Macro on the cheap!

Some folks 'round here know I have been considering a macro lens. I got one today, by accident. Since I have not been able to sell my 60D, I thought I'd pick up an EFs 18-55 and use the 60D for a kick-around camera. Another member sold me the STM version for a price I was happy with. I got it today and played with it a bit. I like it. It focuses fast enough for what I do. It is optically good enough for what I do. AND THE DARN THING DOES 1:1 MACRO!

Just for giggles I put my 25mm ET between the lens and my 60D at 55mm and MFD, I got these shots. Do the math, folks. On an apsc sensor this is true 1:1 macro. I am blown away. I almost dropped $500+ on a 100mm f/2.8 IS USM. This will do for me, thank you.

And I have enough working distance to use OC flash! Amazing!

I once put a 1:4 28mm in front of a 18-55mm and it focused inside of the lens

Any links to where we can do the math? I'd really love to learn more about macro.

Image looks super sharp by the way!

I had the M version of the 18-55mm STM and it was sharp and super quick.

maverick75 wrote in post #17643386
I once put a 1:4 28mm in front of a 18-55mm and it focused inside of the lens

Any links to where we can do the math? I'd really love to learn more about macro.

Image looks super sharp by the way!

I had the M version of the 18-55mm STM and it was sharp and super quick.

That is the exact problem I had with my 28 1.8 and 35 IS. Both focused inside the lens. Talk about useless! These images are hand-held tests. I will get much better results doing real work from a tripod.

APSC sensor is 22.2mm x 14.8mm.
22.2mm is 0.874", (~14/16")
14.8mm is 0.582", (~9/16")
Look at the ruler. Each demarcation is 1/16". The ruler is the same size on the sensor as it is in real life. That is 1:1 macro.

didnt you just get the 135L? from what I recall, that lens works well with extension tubes, no need to stack optics.

Charlie wrote in post #17643418
didnt you just get the 135L? from what I recall, that lens works well with extension tubes, no need to stack optics.

Yes, picked up the 135L about a week ago. It doesn't come close to 1:1, with or without an ET. The 50 1.4 is the best EF prime I have for quasi-macro with the ET. It only does about 0.7:1. I don't know what you mean by 'stack optics'.

The money spent on the 135L is WHY I was hesitant to get a 100 macro (non-L). Problem solved, for $70!

I have extension tubes, and they are really no substitute for a macro lens. I wouldn't take the tubes for a trip to the gardens, or for the occasional interesting shot of a small tree frog on my window. Once I got a macro lens, or two, the tubes stay on the shelf. A true macro lens, like the Sigma 50F2.8, is just much easier to use.

http://www.cambridgein​colour.com …tension-tubes-closeup.htm

GeoKras1989 wrote in post #17643422
Yes, picked up the 135L about a week ago. It doesn't come close to 1:1, with or without an ET. The 50 1.4 is the best EF prime I have for quasi-macro with the ET. It only does about 0.7:1. I don't know what you mean by 'stack optics'.

The money spent on the 135L is WHY I was hesitant to get a 100 macro (non-L). Problem solved, for $70!

artyH wrote in post #17643808
I have extension tubes, and they are really no substitute for a macro lens. I wouldn't take the tubes for a trip to the gardens, or for the occasional interesting shot of a small tree frog on my window. Once I got a macro lens, or two, the tubes stay on the shelf. A true macro lens, like the Sigma 50F2.8, is just much easier to use.

this pretty much sums up why I got a macro lens as my primary portrait lens. I was sick of owning both macro 100 AND 135F2, too redundant when going out, do I tried a leap of faith by scrapping all the lenses in the range, 85f1.2/100macro/135f2, and going with just a simple 100f2 macro. I understand that the idea is kinda ridiculous crazy for most folks to accept, since it's a pure MF lens, however it did the trick for a little bit. For some event photography, I started to miss the reach of the 135, and then I got an older 200/2, problem solved . I probably would have got it eventually, had seriously lusted for such a lens.

artyH wrote in post #17643808
I have extension tubes, and they are really no substitute for a macro lens. I wouldn't take the tubes for a trip to the gardens, or for the occasional interesting shot of a small tree frog on my window. Once I got a macro lens, or two, the tubes stay on the shelf. A true macro lens, like the Sigma 50F2.8, is just much easier to use.

Sure, a macro lens is more convenient, but you will need extension tubes to go greater than 1:1.

