Macro Filter choice

[Paul Whillock]

Hey Guys

Thanks for your earlier replies to my earlier Lens question; i discovered a roaring deal on a Sigma macro lens so, I am pretty much ready to go "Cause some entomological trouble" in the great outdoors this year.

The insects I need to photograph live either underwater or, along the river bank so . . . . a lot of rummaging around underwater is required just to find the subjects. Generally, most of the bugs i need to photograph will be evident in the Summer months and, once I have these, they will be placed on a suitable background and then photographed however, as i am unable to draw from experience in this field of photography, I am a little unsure what Filters to use in macro work??

Any suggestions would be appreciated.

My very best regards

Paul Whillock

[lolyton]

Little un-sure of the question, i gather as you already have a macro lens you are not after macro filters ie. filters you place on the end of your standard lens to get closer.

If you are talking about filters such as red ones, uv, polarising, tungsten conversion etc. Then a little more info is needed. It would be good to know what kind of result you'd like to achieve at the end of it. It may not be necessary to use filters at all.

[Steep]

I'd guess a UV filter just to protect the front element of the lens, unless you have some specific need for a particular filter?

[Paul Whillock]

Hey Lolyton

Thanks for the reply

No, its not the 'add on' type macro filters i am after . . . just which type of light filter is best . . .as you say . . . if any? I guess the required end result is just a crystal clear image close on magazine quality. There is no need for me to sneak up on a Dragonfly in the hope i will photograph him before he flies off instead, the subjects i will be pursuing are (generally) quite cooperative when it comes to sitting still. I have a Sigma Macro 50mm f/2.8 Lens for my Canon 300D.

The images i plan to take are for use on an entomological section of my own website (for educational purposes) however, i write articles for a magazine and so at a later date, there maybe an oppurtunity to sell one or two images in order offset the purchase cost of the lens and camera so i guess that is also a consideration.

Best regards

Paul Whillock

[CT]

I can't imagine you needing any filters at all Paul. If you plan to do a lot of macro work a ring flash would be a big asset. I think Jessops do the Centon one for around 60 quid or so. You'd have to check on compatibility with your camera though. There were one or two going on ebay last time I looked.

Edit

I've just looked :D

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=15221&item=7508456 210&rd=1

There's some others.

[lolyton]

I'm with CT on this one. A ring flash is a huge godsend to anyone seriously interested in taking good macro shots. Also you can get some very good results using it as your everday flash just look at Martin Parr (Magnum Photographer). It works as a very good portrait flash too....close portraits (Ranking used to use one for just about every image he ever shot though on a grander scale).

I wouldn't bother with filters then if you don't necessarily need one, especially if you have a good quality lens as you will need/want a good quality filter. The lens will only be as good as the filter you have if not. See how you get on without one to start with. If you have a lot of water in the images or for that matter shiny surfaces then you may want to think about a polarising filter as this helps cut glare and als adds a little extra saturation to images. But as i say see how you get on first and seriously look into a ring flash.