New venture into Macro
 

I want to expand my interests into Macro photograpy. Up to now I have used my CP4500 or my 300D with a Sigma 50-500 for small subjects.

My questions are

1.What are the advantages of a dedicated macro lens?

2.Also I don't understand the magnification ratios quoted in the tech specs for macro lenses.

3.Can a macro lens of say 150mm be used for general photography?

Can anybody suggest a suitable lens? My budget is c£300. Possibly either Canon/Sigma/Tamron

Ken,

1. Strictly speaking, in film terms a macro lens is: A lens capable of giving a 1:1 or greater magnification ratio of subject to image on the film. How this definition translates to digital sensor image size I'm not sure, I'd imagine it to be the same. The term is more generally used to describe any close focusing lens.

2. Magnification ratios, see point 1, it's a measure of how big the actual subject is vs. how big the image on the film/sensor.

3. Macro lenses can be used for "normal" photography.

I'm not sure exactly what you're after when you say "Can anybody suggest a suitable lens" as a lot depends on the subject matter you're taking but I've seen some great results from the Tamron 90mm DI Macro.

Regards,

Duncan.

Hi Ken

Macro lens are tuned to be very sharp at the short end of the focus range and have a short minimum focus distance (MFD).

1:1 is life size and refers to the 35mm format. The idea is that the object will be life size on the film. e.g a 1mm ant will be 1 mm on film.
1:4 will be quarter life size. Don't forget the 300D has a 1.6 crop factor which makes the end result a bit confusing.

Marco lens tend not to focus to infinity very well. In some cases a lens element moves if a lens has a macro switch.

A thing to consider with macro work is that the lens is close to your subject and getting light on the subject becomes a problem.
So you may need to consider longer focal length lens to help with this.

Rob

Personally I use the Sigma 105 f2.8 for macro and am very pleased with it, I've also used the Sigma 50 macro which is equally good. The biggest plus of the longer focal length is that you don't need to get quite so close to the subject.

As others have said a macro lens can be used for other work, but may not do so well at range. Both the Sigma macro lenses that I've used have been great for doing portraits with.

A few points not covered by the others:

The various focal lengths of macro lenses provide for 2 things - a larger image OR more working distance. With some subjects it is difficult (living things) or dangerous (an arc welder) to get close to them.

I use a Canon 100mm macro lens and at times add a 2x teleconverter to it (giving me 200mm and 2x the working distance).

I've also used the 100mm macro with a 3x teleconverter - some results can be seen here: http://www.jbs-blog.com/?p=72

Macro lenses will focus out to infinity and can be used as general purpose lenses but the auto-focus in a macro lens is typically not too good (slow). Since most macro photography is done with a tripod and manual focus, I guess the lens makers just decided to not spend much time on it.

The image at, say, 1:1 will be the same size on either film or sensor no matter what format is in use. Of course, you can't 'see' the image on the sensor to measure as you can with a negative/slide.

A 35mm frame is 36mm wide whereas the sensor on the Canon 300D is 22.5mm wide therefore something of, say, 30mm width photographed at the 1:1 setting will fit nicely on the film but have a bit cut off from each end on the sensor! The most popular (live) subjects in macro tend to be butterflies and dragonflies, etc., and in practice you won't use the very closest settings very often.

Very occasionally you'll get a co-operative damselfly (they're usually very flighty!) and in these instances you can go in very close with a shorter-length macro lens onto something which is about the size of a matchstick! Otherwise, the longer focal lengths give you the dramatic close-ups from a bit further away. However, there's not that much difference in distance from subject to front of lens when comparing different groups of focal length with the nearest group, i.e 50/60mm v 90/105mm v 150mm v 180/200mm.

There's no doubt that the 90/105mm lenses from makers such as Sigma and Tamron are very popular because of the quality available at a reasonable price and whether you want to pay more for the camera makers' own offerings is up to the individual to decide.

Although macro lenses may prove better at the closest distances on the test bench, they're usually good enough over the whole range for most purposes - these two shots, for instance, were taken with a Sigma 50mm macro lens: http://www.worldphotographyforum.com...=500&ppuser=43 and http://www.worldphotographyforum.com...=500&ppuser=43

A bit of overlap there - I was composing my reply when others were being posted!