Ok, after a few days, the novelty has worn off. The 18-55 STM/25mm ET is quite capable of 1:1 - on a crop camera. All well and good. It is not a macro lens. I am still (back to?) considering a true macro lens. The EXTREMELY limited focus range of ETs is quite limiting. To get any focus at all, I have to be about 3" from the subject. If I want to shoot a larger object from say 12" or 18", I am out of luck. Oh, I have a 60D and a 6D.

I think I have arrived at the decision to buy the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM macro. Please check my logic for me.

I ruled out the 100L because:
1.) I don't need a standard (non-macro) lens in this range. Already have 85 1.8 & 135L.
2.) I don't need IS. Most of my work will be from a tripod, and IS of little use at macro distances.
3.) The non-L is sharper (slightly) when used at f/8-f/16.

Also looked at:
Sigma 150 non-OS. AF accuracy/consistency issues. Not much of a factor for macro/tripod, though.
Sigma 150 OS. Soft a f/2.8. Vignettes at f/8. Minor issues, but a relatively expensive lens.
Sigma 105 non-OS. AF accuracy/consistency issues. Not much of a factor for macro/tripod, though. Costs more than 100 2.8.
Sigma 105 OS. Tempting. I don't think the minor differences in IQ are worth the $300 larger price tag.
Canon 60 2.8. I intend to print relatively large. ~20"x30", perhaps. Advantage: full frame.

EDIT (inserted): I also looked at the Sigma 50. Not much working distance for 1:1. I am only doing this once, so not too concerned with cost.

Comments, please.

GeoKras1989 wrote in post #17647465
Ok, after a few days, the novelty has worn off. The 18-55 STM/25mm ET is quite capable of 1:1 - on a crop camera. All well and good. It is not a macro lens. I am still (back to?) considering a true macro lens. The EXTREMELY limited focus range of ETs is quite limiting. To get any focus at all, I have to be about 3" from the subject. If I want to shoot a larger object from say 12" or 18", I am out of luck. Oh, I have a 60D and a 6D.

I think I have arrived at the decision to buy the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM macro. Please check my logic for me.

I ruled out the 100L because:
1.) I don't need a standard (non-macro) lens in this range. Already have 85 1.8 & 135L.
2.) I don't need IS. Most of my work will be from a tripod, and IS of little use at macro distances.
3.) The non-L is sharper (slightly) when used at f/8-f/16.

Also looked at:
Sigma 150 non-OS. AF accuracy/consistency issues. Not much of a factor for macro/tripod, though.
Sigma 150 OS. Soft a f/2.8. Vignettes at f/8. Minor issues, but a relatively expensive lens.
Sigma 105 non-OS. AF accuracy/consistency issues. Not much of a factor for macro/tripod, though. Costs more than 100 2.8.
Sigma 105 OS. Tempting. I don't think the minor differences in IQ are worth the $300 larger price tag.
Canon 60 2.8. I intend to print relatively large. ~20"x30", perhaps. Advantage: full frame.

EDIT (inserted): I also looked at the Sigma 50. Not much working distance for 1:1. I am only doing this once, so not too concerned with cost.

Comments, please.

Heya,

What exactly are you going to be trying to shoot? Working distance is the primary difference between a focal length in macro. They can all do 1:1, that is their defining macro ability. But the question becomes 1:1 at what distance? As you discovered, sometimes it's super close and you want more working distance.

Other notes about macro:

1. Lighting is paramount.
2. Aperture is meaningless (ie, F2.8, etc; you'll be stopping down to have any useful depth of field, which goes right back to... lighting is paramount).
3. Working distance comes from focal length, the longer the lens, the more working distance you'll have (general rule of thumb).
4. Autofocus is not something to worry about, you rarely will be using autofocus at macro level**. So don't worry about AF consistency or accuracy.

** Note, most macro is done with manual focus. If you're on a tripod you may be using the LCD (live view) or the view finder, etc, that's up to you. You may or may not need AF. If you're not shooting living subjects, you probably don't need AF. The point to stress is that AF should be one of your least concerns on a macro lens unless you want it to pull double duty as another use, but since you already have specific lenses for things like portrait (the common double duty of a macro lens), it may not be something to concern yourself with.

You can get nice old 90~100mm macros for $200 (Tamron, Tokina, Canon, etc). Might be worth a look if you want a real macro lens on the cheap without using tubes and stuff.

