Macro or not?

C

chriscross

Messages
1,652
Name
Chris
Edit My Images
Yes
The POTY theme for feb has got me thinking....do I need a macro lens or is the 'macro setting' on my 550d good enough. Lens wise it's 35mm f2 or a 55-250 or a manual focus 18-55. Don't know what the picture will be of but just wondered if a dedicated macro lens will be better?
 
You could get a set of extension tubes, decent ones that allow full electronic control of the lens are about £60 or so. Or you could try a reversing ring and using one of your lenses on that. I've never tried the second suggestion but the results can be very good in the right hands.
 
If you want to look at macro lenses have a look for a second hand Tamron SP90, its a cracking lens thats relatively cheap and works well.
 
You can get pretty close in with the 55-250 - something like 0.3 magnification at 250mm.

Image quality will suffer a little bit, but you can get closer still if you stick something like a +2 close up filter on the front of it, and they can be had pretty cheap. :)
 
chriscross said:
The POTY theme for feb has got me thinking....do I need a macro lens or is the 'macro setting' on my 550d good enough. Lens wise it's 35mm f2 or a 55-250 or a manual focus 18-55. Don't know what the picture will be of but just wondered if a dedicated macro lens will be better?
Click to expand...

You'll certainly get closer with a macro lens.

If you want to dip your toe in the water you could go for a dual use lens... a macro that can be used for macro and general stuff too? Something like a 50mm macro?

As much macro shooting is done with manual focus you could also do it on the cheap with a manual legacy lens and adapter. You should be able to pick up a manual macro lens and eos adapter for under £100 and possibly quite a bit under £100.
 
Thanks for the replies - some interesting points if view. There is a sigma 70-300 macro in classifieds that is £50 ish this is tempting me but I might have a play with my other lenses first before splashing out.
 
chriscross said:
Thanks for the replies - some interesting points if view. There is a sigma 70-300 macro in classifieds that is £50 ish this is tempting me but I might have a play with my other lenses first before splashing out.
Click to expand...

This isn't a true macro. It will get you closer but not 1:1. True macro lens are primes (ie fixed focal distance)
 
The macro function on your camera doesn't actually do anything other than alter your shutter speed and aperture.. It doesn't make your lenses get any closer to the subject than they already do...
 
Basic extension tubes or reversing ring can be had for a couple of quid on Amazon or Ebay. Well worth a try for that price if you're interested. I have a couple of examples on my Flickr page, the wood louse, wasp and salt crystals were taken with a reversing ring at around 20mm. Tricky to focus and extra light is needed but very pleased with the results.
I finally bought the set of tubes with electrical contacts that's been sat in my basket for weeks, should have them in a couple of days :-)
 
Last edited:
TCR4x4 said:
The macro function on your camera doesn't actually do anything other than alter your shutter speed and aperture.. It doesn't make your lenses get any closer to the subject than they already do...
Click to expand...

This I what I was hoping to hear. basically, to shoot true macro I need a true macro lens, but there are cheeper alternatives available which can produce the same effect? In a nut shell
 
The Sigma 50mm 2.8 Macro is a cracker of a lens - we have one (daughter tends to use it) and really like it, it's a true 1:1 macro and not too expensive to buy.

She tends to shoot still life etc so the 50mm is fine as a focal length, if you're wanting to shoot insects etc, then you can manage with a 50mm, but you'd probably be better with a 100mm + lens...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top