First macro's and questions

[Dick Emery]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3412/3507758356_4b58745b3b_o.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3605/3506951683_d5c0442ba0_o.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3641/3507758488_71d6fb3b4b_o.jpg

I've just got a couple of macro tubes to try this whole macro thing out with. Wow! This stuff is tough hand held even on my 50mm f/1.8! I did not realise the depth of field would be THAT shallow! I also tried them on an old 80-200mm lens but right away found it unusable as the working distance was just too far.

Another thing I found was that the tubes I got although having auto on them it becomes pretty much redundant for this type of work. I wish I just bought a cheap set now. Plus they do not work with my EF-S lenses (sad). Still. They are at least made of stronger metal.

Finally I didn't realise how much LIGHT you need! Especially if you want a smaller aperture to get more in focus. I have made a simple flash gun extension and diffuser setup but it needs work.

Now for my questions.

If I was to buy a PROPER macro lens like a Sigma 105mm or a Tamron 90mm etc. Would I still get that very limited depth of field issue?

What about working distances on true macro lenses?

When out in the field bug shooting what is the recommended shooting method? I take it something like a 100mm might be too long handheld?

When out in the field with a BIG macro do you just setup a tripod aimed at some plant or flower, pre-focus and sit patiently waiting for a bug to come along? I am guessing for flying bugs this is the case no?

One more thing. The tubes are 20mm and 36mm so combined they are 56mm. On a 50mm lens what does this equate to? Is it giving 1:1 more or less?

Ooh! This is exciting! :D

[LordV]

Good shots for first tries!

If I was to buy a PROPER macro lens like a Sigma 105mm or a Tamron 90mm etc. Would I still get that very limited depth of field issue?

What about working distances on true macro lenses?

100mm macro lenses are around 4.5" to 6" in front of the lens

When out in the field bug shooting what is the recommended shooting method? I take it something like a 100mm might be too long handheld?

Think a 100mm macro lens is ideal for outdoor handheld use

When out in the field with a BIG macro do you just setup a tripod aimed at some plant or flower, pre-focus and sit patiently waiting for a bug to come along? I am guessing for flying bugs this is the case no?

You can do this but most of the shooters I know are handheld bug hunters - you actively look for bugs. If you find a good place near some flowers then you might camp out there a while :)

One more thing. The tubes are 20mm and 36mm so combined they are 56mm. On a 50mm lens what does this equate to? Is it giving 1:1 more or less?

You will be getting just over 1:1 magnification

Brian v.

[John_B]

Dick Emery,
Just to let you know:
If you got the cheaper extension tubes without electrical contacts all your photos would be at f/1.8 unless you take off the lens from the camera with the DOF preview button pressed. Then your viewfinder would be much much darker!

If your extension tubes are Kenko you can get them to fit on EF-S lenses with just a bit of trimming of plastic.

Regarding the questions you asked:
Macro photography has very little DOF :(

My Canon 100mm is 6" from glass to subject

For hand held use a flash really makes it much easier giving you 1/250th shutter

Hand held is easier then tripod (for me) and quicker, but requires luck and stealth.

1.11x magnification with 56mm with your 50mm lens

[martines34]

Dedicated macros are easier to use.

Live view is critical to enjoying macro imaging.

You MUST use a tripod if you want serious images.

The other necessary item is a wireless remote.

Macro imaging is a real kick.

[alann]

I know everyone has an opinion but, two of the best on this, and other boards have given solid advise. JohnB and LordV (Hey, it rhymes!) will NOT steer you in the wrong direction. I have never used a tripod for macro and most likely never will. I find live view is seldom needed or desired. For me it is much easier to steady the camera when it is pressed against my ugly old face. :) I hope I am not out of line but, I just hate to think that someone will go out and buy items that are called "critical" or "MUST" when they can actually make "bug" shooting more difficult. I could not imagine trying to set up a tripod, adjusting it close enough to the subject for proper focus, and then shooting. I doubt that the "bug" would stay in one place waiting for all my prep. :(

[Dick Emery]

Great answers guys. Yeah I got Triplus extension tubes not realising the EF-S lenses would not fit them. Is there anywhere I can find that info about making EF-S lenses fit? If it's just trimming a bit of plastic off the end of the tubes I may give it a go.

EDIT: Just looked at tubes and it would be extremely difficult to modify as the thing preventing EF-S lenses fitting them is the centre hole itself. The EF-S lenses have the extended center portion that puts the lens closer to the sensor. This protrusion is too big to fit through the centre hole of the tubes. Shame. I should have paid up and got the Kenko EF-S type :P

[LordV]

Just realised I missed one answer
If I was to buy a PROPER macro lens like a Sigma 105mm or a Tamron 90mm etc. Would I still get that very limited depth of field issue?
Yes the DOF in macro is a function of the aperture and the magnification achieved not how you achieve the magnification (ie at same aperture and magnification the DOF will be the same).

Not sure if the tubes are similar construction to the older Kenko tubes which also did not allow EF-S lenses, but know several people that trimmed the internal baffle with a hobby knife successfully to fit an EF_S lens
Brian v.

[Mike]

Great answers guys. Yeah I got Triplus extension tubes not realising the EF-S lenses would not fit them. Is there anywhere I can find that info about making EF-S lenses fit? If it's just trimming a bit of plastic off the end of the tubes I may give it a go.

