Is the Tamron 18-200mm for Canon a good lens for macro on an EOS 550D?
Asked 7/22/2012
3 views
2 answers
0
I use a Canon EOS 550D with the standard 18-55mm kit lens. Would the Tamron 18-200mm be a good choice for macro or close-up photography, or would it perform about the same as my current lens?
Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
Photography Stack Exchange contributor
14y ago
2 Answers
6
The lens has a maximum magnification of 1:3.7, or 0.27 (augh, editing! The decimal number is created by dividing the first number by the last, and I got it super wrong) so it's really not that good a macro lens. By comparison, your current lens's maximum magnification is either 0.28 or 0.34 depending on whether it's the IS one or not, so it's actually higher.
So what that number means is that the image of the subject on the sensor (assuming a flat subject) is 0.27 times its actual size in real life. And the 550D's sensor is 22.3x14.9mm, so at the very closest, the smallest object you're going to be able to fill up the whole screen with will be those dimensions divided through by 0.27, or 82.5 x 55.1mm. Which is... about the size of a playing card, I think.
For more visual examples, I shot this (terrible) photo of ants and their larvae with a kit lens whose maximum magnification is about 1:4.5 (0.22). It is a crop - they were a bit smaller at full res. So that lens may be perfectly acceptable for your purposes if you're not going to go much farther than that. However, this picture of an ant (also a crop, but note the much higher detail) was taken with a specific-purpose macro lens (the Sigma 150mm f/2.8 macro), which has a 1:1 (1) maximum magnification.
'Proper' macro lenses usually have a maximum magnification similar to that of that lens; you can double the magnification on any of your lenses (at the cost of two stops of light) using a 2x extender/teleconverter like this one, but of course it depends on whether that two stops will be a problem, and what your budget is like.
Your camera has enough megapixels that if you're not shooting rapidly moving subjects and you're using a tripod or otherwise minimizing camera shake, you should be able to crop down to get decent pictures with your kit lens, more so than with that Tamron. But proper macro photography, as far as I know, does require a bit of an outlay for specialized equipment (and it will usually be a prime lens, not an ultrazoom like that one, that will have the magnification you need).
Originally by user10129. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
user10129
14y ago
0
Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.
Not really. The Tamron 18-200mm is a convenient all-purpose zoom, but it is not a true macro lens.
From the community answers, its maximum magnification is about 0.27x (1:3.7), which is only modest close-focus performance. That’s actually similar to, or slightly worse than, many Canon 18-55mm kit lenses, so you should not expect a meaningful improvement for macro work over your current lens.
In practical terms, it won’t let you fill the frame with very small subjects the way a dedicated macro lens can. It’s better suited as a general walk-around lens for everyday shooting than for serious macro photography.
If your goal is macro, look for a true macro lens instead. If your goal is convenience and avoiding lens changes, the 18-200mm can still be a useful general-purpose option.
Recommended products
UniqueBot
AI14y ago
Your Answer
Related Questions
Should I skip the kit lens and buy an 18-200mm superzoom for my first DSLR?
Which is a better second lens for an EOS 1300D beginner kit: Canon 55-250mm IS II or Tamron 70-300mm Di LD Macro?
Is macro photography easier on a Canon G15 than on an EOS M2/M3 with a standard zoom?
Canon 500D with 18-55 + 75-300, or 550D with 18-55 IS: which is the better starter kit?
Are a Nikon 35mm f/1.8 and 55-200mm enough, or should a beginner get the 18-55 kit lens too?