Need some help moving into Macro Photography

Well ive been looking through various sites at some of the wonderful close up macro shots and am interested into starting to do some Marcro work (Insects etc), Im not looking at spending too much (Not extreme low budget but i dont want to spend thousands of dollars)

I have a 400D with 17-85mm and 70-300mm (The Enthusiasts Kit) along with a 580EX II Flash. If it can be avoided i dont want to buy a new flash or anything but dont mind if i need to buy cables to mount it elsewhere etc.

I dont/cant/wont/will-never shoot RAW just Large/Fine so that needs to be considered too.

There are lots of lavender bushes around where i live and the bees love it so it would be great to get some good marco shots of them, although they tend to drift towards the centre of the bushes so i cant get extremely close to them, so a lens with a decent zoom would be good (Something around 70mm or 100mm ish)

Ive also heard "Tubes" are good, What are they, how do they work, what do they do, are they essential and are they worth buying if macro wont be the main thing i shoot but just something im inerested in doing on the side??

Any advice/pointers would be exelent as i realy have no clue at this stage.

Thanks!

Hi NSWEP
Well the tubes that you are referring to are extension tubes, they mount between your camera body and the lens. Depending on where you are there are different types, Canon made their own 12 & 25mm, Kenko make 12,20 and 36mm and jessops make others. They are the cheapest alternative to macro and make a good starting point.

So if i was to buy a set of tubes (Would any decent ones do the job??) and stuck one of my lenses on the end of it, would that be sufficient for a nice extremem detail close up of an insect??

NSWEP,
My suggestion is the Canon 100mm f/2.8 macro lens. It can give excellent macro photos and is also a great regular 100mm telephoto lens (ex great for portraits). It will be easier and give more working room (distance from subject to lens) then a lens with extension tubes. Your 580ex flash should be more then enough, an off shoe cord can give more options. A tripod can also come in handy
Using extension tubes with your current lenses will not make macro photos any easier and makes distance from subject to lens very narrow and harder to light with flash which makes bug photos even harder. The way extension tubes work is by putting more distance between your lens and camera which makes the subject appear larger on the sensor/film. You loose infinity (basically can't focus on subjects further then a few feet). The negative is you need to be much closer to your subject.
Raw or Jpeg really doesn't have anything to do with macro photography (to me).

Thanks, So with that 100mm lens i wouldent need tubes??

NSWEP,
No you wouldn't need tubes with a 100mm f/2.8 macro lens to get 1:1 life size macro photos. You can use a full set of Kenko tubes with it to give you 2:1 macro with excellent results but you will loose distance from subject to lens.

NSWEP - if you were to get the tubes, all 3 of them (Kenko set is pretty good imho) would give you 1:1, ie. life size with your 70-300 being used at the 70mm end. The plus is that there's no optical degradation, as the tubes are filled with air, as opposed to glass like a filter would. The downside? Working distance, ie, the distance from the front element to the insect. You generally want some working distance, too close and you'll spoke the insect. Think of it like trying to shoot a Kodak bear from 3', rather than with a 400mm and a safe distance of 30'.

Your 580ex II flash will be fine, as will the camera. It would be highly recommended to get the Canon offshoe adaptor and a flash bracket, these will allow you to take the flash off the camera's hotshoe and give you more flexibility with lighting.

I would personally suggest that you consider a dedicated macro lens. The Sigma 105mm, Canon 100mm, Tokina 90mm are all excellent lenses, pin sharp, reasonable working distances, not too pricey. The Sigma is the cheapest, but is very high quality, so don't let the price put you off. There are longer macro lenses, such as the Sigma 150mm that I use, but they are larger and heavier and harder to shoot with. You can, of course, use the dedicated macro lens with tubes for higher magnifications (approximately 2x), but again, this takes a fair bit of practice imho.

Hopefully that helps. Have a look at the macro sticky as well, has some good suggestions on books, techniques, etc.

Dave

NSWEP wrote in post #3447340
I dont/cant/wont/will-never shoot RAW just Large/Fine so that needs to be considered too.

Just out of interest - I'm wondering why you are so set against shooting RAW.

David

Thanks everyone.

John, I may sound extremely stupid with this question but is 1:1 the type of images ive seen here with details such as the eyes and hairs on flys?? Also with the Canon 100mm whats the weight like on it?? I hate heavy lenses which is one reason i made he move to canon, Will it be much heavier then my 70-300mm lens is??

Cost doesnt worry me too much if i get good results, Just not keen on spending thousands of dollars for fancy looking cr@p that does very little.

