To macro or not to macro?

gothgirl

gothgirl

Messages
1,589
Edit My Images
Yes
So macro and super close ups are not something I've ever played with, but I am looking more and more into getting some close-up images, mainly of pets and products

I'm not interested in doing super close-ups like bugs and flowers etc, but what I would like is to have a lens with a much smaller minimum focussing range than my current workhorse (17-55 f/2.8) so that I can get much closer to my subjects. I'd like to do some creative angles like shots from under the dogs nose etc and need a lens that can focus much nearer to the dog... is macro the way to go?

However, I would like to try it out on products too. Are there any "entry level" or "kit" macro lenses that I can give it a go with? I'm not averse to manual focus either (for still subjects at least) so if there are any old m42 lenses that can be had for a few bob, I'm happy to stick an adaptor on and give it a whirl.

Don't want to drop a load on a lens that I might end up never using again. I'd rather give it a go on something basic and if it tickles my fancy, give it an upgrade later down the line
 
I’m in a similar situation with my Fuji kit. I’ve looked at extension tubes to use with my existing lenses.
 
Your current work horse is a kit kens-( not really suitable) I think you may be better off with a prime lens ( say 50 mm f1.8) and extension tubes (cheap enough) or even a 30mm macro lens - if you don't want the outlay of a dedicated lens like a Sigma 105mm f2.8 and most 50mm primes are dirt cheap, but they work well

taken with a 50mm f1.4 lens - obviously an f1.4 is expensive - but f1.8 are not

noHdChZ.jpg



Les :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't know what camera you have but I'm a lot happier with manual focus with mirrorless cameras.

Other than the issue of focusing manual lenses I much prefer a macro or close focusing lens to extension tubes or even close up filters as a macro/close up lens gives you more options whereas tubes or close up filters may need removing / refitting if your framing changes the camera to subject distance out of their range from shot to shot. I'd also consider giving cropping a go and seeing if your happy with the results before taking the plunge and buying more kit.
 
Lez325 said:
Your current work horse is a kit kens-( not really suitable) I think you may be better off with a prime lens ( say 50 mm f1.8) and extension tubes (cheap enough) or even a 30mm macro lens - if you don't want the outlay of a dedicated lens like a Sigma 105mm f2.8 and most 50mm primes are dirt cheap, but they work well

Les :)
Click to expand...
I think you need to take another look at the specification of that lens - 17-55mm f2.8 is not a kit lens.
 
Snapsh0t said:
I think you need to take another look at the specification of that lens - 17-55mm f2.8 is not a kit lens.
Click to expand...

Ok a substitute kit lens then? :) but which 17-55mm is not made clear so how can I look at spec - confused :(
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It clearly says f2.8 which shows it's far from a kit lens and the choices I can find are a Canon costing about £750 and a Nikkor costing almost £1500.

The OP's sig gives a good clue as to which brand she favours.
 
Last edited:
I have owned both the Fuji 60mm macro and more recently the over-priced 80mm macro. Because of the limited use the lens got, I traded it in to part-finance another (non-macro) lens and bought a pair of extension tubes instead - 10mm and 16mm. The results with them are just as good as with the 80mm and they cost a fraction as much.
One good thing about buying the Fuji tubes was that AF is maintained.
 
Just sold a brilliant Tamron 90mm Di macro for PK on ebay.

Half wish I'd kept it as it was so sharp.

If you do get one it makes a very good portrait lens as well.
 
If the 17-55 f2.8 is the ef-s IS version for APS cameras it says in the specs that it focuses down to 35cm, you really need to get closer than that, if so I'd try a set of tubes as a first step.
 
saltireblue said:
I have owned both the Fuji 60mm macro and more recently the over-priced 80mm macro. Because of the limited use the lens got, I traded it in to part-finance another (non-macro) lens and bought a pair of extension tubes instead - 10mm and 16mm. The results with them are just as good as with the 80mm and they cost a fraction as much.
One good thing about buying the Fuji tubes was that AF is maintained.
Click to expand...
What lens are you using the extension tubes with?
 
ancient_mariner said:
Since you're used to a 17-55 I'd probably suggest, like Lez, the STM 50mm f1.8, which will focus down to 35cm.