This is at the other end of the scale with the same 50mm lens (on a 20D), although still not quite at the full 1:1 closest distance. I wonder whether the fact that I was shooting into the light and thus on the 'dark' side of the insect was the reason I was able to get so close to this Blue-tailed Damselfly - they're usually the most wary of the commoner British 'blue' damsels.

It does show the versatility of the modern macro lenses, though - just a twist of the focus ring from one end to the other. No messing about with close-up filters, extension tubes, etc.

Thanks very much for your helpful replies. Everything is clearer now ..... just got to research the best lens choice!

Hi Ken,

The 3 lenses Ive shortlisted for some serious macro work are the Canon 100mm f2.8 macro, the Tamron 90mm DI macro and the Sigma 180mm F3.5 EX DG Macro. Ive read some great reports on each, my gut feeling is I'll opt for the Canon 100mm, as its excellent quality for portraits. These will be some time down the line, im sure.

Just to mix things up a bit, Canon's 500D close up filter (or Nikon's version) is another route. This reduces infinity focus down to 500mm so you can focus very close. The quality is extremely good and shouldn't be confused with the cheaper close up filters available.

If you're on a budget putting one on the front of a standard lens will get very good results and let you dip your toe in the macro water without breaking the bank.

I bought a set of cheap closeup filters and they are really horrible. Well, I say "cheap" but they still cost quite a bit. They just seem like cheap ones because I can't get any results worth keeping with them.

Maybe I should try harder, but I spat the dummy the other day and ordered an EF-S 60mm macro lens instead. Looking forward to trying it out!

Recommended lenses
 

Thanks for all the helpful replies - I feel I now know what I'm looking for and the features I need.

I am assuming that a lens of about 100mm would be a good "all-rounder". So I am considering the ones suggested:

1. Tamron 90mm DI
2. Sigma 105mm f2.8 EX DG
3. Canon 100mm f2.8 USM

Does anyone have sample shots from these lenses? I would be grateful for any opinions.

I've got the Sigma 105 (not had it for long) and really like it - here are links to three photos taken with it.
http://www.worldphotographyforum.com...=500&ppuser=53
http://www.worldphotographyforum.com...=500&ppuser=53
http://www.worldphotographyforum.com...=500&ppuser=53

Kenny,

Thanks for asking this question. This is something I have been curious about. The well informed answers were extremely helpful. I have one more question, another photographer warned me against lenses that have the macro switch that changes the lens to macro. Was there a reason behind this? or just a bad experience? I have a Nikon 24-85mm F 1:2.8-4 D lens that has the macro (1:2) switch but have not played with it much due to questions that I now have the answers to (thanks to this forum) and the fact that I had been told that it wasn't a good thing.

Judy

"macro switch that changes the lens to macro"

Well these are not true macro lenses as they normally give a maximum magnification of 2-1, where as true macro is 1-1 or greater.

I use the Canon 100mm f/2.8 and can confirm that it's one super lens (will post an example this evening).

I also use the Sigma 180mm f/3.5 mainly for shooting bugs and butterflies, although the results are very good, they don't come up to the standard of the Canon

As Wolfie has said, such lenses don't give a 1:1 ratio that a true macro lens will. However, as far as I know, there's nothing wrong with using such lenses for macro work, it just won't deliver quite as good results as a dedicated macro lens. For amny years all I had for macro work was such lenses, I was always pleased with the results, that said I have recently got a dedicated macro lens and have noticed the difference.

I would say that using your existing lens on macro setting will give you a good idea as to whether you'd get much out of a macro lens.

Thanks for the replies, now I understand a lot more about macro and my lens. I have been so focused on birds that I have used my long lenses almost exclusively, even though I have several others (buying equipment is a passion when I have extra in the budget). I see I've found to right place to answer my questions.

Judy

Tom of the three I would certainly go for the Canon 100mm, this is a fabulous lens. The Tamron 90 and the Sigma 105 are good, but don't really compare with the Canon.

I use both the Canon 100mm and the Sigma 180mm, the Sigma IMO is only suitable for shooting nervous bugs or difficult to get to subjects, due to it's long focal length.

I am about to upload 3 images, all flowers, 2 of them taken with the Canon and 1 with the Sigma. They should be in the gallery in just a few minutes.

Harry

Wolfie

Excellent shots!

