I've just talked to one of the big hybridizers that says I need a zoom with macro "switch" because we want to be able to zoom down to take pictures of tags, then up to take flower etc, without doing handstand to do it... because it's not uncommon for us to take 200 shots a morning and you don't want to be doing all that moving with your body.. you want the zoom to do the work... he says his has this "switch" ... he has a slightly different model Canon, but says he bought the lens seperately and it's a "Canon 18-55mm zoom with macro switch"

So, I call the bigger camera store of the chain camera store I bought my camera at... its in the big city about an hour from me. The guy there talks to me for a while, then when I tell him about this lens, he says he has never heard of a zoom lens with a macro switch? But, that's similar to what my co-worker was talking about too... I am confused! The camera store guy says to get any macro feature I can't have zoom. I have to move my body.

HELP!

Here is what the 28-135 IS zoom will do with the 20D (the same lenses fit yours and several other Canon dslr models). Shot aperture priority at 6.1 to get a nice bokeh (blurred background). My first attempt to write this out got flushed trying to get the info for you. The 28-135 is relatively inexpensive, not a true macro, has a lot of zoom, but will not let you get as close as a true macro. Who wants to photograph the pistils of a daylily? I like to fill the frame with a flower if I can, but sometimes they are where I can't get physically close enough, so I zoom and/or crop.

In short, I have a Canon 50mm 1.8 and that is not considered a true macro lens although you can get close with it, it is very sharp, and it is cheap. With a fixed lens, you have to walk in and out. Sigma has some nice lenses, too. On my wishlist is the Canon 100mm true macro, but I don't like the idea of changing lenses too often because that means sensor dust and sensor cleaning. The 60mm will get you a little closer but is too close to my 50mm, but might be a good choice for you.

Here are two I shot with the 28-135 IS aperture priority, f6.1 (often use 5.6, lower than that will not always get the whole flower in focus (depth of field), higher than that will sometimes not get you bokeh although, to be honest, I haven't figured it out entirely because I use f8 a lot and sometimes get bokeh and sometimes don't, suspect it depends on what I choose to focus on. Nine times out of ten, I focus on the spot I want and while keeping it half-pressed, reframe to compose it the way I want.

The 28-135 IS does have a macro indicator on the lens in the 100mm range. The first photo was shot at 44mm (not macro) and the second, at 65mm (macro range). This lens is not considered a true macro lens, but I like it because it is so practical, versatile and not as expensive as some of the others. The Canon 70-200mm 2.8 L is one nice lens but very expensive. You have a lot of zoom to play with with that, but the 70 end limits you if you want to shoot, say, a whole garden.

I always shoot RAW now and post process most photos I post on the web and get prints made from to get the best from them, always use USM in Photoshop CS2 starting at amount 300, radius .3, threshhold 0, sometimes vary that depending on photo size.

Also suggest you set your camera focus to center point. Hope I don't sound like a know-it-all because I do not. I have read and read and practiced and practiced and worked hard.

Now I shoot exclusively in RAW (get more leeway with it in post processing). Learning to post process is half the battle, you will not get nice sharp lily shots straight out of the camera because that is the way dslr's are designed. It's a trade-off between super sharp like out of point and shoot digital cameras that have noise at ISO 400 and a little softer but very little, if any, noise in low light up to ISO 1600 which is marvelous, wonderful to be able to have that. I can get shots I could not get before in low light.

{{gwi:1032011}}

{{gwi:1037420}}

I read your post again, and if you want bugs, get the 100mm macro, know Canon has one, think Sigma has one, Sigma will be cheaper; I'm partial to Canon if I can find the money. What lens do you usually have on your camera?

I have seen fantastic photos with the Sigma 50-500mm which is just under $1000. But you can only hand hold the camera up to 400mm, higher you need a tripod. Plus it is HEAVY to lug around. Like maybe 10 pounds?

I think the problem lies with the fact that sometimes I DO need to take images of small parts of a daylily. I might want to show just part of it to highlight a particular trait.

And, the daylily you show above is an average size one. Some I take pictures of are only 1-1/2 inches across.

I would also be changing lenses out in a garden, with not the cleanest conditions... so - I need to try to do this with one lens if I can. ARGH!

I am trying to liquidate my garden, and need to get the very best shots of all my plants I can to get the best price for them I can. I only have about 2 more weeks for some of them to bloom.

When I look back at some of my photos, saying that the daylilies dont' fill the frame is not right. In many cases the larger ones do.. but I have so many that are smaller. And, I can't zoom in, for lack of proper term, on the finer details.

Jules

coming from. I think the 50mm was bad advice, frankly, for what you need to do, but I'm not sure I am giving you any better. My 28-135 will not get the close detail you need. The 100mm will. $599 at Dell. Whew. The 60mm might, and it is the best portrait lens if you do any of that. Maybe you should get the Sigma. I think theirs is 105mm. I would not think about the 70-200 now; what you already have is roughly comparable, just is not as "fast" a lens as a 2.8 which lets more light in. It isn't going to matter for what you need to do; it will be daylight, sunny or overcast; there will be enough light.

Do you shoot with the histogram? That is a big help. Also I have learned to use soft fill flash if my flower is in the shade or up the ISO. Canon metering is pretty good, but watch the blown highlights. Flowers and sky can be tricky. Try a few shots with the exposure compensation turned down to -2/3 if bright sunlight or overcast, not shade. Blown sky is sometimes unavoidable, but you don't want to blow the flowers, even bright colors, not just white, blow. Your lcd should blink. Adjust your settings and try again if that happens. Once you get the right setting, you're good for that session exposure-wise.

I was shooting at ISO 100. Somebody told me to set my camera to 200. I've found I like that because it forces faster shutter speeds; hence less chance for camera shake.

I hate buying any camera gear without giving it long, careful thought and research because I am going to have to live with my decision for a long time. Plus you just don't mount a brand new lens and start getting your best photos. You have to experiment with it, like test driving a new car. And horror of horrors, sometimes you have to send them in to Canon along with your camera for calibration if you don't get a good copy. You can avoid that by buying locally at a place with a return policy with people who will work with you. I buy all my lenses online because I usually save.

Some places you can rent a lens. Not where I live. Probably not an option for a macro lens.

Your 18-200 has a good zoom range. I know nothing about that lens, picture quality, etc.

In the long run, even if you have to swap lenses, you will not be sorry to have the 100mm. You can change lenses inside a bag, go in the house or in your car where there is less likely to be dust floating around. You can also try to plan your shooting so you do the closeup shots first. I've swapped lenses several times and don't have any serious sensor dust at the moment. Cleaning the sensor is no big deal to some people; I've only done it once, and I was scared because that camera is one expensive piece of equipment.

Take the little lens cap off the lens you are going to mount first. Set the lens on the loosened cap where it will not fall. Take off the lens on your camera. Mount the other lens and screw the cap back on the one you just took off.

There is a downside to everything. I hope you make the right decision and don't let somebody sell you the wrong one to make a sale.

Thanks for everyone's help!!!!

Well, this is what I did. I went out this morning and took photos of several flowers with the existing lens, and how close it would focus on those particular flowers. Then, I took out the Nikon 7900 with it's digital zoom which "acts" like a macro, and shot pics to show how I would want to highlight certain features of the flower. For example, one has "tendrils" on the edge of the petals, another has a patterned eye, and yet another was just a tiny flower, a little over an inch across. The last flower was a large flower, but for some reason, I could not fill the frame with the Canon and be in focus. Then, I picked the flowers and headed to the store.

With the actual flowers, and a "real" sales guy who understood the issue, we tried a real macro lens, actually several.. but none satisfied me. Then we started with lenses that were zooms with macro. We tried different makers, and ranges.

I ended up with a Sigma 28-135 zoom F3.8-5.6 Macro that has a "macro switch" like my friend had told me that he uses... You set the lens all the way to (pardon me my technical term won't be right here) the farthest telephoto... then push the switch to macro. Then you use the lens like it was not a zoom lens, but a fixed lens. You position your body/camera the distance you want from the object, then push the button to focus (or you can use it as a manual focus - I think- we tried so many - but I think this is one he said can do the manual focus or auto focus)

This particular lens I could get about 5-6" away. And, with the 135 end, that gives me quite a useful lens the other way too.

So, I am anxious for tomorrow morning to see how it goes. I am a bit concerned that the lens I got was $200 less expensive... so I hope it is as good, but it is still a Sigma. They said it was less because it is only a 135 and not a 200. That didn't sound right to me. One was gold box (I got) and the other one I had was black box, which looked like the higher end Sigma's.

Hmm...

Jules

I didn't know Sigma had a lens like that. It sounds like a good solution to your problem, wish you could post a sample. Most of what I've seen with Sigma are nice, but some aren't so nice; I attribute that to the user and not the lens.

I wanted to send you to another website forum but was afraid to because of the rules here, but you got what you needed, can't explain the price difference as it sounds like a more complex lens, but then getting a zoom to work through the entire range of your first lens might require more precision in the mfr process and different optics.

Did you try the Canon 100mm macro? I'm curious what you thought about it if you did. I saw some photos taken with that and was blown away, otherwise I would have kept quiet.

I don't think what you did would work for me because I have such a similar lens, just can't get that close. I don't want two 28-135 lenses, macro or no.

I need to get signed up again with one of the online photo places so I can upload photos that way. I got lazy once I got my .mac site because it's so easy to make web pages and picture pages with it that I let the photo page go for so long, I lost the web page address, sign in and password. I think it was with photo bucket, but not sure. And, since they changed over here and said they can use your photos here for their own use... I got nervous and have not posted anything on this forum since IVillage took over. I guess that's when I stopped putting anything on photobucket.

I wish there was a way to link to photos on your desktop like on another garden forum I am on that has a photo discussion. So much easier.

I did try a high number macro.. I think it was an 80? It may have been a 100. I tried so many that I got to the point where I just waited till the guy got the lens on the camera and didn't pay much attention to what it was because we tried so many.

There was a BIG difference between the 18-200 I had that was not macro, then I tried a 18-75 with macro. Loved that... but wanted more zoom. They hunted around some more... and came up with the one I got. When you have it in regular... I am about ---oh.... 16-18 inches away... then you do the "switch" to macro... and I was about 6 inches away. I went from half the daylily in the picture to about 1/2 inch square of the petal in the frame.

Pretty cool!

I am just PRAYING that the guy told me right, and that this Sigma will shoot the same color as the other Sigma did.

Jules

If you like, you can email me some samples up to say 5 800X600 72 dpi, better not more than 150 kb each, or so at agless@REMOVETHISearthlink.net and I can upload them to my domain, link them in here just like I did mine, will not use them for anything, will delete them when you say. Can't email huge files, but if you resize to something reasonable, I have dsl, no problem.

I am going to try to get up early to photograph a big race in the am, so may not get to it until afternoon.

In the meantime you can look for a photo host. I bought my own personal domain, www.white-peacock.com; dot com but don't sell anything off of it, it is more expensive, but I don't have to follow anybody's rules but my isp's as to content. I've got tons of room left on there and umpteen of my own photos, many of which I should delete now. I can't "browse" my domain, have to open each file to see what it was if I don't remember, very tedious and time consuming.

I'm sure your lens will be fine. I'm happy you found something that will work for you.

this morning it looks like it's going to rain... I hope not... it's still to early for the flowers to be open very well, and there is not much light out there yet. As soon as it brightens up a bit I will try the lens, and email a couple of the closeups to you.

It's not a place like photobucket I was worried about using the images. I didn't even realize that they could. It was I-Village ... before they took over this site, the other people didn't have all that stuff about using your content or images for their own use. But, these days, I have seen so many of my images from my .mac picture pages showing up on the daylily auction sites where people lifted them without permission... I guess I should just not worry about it.

