File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Huh, another buying dilemma /p/.

I'm trying to go for a good cheap macro/portrait lens for a canon eos camera.

I'm really thinking about getting the 60mm f/2.8 macro lens, because I've heard many good things about it.

However, I just saw that canon is coming out with an 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 IS lens.

The older 60 mm lens is around 400 dollars, and the new (unreleased) lens will be around 250.

Do you think I should wait for the cheaper price and the IS? or is the 60mm good enough?

thanks.
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 MacintoshImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2007:09:11 22:31:46Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width303Image Height225
>> Anonymous
lol plastic mount

failure :(
>> Anonymous
I have the 18-55 non IS, it's really nothing special. Not something that you'd really use for macro, and I see no reason to buy it with IS, it's really not needed...
>> Anonymous
>>77795
An IS lens for $200 is bound to have super cheap construction. However, Canon has no other choice to compete with Sony/Pentax/Olympus in the low-end segment.

>>77793
The new 18-55 IS is neither macro nor really good for portraits due to small aperture. Why do you even consider it if you want a macro/portrait lens?
>> Anonymous
>>77798

haha... because it's cheap and it has IS?

I just have never owned an IS camera. I really have no idea if it's worth it or not.
>> eku !8cibvLQ11s
>>77799

IS IS worth the money. I wouldn't buy any lens without IS longer than medium telephoto. And even then F/ needs to be 2.8 or something.
See image on>>77775
>> Anonymous
>>77802

so in this case would you recommend waiting?
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
I'm adding a vote for "wait".

(But if you're who I think you are, I'm the guy who suggested you get the 18-55 IS in the first place, so that's not a surprise)
>> Anonymous
What lenses do you have now?

You realize the 60mm macro and the 18-55mm IS are two completely different lenses for different purposes, right? It's like asking, should I get a Mazda Miata or a Ford Explorer. What are you going to use the lens for? Or are you just wanting a new lens because you want a new toy?
>> Anonymous
IS enables you to get it a stop or two lower, which is everything in lowlight. However, since you're asking about the price - a $400 60mm is going to be much better quality than a $250 18-55 IS - just how it is.

The $250 will be a budget lens with fairly middling quality. I'd wait until it's out and read some reviews and look at demo shots. The new lens might be good enough, but I reckon a SUPER PRO MEGATOGRAPHER such as myself would rather have the 60.
>> Anonymous
>>77802
I personally concur with eku, I wouldn't buy a lens without IS or at least f/2.8 anymore. The IS and the extra speed is a necessity if you want to take pictures in a variety of situations, especially sans tripod.
>> Anonymous
>>77841

I wrote this and I just thought; what? You never said what you want it for.

Uh, I assumed macro work. The 60 is a better quality lens by far, and the 18-55 has a useful wide angle. BUT the 60 is the better quality.

Next week: Aspirin or Diet Coke? Who will win?
>> Anonymous
haha, to be honest in a way I *do* just want a new toy.

But it's not as shallow as that. I do need to use my camera for my classes, and if I take crappy pictures things will not be good for me.

I do need a light lens that I can use in a variety of different situations. The current zoom lens I have is terrible at close up shots and portraits, something I think both of these would be able to handle much better.

Also I've been saving up for a new lens for awhile, I just wasn't quite sure what lens I should buy...
>> Anonymous
>>77958
What do you currently have? If you don't have the 50mm f/1.8 II yet then it will be the best $75 you've ever spent.
>> Anonymous
>>77958
The zoom lens you have right now, I'd bet, is the 18-55 without IS. I don't think the 18-55 IS will be a macro lens, and I'm pretty sure it's going to be of similar (sucky) quality to the current 18-55.

If your camera is a film or full-frame digital one, the best lens you could buy would be a 50/1.x, like the one already suggested. The 50/1.4 is worth the extra money, though... I got to shoot with it on a 5D last weekend, and I almost never took it off f/1.4 and almost wet myself over the bokeh. And I'm not normally big on shallow depth of field at all.

If it's a crop sensor, buy instead a fast prime in the 28-35mm range. It'll be a dozen times more versatile than a slow and sucky zoom lens. If you don't mind your autofocus being buggy (Sigma lenses don't autofocus well on most Canon bodies), the Sigma 28/1.8 is wonderful, and the 30/1.4 isn't too bad, either.

One camera, one lens, one focal length is the stock advice for people learning photography. It actually works, too: after a few months shooting almost entirely at 42mm equivalent, I can mentally picture what a scene shot at that focal length would look like if I was standing at a certain spot and holding the camera a certain way.

As a side note, one of the Hungarian photographers (I think it was Kertész, but I'm not sure) couldn't afford a camera for many years, but he practiced anyway by holding up his fingers to form a frame and then clicking his tongue like a shutter whenever he saw something he would photograph.
>> Anonymous
>>77963

the current lens I have is the old 28-105 mm ultrasonic lens. It has the little window that shows mm distance and a little golden flower.

It's a nice lens, but I really have to back away to get the shot, and anything macro is just out of the question.

also the 50mm f/1.4 was a very seriously considered option, I guess I would just want to go with the 60mm just because I think it's of slightly higher quality?
>> Anonymous
>>77983

If you're not concerned with the Macro abilities then the 50mm f/1.4 is a significantly better choice than the 60mm. It's 3x faster and a more easily usable focal length for a crop camera.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>77958
>if I take crappy pictures things will not be good for me.
A crappy photographer will make crappy photographs with the highest quality, no-compromises L lens on a 1Ds Mk III.

A good photographer will make good photographs with a scratched, dusty kit lens.

Get the 18-55 IS and use the money you've saved to bribe a girl to let you take dirty pictures of her.
>> Anonymous
>>77990

haha, yes yes, the photographer makes the picture, not the lens.

And yet most professional photographers have equipment ranging into the tens of thousands of dollars.

You are completely right, but it's nice to have good lenses...
>> Rawr !pBDDkuoH3.
>>77990

This bullshit line is repeated by morons so often it has turned into a complete cliche.

Any idiot can see that equipment doesn't "raise the floor" on the quality of your work. Good gear, however, raise the ceiling on what is possible.
>> Anonymous
I have the 50mm f/1.4 and it is a champ. More bokeh than you can shake a stick at, although the narrow depth of field can be a bit unforgiving if you aren't careful.
>> Anonymous
>>77983
The sixty might be, but I know zilch about it.

The 50/1.4 is a great normal lens on film or full frame and a great medium telephoto lens on a crop sensor. I'll see if I can get around to processing some RAW files I shot and post some examples of its awesomeness.
>> Anonymous
>>77990
Why, though? What extra good would the 18-55 do him? It's slow and probably will suck optically, and yes, the optics of a lens do matter. Not so much the resolution or any other test-chart nonsense, but the optical footprint of the lens used is as much a part of the photograph as the subject, composition, color or black and white, depth and field, and all of that. He has a lens already that covers all but ten millimeters of its range, at the wide end, and he seems to prefer telephoto focal lengths.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>78020
It's an important ten millimeters. It's the ten millimeters that take you from Normal to Wide.

A 300mm lens vs. a 310mm lens is such a small difference as to be unnoticeable.

A 28mm vs. 38mm lens is a *huge* difference.

10mm is serious business at the wide end of the focal length.

Also, Re: his current lens:
>It's a nice lens, but I really have to back away to get the shot

So he'd benefit from having a wide available.

And the 18-55 doesn't suck nearly as much as a lot of people say it does in actual usage. Especially since I started getting into the whole Strobist thing, I've gotten over my disdain for the f/3.5 max aperture. If you're using some off-camera strobes (or, you know, the sun), it's no problem to stop it down to around f/8 or so, at which point it's nice and sharp. And additionally, the IS will help a lot to mitigate that f/3.5 in lower-light situations, especially at the wide end.
>> thefamilyman !!rTVzm2BgTOa
>>78012
i have the Nikkor version, and your totally right about the narrow depth of field can be a bit unforgiving if you aren't careful.
Infact, it can be down right annoying.