«

Hi,
Let me state up front, I'm a hobbyist. No one will ever mistake my
photos for those of a professional, but I enjoy taking photos
nonetheless. I like to think every time I go out, that I improve my
techniques and knowledge just a tiny bit. I mostly enjoy daytime nature
shooting. With that brief bio out of the way, here are my questions:

1) I would like to venture into the realm of macro shooting. I've read
various discussions about tubes and close-up lenses, but have decided to
save up for a dedicated macro lens. I've read alot about 'working
distance' and the importance of getting a 1:1 lens. I'd like a decent
working distance (not like 4 inches). I've been looking in approximately
the 100mm range of lenses but am beginning to experience 'statistics
shock'. I just don't have enough knowledge to weigh all the statistics
and make a decision. If possible I'd like to maximize my usage of the
lens by having a zoom macro lens. Are there any suggestions about what
lenses I should be looking for (manufacturers and specific lenses)?

2) Flashes. I've been told that the Speedlites need a serious upgrade
and are very quirky with modern E-TTL. People have referred me to the
Sigma 500 Super DG and the Metz 54 MZ4 as superior options. My local
camera store highly recommends Quantum flashes. I want a decent quality
flash (but not professional grade) that can be used both on the shoe and
tripod/handheld off to the side and can take a diffuser. Any
recommendations?

Thank you if you can provide any type of help or advice. I am so
bewildered by all choices and options.

Best Wishes,

Jeff

Jeff wrote:
>Let me state up front, I'm a hobbyist. No one will ever mistake my
>photos for those of a professional, but I enjoy taking photos
>nonetheless. I like to think every time I go out, that I improve my
>techniques and knowledge just a tiny bit. I mostly enjoy daytime nature
>shooting. With that brief bio out of the way, here are my questions:
>1) I would like to venture into the realm of macro shooting. I've read
>various discussions about tubes and close-up lenses, but have decided to
>save up for a dedicated macro lens. I've read alot about 'working
>distance' and the importance of getting a 1:1 lens. I'd like a decent
>working distance (not like 4 inches). I've been looking in approximately
>the 100mm range of lenses but am beginning to experience 'statistics
>shock'. I just don't have enough knowledge to weigh all the statistics
>and make a decision. If possible I'd like to maximize my usage of the
>lens by having a zoom macro lens. Are there any suggestions about what
>lenses I should be looking for (manufacturers and specific lenses)?

First of all, you might want to state whether you currently have a camera, and
if so, what kind.

Second, you might want to state what kind of macro photography you had in mind,
e.g. insects, flower parts, body parts, jewelry, etc.

>2) Flashes. I've been told that the Speedlites need a serious upgrade
>and are very quirky with modern E-TTL. People have referred me to the
>Sigma 500 Super DG and the Metz 54 MZ4 as superior options. My local
>camera store highly recommends Quantum flashes. I want a decent quality
>flash (but not professional grade) that can be used both on the shoe and
>tripod/handheld off to the side and can take a diffuser. Any
>recommendations?

Does the flash relate to macro photography? If so, there are dedicated ring
flashes just for this purpose.

---Bob Gross---

On 05 Jun 2004 04:33:45 GMT, (Robertwgross) wrote:

>First of all, you might want to state whether you currently have a camera, and
>if so, what kind.

Oops, thought that was clear from the subject line. I own a Canon 300D.

>Second, you might want to state what kind of macro photography you had in mind,
>e.g. insects, flower parts, body parts, jewelry, etc.

Nature oriented. So, flowers, insects and such for the most part. Unless
I get a job at the coroner's office or a porno studio ... body parts are
right out.

>Does the flash relate to macro photography? If so, there are dedicated ring
>flashes just for this purpose.

I'd like the flash to be as all purpose as possible. I've read that ring
flashes tend to flatten subjects, so I've more or less discarded them
from consideration.

