macro les.........worth it??

T

The Edge

Guest
I've only recently got into macro stuff, currently using a 50mm f1.8 with extension tubes.

I think i've got some reasonable shots, including the frosty photo in the critique forum.

Now, i'm enjoying this but will i get better results with a macro lens? Should it be my christmas present to myself?

cheers!
 
Really down to whether you like the small stuff ;) A dedicated lens will always be better than a conversion of another lens. A simple view would be, have you exhausted the limits of what you have now ?
 
good point!

I don't know really until i try one i suppose.

I doubt i've exhausted the potential of what i have, but i'm all for making life easier ;)
 
The Edge said:
Should it be my christmas present to myself?
Yes. Next question please ;)
 
dod said:
Yes. Next question please ;)

Whats the best focal length to go for? I've been reading stuff that says longer is better.
 
What Doddy said. Don't forget either that if you go for a longer version of the macro lens, then combined with the 1.6X crop factor, you're also getting a bitingly sharp moderate tele lens. ;)
 
Generally speaking, the longer the macro lens the better, as you get a bigger working distance from your subjects and there's less likelihood of scaring the critters off.
 
RobertP said:
Whats the best focal length to go for? I've been reading stuff that says longer is better.

I've got the canon 100mm, like CT says a longer working length is desirable. I think the lens to go for at the moment is probably the sigma 150mm, just my opinion though.
 
so based on everything said above, you guys wouldn't recommend the 60mm canon ef-s f/2.8 macro lens?

I Was thinking of using the 60mm both as a portrait lens (60x1.6 = 96mm effective focal length) and as a dedicated macro lens.

£280 is a lot of money so I want to be 100% sure before I get one.

Looking at what you say above, if I want a pure macro lens then I should get at least a 100mm lens (effective 160mm), is that right?
 
I wouldn't discount the 60mm EF-S at all, particularly as you're also interested in the portrait capabilities. The only thing I'd say is that macro lenses are brutally sharp for portraits, in fact dedicated portrait lenses tend to be on the soft (flattering) side.

The only thing with EF-S lenses is make sure you don't want to get a 1 Series body at some stage. I just bought a 1D and now my 17-85 EF-S wont fit so I need something wide which will. :eyesup:
 
CT has a point about macro lenses being very sharp.
I dithered about the Canon 100 and the Sigma 150.
Both are great lenses with not much to choose between them.
I won't go into why I bought the Sigma but I would suggest if you want to use the lens for something other than macro ( ie portraits ) then you have to consider the camera you use. ( 1.6 1.3 1.0 )

BTW. I love the Sigma for portraits, but then again I shoot my portraits outdoor and not in a studio. It's not too difficult to soften the image if needs be. Having said that this is a macro lens first and foremost.

Cameron
 
For the money, a 50mm 1.8 is a steal, and with the 1.6 crop factor, gives you an effective 80mm portrait lens, with the big aperture being great for throwing backgrounds out of focus.
 
CT said:
For the money, a 50mm 1.8 is a steal, and with the 1.6 crop factor, gives you an effective 80mm portrait lens, with the big aperture being great for throwing backgrounds out of focus.


You're right CT, the 50 1.8 is a steal but this guy's after a macro lens.
You know what the working distance of the 50 1.8 and a set of tubes to get it to lifsize will be. :icon_eek:
 
I agree Cameron, I was just trying to separate the portrait and macro functions, but in the end it all comes down to money, money, money! :)
 
CT said:
I agree Cameron, I was just trying to separate the portrait and macro functions, but in the end it all comes down to money, money, money! :)


I see where your coming from CT.
There's a queer ( forgive the expression ) difference between the price of the 50 plus tubes and the Canon 100 or Sigma 150.
Lets not talk about the price of the Canon 180. :icon_eek: But what a phenomenal lens. :thumb:

So, yeh, It all comes down to money.
 
Garnock said:
Lets not talk about the price of the Canon 180. :icon_eek: B.
7dayshop was a sad loss when they stopped selling Canon stuff. I bought it over 200 quid cheaper than you can get it anywhere now.
 
So the net question is which one?

i was thinking around 100mm focal length due to price as much as anything.

So, canon 100mn, sigma 105mm or tamron 90mm folks? :)
 
The Edge said:
So the net question is which one?

i was thinking around 100mm focal length due to price as much as anything.

So, canon 100mn, sigma 105mm or tamron 90mm folks? :)


So regarding the thread I started here why don't you buy my Canon 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro then I will get the longer focus Sigma 150mm I was looking at... ;)

Paypal... Nochex... Cheque or good old cash will suffice.. :thumb:
 
The Edge said:
So the net question is which one?

i was thinking around 100mm focal length due to price as much as anything.

