Lens advice, please

Kate wrote:

... I checked out information on extension tubes and as they
reduce the focussing distance, doesn`t that mean I would have to get
_closer_ to the subject?


It is handy to be able to stand back & zoom in grin. I don't know what
combination gives that, obviously a long lens but whether macro, tubes,
diopter I don't know.

Kate wrote:

... I checked out information on extension tubes and as they
reduce the focussing distance, doesn`t that mean I would have to get
_closer_ to the subject?


It is handy to be able to stand back & zoom in grin. I don't know what
combination gives that, obviously a long lens but whether macro, tubes,
diopter I don't know.

paul wrote:

Kate wrote:


... I checked out information on extension tubes and as they reduce
the focussing distance, doesn`t that mean I would have to get _closer_
to the subject?



It is handy to be able to stand back & zoom in grin. I don't know what
combination gives that, obviously a long lens but whether macro, tubes,
diopter I don't know.

None of those three things will do what she wants. All three require
that you basically "zoom with your feet", something she can't do without
frightening off the subject. All of these will let you fill the frame
with a small subject, but it's at the expense of focussing distance. I
have a set of three diopters (+4, +2. +1), if I stack them all on a
lens, I can get within inches of what I want to photograph. This works
great for stuff like floral portraits. Obviously, if I tried to use them
with something like a butterfly, the butterfly would just fly off when I
got too close.

The only option I see for her, short of buying a longer lens, is to use
a teleconverter and then just deal with the loss of light as best she
can. Speaking of longer lenses, somebody posted this in another group today:
http://www.dvinfo.net/canon/images/images17.php


--
Angela M. Cable
Paint Shop Pro 9 Private Beta Tester
Neocognition, digital scrapbooking source:
http://www.neocognition.com/

PSP Tutorial Links:
http://www.psplinks.com/

5th Street Studio, free graphics, websets and mo
http://www.fortunecity.com/westwood/alaia/354/

paul wrote:

Kate wrote:


... I checked out information on extension tubes and as they reduce
the focussing distance, doesn`t that mean I would have to get _closer_
to the subject?



It is handy to be able to stand back & zoom in grin. I don't know what
combination gives that, obviously a long lens but whether macro, tubes,
diopter I don't know.

None of those three things will do what she wants. All three require
that you basically "zoom with your feet", something she can't do without
frightening off the subject. All of these will let you fill the frame
with a small subject, but it's at the expense of focussing distance. I
have a set of three diopters (+4, +2. +1), if I stack them all on a
lens, I can get within inches of what I want to photograph. This works
great for stuff like floral portraits. Obviously, if I tried to use them
with something like a butterfly, the butterfly would just fly off when I
got too close.

The only option I see for her, short of buying a longer lens, is to use
a teleconverter and then just deal with the loss of light as best she
can. Speaking of longer lenses, somebody posted this in another group today:
http://www.dvinfo.net/canon/images/images17.php


--
Angela M. Cable
Paint Shop Pro 9 Private Beta Tester
Neocognition, digital scrapbooking source:
http://www.neocognition.com/

PSP Tutorial Links:
http://www.psplinks.com/

5th Street Studio, free graphics, websets and mo
http://www.fortunecity.com/westwood/alaia/354/

paul wrote:

Kate wrote:


... I checked out information on extension tubes and as they reduce
the focussing distance, doesn`t that mean I would have to get _closer_
to the subject?



It is handy to be able to stand back & zoom in grin. I don't know what
combination gives that, obviously a long lens but whether macro, tubes,
diopter I don't know.

None of those three things will do what she wants. All three require
that you basically "zoom with your feet", something she can't do without
frightening off the subject. All of these will let you fill the frame
with a small subject, but it's at the expense of focussing distance. I
have a set of three diopters (+4, +2. +1), if I stack them all on a
lens, I can get within inches of what I want to photograph. This works
great for stuff like floral portraits. Obviously, if I tried to use them
with something like a butterfly, the butterfly would just fly off when I
got too close.

The only option I see for her, short of buying a longer lens, is to use
a teleconverter and then just deal with the loss of light as best she
can. Speaking of longer lenses, somebody posted this in another group today:
http://www.dvinfo.net/canon/images/images17.php


--
Angela M. Cable
Paint Shop Pro 9 Private Beta Tester
Neocognition, digital scrapbooking source:
http://www.neocognition.com/

PSP Tutorial Links:
http://www.psplinks.com/

5th Street Studio, free graphics, websets and mo
http://www.fortunecity.com/westwood/alaia/354/

"Angela M. Cable" wrote in message
...
paul wrote:

Kate wrote:


... I checked out information on extension tubes and as they
reduce the focussing distance, doesn`t that mean I would have to
get _closer_ to the subject?



It is handy to be able to stand back & zoom in grin. I don't know
what combination gives that, obviously a long lens but whether
macro, tubes, diopter I don't know.

