8/4/2023 0 Comments Canon macro 100mm lineWith the longer lens, on the other hand, the difference in the angle at which you see everyone is much smaller - you see everyone more or less straight on. You're looking at the person in the center of the frame straight on, but you see the people at the edges at a fairly severe angle - you probably see only one side of their nose, and you certainly won't see the ear on the side that's farthest from you. With the wide angle, though, there's a big difference in the way you see the people in the middle of the frame versus the ones at the edges. You get a similar composition, since everyone fits in both shots in the same relative arrangement. With a telephoto lens, on the other hand, you have to stand farther back to fit everyone in the frame. With a wide angle lens, you can stand just a few feet away and get everyone in the shot. Think about this: imagine that you're taking a regular, non-macro photo of a group of friends who are all standing together. But the composition won't be exactly the same - different focal lengths have different effects on an image. That's because the angle of view for a 50mm lens is twice that of a 100mm lens. It's true that the 100mm lens lets you shoot from twice the distance as the 50mm lens and get a similar composition. :Dįrom what I've researched the only real difference is how close you have to be to your object to take the pictures. If I do it again, it'll be with my EF 400mm f/5.6L USM on extension tubes. It was only later that I realized I'd shot a tarantula hawk-a very large hornet with a very painful sting-from a distance of roughly six inches. I once shot a pretty bug with a midnight blue body and bright orange wings with my EF-S 60mm f/2.8 USM Macro on an XT/350D. Shorter lenses and small working distances, however, are less of an issue with flower or product shooting. Depending on what you plan to shoot, the longer lenses may be more useful by allowing you to use a larger working distance and not scare off critters that can hop/fly/crawl away when they sense you looming right over them although, of course, with wildlife of any kind, field craft will be more important than the length of your glass. These both cost more than the 50mm compact macro, but far less than the 100L Macro lens. "True" macro Canon alternatives you could consider would be the older non-L EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro (note there's no IS), or the EF-S 60mm f/2.8 USM Macro lens (which can only be used on crop). Whether it's "worth" the additional cost is up to you, and how much handholding you plan on doing. The 100L is also an L lens (Canon's "luxury" line of pro lenses which are typically considered their best (but most expensive) offerings), with a UD (ultra-low dispersion) element, and its "Hybrid" IS unit is also relatively special in that it can correct for two types of shake (shift and angular), rather than just one (angular), like most of Canon's IS lenses do. It was introduced in 1987, while the 100L Macro is a much newer digital-era design from 2009. So, it doesn't let you get as close as a true macro lens like the EF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM Macro. It does not magnify 1:1 (i.e., 1:1 means that the size of the image on the sensor is the same as the actual size of the object) it only magnifies 1:2.5. The 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro lens is not a "true" macro lens.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |