# 60mm Macro lens equivalent for Full Frame



## Mantadude (Oct 13, 2017)

Does anyone know of a good macro lens that would be the equivalent of a 60mm but for full frame? I shoot 4k video with the 1dx2. Which crops the the image about 40% I believe. So my 100mm macro lens is just too tight for alot of my subjects. It used to be fine using the full frame of a 5d, but this crop makes it tough for medium sized subjects.

Alot of people use the 60mm and 100mm for use with a cropped sensor. But I never had the ability to do that with a full frame. And would be nice to be able to have that flexiblity.

I have tried to use the 16-35mm F4L with a 1.4x teleconvertor. But the image quality isn't great. I use this for shooting underwater subjects so I have other possible limitations as well.

Interested to here what people suggest. Thanks in advance!
-Dustin


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Oct 13, 2017)

There is no prime Canon between 50mm and 85mm (I do not count the MP-E65).

There is the Tamron 60mm F2 Macro, which is designed for APS-C, but fits in full frame cameras, showing vignette when using the entire size of the 24x36mm sensor.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 13, 2017)

If I recall correctly, there are a host of 1:1 macro lenses at/around 90-100mm FF and a number of 1:2 macro lenses around 50mm.

But, as you can see here (https://goo.gl/pEhZf5), you only have two choices today with an EF mount lens (three if you count the 1980s EF 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro, which you can find outside the US I think). All three of those lenses are 1:2 magnification. 

The EF-S 60mm Macro was (as I understood) just 'short mounted' 100mm prime, wasn't it? i.e. the 60mm was borne not out of any novelty -- it just represented what it took to hand the classic 1:1 100mm macro experience to crop users. That's the way it's been for a very long time. If memory serves, I want to say Zeiss (ages ago) nailed the 100mm design and everyone has eventually cloned or offered something like it. Not sure who started the 1:2 macro 50 primes, though.

I've never seen 1:1 magnification at 50mm in FF, but that could change soon. Canon has put out two APS-C macro lenses (presumably for the food/travel/lifestyle Instagram crowd) in 28mm @ 1.2:1 and 35mm @ 1:1, which are in the 50mm FF FOV neighborhood. So it 100% possible to do.

So potentially, all those annoying folks who bustedout their SLRs to share their creme brulee, tiramisu, etc. on IG may end up creating a photography movement that gets us a 1:1 macro at a shorter FL for FF. 

- A


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Oct 13, 2017)

Either of the Canon 100mm F2.8 L IS or non L lenses on full frame are the direct equivalents of the 60mm F2.8 Macro with a 1.6 crop sensor. The Sigma and Tamron 90/105 mm lenses will do a very similar job as well.

P.S. A used Canon 100 F2.8 Macro (non L) is pretty cheap these days and an awfully nice lens! Good for portraits and landscape too.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 13, 2017)

And where's my head? Canon has a very nice 0.7x (or 1:1.4 if you prefer) macro mode at 70mm FF with the EF 24-70 f/4L IS that no one seems to hype.

It's perfect for hikes/travel and you only want to bring one lens. For informal macro work, 'drive-by' quick handheld stuff for the odd critter or flower you come across, etc. it's wonderful.

Upsides: it's full frame, sharp, AF works at macro distances, FTM override, has hybrid IS for handheld macro work, and it's in the neighborhood of your 60mm FF ask.

Downsides: Not quite 1:1, working distance is small (though I believe would be true of any < 100mm macro approaching 1:1 mag) and it lacks some Canon macro creature comforts -- there are no focus range limiters and I'm not sure how conveniently you can attach macro speedlites to the front element (which is 77mm, larger than most standard macro lenses).

Downsides specific to your underwater need: It's a zoom that needs to fully extend out to 70mm to get to the macro mode (it doesn't change length once in that mode). Further, it does not seamlessly switch to from standard lens to macro just with the AF distance -- there is a dedicated physical switch on the lens barrel that toggles between standard zoom use and macro use. That _might_ be problematic for you, but you can lock this lens in the macro mode and effectively turn it into a dedicated 70mm macro before it goes into whatever housing you are using.

If you are dead set on FF macro right now, that lens _might_ be a close compromise you can live with.

- A


----------



## AJ (Oct 13, 2017)

Sigma makes a 70/2.8 macro (now discontinued it seems) and Tamron has its 90/2.8. I'm not aware of any focal lengths in between.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 14, 2017)

I picked up a used Canon 50mm f/2.5 macro for around $100 this summer, it is a reasonably sharp lens. Its a 1:2 lens, so you need the life size adapter to go to 1:1. Add a 1.4X TC, and you have 80mm but a stop smaller aperture.


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 14, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> And where's my head? Canon has a very nice 0.7x (or 1:1.4 if you prefer) macro mode at 70mm FF with the EF 24-70 f/4L IS that no one seems to hype.
> 
> It's perfect for hikes/travel and you only want to bring one lens. For informal macro work, 'drive-by' quick handheld stuff for the odd critter or flower you come across, etc. it's wonderful.



My favorite walkabout lens!


----------



## Zeidora (Oct 14, 2017)

Zeiss Milvus 50mm/2.0 ZE goes to 1:2.


----------



## Deleted member 378664 (Oct 14, 2017)

Canon recently anounced three new TS lenses.
One of them is the TS-E 50mm f/2.8L Macro

https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/products/details/lenses/ef/tilt-shift/ts-e50mm-f-2-8l-macro

kind regards
Frank


----------



## danski0224 (Oct 14, 2017)

AJ said:


> Sigma makes a 70/2.8 macro (now discontinued it seems) and Tamron has its 90/2.8. I'm not aware of any focal lengths in between.



That Sigma is very sharp, long discontinued in Canon mount and very difficult to find. While it does autofocus, it is very noisy and iffy.

However, the same lens is available in Nikon mount that is much more readily available (but still discontinued and obsolete), and it is possible to use Nikon lenses on a Canon camera.


----------



## danski0224 (Oct 14, 2017)

Mantadude said:


> Does anyone know of a good macro lens that would be the equivalent of a 60mm but for full frame? I shoot 4k video with the 1dx2. Which crops the the image about 40% I believe. So my 100mm macro lens is just too tight for alot of my subjects. It used to be fine using the full frame of a 5d, but this crop makes it tough for medium sized subjects.
> 
> Alot of people use the 60mm and 100mm for use with a cropped sensor. But I never had the ability to do that with a full frame. And would be nice to be able to have that flexiblity.
> 
> ...



The Sigma 70mm macro- Canon EF mount will be quite difficult to find. Nikon mount versions are relatively common in comparison. This lens is regarded as one of the best macro lenses made.

Canon 50mm Compact Macro (requires "life size converter" for 1:1). The life size converter works with other Canon lenses too.

Nikon 55mm f/2.8 AIS macro, requires PK-13 adapter for 1:1, also regarded as an extremely good lens. Still available new.


----------



## Arty (Oct 14, 2017)

I have the Sigma 50 F2.8 macro lens. It is a fine macro lens and goes to 1:1, but it does have a gear drive and the lens extends when close. I have not used this for video, but for general use and macro to 1:1. It is out of production right now, but they can be found in Canon mounts.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Oct 14, 2017)

A bit baffled by some of the suggestions here! The OP asked for an equivalent of the 60mm Macro (on APSC) for full frame. Therefore the 90 to 105 mm Macros lenses from Canon/Sigma/Tamron are what they need.


----------



## stevelee (Oct 14, 2017)

johnf3f said:


> A bit baffled by some of the suggestions here! The OP asked for an equivalent of the 60mm Macro (on APSC) for full frame. Therefore the 90 to 105 mm Macros lenses from Canon/Sigma/Tamron are what they need.



I was baffled by the question, so maybe people interpreted it in different ways. He seems to have ruled out 100mm and a zoom that includes 35 mm, which would take it the other way.


----------



## danski0224 (Oct 14, 2017)

johnf3f said:


> A bit baffled by some of the suggestions here! The OP asked for an equivalent of the 60mm Macro (on APSC) for full frame. Therefore the 90 to 105 mm Macros lenses from Canon/Sigma/Tamron are what they need.



Seems to be a pretty straightforward question: Does anyone know of a good macro lens that would be the equivalent of a 60mm but for full frame? *I shoot 4k video with the 1dx2. Which crops the the image about 40% I believe. So my 100mm macro lens is just too tight for alot of my subjects. * It used to be fine using the full frame of a 5d, but this crop makes it tough for medium sized subjects.

The OP is looking for a "full frame" macro lens that is less than 100mm.


----------



## stevelee (Oct 15, 2017)

The "for full frame" is part of what confuses me. He seems to be shooting with a full-frame camera that doesn't use the full frame for video.

The description makes it sound like he wants a 60mm macro, unless there is some inverse square that I'm missing. Maybe that's what most answers assume.


----------



## danski0224 (Oct 15, 2017)

Yes, the "full frame" camera he is using only uses part of the sensor for 4k.


----------



## stevelee (Oct 15, 2017)

danski0224 said:


> Yes, the "full frame" camera he is using only uses part of the sensor for 4k.



That raises a general question for me: Is there somewhere in camera specs or in a discussion here or elsewhere that deals with how different cameras use their sensors or parts thereof to produce video? Are there models that use the whole sensor and scale accordingly and other models that use the exact number of pixels required and ignore the rest of the sensor? And in each case, how does that affect the "equivalent" focal length of the lens? How would each approach affect the quality of the video?

I don't mean to hijack the thread, and would be happy if someone just points me in the direction to find the answer. And the issue is basic to the original question being asked.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Oct 15, 2017)

This camera is roughly 1.3 crop and as far as I know every camera shooting video, specs what the crop is or if it crops at all. Just look at the specs of the cameras.

Canons 11 -24 then works out to about 15 - 32 which is still pretty wide, for example.

Jack


----------



## danski0224 (Oct 15, 2017)

stevelee said:


> That raises a general question for me: Is there somewhere in camera specs or in a discussion here or elsewhere that deals with how different cameras use their sensors or parts thereof to produce video? Are there models that use the whole sensor and scale accordingly and other models that use the exact number of pixels required and ignore the rest of the sensor? And in each case, how does that affect the "equivalent" focal length of the lens? How would each approach affect the quality of the video?
> 
> I don't mean to hijack the thread, and would be happy if someone just points me in the direction to find the answer. And the issue is basic to the original question being asked.



I'm not a video person, but the big thing is whether or not the video is captured in 4K. Apparently, the 1DXII only uses part of the sensor for that. The same camera may use the entire sensor for 1080P or other resolutions and frame rates. The 4K video apparently generates a lot more heat and data rates, which is probably why a smaller part of the "full frame" sensor is used.

The 4K "crop mode" is almost equal to APS-C sensor size. Therefore, the same FOV multiplier can be used for back of the napkin discussions.

60mm on APS-C is roughly equal to a 96mm FOV on a full frame camera.

100mm on APS-C is roughly equal to a 160mm FOV on a full frame camera.

That's why the OP is wanting a 60mm macro lens- to equal the 100mm FOV of a 100mm lens on a full frame camera while using the 4K "crop mode" on the 1DXII.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 15, 2017)

Appreciate the various considerations for crop, but how about we just answer the OP's question at face value? (Perhaps they know exactly what they need and have just asked us for it.)

Is there a 60mm 1:1 EF macro lens? Unless there's a magical 3rd party all manual option I haven't heard of, the answer is no. 

The closest options would be (from what I've read on this thread so far):


One of the many 50mm 1:2 macros with tubes/'life size converter' to get to 1:1
The 1:1.4 70mm macro end of the 24-70 f/4L IS. 
The 1:1 Sigma 70mm f/2.8 macro

Are there any others? Any third party options? Lenses we missed?

- A


----------



## danski0224 (Oct 15, 2017)

Amazing that there is a Sigma 70mm in Canon mount available new/NOS.

There is a Sigma 50mm macro, too. Appearance wise, it is the same generation as the 70mm.

There is a 62mm Sony E mount macro lens.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 15, 2017)

danski0224 said:


> Amazing that there is a Sigma 70mm in Canon mount available new/NOS.
> 
> There is a Sigma 50mm macro, too. Appearance wise, it is the same generation as the 70mm.
> 
> There is a 62mm Sony E mount macro lens.



That might be the choice for the OP, then, it's a 50 that is 1:1 instead of 1:2...

https://www.amazon.com/Sigma-Macro-Cameras-Discontinued-Manufacturer/dp/B0002P19PS

Wasn't aware of this one, thanks.

- A


----------



## danski0224 (Oct 15, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> That might be the choice for the OP, then, it's a 50 that is 1:1 instead of 1:2...
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Sigma-Macro-Cameras-Discontinued-Manufacturer/dp/B0002P19PS
> 
> ...



If it is comparable to the 70mm macro, then (1) the focus motor is noisy, slow and it isn't USM and (2) the lens is not full time manual focus- no manual adjustments while it is in AF mode.

Optically it is supposed to be excellent.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Oct 15, 2017)

danski0224 said:


> johnf3f said:
> 
> 
> > A bit baffled by some of the suggestions here! The OP asked for an equivalent of the 60mm Macro (on APSC) for full frame. Therefore the 90 to 105 mm Macros lenses from Canon/Sigma/Tamron are what they need.
> ...



Ah I see what you are getting at! I don't even know how to turn the video on with my cameras (and have no interest in finding out) so I didn't realise the problem of the cropped video format!

Given the above then there may be a very simple, and cheap, solution for the OP. On a 1DX 1 or 2 the 60mm Macro will vignette and could interfere with the mirror. However if one puts on a short extension tube (12/13mm) then these problems are gone at a 1.3 crop factor. Some time ago, when I had my 1.3 crop Canon 1D4) I borrowed a friends EFS 60mm macro as I was struggling on some flower shots at Singleton Park in Swansea. Basically I didn't have the room for my 100mm! So I just used her lens with my El Cheapo extension tube and everything worked perfectly - nice images too!

The effect of the short extension tube is that it gives clearance for the mirror and widens the image circle of the lens as well as reducing the MFD and maxFD. Therefore a wider area of sensor is covered - not sure if this would work for stills? With the 1.3 crop for 4K it shoud be fine though and these extension tubes are dirt cheap so it would be well worth the OP giving it a go?

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Metal-TTL-Auto-Focus-AF-Macro-Extension-Tube-Ring-for-Canon-EOS-EF-EF-S-A0G8-/182708292553?epid=2164170531&hash=item2a8a434bc9:g:R9EAAOSwxxVZiXfU

Having said that I do not know what lenses the OP has.


----------



## traveller (Oct 16, 2017)

The Tamron 60mm f2 Di II LD (IF) Macro Lens, seems to match the requirements perfectly. It was suggested by the first reply, but there still seeems to be confusion caused by the poorly worded question by the OP. My take is that the OP was looking for a 100mm equivalent (i.e. ~60mm on crop frame), despite asking for a "the equivalent of a 60mm".


----------



## danski0224 (Oct 16, 2017)

I wonder how much the Tamron lens vignettes on the full frame sensor. That would be the only concern that comes to mind. If it vignettes too much, then the lens may not be useful for still photos.


----------



## stevelee (Oct 16, 2017)

Jack Douglas said:


> This camera is roughly 1.3 crop and as far as I know every camera shooting video, specs what the crop is or if it crops at all. Just look at the specs of the cameras.
> 
> Canons 11 -24 then works out to about 15 - 32 which is still pretty wide, for example.
> 
> Jack



I looked at the specs in the 6D2 manual and could find nothing about this. But I did find the following in an article on the camera on the Canon web site:



> Full HD and HD (720p) video is recorded using the entire horizontal width of the full-frame sensor. While 16:9 aspect ratio for Full HD or HD defines that some of the top and bottom of the traditional 3:2 sensor be cropped, you do get the full width of the full-frame sensor.



I hadn’t thought through it enough to think about the aspect ratio difference, and the obvious cropping from that. This suggests that it uses the same amount of the sensor as when shooting stills in that format. But the width is not cropped, so an ultra wide lens will still give an ultra wide view, just not as tall.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Oct 16, 2017)

stevelee said:


> Jack Douglas said:
> 
> 
> > This camera is roughly 1.3 crop and as far as I know every camera shooting video, specs what the crop is or if it crops at all. Just look at the specs of the cameras.
> ...



I'm certainly not the expert to be talking but it seems the issue is much more prevalent once you hit 4K recording because of data rates that would be gigantic for full frame without serious compression of some sort or restricting the frame size.

Jack


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 16, 2017)

johnf3f said:


> A bit baffled by some of the suggestions here! The OP asked for an equivalent of the 60mm Macro (on APSC) for full frame. Therefore the 90 to 105 mm Macros lenses from Canon/Sigma/Tamron are what they need.



Go back and read it carefully, its a bit confusing, but he is asking for a ~60mm Macro lens to fit his FF camera. He says the 100mm Macro frames too tight


----------



## Jack Douglas (Oct 16, 2017)

On and on we go but where is the OP to clear things up?  That's undoubtedly the correct understanding.

Jack


----------



## aceflibble (Oct 16, 2017)

The crop factor for the 1DX2 shooting 4k video is just a little more than the crop factor you get with the older Canon 1D APS-H bodies.

To get the equivalent of 100mm you need a lens around the 70mm mark; 60mm will actually frame more like an 85mm equivalent.

There aren't any first-party primes between 60-75mm. The closest you can get in first-party prime lenses would be either a 50mm or 85mm, and use extension tubes for closer focusing. To get that focal length with Canon lenses you have to use a zoom; there are loads which hit that 70mm ballpark.

There are some third-party lenses in that focal range which could be adapted. None are made with the EF mount, as far as I'm aware.

Quite frankly, the 1DX2 for 4k is a bit bizarre. You can get better 4K quality and a wider selection of focal lengths with smaller systems, like Sony's α-series, Fuji's X-T2, and the Panasonic GH5. The Sonys and the GH5 include in-camera stabilisation so you can more easily get smooth video no matter what lens you use; all three have a wide range of lenses available and, due to being smaller mounts (and not a large mount with a digital crop, like the 1DX2) you can adapt nearly anything to work with them. More importantly, they're simply far better for video; the image quality is better and the file sizes are more controlled.

If you're shooting a lot of action stills in harsh environments, _and then doing occasional 4k video on the side_, then sticking with the 1DX2 makes sense; I'd advise the 24-70 f/4 IS, with its semi-macro mode, as the most sensible option for getting video with the framing you're asking for. Second to that I'd say pair your existing 100mm with a 50mm (with extension tubes for close focusing; the 50mm macro isn't that great to be worth bothering with) for a basic long + normal duo. The 50mm will result in a field of view roughly the same as 70mm in 35mm framing terms, which is long enough to give a flat perspective but is wide enough to frame up to a full-length person quite comfortably, in most spaces. Again, the zoom would really be better.

If you're not shooting winter sports, standing in the middle of a desert dust storm, chasing wildlife halfway up a mountain, or if video is your primary medium, then, quite frankly, just scrap the 1DX2. For the cost of filing out a range of lenses to do video with a 1DX2 with the framing you want, you could get a better-optimised video system. 


Lastly, there is one secret weapon which might suit you. The old Canon FD range includes a handful of 55mm f/1.2 variations. FD lenses can't be mounted to EF without losing infinity focus and increasing their macro focus, but since you're asking for macro anyway, that might be fine for you. Since you're shooting video, the lack of autofocus shouldn't be a problem and, as it has its own aperture ring, you can have it de-clicked for video. Add a small extension tube to get true macro. All of the FD 55mm f/1.2s are very soft wide open, of course, but stop them down to f/2.8 and they're good across the field, and that goes doubly so for cropped-in video. If you won't be using it for longer distances (no infinity focus) and you really want the closest thing possible to 60mm (to get a bit-over-80mm equivalent view), those FD 55mms are the nearest thing you can get. 
But, again, I must stress that doing something like adapting an old FD lens to a 1DX2 to shoot 4k video, when systems like the GH5 and X-T2 already exist out there doing this natively, is really insanely pointless.


