I’m a complete beginner with no photography experience but excited to get into it.
Budget: ~$500
Needs: High quality macro of all kinds (my main purpose for getting a camera in the first place). Secondary: portraits (full body / upper body). Tertiary to those is versatility for everything else as it’s going to be the only lens for the foreseeable future. I’d also love for the lens to have all the latest features like autofocus and the such (if there’s anything else).
I’ve done some research around macro RF lenses for R50 (ASP-C cropped sensor) and among the 24mm, 35mm, and 85mm it seems 35mm stands out the most for the above needs but since I’m on a tight budget, I need quality advice to make sure I’m not making a mistake here.
I know Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM is better due to 1:1, but it wouldn’t be as versatile as 35mm and thus annoying to use for anything other than macro due to the effective 160mm on the crop lense, right?
I could theoretically get used lenses but it’s difficult where I live. The EF to RF adapter would have to be without the ring (too expensive otherwise), and I might have real trouble finding the suggested proper older EF (or third party) lens. Plus, most used lenses here aren’t much cheaper, even the really old ones, and I really doubt they’d be in good condition either. But for a really good recommendation I might consider it.
Normally I would recommend a 50 or a little higher for portraits but if it’s going to be your only lens 35 isn’t a bad choice (on aps-c).
The 85 or 100 might be nicer to use for macro not because of the 1:1 but because of the farther working distance. But they are going to be borderline useless for day to day portraits. For studio portraits maybe it would work but I definitely wouldn’t want it as my only lens.
If you’re specifically worried about magnification on the 35, consider grabbing some extension tubes. They’re really cheap, and you don’t need an enormous set if you’re starting at 1:2.
Part of me wants to say get the 24 macro and the 50 1.8 which is like the cheapest lens they make and would be a pretty good portrait lens, but wide macros are weird, and 35 is such a do everything length it’s hard to go wrong with it.
By ‘do everything length’, you mean 35mm with a crop sensor, right? Which is like 56mm in reality
Yep. It’s a touch longer than I like as a walking around leans but it’s well within reason.
Also, as a heads up don’t worry about crop / equivalent too much outside field of view. 35mm full frame isn’t like some ideal of photography, it’s just a handy reference point. Sometimes you see people talking about equivalent depth of field and focusing distance and it’s all just silly.
What do you intend to take macro photos of? I have the canon EF 100 f/2.8 and it’s pretty versatile, not to mention a pretty good choice for portraits (although on a crop sensor you do get a bit far away). For macro a little distance is good so you don’t block the light or, if that’s your deal, scare off the insects.