You mentioned earlier "Do you shoot with the histogram? That is a big help." And then you mentioned using a soft fill flash... No, I don't know how to do either one of those. You also mentioned "exposure compensation turned down to -2/3".... I usually shoot with the auto bracketing on, and since Cannon takes the minus shot before the plus shot, I've been trying to lift my finger up before it takes the plus shot, since I never need that... so I don't get 3 bracketed shots when I really just need the two.. I LOVED it that this camera could do that!!! The last two cameras I had you could not do that with, so every time I took photos, I automatically took up 1/3 of the card space I didn't need. Anyway, someone else has mentioned about soft fill flash and the histogram to me... but my manual and the little book I bought don't go into much detail about how to use it. I'll need to experiment with it or go online somewhere to learn about doing that.

Getting a new camera and trying to learn about it during the 3-4 weeks of bloom time is not ideal, but I needed to do this to get the best possible shots so I can sell the most plants, as I am trying to sell them out. Many of the plants I have are not widely available, so a good photo can make all the difference in how it sells. All the digging / dividing of daylilies has become to much for me. 6 years ago, I had over 800 named varieties, now am down to about 150. Want to get down to about 30-40 of the slowest growers. Then, on my hill that's to steep to mow, put in perennials that won't need further work, like dividing, such as peonies. Hate to do it, because I really love daylilies, but you have to do what you have to do.

Thanks so much for your help!

Got up at 5:30, darn race didn't start until 8, they said 7 on one of the news websites. Had to get there early enough so I didn't have to park too far away, people everywhere all over town. Hot already but not as bad as I thought. Here I am telling you what to do and my photos did not turn out too great. I shot sports mode, buildings & background were bright but runners too dark, many blurry or out of focus, many good and fixable. I am going to have to process each one that's worth keeping (shot 594) and brighten most of them up with shadow highlights. Good learning experience. I shot most in sports mode which kicks into burst, but I'm not happy with a lot of today's because I can't change any of the parameters in that, picks too large apertures and too slow shutter speeds and continuous auto focus I'm not used to at all. It is hard shooting a sea of people, never been in a situation quite like that before. I'm thinking about what to do next time, couldn't figure out how set burst so I could use tv mode standing out there with all those people, should have shot tv mode, 1/800, ISO 800, partial metering. Maybe. I'll have to get some help with that.

Coming home, I was trapped in by lots of street closings, had to go way out of my way to find a way out of that maze, lucky I know my streets around here, only one way out from where I got myself. Filled two 1 gig flash cards in about 1/2 hour! Good timing though, a few stragglers were coming up the hill when both cards were full.

I'll wait for your photos. Yours will be easy. I know people steal photos. I haven't caught anybody doing that to me yet, maybe mine aren't that good? Somebody in France liked my peacock java applet and wrote and asked, I said ok. What do I care? I just don't want people making money off my work.

Will address some of the other issues later. Too bad you have to break up your lily garden, that would be very hard for me to do. You must be either a specialist or have special lilies and maybe getting older like I am? Granny out shooting a race. Hah! I wonder which lens would be best for that? Used 50mm with a different race, much smaller, this time went with the 28-135 so I could zoom. 70-200 not wide enough even if I had it which I don't. That is a conundrum for sure since I was so close to most of them standing on the sidewalk, brushed by a few, tried not to get in their way. Then some other photog gets in my way.

There now you taught me something about bracketing. I've been doing it the hard way. Shoot, look at histogram, set exposure comp or some other adjustment. I'm going to try bracketing and quit on the bright end like you do. So thanks for that tip!

I dared not shoot that race in AV (my favorite) because with the early morning bright light and shadows, it would have picked too slow a shutter speed. Frustrating.

THIS is where I would like to have been positioned lol. She hadn't turned her camera toward the race yet, she had to swing it about 45 degrees to her right to be pointing at the runners coming up the long hill. I fixed this one a little.

{{gwi:2013961}}

Later,
Alice