Macro or Wide Angle - what do you use more?

Harps · Post by **Harps** » Tue Dec 07, 2010 12:05 am

I'm looking to upgrade some lenses this year, and I'm having a tough time deciding whether to get the wide angle or the macro first?

I love macro shots, but the artistic freedom of wide angle is tipping the balance, especially over a winter. And then I'd have to decide on what wide angle.... (I'm sure of a 100mm weather resistant macro).

What lenses do you have on your camera most of the time?

Jeroen · Post by **Jeroen** » Tue Dec 07, 2010 8:27 am

As a regular fishing lens you would probably be more likely to use the wide angle, that is my experience. Especially on a crop camera a 100 mm macro is a pretty big tele, so for the casting, scenery and fishing, fish-fighting and fish holding shot, you would be in trouble. Most macro shots are more composed than 'from the hip', so if a macro is called for, changing lenses becomes part of the preparations for me. I use the 10-22 and love it. And I have an old 20-35 L 2.8 which actually is my favourite standard lens on my (crop) camera bodies (Canon).

Cheers,
Jeroen

Harps · Post by **Harps** » Tue Dec 07, 2010 5:47 pm

Jeroen,

I was thinking along the same lines.

I've been trying to decide between a sharp little 15mm prime lens (200g in weight) or a 12-24mm zoom (just about as sharp bnut 450g).

The zzom is practical, but I miss the days of using primes and being forced to move and consider shots at different angles.

JanMan · Post by **JanMan** » Tue Dec 07, 2010 6:03 pm

Wide angle. I'd go with the 12-24 zoom.

Eric · Post by **Eric** » Tue Dec 07, 2010 8:47 pm

Paul,
I picked up a macro off craigslist cheap (105mm Sigma) and enjoy it, but there are many more times when I'd use a wide angle if I had it such as trying to capture some bank or stones while shooting an angler in the river.

FlyAlf · Post by **FlyAlf** » Wed Dec 08, 2010 10:26 pm

Wideangle. More versatile.

Harps · Post by **Harps** » Wed Dec 08, 2010 10:48 pm

Unanimous for wide angle it seems!!

I like the zooms, but the added expense of large diameter filters and the extra weight is a downer.

Do you guys know a web tool that shows field of view at different focal lengths? I'm not sure I'll be in a situation where I can't just back up to get a shot...

JanMan · Post by **JanMan** » Thu Dec 09, 2010 8:17 am

450 grams is obviosuly a lot more than 200 grams but it's still a relatively light lens.

The only filter you need is a polarizer and once you've bought it you'll soon forget how much it cost

More importantly, is the 15mm a fisheye or is it rectalinear? If it's a fisheye I would stay away from it.

FOV calculator

Jan

Viking Lars · Post by **Viking Lars** » Thu Dec 09, 2010 3:07 pm

It's strange and it's something that I think Jan and I actually discussed briefly on Facebook a little while ago.

Some people like shooting wide angles - others don't. Personally, I have a 24-70mm and I've never felt the need, the urge or the artistic reason to own anything wider. I just don't like wide angles and can't seem to shoot good images with them.

And don't get me started on fisheyes :-). 99% of the fisheye-shots I've seen are just boring, standard wideangle shots that become mildly more interesting because everything is bent.

And I agree with the others - I was to make that choice, I'd definitely go for the zoom.

If I was to choose one lens taking usefullness, size and weight into consideration, I'd just use my 600mm macro lens! It does everything so incredibly well, and if I need more focal length, I have the choice of cropping dowm my FF to DX making it a 90mm!

Lars

Janesch · Post by **Janesch** » Thu Dec 09, 2010 4:04 pm

600 mm macro? :upside:

Harps · Post by **Harps** » Thu Dec 09, 2010 4:57 pm

A 600 macro... wow lars?!? Be great bug shots I guess...

I had decided on a weather sealed 100 mm macro as the other lens I'm getting, I just plan on waiting till the spring.
I like some fish-eye shots, but I think the artsy look would get old.

The 15mm I was looking at is rectangular and has great flare resistance and star pattern when shooting into the sun.

There is also the Sigma 10-20 (f4-5.6 because the f3.5 is too expensive) and the Pentax 12-24 which, besides cost, is larger.

I was thinking that I could carry a 15mm prime, a fast and sharp 50mm prime, and 100mm macro and have just about everything covered.
Of course I've been using a weather resistant 18-55 kit lens more than anything because of ease.
Maybe the zoom is the way to go... I just have to find a few hundred more.

I'm going fishing... it will give me time to think about it as I'm standing in the ice...

FlyAlf · Post by **FlyAlf** » Thu Dec 09, 2010 9:17 pm

Wides are also excellent for macro with a really thin extension ring. Great DoF, and possible to display a felling about background and eviroment. The only problem is the close distance to subject, a couple of cm or so.

A favorite lens on my previous FF dSLR was the Nikkor 20/3,5 MF with a old Vivitar exension.

Viking Lars · Post by **Viking Lars** » Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:33 pm

OK - that's a 60mm of course :-).

Lars

Paul Arden · Post by **Paul Arden** » Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:50 pm

I suppose it depends on whether you want to take bug shots or landscape shots, Harps. But I'm no expert :p

Cheers, Paul

Kakahi · Post by **Kakahi** » Sat Dec 11, 2010 5:51 pm

For me, I'd pick the macro. I've got a 100mm f2.8, and whenever I'm stuck for something to shoot, all you need do is get in close. It's a great medium telephoto as well.
I should add that I also have 10-22mm, but tend to use my macro more.

The Archived Board

The Archived Board

Macro or Wide Angle - what do you use more?

Macro or Wide Angle - what do you use more?

Who is online