Thanks,

Jeff

JeffS wrote:
> Hi,
> Let me state up front, I'm a hobbyist. No one will ever mistake my
> photos for those of a professional, but I enjoy taking photos
> nonetheless. I like to think every time I go out, that I improve my
> techniques and knowledge just a tiny bit. I mostly enjoy daytime
> nature shooting. With that brief bio out of the way, here are my
> questions:
>
> 1) I would like to venture into the realm of macro shooting. I've read
> various discussions about tubes and close-up lenses, but have decided
> to save up for a dedicated macro lens. I've read alot about 'working
> distance' and the importance of getting a 1:1 lens. I'd like a decent
> working distance (not like 4 inches). I've been looking in
> approximately the 100mm range of lenses but am beginning to
> experience 'statistics shock'. I just don't have enough knowledge to
> weigh all the statistics and make a decision. If possible I'd like to
> maximize my usage of the lens by having a zoom macro lens. Are there
> any suggestions about what lenses I should be looking for
> (manufacturers and specific lenses)?

If you want a decent dedicated macro lens, forget zooms - those are ordinary
lenses with a closer than "normal" minimum focus distance.
The Canon 100mm macro has a good reputation as do the Sigma EX range 100 and
180mm macros. Dunno what the working distances are, I use tubes behind my
Canon 50mm/f1.8 or (for greater working distance for insects and the like)
70-200/f4 and 100-400 L IS lenses.

> 2) Flashes. I've been told that the Speedlites need a serious upgrade
> and are very quirky with modern E-TTL. People have referred me to the
> Sigma 500 Super DG and the Metz 54 MZ4 as superior options. My local
> camera store highly recommends Quantum flashes.

Dunno about the Metz but I can assure you that the Sigma 500 Super DG is not
a superior alternative to the Canon 550EX - unless by "superior" you mean
"almost as good but cheaper". It's a pretty close clone of the 550EX. BTW,
The Canon flashes are only "quirky" if you don't take the time to learn how
to use them and how they interact with the camera and the subject.

You'll certainly need to get a bracket to get the flash off the camera, and
will need some means of connecting it. For the Canons, there is either the
Off-Camera Shoe Cord 2 whcih will simply move the hotshoe off the camera by
up to about three feet on a curly cord, or the STE2 wireless flash
transmitter which sits in the hotshoe and controls two groups of flashes
(550EX, 420EX or clones)
At some point you might find you want two flashes to get full control of the
light so another option is a 550 on the off-shoe cord acting as the master
for another 550EX or a 420EX - or the STE2 wirelessly controlling two 550EXs
, 420EXs or a combination.

I can thoroughly recommend a look at Don Cohen's website. The frst of his
butterflies galleries has details of his setup which may be of use to you
http://www.dlcphotography.net/

--
regards,
dslr

Jeff get a Canon 100mm 2.8 Macro and have a field day!!!
It is rated as one of the sharpest lens & 1:1 with no extras. For the type
of macro shots you talk about a 180mm would not be good! remember 100mm
will be like a 160mm on a Canon 300D.

I agree with dslr stating "forget zooms", for macro work it is not worth the
cost or dealing with the lower sharpness from zooms.

For a flash a Canon 420EX is good and less cost!


"JeffS" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Hi,
> Let me state up front, I'm a hobbyist. No one will ever mistake my
> photos for those of a professional, but I enjoy taking photos
> nonetheless. I like to think every time I go out, that I improve my
> techniques and knowledge just a tiny bit. I mostly enjoy daytime nature
> shooting. With that brief bio out of the way, here are my questions:
>
> 1) I would like to venture into the realm of macro shooting. I've read
> various discussions about tubes and close-up lenses, but have decided to
> save up for a dedicated macro lens. I've read alot about 'working
> distance' and the importance of getting a 1:1 lens. I'd like a decent
> working distance (not like 4 inches). I've been looking in approximately
> the 100mm range of lenses but am beginning to experience 'statistics
> shock'. I just don't have enough knowledge to weigh all the statistics
> and make a decision. If possible I'd like to maximize my usage of the
> lens by having a zoom macro lens. Are there any suggestions about what
> lenses I should be looking for (manufacturers and specific lenses)?
>
> 2) Flashes. I've been told that the Speedlites need a serious upgrade
> and are very quirky with modern E-TTL. People have referred me to the
> Sigma 500 Super DG and the Metz 54 MZ4 as superior options. My local
> camera store highly recommends Quantum flashes. I want a decent quality
> flash (but not professional grade) that can be used both on the shoe and
> tripod/handheld off to the side and can take a diffuser. Any
> recommendations?
>
> Thank you if you can provide any type of help or advice. I am so
> bewildered by all choices and options.
>
> Best Wishes,
>
> Jeff

(Robertwgross) wrote in message news:<>...
> Jeff wrote:
> >Let me state up front, I'm a hobbyist. No one will ever mistake my
> >photos for those of a professional, but I enjoy taking photos
> >nonetheless. I like to think every time I go out, that I improve my
> >techniques and knowledge just a tiny bit. I mostly enjoy daytime nature
> >shooting. With that brief bio out of the way, here are my questions:
> >1) I would like to venture into the realm of macro shooting. I've read
> >various discussions about tubes and close-up lenses, but have decided to
> >save up for a dedicated macro lens. I've read alot about 'working
> >distance' and the importance of getting a 1:1 lens.

Don't forget 1:1 means on the 35mm plane, so the more the DSLR crops
the better. At 1:1 the image is actually 1.7X larger than 1:1 when
using an SD9 for example. The 300D is a very poor choice for macro
shooting, since it only has 6M sensors and historically has a severely
loose AF system--both will kill if you like macro. It is extrememly
expensive for a DSLR, too.

> I'd like a decent
> >working distance (not like 4 inches). I've been looking in approximately
> >the 100mm range of lenses but am beginning to experience 'statistics
> >shock'. I just don't have enough knowledge to weigh all the statistics
> >and make a decision. If possible I'd like to maximize my usage of the
> >lens by having a zoom macro lens. Are there any suggestions about what
> >lenses I should be looking for (manufacturers and specific lenses)?

The Sigma 105mm EX Macro, or 50mm EX Macro are optically the best
lenses you can buy in their classes, and they are priced very
reasonably. These Sigmas are all steel with stainless steel mounts
(all Sigmas have stainless steel mounts). Canon lenses in the same
price class are typically all plastic construction with plastic lens
mounts.

> >2) Flashes. I've been told that the Speedlites need a serious upgrade
> >and are very quirky with modern E-TTL. People have referred me to the
> >Sigma 500 Super DG and the Metz 54 MZ4 as superior options. My local
> >camera store highly recommends Quantum flashes. I want a decent quality
> >flash (but not professional grade) that can be used both on the shoe and
> >tripod/handheld off to the side and can take a diffuser. Any
> >recommendations?

You might as well buy the professional grade DG Super. At $180 or so
nothing else can touch its feature list and power for the price.
With macro work, the swivel head (inc the ability to stand alone off
camera) and high power are going to be a key to your success. Get a
Sto-fen omnibounce for it and you'll have very powerful
indirect/diffuse light. The Sigma's price is so good, I highly
recommend getting 2 of them for macro work--they will radio-link in
full TTL or slave off flash.

On 5 Jun 2004 13:54:27 -0700, (Georgette
Preddy) wrote:

>Don't forget 1:1 means on the 35mm plane, so the more the DSLR crops
>the better. At 1:1 the image is actually 1.7X larger than 1:1 when
>using an SD9 for example. The 300D is a very poor choice for macro
>shooting, since it only has 6M sensors and historically has a severely
>loose AF system--both will kill if you like macro. It is extrememly
>expensive for a DSLR, too.