But you need to figure out what working distance you want for the magnification you want. If you want to work at 6 inches, or 18 inches, for example, it takes different lenses to do that at 1:1 or higher.

***************

For reference, I do a lot of spiders. And I like to work from as far away as possible. I use a 180mm macro lens that has 18 inch 1:1 working distance. I can throw a 2.0x TC on there and keep 1:1 from 30 inches away. Or, I could stay at 18 inches and get 2:1 magnification. I tend to work between 18 and 24 inches typically since most spiders I shoot are often bigger than 1:1 calls for (Florida spiders, big!). But I like the comfortable working distance so I don't spook them and to keep a healthy distance for myself (not too keen on having a wolf spider crawl under me while I'm laying on my belly in the dark).

That said, a really great macro lens that you could get on the cheap, if you're wanting big working distance (and still has AF, etc), is the Tamron 180mm F3.5 macro. You can find it for $400 on ebay actually. Sharp, long, big working distance (18 inches working distance). That may be more than you need or want. But it's one of those gems for the cost. For the same price you could get something that has 5~6 inch working distance and is around 90~105mm.

Here's what the inexpensive long reaching Tamron can do:

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/nswA​ot

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/nv4w​W6

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/tuBq​oa

GeoKras1989 wrote in post #17647465
Ok, after a few days, the novelty has worn off. The 18-55 STM/25mm ET is quite capable of 1:1 - on a crop camera. All well and good. It is not a macro lens. I am still (back to?) considering a true macro lens. The EXTREMELY limited focus range of ETs is quite limiting. To get any focus at all, I have to be about 3" from the subject. If I want to shoot a larger object from say 12" or 18", I am out of luck. Oh, I have a 60D and a 6D.

I think I have arrived at the decision to buy the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM macro. Please check my logic for me.

I ruled out the 100L because:
1.) I don't need a standard (non-macro) lens in this range. Already have 85 1.8 & 135L.
2.) I don't need IS. Most of my work will be from a tripod, and IS of little use at macro distances.
3.) The non-L is sharper (slightly) when used at f/8-f/16.

Also looked at:
Sigma 150 non-OS. AF accuracy/consistency issues. Not much of a factor for macro/tripod, though.
Sigma 150 OS. Soft a f/2.8. Vignettes at f/8. Minor issues, but a relatively expensive lens.
Sigma 105 non-OS. AF accuracy/consistency issues. Not much of a factor for macro/tripod, though. Costs more than 100 2.8.
Sigma 105 OS. Tempting. I don't think the minor differences in IQ are worth the $300 larger price tag.
Canon 60 2.8. I intend to print relatively large. ~20"x30", perhaps. Advantage: full frame.

EDIT (inserted): I also looked at the Sigma 50. Not much working distance for 1:1. I am only doing this once, so not too concerned with cost.

Comments, please.

I think your logic is sound.

When stopped down to gain DOF, all these lenses are equalized by diffraction softening. So sharpness should not even be a consideration.

If you really don't need IS, then you don't need the L lens. That was also my conclusion when I bought mine. In my case, however, I quickly found that I was using the lens often in situations where the IS was very useful. The IS steadies the view in the viewfinder, and that is nice too.

Also, I am finding that AF is more useful than I thought at macro distances. I use it routinely now (in servo mode) even at 1:1. It nails focus way better than I could do manually when there is considerable camera and subject motion, and that occurs often in my situations. (I use flash to freeze the motion.) Successful AF encourages hand-holding, where IS is useful.

Your situation will be quite different if you will be on a tripod. So buy your first choice, and then put it through its paces to make sure it meets your needs before the return period expires.

Archibald wrote in post #17647483
If you really don't need IS, then you don't need the L lens... In my case, however, I quickly found that I was using the lens often in situations where the IS was very useful. The IS steadies the view in the viewfinder, and that is nice too.

Also, I am finding that AF is more useful than I thought at macro distances. I use it routinely now (in servo mode) even at 1:1. It nails focus way better than I could do manually when there is considerable camera and subject motion, and that occurs often in my situations. (I use flash to freeze the motion.) Successful AF encourages hand-holding, where IS is useful.

Your situation will be quite different if you will be on a tripod.

+1 to all, for me anyway.

MalVeauX wrote in post #17647474
I use a 180mm macro lens that has 18 inch 1:1 working distance.

Amazing working distance for this lens. I had to check to see if it was right, and it is.