Macro or Wide Angle - Recommend Me a Lens

My wife and my folks like our recent Alaskan Cruise so much that they're planning another cruise for next year, this time a fall cruise up the New England coast. Which means a perfect opportunity for some outdoor photography, what with the fall foliage and all.

The powers that be (read: The Mrs.) has granted me authority to pick up an additional piece of photography gear if needed for this trip. And of course, additional photography gear is always needed

My current lens kit includes a fast 50mm, the 70-300mm I picked up for Alaska, a 35-70mm and a decent 18-55mm. Bear in mind that the Canon XTi has a 1.6x crop factor, so these lenses all function as longer lenses than they are (meaning the widest I can get is the 18-55, which is more like a 28-88mm).

So my conundrum is this: a 10-22mm lens lens for wider landscape shots to capture the breadth of fall colors, or a 60mm macro to get up close and personal with the individual leaves.

Given that I'm building my overall gear kit as well as gearing up for a specific trip, what say all you Goodjer photographers?

Have you looked at the Tamron 10-22? From what I can see it will do some basic macro work (Macro Magnification Ratio 1:5.1 (at f=24mm, MFD:0.24m) according to the Tamron web site) It is cheaper than the Canon. Recent Tamrons are much improved from the older ones though still not quite the same quality of the Canons.

This review doesn't say much about the macro capabilities but does give a sense of the overall quality of the lens.

Better review at DPReview. It mentions the macro a little bit on page 3.

I have the Tamron 70-200 F2.8 Macro and I love it. I bought it for sports shooting and it works well for that. The macro capabilities are a bonus and I have used it for some basic macro work and it has performed pretty well. I'm not getting huge magnification out of it but it's plenty good enough for my use.

That's not a bad looking lens either, thanks Homer I'll check it out.

I notice that DPReview has a relatively active forum section as well. Have you ever found a general photography forum on the caliber of GWJ, particularly one with members that provide critiques of each other's shots? I've been perusing a variety of them of late and just haven't found the right fit yet.

http://www.reddit.com/r/photography and http://www.reddit.com/r/photocritique are useful to me, but not large enough to be considered a full scale forum.

If I were you, I would get a dedicated macro lens, maybe even a 100mm. You can get close to a wide angle with what you have now, but you don't have anything really suited to macro. Plus, you can always stitch together a panorama if you absolutely need a wide angle shot.

Out of curiosity, do you have the 50mm 1.4? I'm considering picking that up.

Teneman wrote:

Have you ever found a general photography forum on the caliber of GWJ, particularly one with members that provide critiques of each other's shots?

Photo.net was one of the first big ones I remember, and they still seem pretty good.

I'll try those out, thanks guys. I find as I'm getting back into this more and more I would really like some critiques on my work, and someone to ask some questions of. I'm considering taking the New York Institute of Photography course, but the feedback there seems more limited or restricted than I think I could get from a good forum setup.

DF7, I don't have the 50mm 1.4, I've got the 1.8 which was the kit lens on my EOS 650. Its a great little lens, I can only imagine the 1.4 would be even better with the extra speed.

http://www.reddit.com/r/itookapicture is also good, it isn't specifically for critique, but if you ask for it you'll get it, and it has about 5000 viewers.

It's something of a mistaken belief that one needs a wide lens to do landscape shots. Fundamentally, the moment of pulling the trigger is preceded by a composition phase. When shooting a landscape, the instinct is to think you need a wide lens to "get it all in" but (1) there is no natural dividing line for the 'it' to get in, and (2) no matter how wide your lens is, there will always be more 'it' that you can't fit. So instead of just spending money on a lens you're not sure you need, think about composition and how you can create compositions that fairly represent the landscape you're looking at with the field of view that you do have.

The real reason one might want a very wide lens is, IMO, for use in interior spaces where you'd like a large depth of field in cramped quarters. But that's not what you said you wanted to do.

