NatureScapes.net Forums

I own the Canon EOS Rebel T3i and I'm trying to grow in my abilities as a photographer. I would like to expand the range of photos I'm able to take, but in order to do so, I need to invest in some quality lenses. I'm looking for a good telephoto lense and a macro lense. I'm relatively new to DSLR cameras so I would love to get the opinions of those with more experience than myself. Suggestions?
Thanks!

Welcome Lillian and welcome aboard.

What is your budget and what subjects are you planning on photographing? There are many options so knowing this would help narrow things down a bit.

HI Lillian and welcome to NSN. E.J. is right knowing a bit more about your needs will help. However, for macro I can suggest that if you can find a used Canon 100 mm F2.8 macro it will serve you well. While it is no longer made it had a super rep as a very sharp lens with excellent build quality. I have been using one for about 6 years and like it a lot. Check out http://www.keh.com This is one of the best sources for high quality used equipment. RE telephoto lenses are you looking for zoom or prime? What do you expect your subjects to be? Do you have a price range?

One option that might make a deal of sense, depending on your intended subject, budget etc is the canon 300/4 with some extension tubes. This would be a great option if your macro interest is butterflies / dragonflies etc where you will need a little working distance anyway.
Alternatively Sigma make some very nice macro lenses at reasonable prices, and if you wanted a little more reach from a telephoto lens (for bird photography) the canon 400/5.6 would be an excellent choice.

Until we get the info asked for, recommendations are meaningless While a 100 macro is great for some macro subjects, for others a (most in nature) a longer focal length like a 150 or 180 or 200 is better. Similarly for some things a short macro is better. Similarly in the telephoto arena, if it is for landscape photography a 70-200 or 70-300 is vastly superior to a 400. So until we know the goals of the original poster's photography, recommendations don't make much sense.

Here are a few suggestions:

Insects:
3.5/180L and 4/300L, sometimes with 1.4x. The 4/300L only works with larger insects.
A 100mm lens is not always that good for insects at least not shy ones.

Flowers:
Also 3.5/180L and 4/300L and they help to isolate the flower against the BG. But a 100mm also is great for flowers.
There is the incredibly sharp 2.8/100L IS and the cheaper 2.8/100 without IS (not sure if Canon still sells this one, I have it and like it, also very sharp but not as much as the IS version).
A 100mm lens is also lighter and easier to carry around on long hikes, e.g. in the mountains.

As you can see I use a 2.8/100, 3.5/180L and 4/300L, sometimes with extension tubes or a 1.4x. The 4/300 + 1.4 also makes a great lens for birds and wildlife, particularly with animals that are not too shy and on a crop body like the 7D. Of course it is no substitute for a 4/500 or 4/600.


Tamron and Sigma also make very sharp macro lenses for a cheaper price but I've always used Canon and so far I am 100% happy with it.
About the 3.5/180L: Very sharp but a little soft at f3.5. If you want a wide aperture for limited DOF, step down to f5. The images will be shaper.

I also wrote a long article about this topic a few years ago. I will have to update it but the most of it is still 100% valid today:

http://markusjaisphoto.com/articles/len ... raphy.html

(Sorry for the terrible web design, I am working on something better at the moment).

Markus

I agree with Marcus. I have both the 100 and 180 macros, and MUCH prefer the 180. The 180 gives you more working room and its narrow angle of view makes backgrounds easier to deal with. Sometimes wish I hadn't gotten the 100. I also use the 300 f/4 for macro, birds, wildlife, and sometimes landscape, with and without the 1.4x teleconverter and/or extension tubes.

I also would like to add that between the 180 and 100 I use the 180 in more than 90% of all images. This may change a bit when I am on long hikes in the Alps because saving a little weight makes a difference when you hike for several hours and up a mountain!

Markus

Markus Jais wrote:I also would like to add that between the 180 and 100 I use the 180 in more than 90% of all images. This may change a bit when I am on long hikes in the Alps because saving a little weight makes a difference when you hike for several hours and up a mountain!

Markus

Which is why I own the 150/2.8 - best of both worlds :):)

E.J. Peiker wrote:

Markus Jais wrote:I also would like to add that between the 180 and 100 I use the 180 in more than 90% of all images. This may change a bit when I am on long hikes in the Alps because saving a little weight makes a difference when you hike for several hours and up a mountain!

Markus

Which is why I own the 150/2.8 - best of both worlds :):)

How sharp is the Sigma lens @2.8? My 3.5/180L is a little soft wide open and even when I want as little DOF as possible I stop town to 4.5 or 5. At this aperture the 3.5/180L starts to be amazing.

Markus

There is virtually no lens made that is at it's sharpest wide open. They all get a little better when stopped down a bit.

What ever happened to Lilian Cates?

Steve Cirone wrote:What ever happened to Lilian Cates?

Last seen stalking a grizzly with a 50mm macro on her Rebel

jeff Parker wrote:Last seen stalking a grizzly with a 50mm macro on her Rebel

...with reversing ring, extension tubes, and a silver bell!