None of those three things will do what she wants. All three require
that you basically "zoom with your feet", something she can't do
without frightening off the subject. All of these will let you fill
the frame with a small subject, but it's at the expense of focussing
distance. I have a set of three diopters (+4, +2. +1), if I stack
them all on a lens, I can get within inches of what I want to
photograph. This works great for stuff like floral portraits.
Obviously, if I tried to use them with something like a butterfly,
the butterfly would just fly off when I got too close.

The only option I see for her, short of buying a longer lens, is to
use a teleconverter and then just deal with the loss of light as
best she can. Speaking of longer lenses, somebody posted this in
another group today:
http://www.dvinfo.net/canon/images/images17.php


--
Angela M. Cable
Paint Shop Pro 9 Private Beta Tester
Neocognition, digital scrapbooking source:
http://www.neocognition.com/

PSP Tutorial Links:
http://www.psplinks.com/

5th Street Studio, free graphics, websets and mo
http://www.fortunecity.com/westwood/alaia/354/

Exactly, Angela! Perhaps I didn`t make myself clear earlier, but you
have defined the problem perfectly.

However, will a 100-400mm with a 1.4x teleconverter fill, or nearly
fill, the frame with a subject that is only about 4-6 ins. high if I
need to stand 18ft away from it? Or, from the other way around, what
set-up would I need to do this, please? Is there a mathematical
formula I could use? I have read quite a lot of reviews about zoom
lenses, but have yet to find one that answered this vexing question.
Of course, the lens featured on your link would do the job, if I could
stand in the next county and had muscles like Arnold Schwarzenegger
(used to have?) ;-)

Kate

"Angela M. Cable" wrote in message
...
paul wrote:

Kate wrote:


... I checked out information on extension tubes and as they
reduce the focussing distance, doesn`t that mean I would have to
get _closer_ to the subject?



It is handy to be able to stand back & zoom in grin. I don't know
what combination gives that, obviously a long lens but whether
macro, tubes, diopter I don't know.

None of those three things will do what she wants. All three require
that you basically "zoom with your feet", something she can't do
without frightening off the subject. All of these will let you fill
the frame with a small subject, but it's at the expense of focussing
distance. I have a set of three diopters (+4, +2. +1), if I stack
them all on a lens, I can get within inches of what I want to
photograph. This works great for stuff like floral portraits.
Obviously, if I tried to use them with something like a butterfly,
the butterfly would just fly off when I got too close.

The only option I see for her, short of buying a longer lens, is to
use a teleconverter and then just deal with the loss of light as
best she can. Speaking of longer lenses, somebody posted this in
another group today:
http://www.dvinfo.net/canon/images/images17.php


--
Angela M. Cable
Paint Shop Pro 9 Private Beta Tester
Neocognition, digital scrapbooking source:
http://www.neocognition.com/

PSP Tutorial Links:
http://www.psplinks.com/

5th Street Studio, free graphics, websets and mo
http://www.fortunecity.com/westwood/alaia/354/

Exactly, Angela! Perhaps I didn`t make myself clear earlier, but you
have defined the problem perfectly.

However, will a 100-400mm with a 1.4x teleconverter fill, or nearly
fill, the frame with a subject that is only about 4-6 ins. high if I
need to stand 18ft away from it? Or, from the other way around, what
set-up would I need to do this, please? Is there a mathematical
formula I could use? I have read quite a lot of reviews about zoom
lenses, but have yet to find one that answered this vexing question.
Of course, the lens featured on your link would do the job, if I could
stand in the next county and had muscles like Arnold Schwarzenegger
(used to have?) ;-)

Kate

Angela M. Cable wrote:

The only option I see for her, short of buying a longer lens, is to use
a teleconverter and then just deal with the loss of light as best she
can. Speaking of longer lenses, somebody posted this in another group
today:
http://www.dvinfo.net/canon/images/images17.php


17,000 mm telephoto ought to do the trick. It says you need full
daylight for best results. At what distance would a butterfly fill the
screen on this?

Angela M. Cable wrote:

The only option I see for her, short of buying a longer lens, is to use
a teleconverter and then just deal with the loss of light as best she
can. Speaking of longer lenses, somebody posted this in another group
today:
http://www.dvinfo.net/canon/images/images17.php


17,000 mm telephoto ought to do the trick. It says you need full
daylight for best results. At what distance would a butterfly fill the
screen on this?

Angela M. Cable wrote:

The only option I see for her, short of buying a longer lens, is to use
a teleconverter and then just deal with the loss of light as best she
can. Speaking of longer lenses, somebody posted this in another group
today:
http://www.dvinfo.net/canon/images/images17.php


17,000 mm telephoto ought to do the trick. It says you need full
daylight for best results. At what distance would a butterfly fill the
screen on this?