Macro Lens

[fattizzi]

I just bought a Canon 10D and am looking for a decent Macro lens. I would like to keep it under 350.00 dollars.

I have been looking at the 50mm Canon Macro and the 50mm and 105mm Sigma lens.

Why would I want a 105mm on a macro?
Isnt a 50mm (50 x 1.6 = 80mm) good for close-up?

If anyone can suggest another brand ,that would be good too?

[CyberDyneSystems]

The problem with the Canon 50mm is that it won't give a "lifesize" image unless you then buy a "Lifesize adapter" at which point you may as well have gotten the 100mm Macro price wise.

It turns out that the 100mm macros are the preferred lenses over the 50mms,. as they give you the desire 1/1 (or "lifesize" ) magnification while allowing you to do so at a greater distance. Think of it this way,.. you get the exact same image you get with a 50mm 18 inches away from the subject,. but you can be 3 feet away with the 100mm. Less stooping,. and easier to get close enough without disturbing your subject. (not an issue with flowers,. but if your subject happens to be a wasp,... )

I think you may want to look closely at the 100mm macros for that reason.

If you are not yet sure you want to invest in a dedicated macro lens, you can get a set of "Extension rings" made by kenko. These are an excellent cost effective solution for the casual macro shooter. (about $90.00 from B&H) they can be used with ANY lens you own and change the focus distance to allow "Close focusng" in excess of 1/1 They do not effect the lenses image quality in any way as there is no glass in them, the simply move the lens farther from the CCD/CMOS plain,. which in turn allows closer focusing.

If you are experimenting with macro,. this a great way to try it,. but a dedicated macro is easier to work with in the long run.

[robertwgross]

You have to look at some other parameters, such as the minimum focus distance.

To some photographers, macro photography means shooting a flower that is two inches wide, and from a distance of 12 inches.

To others, macro photography means shooting an insect eye that is less than a tenth of one inch wide, and from a distance of about two inches.

Figure out what it is that you really intend to shoot and then figure out which lens will get you there.

The macro purists out there will cringe when they read this, but for macro work, I use a standard Canon 28-200mm zoom lens to get the flowers. Then I slip on the EF12 extension tube if I need to get really close.

---Bob Gross---

[dbarthel]

You might start out with one of the Canon 2 element macro attachments for your lens. Beyond that either a Canon 100mm or Sigma 100mm seem to be the way to go. I have the 180 macro, which is a little long for the d30/d60/10d. I also have the 500 macro converter which does a really nice job on the 100-400 zoom.

Dan

[DaveG]

I got a used Canon 100 mm f2.8 macro about a month ago and it's been great. I wondered about the focal length before I got it. Would it be just too long?

So far I've really enjoyed the greater reach. I shot some grapes on the vine a couple of weeks ago and I was able to use a small reflector to shine a little light back into the shadows. I'm not saying that I couldn't do this with a 50 but the 100 sure worked well there. I think that I just would have gotten in my own way with a 50.

Mine is the non USM version and I was concerned about this too. If I was trying to use this lens to shoot sports (and a 160 f2.8 isn's a bad choice) then I would have been much better served with the USM. But I have a 70-200 f2.8 L to take care of that, so the slower AF from my macro lens hasn't been a problem. I even found that I shut the AF off to give me more control.

It occured to me that the 100 would make copying difficult, but really that function of a macro lens has been taken over by scanners.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Dave,..

I think that manual focus is the only way to go with most macro shots!

[MediaMagic]

CyberDyneSystems wrote:

If you are not yet sure you want to invest in a dedicated macro lens, you can get a set of "Extension rings" made by kenko. These are an excellent cost effective solution for the casual macro shooter. (about $90.00 from B&H) they can be used with ANY lens you own and change the focus distance to allow "Close focusng" in excess of 1/1 They do not effect the lenses image quality in any way as there is no glass in them, the simply move the lens farther from the CCD/CMOS plain,. which in turn allows closer focusing.

If you are experimenting with macro,. this a great way to try it,. but a dedicated macro is easier to work with in the long run.



What is the difference between the "Extension rings" and the close-up filter set? I mean, I know the filters mount on the end of the glass and the extention rings mount between lens and body, but besides that, how does the function differ?

[tarves57]

Hi, I'm very interested in this thread as I would like to take really close macro shots (of the 2ins version) on my 10D. Can I achieve this best with the 100mm lens or extension rings? Would I also be able to photgraph/cope 35mm slides on a lightbox?

Thanks,
Susan

[lightandlife]

Canon 50mm macro is not very good. The longer the better.

Save money to buy a good one. Otherwise, you buy both like I did, and have to get rid of one because one does not need both.

