Noob to macro. Have a couple questions.

[Wrench]

First off, I'll tell you what I want to do. I'd like to take close up shots of bugs, flowers, and anything else small that interests me. Can someone please explain Macro lenses, extention tubes, etc. to me please? Are the tubes used in conjunction with a macro lense or are they used as a substitute? What focal length do you reccomend for my needs? What do I look for in a decent lense, nothing professional, but nothing Chinese either. A few that were suggested to me were the Canon 100 2.8, Tamron 90, and a sigma 135 I believe. I was reading the post about the home-made macro. Is this worth the time or will I have to be too close to the subject? Any info/help is apprectiated. Thx.

[robertwgross]

There is a Canon 50mm macro, and a Canon 100mm macro. If you need to jump into this headfirst, then there are a couple of choices.

If you don't need to get in quite that close, yet you want to get in closer then the normal minimum focus distance of your best lens, then use an extension tube. There is no lens inside it, so it does not impair your best lens and its optical ability. The extension tube simply moves the best lens away from the camera body which changes focus distances.

---Bob Gross---

[Wrench]

so the extention tubes will decrease the minimum focus distance?

[cricket]

Wrench, I'm also fairly new at macro photography. I bought the Canon 100mm 2.8. Just got it and haven't used it yet...

I am also wondering if I'll need/want extension tubes. I decided to try it first. I'm more concerned with lighting and exposure right now. I have a couple of books that are great, PM me if you want the info!

Good luck!

[edsarkiss]

yes -- it will decrease both the minimum and maximum focus distance -- in other words, you can focus closer with extension tube(s) mounted, but you will not be able to focus distant objects.

for what it's worth, i have the Tamron 90mm macro and absolutely love it. it's very very sharp. price/performance/quality it's better than the canon in my opinion. the canon is sturdier, quieter, and autofocuses faster. the Tamron is as optically sharp as the Canon (and sharper according to some comparisons i've seen). The manual focus on the Tamron is superb (in macro situations, i usually use manual focus). Both have excellent bokeh.

I wouldn't bother with the sigma -- it's noticably worse optically, and not commeasurately less expensive.

[tim]

Canon 100mm macro's a great lens, i've taken photos of things as small as 0.5mm across - they didn't come out huge but they're recognisable. I've also taken portraits and lots of flower pics. Great lens, very versatile.

[Pyromaniac]

I have a couple of shots done with a Canon 50mm f/2.5 macro psted over in another thread http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=52817 One is a macro and the other is a normal shot. Here is another shot that is close up but was done with a 35-80mm at 35mm.






http://home.cinci.rr.com/actionstills/013_11.jpg

None of these shots where taken with extension tubes and I think they came out pretty well. The one above is a little fuzzy because I reduced the quility and size so that it wouldn't take forever to load. You can get some pretty good shots with a lens that has a minimum focusing distace of about 12 inches or so but you probably only get a 1:4 magnification. My 50mm macro has a 1:2 which is what I used fo the coin. So if your looking to fill the frame you will need a macro or a good lens with a short minimum focusing distance and an extension tube or two. If you want to get a set of extension tubes B&H (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=71515&is=REG) has a set of Kenko's for about $130. I don't have a set but I haven't found anything wher I really needed them. You can get the 50mm for about $240 at B&H or the 100mm for about $450.

Wheather you use extension tubes depends on how close you want/need to get. And as Tim said you can still use a macro lens for normal photo's to.