Macro Lens

D

DoodleBopper

Messages
68
Name
Beth
Edit My Images
No
Hey,

I really really want to get a macro lens!! I have a Canon EOS 450D, and I am interested in nature photography such as flowers, insects etc. I just love getting up close and personal with things and capturing the miniscule details of things. I dont have too much money but will save up if necessary. I have looked on eBay etc but there are so many it jsut goes over my head, so what do you all think would be the best lens for me? Thanks :)
 
The Tamron 90mm f2.8 1:1 Macro is a pretty well regarded macro (and portrait) lens from what I have read (never used one though) and it's around £350ish new.
 
yeah, whats your budget? lol :P
 
A budget is always helpful in these matters, you say 'not much money', but to some people that's a limit of £50, to others it's £500!

The cheapest way of doing it would be getting some extension tubes (or a reversing ring). The cheap tubes (~£10) have no electrical contacts, so you can't change the aperture settings etc, but if you want to experiment they'll work perfectly well on the kit lens to have a play with!
 
depending what your budget is and how far you think you will go with it

there has been a few 'cheaper' way through reverse mounting and extension tubes, they are fine.....BUT if you get into a lot you mean ended up buying a proper macro lens and spend even more money, so it may be cheaper to get a macro lens from the off.....that's your call though.....

If you use tubes I would only recommend Kenko tubes as this keeps all the electrics AF/F. etc.....the cheap £10 will do you head in through the way you have to work them. These also lowers the light entering the lens and can get shallow DOF unless using decent light set up to allow a higher F.

You can get a Raynox attachment to the front of your lens which 'magnifies' things, never used but a lot of people on here do.......some one will probably post with it.

Proper macro lens, I would say depending how many insects you want to shoot ant the types and how far away you need to be to shoot without scaring them off will depend on your lens size.

I use a 60mm macro which is fine for me, however if I see a fly for e.g. I can get close enough for a 1:1 picture....this is when I have to you my 180-300

so maybe a 90mm macro would best suit ?
 
One thing to consider is the working distance you have. On my Sony I jumped in and bought a 50mm macro and soon found it the working distance was a little short, many bugs would fly off as I got close, although flowers tended not to. Also consider a flash, if you just use the on camera flash you may find you get shadows over half the image. With a 100mm macro I found the working distance to be much better, I bought a flash and then made something similar to one of the home-mades in here http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=132158, it worked like a charm.

I've just switched to Canon yesterday so I'll be saving up for a macro lens as well, until I have enough saved up though I think I'll be getting a raynox from amazon, last time I checked they were about £36.
 
Thanks everyone!! Well at the moment I'm not sure about my budget as I am seeing what money I get for xmas and then will work from there. I would LOVE a 100mm macro lens as they look amazing. I have got some things you put on the lens which increase magnification and theyre okay but I really want a macro lens. I will probably save up for the 100mm, do you think this is one of the best lenses?
 
To get the most out of a macro lens, you need a flash as well. Depth of field is very very narrow when doing macro, so you need to use high f-numbers so all of your subject is in focus. If you're using f/11 ish for example, you'd need a shutter speed of several seconds probably if you're not going to use a flash, and this can lead to motion blur.

The light from the flash might be too bright and harsh, so a lot of people use diffusers (or make them out of milk bottle plastic) to make the light nicer. Also you'll find an off-camera cord might be handy as it means you can position your flash wherever you like.

I have a Canon 100mm macro, and I love it, and would definitely recommend it, or the Sigma (105mm) or Tamron (90mm) equivalents. To be honest, they all get very good reviews.

Get yourself a flash as well, and then get shooting. Expect to be paying for extras afterwards, but you'll find that out yourself when you start seeing the results, what could be better etc. My macro setup consists of:

100mm macro lens
430EX flash
Diffuser
Off camera cord
Tripod
Remote release
Extension Tubes (for getting even closer to the subject)

And I want to get some macro rails as well that allow minute adjustments. But as I said, start off with the basics, and you'll soon realise what else you want/need!
 