All very good points. Of course you don't technically "need" anything other than a 50mm kit lens, but wider angle lenses, telephoto lenses and macro lenses all allow you to do things that can't be done as easily or as well with a 50mm. I used to have the ability to get wider than I do now due to the 1.6x crop factor, and it's something I miss.

As for the macro, my long lens makes a decent substitute, letting me get in close on flowers and bugs in a pseudo-macro fashion. But it's nearly impossible to get the tack sharpness you need without a true macro capability. I'd love to have been able to take this exact shot with the macro lens I linked above rather than with my 75-300mm racked out.

IMAGE(http://lh5.ggpht.com/_PocrogVfVQg/TCetBt33sTI/AAAAAAAABG0/WlcjhLaWjbA/s640/IMG_5659c1.jpg)

If I were you, I would go to this site: http://www.pixel-peeper.com/adv/ and pick your camera, and then the two lenses you want, and see which pictures appeal to you more. It gives you a good sense of what each one is capable of.

The 10-22 you linked is pretty much well loved across the board from what Ive read. Hard sell to buy a macro lens for a cruise.

I've been hanging around http://photography-on-the.net/ for a bit. It gets a little out of hand now and then, but the mods try to keep the worst of it in check.

What do you find yourself wanting to shoot the most- landscapes, interiors, or bugs?

Funkenpants wrote:

If you want to take a lot of close up pictures of bugs and flowers, macro would be your next choice. If you find yourself wanting to do one of those big, wide landscapes or take a lot of interior shots, go for that wide-angle. I'm with Pol in thinking that the landscape and interior shots sound more common in a cruise than the 1:1 close-up stuff, but everybody has a different eye.

No you guys are right, the macro isn't very useful for the cruise itself. Judging by the last cruise I was on I'll get the most use out of my 18-55mm onboard, and the 75-300mm taking shots of shore over the rail.

This is one of those fall foliage cruises though. On the Alaskan cruise most of the excursions involved seeing whales and eagles and bears (Oh my!), which was the reason for my purchase of the 75-300mm. On this cruise the excursions mostly involve hikes through the scenic woodlands to look at leaves. That's where I'm thinking I'd get some macro opportunities, as long as we go on self directed hikes (no tour guide rushing you along) so I'd have time to setup my tripod.

Double the posts for double the fun.

Edit, actually I see you changed your reply Funken, so I'll use the second post to reply to the edited reply, serendipity!

I'm primarily interested in landscapes to be honest, though messing with macro lately has been enjoyable. I don't think I can recall a situation with an interior shot where I wasn't covered by either my 18-55mm or my 50mm. But that may be because interior shots are a rarity for me, other than the typical snapshots of a birthday party, etc.

Yeah, sorry about the edit. I figured maybe I misread you and that you were thinking beyond the cruise and switched things up.

BTW, I came across this blogger on landscape photography. I have no idea whether he's right, but he seemed to have some different ideas than "get out your wide-angle lens and shoot at the magic hour" approach, which is essentially all I'd have to offer with my non-leet photo skillz.

I just caved and bought a 50mm f/1.4. This will be my first lens after my kit lens and I am really excited to play with it. Feel free to follow or friend me on flickr (I have no idea if that is a thing you can do on flickr), I'd love some feedback.

Now I just need to figure out what I am going to cut out of my budget this month to pay for it. I'm thinking food.

Nice shots DF7. I particularly like the Law Center and IMG_0110 (horse's eye).

I like Lights as well, though I'd love to see it with a shallower depth of field to throw that background out of focus a bit and bring your attention to the lights a bit more.

I also like IMG_0016 (skate boarder), I love panning shots and have played around with quite a few as well. The only about this one is I'd suggest a bit more active space in front of your subject. Having him right up at the left edge and moving that way looks uncomfortable to me, like he's about to run into the edge of the frame. I know some like to intentionally deprive moving subjects of active space, to give the impression of additional speed or motion. If that's what you're going for you hit it, I've just personally never liked that look. Personal preference I suppose

I've been going through some of my shots over the last year and am putting together an online portfolio as well, though I'm using Picasa Web atm. Once I've gotten it narrowed down I'll post it, I'd love some feedback as well.