----------



## BurningPlatform (Oct 16, 2017)

One thing worth noting when seeking equivalence in macro photography is also magnification with respect to crop factor. If you are really shooting at 1:1 with APS-C, you need actually 1.6:1 on full frame to get the same framing; and for the 1.3 4k crop factor in idX2 you'd need 1.2:1 magnification to get the same frame. Also, doing the videography under water, you'd want to keep the distance to subject short not to lose colour, which makes seeking equivalence even more challenging, as longer focal lengths tend to increase the working distance.

These are more or less theoretical comments on my part, though, as I have not done underwater macro work.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 16, 2017)

BurningPlatform said:


> These are more or less theoretical comments on my part, though, as I have not done underwater macro work.



+1. That continues to likely be the biggest pain point and not the FL. I'm not an underwater photog at all, but one would think not having things like FTM manual focusing and internal focusing / does not change length would be dealbreakers, and that would further winnow an already short list of lenses.

- A


----------



## Jack Douglas (Oct 16, 2017)

@ aceflibble I understand all your points and they are valid and obviously you're speaking from experience. However, you seem to be suggesting that the actual 4K video of the 1DX2 is somehow inferior and that surprises me and doesn't seem to align with my experience and what I've read. However, I'm far from being an expert. 

Jack


----------



## stevelee (Oct 17, 2017)

Jack Douglas said:


> I'm certainly not the expert to be talking but it seems the issue is much more prevalent once you hit 4K recording because of data rates that would be gigantic for full frame without serious compression of some sort or restricting the frame size.
> 
> Jack



I think I understand now, and your post and another were helpful toward that. 

I think at the current state of things, if I really needed to shoot actual 4K video, I wouldn’t be using a DSLR. 

Shooting just for funsies, though, if I had a DSLR that shot 4K, I would compare the quality of the 4K and 1080p under the shooting conditions and use whichever better suited my purposes at the time. 

It is far from obvious to me that 4K shot with a portion of a sensor would be superior to 1080p shot with the full width of the sensor, or if so, at least enough to bother with it very often.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Oct 17, 2017)

stevelee said:


> Jack Douglas said:
> 
> 
> > I'm certainly not the expert to be talking but it seems the issue is much more prevalent once you hit 4K recording because of data rates that would be gigantic for full frame without serious compression of some sort or restricting the frame size.
> ...



It's easy to overlook the value to a nature nut of the ability to shoot a few seconds of high quality video in 4k with its 60 fps and being able to extract pretty decent stills as well as having really great slow motion. Watch a nature production and ask yourself how long the individual clips are. A few seconds of Mjpg is large but manageable. This can be exploited, for example, when acquiring bird landing shots if you know their favorite perches. Although I haven't done too much seriously with this yet it's whetted my appetite. Making the 1DX2 video capability sound like it's borderline useless is a mistake. And remember, crop cameras are often praised for their "reach". Ever heard folk asking for another 1D4? 

Jack


----------



## stevelee (Oct 17, 2017)

Jack Douglas said:


> It's easy to overlook the value to a nature nut of the ability to shoot a few seconds of high quality video in 4k with its 60 fps and being able to extract pretty decent stills as well as having really great slow motion. Watch a nature production and ask yourself how long the individual clips are. A few seconds of Mjpg is large but manageable. This can be exploited, for example, when acquiring bird landing shots if you know their favorite perches. Although I haven't done too much seriously with this yet it's whetted my appetite. Making the 1DX2 video capability sound like it's borderline useless is a mistake. And remember, crop cameras are often praised for their "reach". Ever heard folk asking for another 1D4?
> 
> Jack



I certainly didn’t mean to imply anything about 4K implementation on the 1DX2 as crap. I’ve never shot anything with that camera and have no hope of ever owning one (or really, any need for one). I was speaking in general, and meant an empirical approach choosing between my available options, as I do now. 

I think your example is one where I would choose 4K 60p, too. I don’t often photograph birds. I do enjoy watching them. My deck and the floor level of my house are 20 or so feet above ground level at the back, and there are woods that start just beyond the deck. The family room has three large windows looking out the back. Birds hang out on my deck rail and in the woods. The woman next door has a variety of bird feeders, but they are so far below my deck level that I can’t see them from the house. I take my few bird pictures through the widows, since going out on the deck makes them fly away. When it snows, there seem to be a lot of cardinals, and I take some shots of them. 

