t2i, canon 50mm f1.8 + raynox OR dedicated macro?

[alyphoto]

Hello all! New here.

I just recently (a few days ago) jumped in and bought a canon t2i. The kit came with the standard lens as well as a 55-250mm lens.

I've had a powershot s95 up until this camera, and I used a small telescope lens attached to the front for my macro photography.

here are some pictures I was able to capture with this set up -



I do think they are pretty good for a p&s with a makeshift macro!
I've been trying to replicate my results with the t2i and finding it difficult. I did fully expect this without any sort of macro lens so I'm not disappointed; just here to find out what my best option would be!

I've gone back to what I know - which is holding a binocular lens infront of the t2i. It does allow me to get much closer but I really have to use it with the 250mm zoomed to max while holding the lens infront. My hand hurts after a few shots, lol! Much bigger than my p&s.

Basically I'm just trying to figure out my macro set up for this camera. I know I need something better, but I'm trying to spend the least amount of money.

My budget is around $350 which is not much in the lens department, lol.

I've been reading a lot about the f/1.8 lens which am very attracted to because it's got such a high aperture, which I know I need for the type of macro I do/bokeh I want.
( Amazon.com: Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Camera Lens: Electronics )
It seems to be on sale right now, I don't know if the price listed is the true normal price ($200), most websites quoted it at $100.

The problem I had with my telescope and p&s was that I had to get SO CLOSE to get into focus - almost touching the things I was photographing. Which meant that it was difficult in some cases to get all of the object in focus that I wanted, the DOF is extremely shallow.

If I got the f/1.8 and a Raynox super macro, would I have the same results, having to be extremely close to the objects? I know that's the object with macro but having to be half an inch or so away was difficult. And I know that I cannot zoom that lens in or out, which means that I can't somewhat adjust the dof like I can with the bino+250mm lens.

There are also other things like no image stabilization (not sure how important that is to me; i like to free hand, though), and with the 50mm end of my kit lens, I can't really do much with it and a binocular lens. I don't know just how different the Raynox is, though.

I'm very drawn to the f/1.8 aperture but I don't want to be fooled by it in terms of what I need. I do think it's a lens I want eventually, but with my limited budget I want to make sure the first lens I purchase is the right one for what I'm wanting.

High aperture true macro lens just seem to be out of my budget, unless there are some brands that I don't know about, which is why I'm here!

[gturner]

you really would benefit from a proper macro.
look for the sigma 105
canon 100 2.8

Quite of few of both avail second hand as the 100mm L has done well.

[oldwolf]

If you're going to stick with crop sensors then Canon's 60mm is a very good macro lens as well. It just can't be used on a full frame camera.

[inkista]

Originally Posted by alyphoto

If I got the f/1.8 and a Raynox super macro, would I have the same results, having to be extremely close to the objects?

Yes.

This also holds true for using extension tubes and lens reversal. A dedicated macro lens is going to give you better image quality than the Raynox, but might get you as close. Generally, though, with photography gear, you get what you pay for. The Raynox is <$100. A good macro lens starts around $400.

I'm very drawn to the f/1.8 aperture but I don't want to be fooled by it in terms of what I need. I do think it's a lens I want eventually, but with my limited budget I want to make sure the first lens I purchase is the right one for what I'm wanting.

The 50/1.8 II is probably one of the cheapest lenses you can get, and might be the sole exception to the "you get what you pay for" logic. It's sharper than your 18-55 kit lens, and opens up to let in 10x more light @f/1.8 than your 18-55 @55mm and f/5.6. While it may not be the best macro lens ever, it's a really nice portrait lens, and you'll want it for that as well, unless 100% of your shooting is macros.

I have a Flickr set of using the 50/1.8 II with a close up filter, extension tubes, and reversed in front of the EF-S 60mm f/2.8 USM Macro. Hope they can help you make up your mind.

[alyphoto]

Thanks guys!

I don't want to have to be able to get ontop of my subjects like I feared with the raynox; part of the reason I bought dslr was so I wouldn't have to do that anymore. However, it does produce good results for droplet photos.

I was looking at this lens; it's only $299 right now. I was looking at it a few days ago and it was $500 with 1 used for $328. Anyone personally have/use it?
http://www.amazon.com/Tokina-Macro-C...0762239&sr=1-2

What mm is better for my type of macro? Flowers, droplets, objects - still things, not insects, and it's usually all right next to me so I would like to get in close and fill the picture with say, nothing but feather plume if I'm doing droplets, but have the ability to go out from that a bit for other types of macro like flowers. Scaring off bugs and such isn't an issue. From what I understand, 55mm is what the human eye can see; and with a cropped sensor 35mm is really around that. Is this what I want for macro? Sorry; im just use to P&S for macro!

There is this one too;
Amazon.com: Canon EF 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro Lens: Camera & Photo
with my cropped sensor it's really 70 or 80mm?

the sigma and canon 100/105 both look very nice, but both are out of my price range, even used, unfortunately.

I forgot to mention that as long as it's a good lens i'm fine with non canon as long as it works with the t2i.

[inkista]

Originally Posted by alyphoto

...What mm is better for my type of macro?...

With macro lenses, focal length has little to do with magnification, and more to do with working distance. So the larger the working distance you want, the longer the lens you want. I'd actually recommend going for a 100mm, rather than a 50 or 60.

I have the EF-S 60mm f/2.8 USM Macro, and I still have to work fairly close.

The compact 50/2.5 will only give you 1:2 magnification, not 1:1 like the other macro lenses.

Canon makes two different 100mm f/2.8 Macro lenses. One is an L with IS (stabilization) and is about $1000, the other is not and is around half that.

[alyphoto]

The 100mm is still about $550, $250 out of my budget range, so it's not an option, at least not for a few months, probably.

Alyphoto on deviantART

Here is my DA gallery link, if anyone wants to have a look, maybe that would help. I want to take those types of pictures with my t2i; most of the macro was done with the powershot. Only the dice, hummingbird and 'sensual' droplet were done with the x2i (the droplet, with a binocular lens)

I just want to do what I do with the p&s, better

[alyphoto]

I think I've settled down to 3 lenses..
Most likely will have to look at used.

Amazon.com: Tamron AF 90mm f/2.8 Di SP A/M 1:1 Macro Lens for Canon Digital SLR Cameras: Camera & Photo
used

Amazon.com: Sigma 50mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro Lens for Canon SLR Cameras: Camera & Photo
new

Amazon.com: Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM Digital SLR Lens for EOS Digital SLR Cameras: Camera & Photo
used, and on amazon there doesn't seem to be any very good sellers with it used, so I'm very worried about that, and I think this would of been my choice, but the sellers have bad or no feedback. E-bay sellers say NO RETURNS so that scares me, too.

Advice?

[inkista]

With buying used lenses, you may have to pay a bit more, but picking a reputable used dealer, like B&H, Adorama, or KEH.com, where you get a return policy and reliable grading might keep you from the stress of uknown 'bay sellers.