I wouldn't bother with the ef's lenses, your 50mm lens is probably the best lens in your arsenal for the macro setup.

[noodle_snacks]

I know everyone has an opinion but, two of the best on this, and other boards have given solid advise. JohnB and LordV (Hey, it rhymes!) will NOT steer you in the wrong direction. I have never used a tripod for macro and most likely never will. I find live view is seldom needed or desired. For me it is much easier to steady the camera when it is pressed against my ugly old face. :) I hope I am not out of line but, I just hate to think that someone will go out and buy items that are called "critical" or "MUST" when they can actually make "bug" shooting more difficult. I could not imagine trying to set up a tripod, adjusting it close enough to the subject for proper focus, and then shooting. I doubt that the "bug" would stay in one place waiting for all my prep. :(

I shoot primarily with flash. I'd agree that tripods are not a MUST. That said, I can't see how you can pass any judgement on tripod usage without having ever tried it. Some of the best macros that I've seen have involved a tripod and no flash:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b2/Schnepfenfliege_Rhagio_scolopaceus2.jpg/800px-Schnepfenfliege_Rhagio_scolopaceus2.jpg

Tripods are a MUST if you are serious about flowers or landscapes for example.

[John_B]

Great answers guys. Yeah I got Triplus extension tubes not realising the EF-S lenses would not fit them. Is there anywhere I can find that info about making EF-S lenses fit? If it's just trimming a bit of plastic off the end of the tubes I may give it a go.Dick Emery,
Here is how to modify the Kenko extension tubes to get EF-S lenses to fit and work. It just needs a small amount of trimming click here to see (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=334752)

[olnacl]

Macro Newbie question: What benefit would I get in using a lens like the Canon 100mm Macro over the using my Tamron 70-200 2.8's macro function or my Sigma 24-70 2.8's macro function?

I am renting the Canon next weekend for a trip to the botanical gardens so I will get to use it then, but I am curious for y'alls (those who do macro more often) advice and opinions.

Thanks.

[alann]

I shoot primarily with flash. I'd agree that tripods are not a MUST. That said, I can't see how you can pass any judgement on tripod usage without having ever tried it. Some of the best macros that I've seen have involved a tripod and no flash:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b2/Schnepfenfliege_Rhagio_scolopaceus2.jpg/800px-Schnepfenfliege_Rhagio_scolopaceus2.jpg

Tripods are a MUST if you are serious about flowers or landscapes for example.

I agree with you. I thought the OP was asking about
"bug" macro. The statements I was making were directed toward that assumption.

[John_B]

olnacl,
Welcome to POTN :)

First a true macro prime will beat any zoom lens in sharpness.
Second no zoom is truly a macro lens (none that I know of), a true macro lens will give you 1:1 life size magnification. This makes a 10mm bug show as 10mm on your sensor/film.
So as you will see the Canon 100mm f/2.8 macro lens will give you true macro, with excellent prime sharpness and colors. :)

Just to let you know: its usually better when you start your own topic with your question, as it gets more replies ;)

[olnacl]

olnacl,
Welcome to POTN :)

First a true macro prime will beat any zoom lens in sharpness.
Second no zoom is truly a macro lens (none that I know of), a true macro lens will give you 1:1 life size magnification. This makes a 10mm bug show as 10mm on your sensor/film.
So as you will see the Canon 100mm f/2.8 macro lens will give you true macro, with excellent prime sharpness and colors. :)

Just to let you know: its usually better when you start your own topic with your question, as it gets more replies ;)

Thanks for the answers....and I will keep the topic starting in mind...this thread just seemed to be becoming a good catch all for macro newbie questions :D

After reading more of the threads here I have decided to head over to Arlington Camera this weekend and pick up the Canon 100mm 2.8 macro.

[Dick Emery]

I have other questions.

About reversal rings. If I was to get a 58mm to 52mm reversal ring and attach the 50mm 1.8 to the end of my 18-55mm EF-S lens would I be able to get super closeups? I understand I would be right on top of the subject and would more than likely need a flash and/or tripod wih that setup but would it work ok?

I have also just scored a Sigma achromatic lens for a good price. If I were to also purchase a cheap Tamron 70-300mm macro lens that does 1:2 if I put the achromat on it which is 1.6x I should get 1:1 or more. However would I lose infinity focus?

[Wyldeflower]

i have got the cannon 2.8 macro lens and as i like to go out insect hunting i just rely on having a steady hand as you have to be quick..

[Dick Emery]

Having fun here! I took the liberty of adding a little fake fill light and sharpening in Lightroom.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3542/3514741397_10933121b7.jpg

And uncropped original at just over 1:1 scale. This little guy was TINY!

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3359/3514743483_0f26a91ed0_o.jpg

[fishguts]

I shoot primarily with flash. I'd agree that tripods are not a MUST. That said, I can't see how you can pass any judgement on tripod usage without having ever tried it. Some of the best macros that I've seen have involved a tripod and no flash:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b2/Schnepfenfliege_Rhagio_scolopaceus2.jpg/800px-Schnepfenfliege_Rhagio_scolopaceus2.jpg

Tripods are a MUST if you are serious about flowers or landscapes for example.
seems to be great DOF in this pic? what lens did you use for this great shot?

[AbPho]

OKAY!!!! Who's eye is that and why DON'T THEY BLINK????