It occurs to me that with wifi and the Canon app, I ought to be able to set up a tripod on the deck and control the 6D2 or the G7X II from the iPad indoors, once I’ve framed and focused on one of the feeders. That might be worth a try to see whether I can make it work.


----------



## Jopa (Oct 17, 2017)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> johnf3f said:
> 
> 
> > A bit baffled by some of the suggestions here! The OP asked for an equivalent of the 60mm Macro (on APSC) for full frame. Therefore the 90 to 105 mm Macros lenses from Canon/Sigma/Tamron are what they need.
> ...



English is not my native language, but in my understanding "too tight" means the distance between the lens and whatever he's shooting is too short. In this case I'm not sure if decreasing the focal length will actually help. A 180mm macro would be the best option IMHO. If "too tight" means a narrow viewing angle, then yes... The widest macro as far as I remember is made by Laowa: https://www.venuslens.net/product/laowa-15mm-f/


----------



## Jack Douglas (Oct 17, 2017)

@ stevelee I wasn't aiming the comments at you specifically. Just a general observation that the 1DX2 video has been mercilessly attacked by many pros for various reasons, many of them valid. I was just presenting an opposing view from my perspective of short nature clips and slo mo. Off topic of course. 

You should do a set up off your deck. You might become addicted.

Jack


----------



## stevelee (Oct 24, 2017)

Jack Douglas said:


> You should do a set up off your deck. You might become addicted.
> 
> Jack



I was out on the deck about 15 minutes after sunset this evening. I had been out front shooting the sunset and neighbor's Halloween decorations. I decided to wander on to the deck out back to see what I could see. I had the 24-105 STM on my 6D2, so clearly didn't have bird photos in mind. Looking down on one of the bird feeders next door, I thought I saw some birds, but it was too dark for me to be sure. No time to run inside and put on my less-than-stellar 75-300 (which so far has not been on this camera). So I went ahead and took some pictures. 105mm f/5.6 1/40 sec. ISO 40,000, auto exposure and focus. Of course the results were noisy, but much better than my eyes could do. I did minimal tweaking in Camera RAW, cropped somewhat, and the picture below is about 58% reduction, so noise smoothed out a bit:







I'm quite pleased with both camera and lens. I couldn't have focused by eye. While this is not a great photo, I'm glad I took it. I would not have bothered with any of my other equipment.

Still off topic, I realize.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Oct 24, 2017)

OK, so now you get the picture in daylight and with the less than perfect 300 since it looks like a very pretty bird! 

Jack


----------



## stevelee (Oct 24, 2017)

Jack Douglas said:


> OK, so now you get the picture in daylight and with the less than perfect 300 since it looks like a very pretty bird!
> 
> Jack



That worked because the cardinals couldn't see me, either. I can probably figure out the wifi setup to do the remote shooting easier than I can guess what time the cardinals come to the feeder.


----------



## stevelee (Oct 26, 2017)

I should have added, in case that it is not suggested by my context, that the picture was shot handheld. That is part of what impressed me. The stabilization in the lens allowed me to shoot handheld in the near-dark.

With planning and a tripod I could have used a little longer shutter speed and a lower ISO to cut down on noise. The birds were still enough to allow a bit more time, probably. But it is not the sort of shot I would have planned, but rather just happened upon.


----------



## stevelee (Oct 27, 2017)

OK, so my next test of the camera was to try a time lapse movie (still irrelevant to the thread), and I realized that since darkness was approaching, I would have willing subjects at the bird feeder. So I finally put the 75-300mm lens on (and took off the eclipse filter), zoomed to maybe 175mm, and started the shoot at 6:15pm EDT.

I set the interval to three seconds, resolution to 4K, and auto exposure for each shot (since it would be getting dark). I let it shoot for 45 minutes.

In editing I cropped a bit, but did include the part of the feeder on the right that I had accidentally included in the frame, since birds went there, too. I slowed the result to 1/10 speed and posted to YouTube a 1080p result.

https://youtu.be/fZ-qQbVpEqA

A small bird or two start it off, and then the cardinals move in, with the main action starting around 1:40.


----------