You could also look at a used Canon 50/60mm macro lens for around £150, that will definitely go as close as you need:
https://www.lcegroup.co.uk/Used/Canon-50mm-f2.5-Macro_259654.html
https://www.lcegroup.co.uk/Used/Canon-EF-S-60mm-F2.8-Macro-USM_261496.html
Click to expand...
MatBin said:
If the 17-55 f2.8 is the ef-s IS version for APS cameras it says in the specs that it focuses down to 35cm, you really need to get closer than that, if so I'd try a set of tubes as a first step.
Click to expand...

I have a 50mm f/1.8 STM but I want to get closer to my subject, but not zoom in closer if that makes sense? So really I want something less than 50mm ideally, but that I can get closer to my subject, how would extension tubes work on my 17-55 f/2.8?
 
What would your preferred focal length be? You might get closer with a 28mm prime.

Extension tubes with electrical contacts should allow your zoom to AF etc the same as normal, but only over a restricted range of distances.
 
I had a similar itch to OP about 10 years ago so bought a set of Polaroid-branded extension tubes 13/21/31mm (which I still use) - as soon as you understand the effect the tube has 50mm extension on a 50mm lens essentially turns it into a 1:1 macro (but with commensurate effect on closest focus and depth of field) then you can set off having fun.

I see a set can be had from Park for under £20+post.

Extension tube calculators: http://extreme-macro.co.uk/calculators/
 
Last edited:
hunnymonster said:
I had a similar itch to OP about 10 years ago so bought a set of Polaroid-branded extension tubes 13/21/31mm (which I still use) - as soon as you understand the effect the tube has 50mm extension on a 50mm lens essentially turns it into a 1:1 macro (but with commensurate effect on closest focus and depth of field) then you can set off having fun.

I see a set can be had from Park for under £20+post.

Extension tube calculators: http://extreme-macro.co.uk/calculators/
Click to expand...

So just to clarify, how exactly do these work?
So if I were to pop say the 13mm extension tube on my 17-55mm, at 17mm would that take me to 30mm but 1:1, allowing for a closer focusing distance?
i.e if My 17-55mm currently needs 35cm (apparently) to be able to focus on a subject, how much would this be brought down?
 
Last edited:
A 13mm tube at 17mm focal length would take you to (13:17) - 13/17 of real life size - approximately - so something 17mm in size would be 13mm in a 35mm frame.

Play around with the calculator - personally I've found that using a prime in the 35-70mm range yields the best compromise in terms of closeness of focus and object size.

A set of second hand tubes isn't a bank breaker - and there's no substitute for experimenting for yourself
 
Last edited:
gothgirl said:
So just to clarify, how exactly do these work?
So if I were to pop say the 13mm extension tube on my 17-55mm, at 17mm would that take me to 30mm but 1:1, allowing for a closer focusing distance?
i.e if My 17-55mm currently needs 35cm (apparently) to be able to focus on a subject, how much would this be brought down?
Click to expand...

They don't increase focal length - just let the lens focus closer at the cost of not being able to focus so far away. Your 17mm wide will still be a 17mm, but will probably focus between 10cm and 1m (guessing - no idea on the actual distance).
 
hunnymonster said:
I had a similar itch to OP about 10 years ago so bought a set of Polaroid-branded extension tubes 13/21/31mm (which I still use) - as soon as you understand the effect the tube has 50mm extension on a 50mm lens essentially turns it into a 1:1 macro (but with commensurate effect on closest focus and depth of field) then you can set off having fun.

I see a set can be had from Park for under £20+post.
Click to expand...

Not anymore they can't be :woot::ty:
 
sounds like a dedicated Macro lens would be ideal -90mm or 105mm - both Prime lenses and better suited than mini zoom lenses :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ancient_mariner said:
I think she wants the distortion from working too close with a WA lens, rather than the perspective flattening of a longer focal length.
Click to expand...

Oh sorry that wasn't made clear :) with talk of extension tubes - that would minimise focal distance, not distortion :(

Go for a Samyang 8mm wide angle then - I have one, cracking lens for a distorted perspective mega close focusing & ultra wide angle to boot :)

Les
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well I bought the Polaroid tubes, and they work great...but only at full zoom, so at 55mm on my 17-55mm :facepalm:

If they did it at anywhere between 17-35mm it would’ve been ideal:banghead:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top