Macro Equipment

[greg-andrew74]

Okay, i have seen some wonderful images in this here macro section.. sooo i am very keen to get into macro and would love to know what the best equiment would be.. i have an eos 400d... whats next? take in mind i am going to have to save for it all... hope you dont mind answering.. cheers in advance :D

[AirBrontosaurus]

You'll need a macro lens, and you'll really really really really want a flash unit.

If you want to shoot bugs, get a macro lens at about 100mm. The Canon 100mm is amazing, but more expensive than the Sigma and Tamron varieties. All of them are stellar, so I'd say buy the Canon if you can afford it, or one of the others if you're on a budget.

If you want to shoot plants or other inanimate objects, then go for a 60mm-ish macro lens. They're cheaper, but optically just as good. The Canon 60mm is probably the best, but Sigma's is nice too (or so I've heard). Again, you really can't go wrong with a macro lens.

You'll want a flash, because without it you will have to rely on natural light for your shots, which means you'll need high-ISOs, low shutter speeds, and wide apertures. Since this is exactly opposite from ideal macro conditions, a flash is very nice to have. It allows allows you to shoot with high shutter speeds, smaller apertures, and low ISO, all in about any light you want.

I'd recommend a Sigma EF-500 Super or ST flash, as they're pretty cheap and very good for macro. If you want to step up, you can consider a ring-flash, which is better for macro, but much more expensive.


OR:

An even cheaper alternative would be to buy some extension tubes and the Canon 50mm f/1.8. Tubes will allow you to treat your 50mm as a macro lens, and will cost less than the other options. You'll still want a flash though.

[greg-andrew74]

Cheers for that chris... i will start looking around.. i dont like cheap so will beg my wife to let me save hehe.. 100mm sounds good and so does the Ring flash! but i fear i will be going for the sigma!

thanks again.. very much appreciated

[Robert_Lay]

With the equipment that you already have (your Canon Camera and the kit lens), this is as "macro" as you can get.
That is, you can fill your frame with less than 3 inches worth of real world.

So, before spending any money, why not play with the macro capability already in hand and master that. Then you will have a better idea of what it might take to extend that to what you want to do.

[AirBrontosaurus]

Cheers for that chris... i will start looking around.. i dont like cheap so will beg my wife to let me save hehe.. 100mm sounds good and so does the Ring flash! but i fear i will be going for the sigma!

thanks again.. very much appreciated

I think fear is the wrong word for it.

That's like fearing you'll get a Ferrari instead of a Lamborghini. I meant that the Sigma was merely at a lower price point than the Canon; the image quality of the two is about as close to identical as you can get (As is the Tamron), and the lens has all the amenities you'd want in a macro lens. The Canon gets the slight nod for build quality, and Canon's USM is better than Sigma's HSM, but you won't be using auto-focus during macro anyways.

I went with the Canon and loved it, but I'm 100% confident I would have been just as happy with the Sigma or Tamron. And, I've used Sigma lighting exclusively (Sigma EF-430 Super, Sigma EF-500 Super, and the Sigma EM-140 ring-flash) and I absolutely loved them. I could not justify the price increase in the Canon models vs the Sigma models in the least (the Canon's are supposedly built better, but the Sigmas felt/feel plenty solid to me).

It's rare in the photography world, but with macro you can literally throw darts at a B&H catalog and be happy with what you get. Every option out there is just really, really good.

[AirBrontosaurus]

With the equipment that you already have (your Canon Camera and the kit lens), this is as "macro" as you can get.
That is, you can fill your frame with less than 3 inches worth of real world.

So, before spending any money, why not play with the macro capability already in hand and master that. Then you will have a better idea of what it might take to extend that to what you want to do.

Great advice Robert; that's how I started out. I went from the kit lens to a Sigma 70-300mm to a Sigma 70-300mm with extension tubes, to finally getting the Canon 100mm macro.

[macro junkie]

if u want the best get canon mpe-65 + canon mt-24ex with 2 x gary fong diffusers

your also need a 100mm macro lens.

[PhotosGuy]

If you want to shoot bugs, get a macro lens at about 100mm. The longer the focal length, the more working distance from the lens you will have.
I second the vote on extension tubes & a flash, but it doesn't have to be an expensive one:
Simple "every-day-emergency" location lighting (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=66358)

[Robert_Lay]

The longer the focal length, the more working distance from the lens you will have.
I second the vote on extension tubes & a flash, but it doesn't have to be an expensive one:
Simple "every-day-emergency" location lighting (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=66358)
Given that extension tubes will be used, what's your take on turning the lens around?

[JeffreyG]

I think something like the Canon 100mm macro is a near ideal starting spot. It is a lens that will continue to be of use for a dedicated macro shooter for all time.

Something like the MPE is way too specialized, the fact that it cannot shoot at less than 1:1 magnification is tough to manage.

A good flash rig is nice to have, but also expensive. I would prioritize that below getting a good tripod and a focus rail.

A work around to the twin flash rig is to use a 430EX and a synch cable.

[Greg_C]

Another vote for starting with a focal length in the 100 range. Any of the offerings from Canon Sigma or Tamron are great Macro lenses. At some stage you'll need to get a flash of some sort, a flash like the 580EX will double for other types of photography also. I'd leave off getting a dedicated macro flash until you've been into macro for longer.

[jasonleehl]

I think something like the Canon 100mm macro is a near ideal starting spot. It is a lens that will continue to be of use for a dedicated macro shooter for all time.

Something like the MPE is way too specialized, the fact that it cannot shoot at less than 1:1 magnification is tough to manage.

A good flash rig is nice to have, but also expensive. I would prioritize that below getting a good tripod and a focus rail.

A work around to the twin flash rig is to use a 430EX and a synch cable.

I second what Jeffrey said.

I'm still learning my macro shots, and it had much improved over the months. I would say the Canon 100mm Macro is a great lens, and I also use it for potraits at times. The MPE in my opinion is too difficult for beginners; especially for people like me. I tried using the 580EX-II for the flash purpose but didn't get good results. I had two options that is to get the sync cable, or a flash specialised for Macro. Thus, I got the MR 14-EX. It is not the best but it works perfectly fine.

Get the 100mm Macro or other choices you have. Play around a bit, and probably decide what flash is more suitable for your pocket.

[PhotosGuy]

Given that extension tubes will be used, what's your take on turning the lens around? If I remember correctly, when I tried that the working distance was painfully close, as in under 1". No room for light to reach the subject & they didn't care for something moving in on them, either.

Last weekend I used a 1" tube with my 105mm Nikkor, & the working distance was comfortable for me & the subjects:
"It's Pussy Willow season!" (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=491647)