macro lenses...

[ethan1219]

i have (not much anyway) canon bias as far as lenses so if you would all tell me your favorite macro lenses i would appreciate it very much...thanks
J

[soumya63]

Canon 100mm f2.8 macro is a wonderful lens. You can not go wrong with it. Other cost effective alternative, what I am using is, a 50mm f1.8 with a EF25 extension tube. The picture below is shot with that combo.

http://gfoto.tripod.com/portfolio/macro/macro/macro1.jpg

[Roger_Cavanagh]

http://www.rogercavanagh.com/flowers/images\hi_res\image009.jpg

I don't have a specialist macro lens, but I like to use the 500D close-up filter. The 77mm size fits on my 135 f/2 L, the 70-200 LIS and the 100-400 LIS, which is the lens I used for this image.

Regards,

[BobbyC]

I've used the Tamron 90mm macro and love it, not only for macro but anything, very sharp on my D30.

[gthorn]

Roger

I catalogue my sea shell collection with digital pictures and want to buy a macro lens for the purpose. Your picture looks nice, but I would need more depth of field to reveal more detail in the shells which, of course, are round in shape not flat. Would your lens be able to do that ?

Graham

[Cal Maier]

If cost is a factor, look at the Canon 50mm f2.5 macro lens. This is one of the sharpest and cost effective non-"L" lenses that Canon makes. Also depth of field shouldn't be too much of an issue with this f2.5-f32 lens.
The downside is that it is not capable of a 1:1 ratio, maximum ratio for this lens is 1:2 without an extention tube.

Cal

[Roger_Cavanagh]

gthorn wrote:
Roger

I catalogue my sea shell collection with digital pictures and want to buy a macro lens for the purpose. Your picture looks nice, but I would need more depth of field to reveal more detail in the shells which, of course, are round in shape not flat. Would your lens be able to do that ?

Graham

That's a very good question. :) Actually, I had been wondering about this myself, so your query prompted me to do some investigation.

First, let me clarify, the 500D I used is not a lens. It's a close-up filter that screws on the front of a lens just as any other filter would. The longer the focal length of lens on which it is used, the greater is the magnification.

Anyway back to your question about DoF with close-up photography. I have discovered that in close-up work DoF depends only on the magnification and f-stop used. Distance from subject and focal length are not relevant as they are in general photography. The following table is take from Axel Bruck Close-up Photography In Practice. He has used a Circle of Confusion of 0.03mm for 35mm photography, so the figures in the table must be reduced in the light of the D30's smaller sensor.

http://www.rogercavanagh.com/images/dofmag/dofmag.gif

As a practical illustration, I did a quick and dirty test with the 500D on my 70-200 at 200mm with 63mm of extension tubes. This gave an approximate magnification of 0.75.

This is at f/8:
http://www.rogercavanagh.com/images/dofmag/af8.jpg

This is f/11:
http://www.rogercavanagh.com/images/dofmag/af11.jpg

This is f/16:
http://www.rogercavanagh.com/images/dofmag/af16.jpg

This is f/22:
http://www.rogercavanagh.com/images/dofmag/af22.jpg

Increased DOF can clearly be seen. You will have to judge for yourself, if this will work for your seashells. And obviously the close-up filter is a different approach from using a macro lens. I have never owned a proper macro lens, so I can't compare, but I happy with results I get with the 500D. The DOF would be the same for either option as it is magnification that is the determining factor.

Regards,