Umm, the 300D was the first quality DSLR to break the $1k barrier in the
U.S. I believe. I find it hard to believe you consider it expensive. I
also believe the accepted calculated conversion is closer to 1.6 than
1.7. That aside, most professional technique sites that I've visited
recommend using manual focus for the majority of macro work, regardless
of the camera make. The only knock I've seen on Canon macro lenses is
that they can be slow to AF or at times over-hunt. Direct comparisons
between the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro and the comparable Sigma lens
(the 105mm EX macro I think), seem to show that the Canon lens was much
sharper and had much better overall construction and elements. I am
suspecting that you are attempting a poor impersonation of a troll.

>The Sigma 105mm EX Macro, or 50mm EX Macro are optically the best
>lenses you can buy in their classes, and they are priced very
>reasonably.

I think the key words here are "in their class". All reviews I've read
indicate that Canon compatible Sigma lenses are merely reverse
engineered clones of the Canon originals. They can lack certain features
present in Canon lenses due to not picking up functions that are
'silent' during the reverse engineering process. It would be one thing
if Sigmas were designed from scratch, but who would know proprietary
protocols better than the original manufacturer and designer of the
camera/lens system? I can't see Sigma (or any other third party lens
maker) knowing Canon's system better than Canon itself.

>You might as well buy the professional grade DG Super. At $180 or so
>nothing else can touch its feature list and power for the price.
>With macro work, the swivel head (inc the ability to stand alone off
>camera) and high power are going to be a key to your success. Get a
>Sto-fen omnibounce for it and you'll have very powerful
>indirect/diffuse light. The Sigma's price is so good, I highly
>recommend getting 2 of them for macro work--they will radio-link in
>full TTL or slave off flash.

I have read much debate about this on the dpreview forums. Quite a few
seem very unhappy with the performance of the Speedlite 500EX and prefer
the Sigma 500 Super DG. Others seem convinced Metz makes the best
flashes. My local dealer swears by Quantum. People in this forum seem
happy with Speedlites. Definitely something I need to do more research
on. With such a disparity of opinions, it may mean all are of about
equal quality/performance and people just prefer what they are used to.
I am leaning towards Quantum after seeing how adaptable they are, but
have yet to make a decision.

As for a macro lens, I think I'm pretty much sold on the Canon 100mm
f/2.8 Macro USM. It seems to be the best quality lens that fits my needs
and price range.

Jeff
----
Note: To send an email response, please remove 'spam.sux.'
from the address in the 'From:' field.

Jeff,

Don't worry about George(ette) Preddy - he's the most well
known troll on this group, and most people 'plonk'ed him ages
ago. He has only one view on life:
Sigma = perfect
Anything else (especially Canon) = crap

Just ignore him - most people do.

On Sun, 6 Jun 2004 17:46:59 +0100, Graeme Cogger
<> wrote:

>Jeff,
>
>Don't worry about George(ette) Preddy - he's the most well
>known troll on this group, and most people 'plonk'ed him ages
>ago. He has only one view on life:
>Sigma = perfect
>Anything else (especially Canon) = crap
>
>Just ignore him - most people do.

Thanks for the heads up! I've been following this group for a bit, but
was looking primarily for specific information. I failed to scan over
the vast majority of subject lines and individual personalities. Now
that I've had the opportunity ... I see what you mean. The opinions
he/she expressed just kind of startled me and went against almost
everything I've read and researched. I was thinking I might have to go
back to square one in my thinking. Appreciate your filling me in on this
'unique' individual.

Best Wishes,

Jeff


----
Note: To send an email response, please remove 'spam.sux.'
from the address in the 'From:' field.

> The Sigma 105mm EX Macro, or 50mm EX Macro are optically the best
> lenses you can buy in their classes, and they are priced very
> reasonably. These Sigmas are all steel with stainless steel mounts
> (all Sigmas have stainless steel mounts). Canon lenses in the same
> price class are typically all plastic construction with plastic lens
> mounts.

Well, this is an epoch! I have the Sigma 105 and it really is a nice lens,
for the money. The word "best" is not my choice, however.