Close up or Macro options

[condyk]

Ok, I don't know much and I know even less about close up photography, i.e. taking pictures of small things from not far away and making them look big :lol: Any general thoughts or advice welcome on this type of photography, which is why I didn't put it under the lens section ... sorry if I should have!

Anyway, since seeing some awesome images I thought I would like to have a go every now and again when on my travels. It seems that the options are:

1. A tube or stacked tubes, with the Kenko set being well thought of as well as the usual brands. Would a super cheap set be as good opticall as an expensive set, given they are just tubes with no glass to worry about???

2. A front add on lens such as the Canon 500D, which is small and easy to carry around for use as needed.

3. A dedicated Macro style lens.

If I was to spend, say, £100 which would offer the best bang for the buck? I will use it on its own (the lens) or added to one of the lenses in my signature below. I think use will be mainly static things like plants, or some small creatures that are kind enough to stand still for a while :)

[ScottE]

All three systems you mention work well. My choice in order of preference is:
1. macro lens
2. extension tubes
3. 500D or Nikon equivalent

The macro lens is by far the most convenient since it can focus on any distance from close up to infinity (except for the extreme macro 65 mm 1-5x which only focuses at macro distance - not the new EF-S macro lens) These are very high quality lenses and are rather expensive.

Extension tubes will fit every Canon EOS lens you own, from very small to huge telephotos. They are cost effective since all that is required is a camera mount on one end, a lens mount on the other, electronic connections and a light tight tube. The can be fiddly to work with because you must find the correct length of tube to get the composition you need. Working distances get very short if you are using a short length.

A lens that screws into the filter ring is convenient to use, but if your lenses do not all have the same filter size you will need several diopters or a lens filter ring adapter. You cannot get a diopter big enough to work with telephoto lenses with big from lens elements. The added glass can cause some deterioration of image quality, so you should get the more expensive multi lens diopters from Canon and Nikon instead of the cheaper single element diopters available from some filter manufactures.

Scott

[cmM]

a macro lens would be best, but you could get by with either extension tubes or a 500d (I think the 500D will limit your focusing distance though, you have to be a certaing distance away for proper focusing or something like that, I don't own one)

[condyk]

This is all very useful. Thanks :)

I need to think of the real world practicalities. I'd normally have a big zoom, or my 70-200 F2.8 fitted when out in 'wilderness' or on a game drive. To mess around with a different lens, or the tubes, would open up the possibility of dust entering lens/body and also take time.

Adding the 500D would be quick, presents less dust danger, but more problematic in terms of quality and fit size. The 50-500mm is 86mm and the 70-200 77mm filter size and I guess a 500D for those sizes would be hard to find and/or expensive. It's also worst optically.

Maybe the lens is the least problematic overall and capable of the very best results, but also the most expensive option. Maybe I need to look at second hand and research the best one for the job that is reasonably priced.

I like the idea of the tubes as there is no glass there. Maybe they are a good second best if I can't find a lens.

[Alan Neilson]

As has been previously said a macro lens is a good option, tubes are good as well I haven't used them on zoom lens, but have used them on 50mm and also with my macro lens.

My current macro set up is a Tamron 90mm lens which is a maro lens and can foucs very close and more importantly give you the 1:1 ratio ie life size. I also have a set of exenstion tubes that I got from Jessops, which I some times use with it.

What I sugest to start off with is a set of tubes you could try that with one of your current lens, not sure how well it would work, but you could also get a 50mm standard lens, no need to go for a maro on the standard 50mm MkII will be fine as it fouces quite close and give that a try and see if you enjoy macro photography. If you do then you can think about buying a proper macro lens, there are plenty of treads on here for you to read to give you an idea of the different lens.

[condyk]

Alan, that's good advice and I had kinda decided to do that by coincidence, but good to get some agreement :-) I also have the 50mm II anyway and love it, so I will try it with the tubes when they arrive.

Meanwhile, I'll keep a look out for a decent SH Macro lens too as you never know what bargains you can pick up. I was thinking of the Canon 100mm or your Tamron 90mm.

[suse]

Hi

I've been debating something similar as I want to add a macro lens. :rolleyes:

Been hunting round the internet and have ruled out the Tamron. Despite the fact the following website didn't find much difference, my eyes tell me different. http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/can-tam-macro/

In addition to the Canon 100mm there is also the Sigma 105mm, which you haven't mentioned. I think that comes in about half the price of the Canon, and seems good bang for the buck in comparison.

One thing I always bear in mind is the sell-on depreciation...so I think I might go with the Canon for that reason. If you sell it on at a slight loss, its a bit like having rented it. I don't know where you'd get a decent macro lens for £100, tho', but if you find one let me know! The cheapest I've seen is a Canon 50 macro s/h, at about £150.

Suse

[condyk]

One thing I always bear in mind is the sell-on depreciation...so I think I might go with the Canon for that reason. If you sell it on at a slight loss, its a bit like having rented it. I don't know where you'd get a decent macro lens for £100, tho', but if you find one let me know! The cheapest I've seen is a Canon 50 macro s/h, at about £150.

I agree totally on the depreciation thing ... buy low so you don't get too stung! The £100 was finger in the air. If I do some more selling maybe I'll increase the budget. I have a few things on ebay at the mo' so we'll see. Thanks for the Sigma suggestion ... maybe it will feel at home with my other Sigma's :) It's not cheap either eh, but more realistic. I am going to try the tubes first with my 50mm II.