Best way to shoot Macro cheaply?

[Bsmooth]

I have a 20D and 18-55 and 70-200F4 with 1.4Ext. What is the most economical way to shoot Macro,possibly using the 70-200 len with maybe a closeup lens? Also what are the best closeup lenses in the 67mm range? Thanks.

[Jesper]

Here's a macro tutorial that explains what different options you have (close-up lenses, extension tubes, macro lenses, ...): http://www.photo.net/learn/macro/

I think extension tubes would be a good and relatively cheap way for macro. An extension tube does not contain any glass elements (as opposed to a close-up lens), so it does not deteriorate the quality of the image.

[sid]

The Canon 500D should work good with the 70-200 lens. You can also buy Kenko extension tubes.
EDIT: The 500d shouldnt affect the image quality. It's supposed to be a very good quality close up fitler

[PhotosGuy]

The first "macro" lens I had was a cheap +10 filter. If I hadn't had it in my pocket, I would have missed the 1st shot in the 3rd row here:
http://photobucket.com/albums/v218/PhotosGuy/Samples%20-%20General/

[DocFrankenstein]

I'm gonna quote myself if u dont mind.

If you want macro, the 70-200 f/2.8 is perfect for that.

just add some extension tubes (100 bucks in tokyo) and you get this:
http://andrew4137.fotopic.net/p12721812.html
http://andrew4137.fotopic.net/p12459574.html
http://andrew4137.fotopic.net/c456954.html
---------------------
f/4 will be even better, since you rarely shoot macro at f/2.8 and the quality is better.

BUT: The working distance for 1:1 is close... around 3-4 inches from the front element.
If you zoom in, you get 1/2 life size at about 40 cm from the front element. So it's not suited for very active insects I'd imagine.

[jabtas]

To shoot macro on a budget, take one 35-70 lens and remove front element

http://images.fotopic.net/ysh01r.jpg

And get results like this

http://images.fotopic.net/y70fs2.jpg



http://images.fotopic.net/ysvorh.jpg


More examples can be seen in my gallery.

FYI - As much as I like to, I can't take credit for this dicovery. It was uncovered by an FM'er named bellyface.

Here is a link to the thread

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic2/169041

[Bodog]

I picked an M42 mount bellows, 50 mm f1.4 Asahi SMC, 135mm f3.5 Asahi SMC on eBay, all for less than $100. Cheaper than a set of extension tubes. Manual focus, but who cares with macro. :D

[pradeep1]

I've seen a cheap 50 mm 1.8 prime lens (old manual mounts on eBay work fine) reversed using a reverse ring. You can get very close with one of these. You'll have to manually control the aperture, but it still works. Optically, these lenses are a better value than buying close up filters, but you cannot control the effect too much.

[dkord]

An extension tube on your 70-200 will work well. I bought a Promaster with 3 sizes(12mm,20mm and 30mm). You can combine them all or use them one at a time. They retail for around $130, if you look around you probably can get them cheaper. Best thing about tubes is that there's no optical element to degrade image quality. It also fully communicates with the camera so metering and auto focusing (if you dare) still works.

This is with a EF 50 1.4 w/20mm Extension Tube.

http://www.sparksonline.org/asm/dkord/41330091.IMG_2047.jpg

[Duder]

To shoot macro on a budget, take one 35-70 lens and remove front element

http://images.fotopic.net/ysh01r.jpg

And get results like this

http://images.fotopic.net/y70fs2.jpg



http://images.fotopic.net/ysvorh.jpg


More examples can be seen in my gallery.

FYI - As much as I like to, I can't take credit for this dicovery. It was uncovered by an FM'er named bellyface.

Here is a link to the thread

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic2/169041

does the AF and aperture still work properly if you do this?

[condyk]

Here's a macro tutorial that explains what different options you have (close-up lenses, extension tubes, macro lenses, ...): http://www.photo.net/learn/macro/


That's quite a funny article - nice writing style :lol:

[Oculus Sinister]

I would go with the Canon 500D Close-up lens with your 70-200/4. I use a 250D CU lens for my 75-300 IS USM and the results are acceptable(to me ..at least;) )
Here's a sample taken with that combination

http://www.dphoto.us/forumphotos/data/500/medium/MG_2235.jpg

[jabtas]

does the AF and aperture still work properly if you do this?