DoodleBopper said:
Wow jsut ahd a look at the macro set up thread thing, I had no idea you needed so much stuff!! What are all the things you need for a macro kit? I am such an amateur lol
Click to expand...

depends how far you want to go.

I would get a decent external flash though, as some times depending on natural light you can only have shallow DOF, a good light/set up will allow you a much higher f. ..... I have 60mm canon macro with 430 EX II flash mounted on a 'wedding bar' from flash in the pan, you can see it on the macro set up thread near the end of page 3. The bar allows you to have a good angle on the flash etc.

If you were to get the 100mm lens and already have an external flash it would be good to get the bar or some thing similar IMO.....I can shoot from f.2.8 up tof.32 which give excellent dof range for the effect you wish.
 
DoodleBopper said:
Okay, what is the difference between the 100mm macro IS USM macro lens, and the 100mm macro USM lens? Apart from the price and the fact one has IS in and the other doesnt? Would the cheaper one still be as good?
Click to expand...

I use the cheaper one and i think its excellent use the extra money to get a MT24-EX flash .
 
DoodleBopper said:
Okay, what is the difference between the 100mm macro IS USM macro lens, and the 100mm macro USM lens? Apart from the price and the fact one has IS in and the other doesnt? Would the cheaper one still be as good?
Click to expand...

The original 100mm macro is a regular, trusty, (and very good) macro lens. The new one has only been out for a few months, and is a bit more spangly, has canon's brand new IS system in it etc. Personally I'd go for the older lens and a decent flash system, but it's your money!

Chris
 
DoodleBopper said:
Well I cant really afford the other one! Is the original one then better than the other say 60mm macro lenses?
Click to expand...

The main problem with a 60mm macro is its much harder to use for bugs as you need to be much closer to get the shot - you can pick up a Sigma 105mm macro for approx £220 used, and these are excellent value for money.

The Sigma 50mm has a working distance (from the end of the lens to subject) of 40mm

The Tamron 90mm has a working distance (from the end of the lens to subject) of 99mm

The Sigma 105mm has a working distance (from the end of the lens to subject) of 122mm

The Canon 100mm has a working distance (from the end of the lens to subject) of 150mm
 
You really want to get 100mm macro (older one is very good - I love mine), or maybe Sigma 150mm HSM if focus accuracy is not critical. 60mm would be too short to give pleasing background blur and long enough working distance for bugs. 100mm is also great for portraits and is FF lens.
Then the cheaper version of ringflash can be had by adding ringflash adapter (found on ebay) on 430EX or 580EX. You can always get it later.
 
Dogfish_magnet said:
The main problem with a 60mm macro is its much harder to use for bugs as you need to be much closer to get the shot - you can pick up a Sigma 105mm macro for approx £220 used, and these are excellent value for money.

The Sigma 50mm has a working distance (from the end of the lens to subject) of 40mm

The Tamron 90mm has a working distance (from the end of the lens to subject) of 99mm

The Sigma 105mm has a working distance (from the end of the lens to subject) of 122mm

The Canon 100mm has a working distance (from the end of the lens to subject) of 150mm
Click to expand...

you have confused me with these now. mainly canon.

My canon 60mm min focus is 7.9"/20cm and the 100mm is 12.2"/30cm.....well thats what the spec says or am I reading it wrong?

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Specifications.aspx?Lens=335

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Specifications.aspx?Lens=107

going from that, 10cm doesnt seem like THAT much of a difference to shoot 1:1 with.

never used the 100mm, do the specs some times not add up at that is the case with many manufacturers?

thanks
 
The minimum focal distances quoted are to the focal plane i.e. the sensor. Dogfish-magnet quoted the distances from the end of the lens which is a more meaningful number.
 
