lense types???

shamrock55

Could someone please tell me what a macro lense is and also what is a (non) IS lense.
Big difference in price between IS and non-IS lenses. Just want to know what the difference is. Thanks;)

pixbyjohn

Macro Lens: special purpose lens which gives a close-up view of the subject. A magnification level of 1:1 is usually best. This can bring small insect eyes, for example, into focus.

smelltheglove

IS is Image Stablisation, soif you have a 70-200 2.8 at say 1k compared toa70-200 2.8 Is(or vr for nikon) for 1800 then the is version is better.

Basically if you take an image at shutter speed of say 60 with a zoom or 20 or 30 with a 17-55 then you will likely get slight blur due to the low shutter speed and the slight movement of the lens, is/vr allows for this and helps stablise your lens to get a sharper image.

pixbyjohn

Have a look at the video on this page. Nikon use Micro, Canon use Macro, same thing. Nikon use VR (vibration reduction)
Canon use IS (image stabilisation)
http://www.nikonusa.com/Nikon-Products/Camera-Lenses/index.page

PCPhoto

IS on a Canon lens is "supposed" to give you the equivalent of 2 stops of light.

Personally I've found the non-IS lenses to be faster to autofocus and each are the same for sharpness (but I'm not an expert on lens calibration etc)

EDIT: Macro (Canon version) ... is a specialised lens which allows you to bring the operate the lens very close to the subject (all lenses have a minimum focus distance - so if you are too close for the lens no matter what lens you wont get a sharp image - with a macro lens you can get really close and get an image)

ps. true macro is 1:1 ..... but some lenses offer better, MPE-65 is a Manual Focus Macro lens which can take a picture of a grain of rice on its own

shamrock55

thanks for that info lads;)
so would you recommend i get an is version of a particular lense or (non)

CabanSail

shamrock55 wrote: »

thanks for that info lads;)
so would you recommend i get an is version of a particular lense or (non)

Depends on which lens, where and how you plan to use it and your budget.

pixbyjohn

shamrock55 wrote: »

thanks for that info lads;)
so would you recommend i get an is version of a particular lense or (non)

If you wish to use a lens longer than a 70mm handheld then go for IS.
What are you planning on photographing mostly?
I use a 24-70 non VR, but I use a 105 micro VR and a 70-200 VR on my D700

shamrock55

pixbyjohn wrote: »

If you wish to use a lens longer than a 70mm handheld then go for IS.
What are you planning of photographing mostly?
I use a 24-70 non VR, but I use a 105 micro VR and a 70-200 VR on my D700

mostly portrait and some wedding oh and slightly off topic would you recommend doing a course in photoshop i presume it would be handy if doing weddings

I just picked up a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 and I was delighted to see that IS had knocked over the price of non-IS lenses.

Maybe my theory is incorrect, but I don't think IS would benefit me at all, as I'd be using it for sports, and therefore my fast shutter speeds would make IS a tad pointless?

smelltheglove

As far as I understand it KKV youre right, IS is more required for low light, i.e. church weddings. Having said that I dont have VR but I can hold my camera very steady and get a sharp image from 1/30 2.8 when necessary on the smaller lens.

CabanSail

shamrock55 wrote: »

mostly portrait and some wedding oh and slightly off topic would you recommend doing a course in photoshop i presume it would be handy if doing weddings

When you say Weddings, is this for friends as a social sort of thing or as a paid photographer?

shamrock55

CabanSail wrote: »

When you say Weddings, is this for friends as a social sort of thing or as a paid photographer?

couple of friends weddings coming up they said i can tag along and take whatever pics i want they have a pro photographer who i also know(he wont mind either) i told them i will give them an album of pics stuff the pro wont do like guests, first dance,party next day type of thing all for free mind;)

FoxT

It is not possible for a person to hold a camera perfectly steadily. Your breathing & heartbeat changes the shape of your body (yes, you expand when your heart contracts, and vice versa) , and your body is constantly making little micro-adjustments to your stance so you maintain balance.
These factors ( & perhaps others as well) mean that your camera is constantly shaking slightly when you are holding it.