Hi Duder

Unfortunatly the lens will not focus as the front element is used for focusing, you just have to move the camera back & forward until correct focus is achieved. Apart from that, the lens works normally and retains full use of the normal aperture range, plus the camera will record the EXIF data.

This may not be an all singing and dancing macro lens but as a very cheap alternative, it is a lot of fun

[Bsmooth]

What is the best depth of field you can get with say the 70-200F4 using the 500D closeup lens? Also what would be the working distance of this say compared with the canon 100mm F2.8 Macro specialty lens?

The other question I have is;are any of these truly 1:1 and can you use a 1.4 extender to help get closer to 1:1. I keep weighing a cost of $469 of the canon 100mm 2.8 Macro and how much better I can do vs the other options.This is mostly for flowers and insects.Although I have seen older examples of the canon macro that don't have USM selling in the $325-400 range.Sounds like a lot for used lens.

[DocFrankenstein]

For insect you want AF and working distance.

Ideally, it would be a 180mm macro prime.

It is said that the tamron's quality is quite good:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=284404&is=REG
And the price is tolerable. That thing is the best for shooting insects... unless you want to buy the canon 180mm L

[karusel]

Well, my 28-80 3.5-who-cares has been collecting the finest dust for years, so hey, I thought, why not rip it's eye out. After I worked through user dumbness factor, an hour has passed and I realized I just needed to apply more brute force when removing front element. I opened the lens and did it from inside (completely disassembled, twice, still works LN- :D), I removed the whole focusing element (lens + plastic ring holders). The results? Well, I've tried it at the long end, and it definetely takes in too much stray light, from what I can see with my eye, stray light enters past 50mm. And I don't like that. I'll try to fix it.

[Duder]

okay, in the spirit of homemade macro lens, I cobbled together my own version. It was pretty simple really - took the front lens element off my cheap 80-200 zoom and held it/taped it onto a 50/1.8 which is on the camera. Very limited focusing range and required the front of the lens to be 4-5 inches from the object. Aperture worked normally.

couple of examples:

[Duder]

another one:

All are 100% crops.

[jabtas]

Hi Duder did you try the 80-200 on the camera with the front element removed, I don't know wether you misunderstood my explanation but that is what I did.
But with that said you samples are very good and the sharpness is second to none

[Duder]

Hi Duder did you try the 80-200 on the camera with the front element removed, I don't know wether you misunderstood my explanation but that is what I did.
But with that said you samples are very good and the sharpness is second to none

oh, I did, yeah. I thought I'd try out your technique with the 80-200. The front element was held on with 3 screws, so it easily removed, but when I put it on the camera I wasn't able to focus on anything at any distances.
After I'd put the 50/1.8 back on the camera, I tried holding the front element onto the front of it, and I was surprised to find it worked nicely. Until I save up enough for a genuine macro lens, I think I'll being using this arrangement. :D

here's a 100% crop of some old broccoli:

[jabtas]

hey Duder, I wonder what sort of magnification you are getting with that setup. It certainly looks larger than life size

[karusel]

Well, I get about11mm in frame @ 80mm focal length 17mm @ 50mm and 28mm @ 28mm.

The following image is slightly cropped, shot at, I think 50mm. I hope you recognize what you're seeing. ;)

[sid]

Is that the filament from an incandescent bulb ?

[S230]

The way I've done it is simply by adding a big magnifying glass to my lens hood. This will allow me to remove or add if required. The benefit is that it still allowed plenty of light to pass through.

The bug in the attached photo is either a snowflea or a snowfly. it's size is smaller than a staple.

[Duder]

hey Duder, I wonder what sort of magnification you are getting with that setup. It certainly looks larger than life size

I dunno what the magnification is. How do you work it out?

[rg-tom]

with the 35-80 @ 80mm you get aproximitely 2:1 if its on a FF camera :) And about 1:1.5 @ 35mm

[karusel]

Sid, that's it! :) I'm afraid I don't quite fancy the composition myself, but this shot turned out to be the best in the series. DOF is very tricky to work out, specially when you hold a camera with one hand and the subject with the other, under a bright light, minding the lens' shadow. ;)

Interestingly my lens goes up to f/38, but I have yet to see a crisp shot at that aperture...