Dave, I want as much working distance i can get, im scared sh!tless by most of the stuff im interested in shooting so distance is a must!!

David, I probably come across as more anti-RAW then i really am. Its just every experience ive had with using RAW has come out bad, Im not interested in doing any extreme editing to my pics as i like to get most things right the first time. Also since the main thing i shoot is Emergency Vehicles (Police and Fire) as well as Emergency Scenes (Fires and Motor Accidents) i tend to shoot a heap of photos of the same thing then when i get home i look through and delete the bad ones (Something i dont have time to do "In-The-Feild") so i need as much space on my CFs as i can get really, shooting RAW just means a whole heap less space on the CF Cards. Once i get into the Macro i might dedicate one of my 1gb cards to RAW Macro work, ill see when i get there.

Looking at the price on the Canon EF 100mm USM Macro versus the Sigma 105mm f2.8 EX DG and there is a good $200 (Ausatrlian Dollars) Difference (Sigma being cheaper) i was wondering is there much diference in the quality in the two?

I dont mind the price tag on the Canon but if the Sigma does the same stuff i may as well take that insteed??

NSWEP,
I don't know what images you have seen but the Canon 100mm f/2.8 macro lens is the highest used of all macro lenses on this poll at POTN <-- click to see

The eyes and hair of flies could be done with a MP-E macro lens (1-5x life size) or using Tele Converters and extension tubes with a lens (which can give up to 3x life size) or just cropped from the original with software.

I don't have the 70-300 lens but according to Canon the macro lens is 1 ounce lighter.

You really can't improve the shooting distance unless you increase the weight ex. a Canon 180mm f/3.5 macro lens will give you more distance with almost double the weight and triple the price.

I suggest you stick with the Canon because the Sigma 105 macro extends (almost like a zoom) where the Canon stays the same size and the Canon AF is superior for use in portraits etc... Canon lenses are also better with color (to my and others eyes). Canon also keeps a higher resale value in case you want to sell it (Damn I sound like I work for Canon ).

NSWEP - the working distance for the Canon 100mm etc will be fine, around 15-20cm or so, should be plenty. If you're new to macro photography, I would highly suggest not going for a longer lens, it'll only be harder to get decent shots and make you more frustrated. If you're frustrated, you won't enjoy it. The MPE-65 is a very good lens by all accounts, offering 1x through to 5x magnifications. Disadvantages - doesn't focus to infinity, no autofocus, and very hard to use at higher magnifications. At life size, it'd be a fine choice and you could always use the higher magnifications as you get better.

As to being scared *hitless, to be honest, the vast majority of Insects and Arachnids have no interest in you. They'd rather run and hide. Very few Arachnids are aggressive, most are timid. Sure, an Ant can give you a nasty bite, or a Bee a nasty sting, but a dog can give you a nasty bite as well. As you delve more into macro photography, you'll learn more about the subjects etc, as you do so, you'll become empowered and more confident in your knowledge, and less scared. To give you an idea, prior to me reading about Spiders in December 2005, and then taking up Macro photography in January 2006, I couldn't even touch a picture of a spider in a book. Now I have no issues, and I'll even handle some spiders. Hell, I'll even handle a daddy long leg spider now!!!

I'd also recommend the Canon 100mm over the Sigma 105mm, not because of build quality, or optical quality, but simply because, as John says, the front element of the Sigma 105mm extends towards the subject as you get closer to 1:1. The Canon 100mm uses internal focusing, which stops this from happening, and I'd personall prefer that.

Dave

Thanks, Ill look into getting the Canon 100mm at Hong Kong Airport on my way home (Duty Free )

Thanks guys.

I have got the option of either the 100mm Macro or the MPE65, Taking into acount what lighting gear i have, which would be the best for me? Is it (MPE65) easy to select what magnification i want?? Also can it be used as a basic prime lens for general use?? How far does it need to be to get something 22mm (400D Sensor Size) to fill the frame at each of the magnifications??

Thanks

NSWEP wrote in post #3635102
I have got the option of either the 100mm Macro or the MPE65, Taking into acount what lighting gear i have, which would be the best for me? Is it (MPE65) easy to select what magnification i want?? Also can it be used as a basic prime lens for general use?? How far does it need to be to get something 22mm (400D Sensor Size) to fill the frame at each of the magnifications??

Thanks

No the MPE-65 is not a general purpose lens, it's a specialist macro only lens - it's maximum focus distance is 4 inches
Think you'd be better off getting the 100mm lens which does make an excellent portrait lens/general purpose short telephoto lens- you could always get a set of Kenko ext tubes as well so you can got to 2:1 magnification.
Brian v.