Hope you don't mind a tiny hijack? I'm interested in getting a zoom lens (EF Mount) and have been looking at the various forms of 70-300, 70-200, 75-300 and so forth. Price ranges from about $200 up to thousands. I have a 50mm F1.8 prime lens, and the kit lens (18-55mm). Looking for something that would be a good all-in-one solution for long trips...

I'm hoping for something <$500 - the Canon 70-300mm f4-5.6 IS USM is just a little out of reach. What would be my next best choice? I use it mostly for shooting nature + people (my family) and am just getting started with DSLR Video...

Symbiotic wrote:

Hope you don't mind a tiny hijack? I'm interested in getting a zoom lens (EF Mount) and have been looking at the various forms of 70-300, 70-200, 75-300 and so forth. Price ranges from about $200 up to thousands. I have a 50mm F1.8 prime lens, and the kit lens (18-55mm). Looking for something that would be a good all-in-one solution for long trips...

I'm hoping for something <$500 - the Canon 70-300mm f4-5.6 IS USM is just a little out of reach. What would be my next best choice? I use it mostly for shooting nature + people (my family) and am just getting started with DSLR Video...

I asked the identical question in this thread, I'd suggest reviewing it and the next few pages for some of the very useful comments from folks here. For what it's worth, I ended up going with the Canon EF 75-300 f/4-5.6 III USM and I'd be comfortable recommending it to you for what you want and your price range.

I used the lens quite a bit on my Alaskan trip (and since) and I really enjoy it. You've definitely got to shoot at higher shutter speeds when out at 250-300mm, otherwise you'll get some noticeable blur from camera shake. Also, it's not really a good "all in one" lens. I used the combination of this and my 18-55mm to cover most situations. If you're really looking for an all in one you may want to try something like Canon's 18-200. A little pricier though and just over your $500 range, but it gives you a more complete focal range in one lens. In retrospect I might have done better with it on the cruise, as there was a shot or two I missed because I had the long lens on instead of the 18-55mm, or vice versa.

As I mentioned I'm building a portfolio from my shots over the last year or so. I was going to wait a bit before putting it out there since I'm still tweaking the shot selection. But the Mrs. suggested I need to either fish or cut bait, and get what I've selected so far out there for you guys to see and comment on.

Bowing to her wisdom here's my initial selection. Any comments or feedback, either on the inclusion of a particular image or on the image itself, would be greatly appreciated. I've tried to group them into general categories, but they do cover a lot of ground, from landscape to portrait to abstract.

Teneman wrote:

I like Lights as well, though I'd love to see it with a shallower depth of field to throw that background out of focus a bit and bring your attention to the lights a bit more.

I agree, but it was impossible with the kit lens I had. That picture is pretty much the reason I caved and bought the 50m f/1.4.

Teneman wrote:

I also like IMG_0016 (skate boarder), I love panning shots and have played around with quite a few as well. The only about this one is I'd suggest a bit more active space in front of your subject. Having him right up at the left edge and moving that way looks uncomfortable to me, like he's about to run into the edge of the frame. I know some like to intentionally deprive moving subjects of active space, to give the impression of additional speed or motion. If that's what you're going for you hit it, I've just personally never liked that look. Personal preference I suppose :)

I can't say that it was intentional, I was just trying to get close and then he almost ran over me. Most of that set was ruined by the dust on my sensor, as you can probably tell.

Teneman wrote:

I've been going through some of my shots over the last year and am putting together an online portfolio as well, though I'm using Picasa Web atm. Once I've gotten it narrowed down I'll post it, I'd love some feedback as well.

I'd love to see some of your stuff from your cruise.

I figured that was the case on the Lights shot DF7, I peeped at your EXIF I've had sensor dust problems in the past too, one spot damaged a whole batch of my skyline shots from the cruise before I noticed it. I managed to touch some up in Photoshop, but it's still a bit noticeable. Guess that means I need some more practice in my post processing too.

