I want a macro lens!
There, I’ve said it.
Given that I don’t own one. and that this is the first time I have attempted to photograph something that really demands a certain type of lens. Not the general 17-55mm canon lens I had with me. Although I suppose my 70-200mm might have worked. But that was at home, and not on my camera at Clent Hill.
Regardless, I am rambling.
It has been a long day.
These certainly aren’t the greatest shots of their type, capturing insects in flight is a skill I simply have never tried to acquire. But I had a blast trying to snap a decent shot, and photography should be fun!
Shouldn’t it?
All this color is giving me a headache, I think a return to creepy mono trees and dark woodland is needed!
Thanks for looking.
Oh, and what (if any) macro lenses do people recommend? I am leaning to the Canon 100mm, but I am happy to convinced of a better choice.
Give me a hint in the comments, please.
Maybrick's Photography 
Great pictures.
Cheers:)
I have a Canon 100mm and used it for 3 months in the beginning of owning my DSLR. I had in mind to only do flower macro photography but soon found my eyesight and the constant wind in Melbourne made flower photography difficult. I rarely use it now. Having said that, it IS an excellent macro lens. (I never bought a kit lens with the DSLR).
But it also takes very good images of other subjects around me and I’ve even taken a reasonably good landscape with it (considering I have poor vision, even with prescription spectacles).
I think the Canon 100mm an excellent choice, but I suggest seeing if you can borrow or hire one first and form your own opinion as to how much use you would get out of it.
The 18-200mm lens I bought 3 months after the Macro lens to photograph birds is my ‘general walk-about’ lens and it’s absolutely brilliant. It would be even better if I actually used my tripod sometimes too – lol. I have shot a tiny caterpiller with the 18-200mm and while it doesn’t give a true macro effect as the Canon 100mm 2.8, it does a good job on small things.
Try before you buy (which is why I buy from one of Melbourne’s biggest camera stores not online). I went & tried the Sigma 150-500mm (and other long telephoto lenses) about 4-5 times over 12 months in the store, before I finally decided on it and bought it a few weeks ago.
PS. It sounds like you want to photograph flowers – your 17-55mm should be able to do that easily. I like a dark shady spot to photograph flowers, or late in the afternoon when the shadows are long. Perhaps you’re trying to shooting flowers in a bright sunny spot or the middle of the day. I can assure you it’s really hard to get a good shot of a bright pink flower with the sun overhead. Try early in the morning or late in the afternoon instead.
Cheers for the response, as much as I like the challenge of capturing a decent snap of a flower I think I really want to go after the six and eight legged critters that are on the flowers:)
I tend to be restricted to afternoons for photo taking, so I generally aim for the shady parts of the wood.
I have probably over processed the pink on the flowers, but I like the effect regardless:)
I will have a look at the 18-200mm, my worry would be that it would be on less reason to use my 70-200mm L. I love that lens, but the versatility of the 17-55mm just beats it most times. Even though the image quality is better from the L.
A macro lens would have been fun. I also want a fisheye and a tilt-shift, but most of a all a telephoto lens. 😀
The list of wanted lenses goes on for ever doesn’t it:)
Love the last one 🙂