Not my usual style

[Alison]

Not my usual style but I had a bash anyway.
I used my 50mm 1.8 lens for these (I don't have a macro lens)
I'm having alot of first attempts recently aren't I?

I haven't got a clue as far as macro is concerned lol.
Would these have turned out any better using macro mode?
Would I have been better off using my 18-55mm kit lens instead?

By the way, I didn't spray the Peony's. That was rain from the day before.

How'd I do?

[Loupey]

The top one is excellent. I normally do not like photos of flowers shot from directly above but this one is an exception because of the symmetry.

The bottom one is ok but a bit too static. It is what most people think of when they hear the word "flower" but it lacks a statement.

Don't fret too much as to what is "macro" and what is not. Get as close as you need to make your point. That point is achieved with the top one

As for the kit lens, try it and find out. But I'll put money down that it won't be as sharp.

[yogestee]

G'day Alison,,,good work for your first attempt....I like the abstract feel of the first image,,great view point..As Loupey mentioned the 50mm 1.8 worked well here,,the kit lens won't be as sharp as the 50mm...The great thing about digital is that you can get as close as the lens will focus and then crop out the bits you don't need...

Jurgen
Australia

[Alison]

My favourite is the first one too. But then I am a big fan of close ups

Thank you for the advice on which of my two lenses would be best to use. Guess I made the right choice ;) I am totally in love with my 50mm lens!

Maybe one day I will get myself a nice macro lens. Any recommendations for a great macro lens?

Thank you both so much.

[Loupey]

Why do I get the impression that you are yelling at us (font size)

Great to hear (and see) that you are getting a lot of use with that 50mm! I recall when you first joined that you took the advice from PR and bought that 50 1.8 - glad we didn't disappoint.

If you are serious about macro work and have about $500 USD, then I think everyone will recommend the 100mm f/2.8 macro. I don't have it but I have not heard anyone complain about it one bit.

If you want to play around some before spending that kind of money, I recommend buying some extension tubes (or at least one 12mm for your 50mm). On your 50mm, you will end up very close (physically) to your subject but it will add versatility to what you already have. I'm a big, BIG fan of tubes. Check out some tube work I posted in the Nature Forum.

[swmdrayfan]

Alison, I was just thinking how come we never see anything but portraits from you. Glad to see your talents extending to other areas. Keep it up.
John

[CLKunst]

Beautiful capture on the first image Alison. The second just pales in comparison. Quite abstract almost like an O'Keefe. Good control of the color tone too. This is just a beauty; put it in your "To be sold to greeting card people" folder.

[yogestee]

My favourite is the first one too. But then I am a big fan of close ups

Thank you for the advice on which of my two lenses would be best to use. Guess I made the right choice ;) I am totally in love with my 50mm lens!

Maybe one day I will get myself a nice macro lens. Any recommendations for a great macro lens?

Thank you both so much.

Hi Alison,,I have two macros,,,,Canon 50mm f2.5 Compact Macro and a Tamron SP AF90 f2.8 Di...Both are brilliant lenses and double up as great portrait lenses which is right down your alley..

BTW,,my little 50mm 1.8 cost me a bottle of 12 year old scotch...I got it off a friend who is going over to Nikon...Best swap I've made in years...

Jurgen
Australia

[Ronnoco]

Why do I get the impression that you are yelling at us (font size).

Perhaps, Loupey, because you are overly obsessed with obsolete netiquette from a bygone era. As a precise, media specialist, let me assure you that text does NOT yell and anyone using written text cannot yell either. That concept was a really dumb notion from some media illiterate. Text just sits on the page.

Ronnoco

[Anbesol]

Perhaps, Loupey, because you are overly obsessed with obsolete netiquette from a bygone era. As a precise, media specialist, let me assure you that text does NOT yell and anyone using written text cannot yell either. That concept was a really dumb notion from some media illiterate. Text just sits on the page.

Ronnoco

lol, ron, youre so anal ;)... and pompous "perhaps, loupey," "as a precise, media specialist," jeez man, try some modesty, its allright to be a bit humble.

anyway - I still appreciate you and having your input from time to time, its just you can be really silly with this type of stuff sometimes...

[Alison]

[QUOTE=Loupey]Why do I get the impression that you are yelling at us (font size)

I just like big text. And what's it there for if I can't use it? LOL (It's cos of my old eyes really. Maybe that's why I am a fan of close ups too). And thank you to you and yogestee for the advice on the lenses

swmdrayfan - Thank you so much.

CLKunst - Funny you should say that I made a simple get well card out of the first image for my Mother-in-Law.

[mpreslar]

Ali,

I have to go with the consensus that the first one is fantastic! The second could be improved by either a bit more DOF or a focal point deeper into the flower. The loss of sharpness as you "go up" the blossom is distracting. Otherwise a right fine floral pic!

As for macro lenses, I was looking at some as potential options before I got my new Sigma 70-200 2.8 EX. I had almost settled on a Sigma 180mm 2.8 Macro - figuring that it could do double duty as a macro lens and a long telephoto lens for hockey rinks, but then I found the 70-200 and in reasearching it found about 6 different people commenting that they used it in hockey rinks and it was great! That sold me! (Plus it was about $150 USD cheaper on e-bay than the 180 Macro). My second choice macro was a 100 and that would be more versital for a portrait photographer anyway. I was avoiding the actual canon glass because of price, but if you can afford an L series, by all means get it!