File :-(, x, )
Jesus !1EQ.kCAg9c
Just picked up a macro lens today (100mm f/2.8), it's proving to be quite a lot of fun.
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 10DCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 MacintoshMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2008:04:29 18:38:33Exposure Time3 secF-Numberf/5.6Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating100Lens Aperturef/5.6Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo FlashFocal Length100.00 mmColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width533Image Height800
>> Anonymous
>macro lens
>(100mm f/2.8)
Wow. A) How does it feel to be so stupid? And B) How does it feel to waste (quite probably your parents') money? Pfft.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>172153
What exactly are you implying here? That the EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro isn't a macro lens?
>> Anonymous
>>172157
Sure it is, but tele macros are nonsense. What point is there in crafting a lens that gives you a macro photo, but puts you 5ft away from your subject? I think the perspective makes it look stupid, and I hate prime tele macro lenses.
>> Jesus !1EQ.kCAg9c
>>172167
...awesome troll or just stupid?
>> Anonymous
>>172153
ITT jealousy

Also, what differences between macro and telephoto lenses? Is it physically possible to have both (such as in a point and shoot)?
>> Anonymous
>>172172
by this I mean a zoom lens that does both macro and telephoto.
>> Anonymous
>>172167
That particular lens can focus up to 1 foot.
>> Anonymous
>>172172
You blow off what I say as jealousy but you're so stupid you can't even see "macro" and "100mm" in OP's post? Fuck.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>172167
It focuses down to 1 foot. And gives a 1:1, life-size macro. There's a lot to be said for being able to get life-size macro from a subject that's a foot away.
>> Anonymous
>>172183
Such as?
>> Anonymous
Not to mention that the Tamron 90mm is sharp as fuck and half the price.
>> Anonymous
>>172175

not well
>> Anonymous
>>172178
I'm not sure I follow your train of thought here. What does that have to do with anything?

What I should have said was a lens that could focus at 0 inches to, say 500 feet.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>172185
If the subject in question is something like a bug that might want to bolt if it sees a huge chunk of glass getting all up in its bidness.

Okay, so there's one thing to be said for it. But it doesn't distract from being able to use it on static subjects that won't run away, either.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>172186

sigma / canon / tamron

and the canon is the only one that's non extending
>> Anonymous
>>172192
Other things to be said for it:

1) It's just a nice lens generally, from what I've heard.
2) Some people want telephoto compression on their macro shots.
3. ~150mm (say, 140-160, which the 100mm is on a crop) equivalent is a very underrated focal length.
>> Jesus !1EQ.kCAg9c
You know, I just realized something. In all the time I've browsed /p/ (as an anon and a tripfag), I have never once posted an image in which somebody didn't say "shit sucks" until now.
>> Anonymous
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hj3kMlCa4jM please
>> Anonymous
>>172239

shit sucks
>> Jesus !1EQ.kCAg9c
>>172241
Thank you.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>172227
Given that you're only a foot away, you don't really get "telephoto compression". That's focusing more closely than my 50mm f/1.8 can do.
>> Anonymous
ITT: faggots who have never tried doing macro photographs of skittish insects
>> fence !!POey2hdozCZ
>>172267

see, i really bought into your tough guy act for the first few words there. anytime "faggot" is thrown out, it commands attention.

but then you said "skittish". pity, really.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>172186

And twice as long when fully extended and twice as slow at AF.

I'll just enjoy my internal focus, thanks.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTiPhotographerunknownMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:04:23 22:18:19Exposure Time1/200 secF-Numberf/5.6Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating200Lens Aperturef/5.6Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length100.00 mmRenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
>>172153

you prolly don't know shit about photography.
even if you're right macro lenses are amazing for portraits.

otherwise troll.
>> Anonymous
>>172302

there is some nasty shit in your eye.
to the right to be exact.
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
Canon sell a 180mm L designated macro as their top of the line macro lens. If you're trying to get life size shots of things like dragonflies or want the background blur/bokeh effect that comes with that design it's a fine lens. With one like that you can either creep up or stay back and wait without scaring the subject(s).

Macro lenses can work nicely for portraits too. Sometimes though they an be so sharp you'll need to do a little touch-up on the skin as they can render all the detail in an unforgiving way.
>> Anonymous
>>172315
I got the Nikkor 105mm 2.8 VR, amazing lens for portraits
>> Anonymous
>>172167
You either know fuck-all, or you're a troll.

The 100 2.8 gives you 1:1 macro at about 25 cm IIRC. How much closer do you want to be before you're blocking out all light or disturbing the thing you want to shoot.

I have a 100 2.8 macro, and while a lot of my non-L glass is mostly gathering dust, it still has a very definite use in my kit.