, which was a bit Japanese lol So the lower the number f stop the better the camera would cope in lower light settings?

The 55-250 I havent actually bought it, I was in a massive quandry about the 70-200 which thankfully you have helped eleviate So I wont be buying it. Also I am going to rehome my 18-55 with my 350D body to a relative who also loves photography.

[OsmosisStudios]

There is a one-stop aperture difference between f/2.8 and f/4. The smaller number means a larger opening. This has 2 effects: let more light in (so you can use a faster shutter speed or lower ISO) and shallower depth of field (the background/foreground are further blurred).

For sports and action, this is useful as it allows you to use faster shutter speeds AND isolate your subject more. Its also why Canon users often refer to the 85mm f/1.8 as "Mr Basketball": Shooting at f/2 means even more light and even more isolation.

The f/2.8 versions, though, arent cheap (especially in IS guise),and if most of your shooting is done in broad daylight, you likely wont NEED the extra bit of aperture you get. Hence my recommendation.

[knixpix]

After watching quite a lot of videos on youtube showing both the 2.8 and f/4 in the 70-200 I concur with your thoughts. I think for what I will be using it for, the 2.8 will be way too much camera for what I will primarily use the camera for, which will be a lot of outside shooting, as horses are my main subjects, I rarely shoot indoors.

I notice there is a massive leap in price for the IS versions but I have to agree with you that the IS is most definitely worth paying for in terms of stability as I am disabled and get very tired very quickly and would find the IS invaluable for that reason. Altho I do cringe at the £300 extra price tag for the IS version, I have been told by the OH to shut up, if I need it, I need it lol. I have also looked at the macro lens you recommended as well, and it does seem to be the business.

So thank you...I also learned a lot today, my brain is totally read out by all the articles, but I do have a little bit of a better understanding of how it all works

[inkista]

Just to back up a little here. I'd highly recommend taking the time to read this:

How to Choose the Best Digital SLR Lens

It's a basic guide to dSLR lenses, and describes the main features of a lens (focal length, maximum aperture, prime vs. zoom, stabilization and other goodies) in practical shooting terms. This way, you should be able to get a decent picture of what all the numbers stand for.

The second thing is, you are now going to have two camera bodies: the 350D and the 550D. You can put an 18-something on one, and a telephoto on the other, and have the best of both worlds.

If you're shooting outside in sunshine most of the time, you can probably get by with an f/4 70-200. The f/2.8s differ from the f/4s not only in max. aperture and price, but also in size and weight. The 70-200 is a white L. It's all-metal. It's bigger and heavier than any of the lenses you've got. The image quality is terrific, but you're going to want to get your hands on one to see if it's for you, first. It's an entirely different kind of lens than the ones you're used to. You may want to consider renting before you buy to see if it's for you.

Also, there are five different models. You have a choice of f/4 or f/2.8, with IS or without, and the 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM comes in Mark I and Mark II (the Mark II now brings the wide-open sharpness up to a par with the 70-200 f/4L IS USM's). Keep this in mind when you read older reviews before the f/2.8 IS II was introduced.

In specific Canon terminology, a lens is described as

EF, EF-S (and there are also two exotic designations, TS-E and MP-E)
EF = Electronic Focus (i.e., the Canon EOS mount)
EF-S = Electronic Focus - Small (i.e., the digital Canon EOS mount--the smaller sensor in the 1.6x crop bodies allows a lens with a smaller image circle. These lenses can only be used on 1.6x crop bodies, and not on the 1-series or 5D or film EOS cameras).
TS-E = Tilt Shift Electronic (manual focus tilt-shift lenses)
MP-E = Macro Photo - Electronic (the super 5x macro lens)

The focal length.

The maximum aperture.

L = "Luxury" / "Low dispersion" glass. The lens has special flourite or UD (ultralow dispersion) glass elements in it to help control chromatic aberration and increase light transmission. You tend to get better color, contrast, and chromatic aberration control with L lenses, as well as more usability features than non-L lenses. Also, it's rare for one to cost less than four figures.

USM = Ultra-Sonic Motor. A special focus motor that's silent and faster than non-USM motors. There are two types: ring-type and micromotor. Ring-type is the more desirable as it allows for full-time manual focus (i.e., you don't have to flip the MF/AF switch to move the manual focus ring). USM is particularly useful in fast-action photography at getting the lens to lock focus faster.

IS = Image Stabilization. The lens can move elements inside it to compensate for camera shake. IS is typically rated in stops. The older the design of the lens, the less the IS will compensate. IS is good for using slower shutter speeds and eliminating camera shake blur (particularly with longer lenses). But it does nothing for eliminating subject motion blur, because you still have to use that slower shutter speed. And a monopod can pretty much do everything IS does, stabilization-wise.

[roman numerals] the version of the lens. Most lenses don't have this, but a few do, and each version usually marks some form of improvement over the previous generation. The big exception to this would be the EF 50mm f/1.8 II, where the improvement was to make it a lot cheaper.

Then come the exotic designations: DO (diffractive optics) & Macro. DO is only found on two telephoto lenses, and it was a way of designing the optics to make a more compact lens. It's expensive and meant for folks trekking gear over African veldt or Arctic tundra. Macro means the lens has close-focus capability.

For macro, the two mid-range Canon choices are the EF-S 60mm f/2.8 USM Macro, and the EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro (the non-IS, non-L version). The 100mm is the more "general purpose" lens--it gives you more working distance so you won't scare off bugs or lizards, etc. The 60mm is crop-body only, a little sharper than the 100mm, but you have to work closer to your subject, so there's more work avoiding your own shadow, and it's really only good for tabletop objects or flowers--stuff that won't run when it sees you looming over it. It is, however, about half the size and weight of the 100 Macro.

Two places to go to get some opinions of lenses would be the-digital-picture.com (which is sort of the ultimate Canon geek's reviews of Canon gear), and the Fred Miranda lens reviews, where people dogpile on and you can get a lot of various views of the lens from different shooters.

[knixpix]

Wow!! that was a totally awesome post, thank you very much for going to the trouble, I really appreciate it, and have learned even more and have bookmarked all the links!! Thank you so much