[frenchfry]

The function of an extension ring (between the lens and the camera body) is very different from close-up (screw on over the main lens) lenses. A 2X extension ring doubles the effective focal length of a lens, thus making it more telescopic than it was designed for. As a result the effective field of view is narrowed but you get a longer "reach" on your subject. Importantly, with the extension ring you still can focus on infinity, i.e. you can still get long shots.

The close-up lenses do just the opposite. A 2-diopter screw-on lens does not change the telescopic reach or the field of view of your main lens. It simply allows you to place your camera physically closer to your subject. Importantly, with any close-up lens you CANNOT achieve infinity focusing. Close-up lenses are for still objects that you want to get really close to for magnification.

There are limitations to both, in addition to the above cited issues. With the close-up lenses on your camera your depth-of-field will be reduced. Even by stopping down (using smaller aperture) and longer exposure you cannot retrieve "lost" depth of field from use of close-up lenses. This means your subject must be quite flat in order to have it fully in focus. The more powerful the close-up lens the shorter your depth of field will be.

Using the 2x extension ring, thus making your lens function 2-fold more telescopic, cuts down your light-gathering capacity by 4-fold. Thus a f3.5 lens will function as a f5.6 lens. This means you can't expect much performance under low light conditions. Additionally, as your lens becomes effectively more telescopic its depth-of-field also reduces, although you probably won't notice it for long-distance shots.

[Roger_Cavanagh]

Frenchfry is confusing extension tubes and extenders (sometimes called teleconverters). He has accurately described extenders, which are generally 1.4x or 2x.

Extension tubes also fit between the camera and the lens, but they are hollow - hence, the name - and serve to move the lens from the film/sensor, thus increasing magnification. The magnification effect is a function of the ratio between the focal length of the lens and the amount of tube. Canon sell wickedly expensive tubes in 12mm and 25mm. Third-party tubes are much cheaper, and often come in sets of three that can be combined. My set has 13mm, 21mm and 31mm lengths.

Compared to close-up lenses, the focussing distance using e-tubes will be much closer, so can be tricky for subjects like bugs. Tubes will cost you a little light, but the auto-metering system will compensate. You also lose infinity focusing.

With close-up/macro work, depth of field is a function of magnification and aperture. As Frenchfry says, it is very small, but it doesn't matter what method you use DOF is the same.

I have some more info about the Canon close-up lenses here: http://www.rogercavanagh.com/helpinfo/18_500D.htm

Regards,

[MediaMagic]

Roger_Cavanagh wrote:


I have some more info about the Canon close-up lenses here: http://www.rogercavanagh.com/helpinfo/18_500D.htm

Regards,



Thanks FrenchFry and Roger. Great information. I tried going to that link and the page is giving me a dialogue to enter name and password. So I tried to go to the main page, www.rogercavanagh.com, and link to the help page from there. The main page is also asking for name/password.
I know I linked to your site before regarding "workflow". Must be a technical glitch at the moment. I'll try again later.

Thanks
David

[Roger_Cavanagh]

MediaMagic wrote:
[I know I linked to your site before regarding "workflow". Must be a technical glitch at the moment. I'll try again later.

Thanks
David

David,

Sorry about that. There may have been something temporarily wrong - my ISP doing some systems work. ??? The link from your post worked fine at 2258 British Summer Time.

Regards,

[MediaMagic]

Roger_Cavanagh wrote:
MediaMagic wrote:
[I know I linked to your site before regarding "workflow". Must be a technical glitch at the moment. I'll try again later.

Thanks
David

David,

Sorry about that. There may have been something temporarily wrong - my ISP doing some systems work. ??? The link from your post worked fine at 2258 British Summer Time.

Regards,


Thanks Roger,

Thanks for taking the time to put all the information together on your site. I've gleaned many tips and tricks as well as some helpful utilities (namely NeatImage). As a fairly adept film photographer (although more lucky than accomplished I'd be the first to admit), making the transition from film to digital does have a bit of a learning curve and your site has given me some valuable pointers.

Thanks again,
David

P.S. The site is working just fine. Must have been a maintenance issue.

[openspace]

Check out the Tamron 90mm f/2.8 macro. It's a bit more than your listed price range (generally $400 - $500 US) but it is tack sharp, lightweight and allows for full lifesize magnification without extension tubes.

The only other macro I'd consider is the Canon 100mm f/2.8 macro, which is just a bit more expensive than the Tamron.

Check out the following comparison between the Canon 100mm Macro and the Tamron 90mm. Read the whole review. Quite interesting!


http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/can-tam-macro/