There are some of the cruise shots in the portfolio I just posted, let me know what you think.

Symbiotic wrote:

Hope you don't mind a tiny hijack? I'm interested in getting a zoom lens (EF Mount) and have been looking at the various forms of 70-300, 70-200, 75-300 and so forth. Price ranges from about $200 up to thousands. I have a 50mm F1.8 prime lens, and the kit lens (18-55mm). Looking for something that would be a good all-in-one solution for long trips...

I'd go for this 18-200mm zoom. Pricey at $600, but it takes you all the way from a reasonably wide angle to a long range telephoto without having to worry about having the wrong lens on the camera at the perfect moment. Or I'd go shorter on the tele-end to save money and get the 18-135mm. That's about $400.

Teneman: Some pretty impressive telephoto shots in that album, like the whale and the duck. I'm amazed you had enough light to do that. It makes me what a telephoto, but I think the next thing I need to do is get another body to replace my ancient 300D.

I also really like 40 of 42, the abstract blurriness.

Thanks! I like #40 too, one of my favorites. It's not photoshopped at all, it's just a really tight crop on a section of another shot, in fact another shot in the portfolio.

I've wanted a new lens for my A200 for a while now. That Tamron one someone linked seems to work very well. They have another one (70-300mm f4.0/5.6) that's significantly cheaper than the Konica Minolta/Sony alternatives I was looking at already.

Teneman wrote:

There are some of the cruise shots in the portfolio I just posted, let me know what you think.

I don't like commenting on other people's photos, but one thing you can do is take a photo and compare it in flickr to other photographs of the same type of subject or activity, a good photo that catches your eye.

Ask yourself if you'd have rather taken the one the other guy took to the one you took. If the answer is yes, identify the elements that are in his or her photos that aren't in yours. That makes you think about what you like in a photo, what you'd like to do the next time, what kind of equipment you might need, etc. I generally find doing this kind of intimidating and depressing because so many people on the internet take better pictures than I do, but it does make me break apart photos to see what they're made of.

Rather than necro another photography thread, here is a picture I am proud of: http://www.flickr.com/photos/alexand...

Its with my new 50mm f/1.4, and it shows off the ability to take pictures in virtually no light pretty well.

DF7 wrote:

Rather than necro another photography thread, here is a picture I am proud of: http://www.flickr.com/photos/alexand...

Its with my new 50mm f/1.4, and it shows off the ability to take pictures in virtually no light pretty well.

Heh, that gave me a bit of a start. I just recently started using Google Reader to aggregate all my RSS feeds. I added a couple of photo RSSes and grouped them into a Photography subfolder. I also added a couple of Flickr Photostreams, including yours. When I got to the office this morning I had a ton of unread items, so scrolled through them all relatively quickly while drinking my coffee. I saw this shot while doing so, but had forgotten I added your photostream.

Then I came here, saw this updated thread, clicked on the Flickr link and immediately recognized the picture. For a moment there I thought you'd been picked up by one of the big photo blogs!

Anyway, nice shot I know you were going for the grain, but even so, isn't it amazing how little grain these newer cameras pick up? I see you used ISO 1600. That high of an ISO in the film days and the shot would've had substantially more grain.

Yeah, ISO 1600 is as high as my camera goes. If I get the T2i, which can go up at least two stops more, I am pretty convinced I could take pictures in moonlight without a problem. The downside is that I have about an inch wide focal field.

PS: You have a flickr stream I could subscribe to?

PPS: Any way to make flickr streams have more than a thumbnail in them?

I've read some of the newer Canon's that go up to 3200 or even higher can do so with little to no extra grain. Amazing if true.

My Flickr. I know you can change the layout of the front page, showing both individual shots and sets, not sure if that's what you mean though. There's more options if you go for the pay account, which I might if I decide to upload a lot more.