So, canon 100mn, sigma 105mm or tamron 90mm folks? :)

I would buy the Canon 100 mm 2.8 USM.

A perfect lens in my opinion.

Razor sharp, great macros shots, great as a portrait lens ( too sharp though for portraits of anyone aged over about 21 :LOL: )

Not cheap, but if my Canon 100mm macro was lost/damaged, I would buy another without doubt.


I would avoid the EF-S 60mm Canon, because of the EF-S mount.

We all know we want a full frame Canon as soon as they are more affordable, and the EF-S wont fit full frame, so not a good buy, unless you want to off load it cheap in a year or so.


Mark.
 
Mark Grant said:
( too sharp though for portraits of anyone aged over about 21 :LOL: )


:LOL: ...... :flipoff:
 
Mark Grant said:
I would avoid the EF-S 60mm Canon, because of the EF-S mount.

We all know we want a full frame Canon as soon as they are more affordable, and the EF-S wont fit full frame, so not a good buy, unless you want to off load it cheap in a year or so.

Mark.

It's gonna be a lot more than a year before I can afford a 5D or better - I have a baby due in 8 days....

I'm thinking I may get the 50mm f/1.8 as a portrait lens, and stick with my Sigma 70-300 APO DG Macro for macro shots (although I would love a sharper lens for macro - it does tend to be very, very soft) and cope with the 95cm working distance for as long as possible.
 
All of the Macro stuff I did on my degree course many moons ago was with a standard lens and extension tubes on Hasselblads - as long as the optics are good and you get you exposure tables right, there's no real need for dedicated macro lenses as a good set of rings will give you greater flexibility.
We were photographing items 4mm square and filling the frame with them - the challenge is lighting the subject correctly, depth of field and making sure the film plane is exactly parallel to the subject. Many times a percieved softness of image is put down to the lens when in fact it's just poor set-up.
 
I might havea go with my 70-200 and the tubes tonight.

Don't know why i didn't think of that before really!
 
The Edge said:
I might havea go with my 70-200 and the tubes tonight.

Don't know why i didn't think of that before really!

That combination works very well, I have used it a couple of times. Again just watch for the shallow depth of field and you will be fine.
 
Also works well with the 70-200 f2.8 IS for close up wildlife stuff (when the Puffins are pecking at your boots etc)

Only problem to watch for is dust as you attach the tubes, or dropping the lens when you have cold hands !

Simple ideas are the best:)


Mark.
 
fingerz said:
How do you make sure the film plane is exactly parallel? Does it require some kit or are there tricks you can use in the field?

Top end cameras usually have the film plane marked on the top of the camera body...

canon_eos_1d_mark_ii___top.jpg


If you look at that little circle with a line through it just to the left of the hotshoe, that's the symbol used to show exactly where the sensor plane (or film plane) lies. You can use a ruler from that line to accurately measure sensor to subject distance and then match that measurement to the other side of the camera top and the bottom of the camera. The only time you'd possibly need to go to those extremes though is photographing old line drawings and engravings etc where accuracy is essential, and no doubt for some scientific applications.

You can however get macro focusing racks which allow you to rack the camera back and forth in minute amounts for fine focusing (tripod mounted of course) but they're usually damned expensive! For most practical in-the- field uses though, stopping down and good hand holding technique with a smidgeon of luck is usually enough. ;)
 
Thanks CT, I wondered what that marking was on my 350D.
 
We were photographing circuit boards at greater than 1:1 - it's unbelievably tricky when your DoF is less than 1mm. We usually made stands out of bits of cardboard or plywood and measured it all with spirit-levels before sticking the circuit on with blu-tac. Even stopping right down to f/64 was sometimes only just enough to get a bit of circuit measuring 2mm front-to-back fully sharp.

I hated it BTW...but it was all good experience.
Slightly better was the in-situ 'defects' photography - photographing cracked turbine blades on Tornado engines in a hangar - try getting a Bowens set inside a Tornado - we used Metz hammerheads on manual with multi flash worked around the subject to get rid of all the shadows. Sometimes it took a 3-minute exposure and about 40 flashes. Had to cloak the engine in blankets to exclude all the ambient light...
 
Goodness Arkady, you almost make it sound like being a snapper isn't glamourous. ;)
 
Ahhh that was just the training - because it's a Tri-Service school (DSOP at RAF Cosford in the W Mids) we had to do all the bone RAF and Navy stuff as well in the full knowledge that as Army Phots we'd almost certainly never put any of it into practice.
However, the techniques are applicable to other subjects, so it was all good practice.
Having a civvy BA Hons in editorial photography helps matters when arguing the point with dyed-in-the-wool RAF examiners there as well...
We used to wish they'd step out of the Dark Ages sometimes...
 
Back
Top