Standard Lens vs. Macro?

I am new to photography somewhat as far as DSLR's go and I'm really getting into it now but have a question until I can get a Macro Lens.

I have to Canon's. A Rebel XS and a new T3i. For both, I only have the standard 18-55 kit lens along with with two zoom lenses. I have a 55-250 IS for both and I have a 75-300 that is not IS.

I would like to use my "MACRO" setting and see just how close I can get but didn't know if anyone had ever taken any macro photos using these type lenses and if so, how did they turn out?

I know I can play with it and I plan to today some but just trying to get an idea from others to see if they used a certain f/stop, setting or taking the pictures from a ways back and just zooming in on the subject.

I plan to get a macro lens in the near future but if I can make what I have work, I'll save up more to get a better macro.

Thanks for any input.

John

Check here: Macro Variations

Most Macro / Micro lenses are prime lens; and those can reach 1:1 or more magnification one are 'true' macro lens.

For your zoom lenses, you can use macro extension tube to give you more magnification.

In the lens section is a sticky about lenses.
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=257659
Go to the second post and download the Table of lenses. Take a look at the Max Mag column and it will show you what the lens is capable of.

For instance, the 18-55 has a factor of .28, or 1:3.57. Then do the math. You sensor is 22.2mm by 14.8. If you multiply those by 3.57 you get about 79 x 53mm or roughly 2 inches by 3 inches. So, a 2" by 3" flower will fill the frame edge to edge. Items smaller than that will only partially fill the frame.

Translating to real world, a zinnia will fill the frame. The bug sitting at the center will be small unless its a dragonfly or larger butterfly.

I found some old shots that give you an idea of what it would look like. These were not taken with the 18-55 but the sizes are about right.

This is pretty close to what minimum focus distance would look like on the 18-55.

John C:

I have the same equipment as yours. Like JJ above says, you can't get too close with the 18-55. I got some closeup filters just for fun, but they are cumbersome to use. I was at a camera store a couple of hours ago and they let me try the 60mm macro which was pretty sweet. Almost bought it, but I think the 100mm (non-L non-IS), at a little over $100 more, is really worth it based on what you can do.

You could get reverse ring for 18-55, for 1.5$.
Results are these:
http://www.flickr.com …non+18-55+reversed&m=text

This is 18-55 reversed on zoom similar to yours:
http://www.flickr.com/​photos/chabba/59261797​76/

Adapter ring costs another 1.5$

Thanks for everyone's help. I went outside yesterday with my equipment and shot some photos of some thrift that was growing in our front yard near the drainage ditch. While it's not "Macro", I played with the concept some. Had fun doing it none the less. The lenses that I've found are upper 200 to $300 so I guess I'll just hold off for a while. Thanks again.

John

A few thoughts to consider:

1) Why not sell the Rebel XS and its 18-55mm kit lens which should help generate a little bit of money to help fund a new lens. You'll still have your newer T3i to work with and all the other lenses that you have.

2) The "macro" setting on your camera won't make photos macro. In fact it won't change anything much at all. The pre-sets on the camera for a DSLR simply tell the camera auto exposure settings to select settings with a certain bias toward a certain effect; in the case of macro I suspect its trying to use a smaller aperture for more depth of field.
Considering this I'd strongly suggest getting and reading the book Understanding Exposure by Bryan Peterson. It's not a complex book but it goes a long way to introducing the topic of exposure for the beginner photographer and will give you a massive degree of creative freedom with the camera.