As Mike Jackson says the figures you quoted are the minimum focus distance (MFD) from the subject to the focal plane of the camera (usually shown on the camera body as a circle with a line through it). Minimum working distances (MWD) is the distance from the end of the lens to subject .

focusdistance.jpg


When shooting live things like fly's and spiders the bigger the working distance the better as you don't spook the subject as easily.
 
My OH has the Tamron 90mm. Great lens, very sharp and easy to work with on a crop body.

A cheap but very good lens is the 1st edition of the Sigma 50mm.

Or you could look for M42 macro lenses (manual only but does not matter for macros).
 
micloi said:
Or you could look for M42 macro lenses (manual only but does not matter for macros).
Click to expand...

Funny enough I use AI-Servo a lot doing macro work outdoors and it works a treat.
 
So where in Norfick are you? I'm just flipping from Canon to Nikon but have a few bits you can maybe borrow and see what does what... EOS tubes, reversing ring (and some up/down step rings too). Let me know.

Arthur
 
The Sigma 50mm Macro lens is great and not too expensive to get you going :thumbs:
 
I am pretty certain you are not asking what your question says here Beth... do you mean "will work with your camera" maybe?

Arthur
 
Dogfish_magnet said:
As Mike Jackson says the figures you quoted are the minimum focus distance (MFD) from the subject to the focal plane of the camera (usually shown on the camera body as a circle with a line through it). Minimum working distances (MWD) is the distance from the end of the lens to subject .

focusdistance.jpg


When shooting live things like fly's and spiders the bigger the working distance the better as you don't spook the subject as easily.
Click to expand...

and with a longer lens you have a narrow field of view
 
In that case, no. You will either have to get the (macro I assume you mean?) lenses to fit your lens filter size or get a step up/down ring to convert the macro lenses to your filter size. This would be the case for the lenses that screw into the existing lens, other macro lenses mentioned above are just that, complete lenses like your 18-55 that are simply designed to come to focus closer to the camera and with more magnification.

Or, as is in process, get a reversing ring and use your current lens back to front.

Arthur
 
Beth, you are really going to have to specify what you mean when you say lens, do you mean a screw on one on the end of a standard lens? A full-bodied macro lens? Something else?

Nitty gritty though is that if you can get it to stay on the end of the camera then you can take a picture through it. Optics are optics, the only difference is the level of difficulty getting them to stay put.

Arthur
 
Well I found this lens for a good price, the link is here http://www.electronicmegastore.com/canon-ef-100mm-f2-usm-slr-camera-lens-p-8020.html?zenid=5184e0ac6461680275c4b457a9f14d4e#desc

It is a 100mm macro lens but it says the filter size is 67mm and mine is 58mm, although ive found a step up ring. But I dont knwo if this lens is for digital cameras
 
Ah. In this case filter size is not important as you are looking at a full-bodied lens. Yes, it will be different but that makes no difference as it is a replacement lens, not an add-on bit. No idea if that one is suitable for you though other than saying it is an EF lens so it will fit.

Arthur
 
DoodleBopper said:
Well I found this lens for a good price, the link is here http://www.electronicmegastore.com/canon-ef-100mm-f2-usm-slr-camera-lens-p-8020.html?zenid=5184e0ac6461680275c4b457a9f14d4e#desc

It is a 100mm macro lens but it says the filter size is 67mm and mine is 58mm, although ive found a step up ring. But I dont knwo if this lens is for digital cameras
Click to expand...


I'd be VERY suspect of that site - the description is for a £800+ macro lens but the title / picture is for a 100mm f2 lens which is not a macro lens.
 
Beth, while you're saving up for a nice macro, why don't you have a go with a Raynox DCR-250 macro lens adapter - only £40. Really very easy to use and will get close to 1:1 with your 18-55 kit lens. It just fits on the front with an adjustable spring clip.

I think you might be surprised at how good it is for the kind of stuff you're talking about. Check out this lot, 12,000 images taken with it on Flickr http://www.flickr.com/groups/raynoxdcr250/

Get it from Amazon http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/...TF8&me=&qid=1262442678&sr=8-1-catcorr&seller=
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top