So when one is shooting in Macro,using a macro lens which is the best setting to use please on the camera.The Macro setting ,as such,or should one use one of the other progs and put in ones own settings.

Christine, more often than not I switch to manual focus and quite often manual exposure + use a tripod whenever possible.

However if you are using a tripod switch to "Aperture Priority", setting a smallish f stop (large f number) to give as much "Depth of Field" as possible.
Alternatively use "Shutter Priority" and set a shutter speed that you know you can handhold, but be aware that DOF is very limited when shooting macro so the slightest movement can throw the subject OOF.

Sometimes a long lens is ideal, attached is a water lilly taken with the Bigma (Sigma 50-500mm), using a macro lens I would have got mighty wet, not to mention the Crocs that where sharing the waterhole with the lillies. The focal length for this shot was 313mm

Harry

Thanks Wolfie.i just wondered if anyone else did use the pre set Macro mode,as it is obviously there for a reason.For Macro shots of Butterflies etc,it is not always practical to use a tripod,as one is chasing them around from bush to bush(not literally!!).Also I try to take shots of butterflies on the sand dunes and a tripod is a no go in those conditions.

Flash guns
 

So I can consider all the possible expenses before I buy a macro lens (probably the Sigma 105mm - I can't afford the Canon if there is further expenditure although looking at the excellent photos in the gallery there seems little between them). Can anybody tell me if a flash unit is a necessary accessory or merely desirable?

I do not have an external flash and would need to factor this into my budget. Will a general purpose flash be OK or is a dedicated Macro (ring?) flash required? If so recommendations/advice would be welcome

Like most of us I have made mistakes in the past and found that is is cheaper to buy the correct (always seems to be the most expensive!) equipment rather than aim lower and end up buying the second choice only to upgrade later. I'm sure we've all been there.

I also notice some members have included work using a macro lens with extension tubes for greater magnification on still subjects. Is there a way of calculating the magnification when using tubes? I presume that these are used at the expense of a loss of light.

HI Kennygee

I would agree with the positive comments about the Tamron 90mm lens.

Kevin

I am trying to cover flash in its own thead with info that will build in time. Took some pics to post today, came here posted one in the gallery and due to the number of pics posted today have only just got here never mind sorting the pics.
In principle I am suggesting a way of doing flash on the cheap. You really have to do a lot of macro to get your moneys worth out of ring flashes etc, unless your subjects require you go that route.

You would loose a lot of light with extension tubes, and without checking I don't know about compatability issues with digital camera bodies.

In size terms ( inches across ) how small are the subjects you intend to photograph? It helps in understanding your requirements.

So far I would suggest all your cash initially goes into the lens. Flash on the cheap and forget tubes for now. If you go that way you would eventually wish you'd got bellows - MORE MONEY

Don

You would really need to see a full file image to make that judgement. Given the quality of wolfies images I would have no doubt that he would pick the superior optic. In my time I have spent a fortune on the upgrade path. Now if something becomes a primary interest I just get the best and cut a corner elsewhere. Saves in the long term.

Don

If I could return to Christine's point re the Canon Macro setting.

What in-camera settings are made by the camera when the macro option is chosen? How are these settings designed to help in macro situations?

I ask because if these settings are helpful they may act as a guide when using your own settings in manual mode.

Kenny, to be quite honest my camera's have never been used in any of these programmed modes as I tend to use manual or shutter priority.

So from the manual, the camera sets "One Shot AF", single "Drive Mode", "Evaluative Metering", "automatic ISO" and "AWB".

Which just leaves the composition to the photographer.

How are these settings designed to help in macro situations?
By allowing the photography to concentrate solely on composition.

More often than not I find the ambient lighting unsuitable, insufficient light or unwanted shadows, so I use my flashgun either with a softbox or Stofen Omni-bounce attached, this is the main reason that I always switch the camera to manual, including focussing,

I would never use an ISO in excess of 100, as noise always seems apparent above this figure. I do use AWB.
As I shoot in manual the other settings do not apply.

Harry

Wolfie

Thanks for the reply. I was just wondering if there was some 'magical' setting that I was overlooking.

It would seem that the program macro settings are nothing more than you would probably arrive at yourself. I do agree that it is better to retain control of ISO rather than leave it to the camera.

I note your comments re flash in macro photography. This is an area which I am finding difficult to understand as I do not have an external flash with which to experiment.