This is very noticeable when using telephoto lenses ( say, 100mm & longer ) .

2 Camera technologies are available that help combat this:

a - in-lens
A motion sensor in the lens detects small movements and moves some of the internal elements to counteract it. So if your camera moves one way, the lens elements will move in such a way as to ensure that the image on the camera sensor has not moved. This is the technology employed by Canon & Nikon, who respectively refer to it as IS or VR.

b - in camera
Using this method, a motion sensor in the camera will move the image sensor to counteract camera shake.

When is it useful?
- A rule of thumb for full-frame sensors is that slowest shutter speed = 1/focal length. ie, for a 200mm lens, slowest shutter = 1/200.
- for crop frame sensors, the rule is 1/(focal length x crop factor).
My Canon 40D for example has a 1.6x crop. So with a 200mm lens min shutter speed = 1/320. ( though I personally prefer to use 1/400 or faster at this length)

- So, IS is very useful in situations where you are forced to use a slow shutter speed, ie if you have a slow (f/4, f/5.6) lens in poor light.
- It is especially useful at longer focal lengths ( ie longer than say 70mm).
- It is not so useful at very short focal lengths. I have shot handheld at 1/15sec with my 10-20mm zoom & most of the time the results are fine. IS would in theory allow me to shoot handheld at say 1/4 sec, but at speeds this low, other problems come in to play.

What is a '2-stop gain'?

If your min shutter speed is 1/320, as above, a 1-stop gain means that your IS/VR will generally result in pics being as sharp at 1/160, and a 2-stop gain will result in pics being as sharp, even at 1/80.


When is it not useful?
IS makes no difference whatsoever if you are shooting things that are fast moving. The only way to freeze a fast moving subject is to use a fast shutter speed. If shooting soccer say I find that I need to use a min shutter speed of 1/500 to freeze the action. I use a 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS lens for this, and it works fine.

IS makes no difference if your primary light source is the flash. The flash duration is typically between 1/500 and 1/5000 of a second & this will freeze any movement in the frame. (Note that IS may be helpful if you are in dim light but 'dragging the shutter' so your image is only partially lit by flash.)

What if I don't have IS?
- Increase the ISO setting on your camera so you can use a faster shutter speed
- open the aperture a bit wider
- use a flash
- use a support (monopod, tripod)

Why is IS a good thing?
Wide aperture (f/2.8 or wider) lenses are heavy, bulky, and expensive. A slower lens (f/4 to f/5.6 say), with IS, will generally work just as well in low light, as a faster one. For example, my 70-200mm f/2.8 non-IS lens cost about 2.5 times as much as my 70-300mm IS lens, and it is about double the size & weight. When shooting handheld, the 70-300 IS, is, in many ways, as good as the 70-200 f/2.8.

Hope that helps!

- FoxT

shamrock55

great bit of info mate fair play;)

CabanSail

shamrock55 wrote: »

couple of friends weddings coming up they said i can tag along and take whatever pics i want they have a pro photographer who i also know(he wont mind either) i told them i will give them an album of pics stuff the pro wont do like guests, first dance,party next day type of thing all for free mind;)

Phew!

Great idea too. It's a good way to learn. You will get experience at interacting with your subjects and shooting candid shots. Don't expect brilliant results but you will get a fair few keepers and they will be from when the Pro Tog has gone. The only down side is that you have to keep away from the booze.

There are people around who think they just need to own a DSLR and can then call themselves a Photographer. They then try to do Weddings and the like.

shamrock55

CabanSail wrote: »

Phew!

Great idea too. It's a good way to learn. You will get experience at interacting with your subjects and shooting candid shots. Don't expect brilliant results but you will get a fair few keepers and they will be from when the Pro Tog has gone. The only down side is that you have to keep away from the booze.

There are people around who think they just need to own a DSLR and can then call themselves a Photographer. They then try to do Weddings and the like.

yea the lack of booze is deffo a con but the pro is the fact ill be getting some good wedding experience without stepping on any toes(especially with no booze anyway):D

Fionn

good article on it here