I have been reading Don's helpful series of posts and to fully understand the subject I will probably have to save up and make this my next purchase. Then I can experiment and perhaps learn the techniques involved.

One of the biggest pleasures is learning new things and getting results that please you.

BTW Super gallery.

"I have been reading Don's helpful series of posts and to fully understand the subject I will probably have to save up and make this my next purchase. Then I can experiment and perhaps learn the techniques involved".

kenny, Due to the very high cost of a dedicated macro flash I've been trying out a work around.

The method being to use 2 Jessops straight flash brackets £20.
2 Jessops Mini slave cells £22
2 Jessops flashguns £22
Using the onboard flash as a trigger.

I have tried out this method, but using my two sigma flashguns which are far too powerful and heavy.

http://www.worldphotographyforum.com...3&d=1137010373

This is an uncropped 1-1 macro. As a guide the distance from the tip to the base of the the first pair of buds is 12mm

I'm of to Kenya tomorrow, but when I get back(mid Feb) I will buy the Jessops flasghuns and will then post the resulting photos + a shot of the set-up.
I'm convinced this method will work satisfactory and at a cost of only £64.

Harry

Harry

That example is very impressive. I look forward to seeing details of the setup.

Its an expensive hobby and anything that keeps the cost down and provides results as good as that gets my vote!

Have a great trip. I'm envious!

Hi Kenny,

I totally agree with Harry in is camera settings.

I have been trawling the net to see if the Macro program actual setting curve is there but I have not managed to find it. The only reference I have found is in DP Review re the Canon 350D. Not much detail there other than the program sets aperture to a medium setting to try and get a reasonable zone of sharpness but the background is blurred and flash mode is disabled.

The program will assume hand held so will firstly aim to get your shutter speed to 1/60 sec and then as the light level increases it will stop the lens down until f8 is reached. As the light level increases it will move the shutter speed to 1/125 and then take the aperture through to f16. A further increase in light level will probably move the shutter speed to 1/250 with the aperture being taken through to f22.

In true macro you will be looking at using f16, f22 or f32 and therefore using a tripod.

You should be able to see in the viewfinder what settings the camera would use if the macro mode is selected. I would suspect they are based on ' close up ' as in macro facility on zoom lenses rather than ' macro ' as in 1:1 or closer.

So to anwer your question as to ' magical ' setting ..... refer to Harry's setting guide.

Don

Don

Thanks for that very detailed explanation. Much appreciated.

I'm looking forward to seeing Harry's flash setup on his return.

Ken.

I have placed a photo of my macro flash setup here http://www.worldphotographyforum.com...p?t=111&page=8
The method works very well, but maybe slightly cumbersome.

All my latest photo's have been taken using this lighting setup, a number of which are in "My Photos" I'm very pleased with the results, with the cost being less than £50, assuming you use the cameras on-board flash.

All the tests that I've done have been in a "studio" enviroment" so as yet I've not tried it out in the "field" this I will rectify as soon as the weather permits.

Having spent some time experimenting (which I must admit i've enjoyed) My wife informs me that she will buy me the super Canon Macro Twin Lite MT-24EX flash system.

She's such a darling. :)


The

LUCKY YOU !!!! :)

Don

Harry

I am going to source the parts that make up your flash arrangement. Is the list you posted the final one?

Looking forward to experimenting!

If I can suggest a good book which covers many aspects of macro " CLOSE-UP & MACRO A Photographers Guide " by Robert Thompson. Publishers David & Charles.

Mike

Mike

Thanks for that. I'll check it out.

Kenny, I'm extremely sorry, I thought that I'd answered your last question.
So if it's not to late this is what I acquired.

I happened to be near a Jessop's outlet so went in to have a look at what they'd got and finished up buying 2 Jessop 150s flashguns, which have built in slave capabilities, the total cost being approx £35. Guide no. at 100 ISO = 15.

These are very lightweight and work quite well.
Attached are two shots one of the camera/light setup and also the resulting image.

Normally I use my 300D for this type of work mainly because I have a remote release for it.

However in this case as I wanted a shot of the flower and also one of the setup, I used my 10D conected to a laptop for "remote capture" of the flower and the 300D + cable release to take a photo of myself, taking a photo of the flower.

I wonder if you can understand my meanderings :)

Harry