Shooting Bug (Macro) Is Cheaper Than Shooting Bird (Telephoto)

Hi All,

After shooting some bugs and flowers in my own garden, I suddenly realize that macro photography gear is LOTS cheaper than the telephoto gear. As the 'top-of-the-range' macro lens MP-E 65 is $920; and any good 300mm plus lens will cost $1000 plus.

If you want a good shoot of a bird eye in the wild, we need a 500mm plus lens, which will be $6000 plus.

So far a clear shoot of bugs' eyes in my own garden, just $2000 for EVERYTHING (lens, extension tubes & camera; many people do it for far LESS)

Now, I will seat back and enjoy someone else birds eyes; and try to get more bugs' eyes

This is why I haven't ventured into bird photography.

Someday I'll pick up a macro lens (or more likely just some ext tubes) I don't care about bugs so much but do like shooting flowers.

So try bugs and flowers & get the best of both worlds! 70-200 f/2.8: Honey bees in flight & yellow daisies

Wouldn't you miss the 1:5 to 1:1 range of a regular macro lens? This is assuming that most other tele lenses get you about 1:5 max, so with only an MP-E 65mm, you're missing out on a few key magnification ranges of regular macro lenses like the 100mm L. I really like shooting between 1:3 and 1:2 for flowers and miniature product photography.

Still, don't underestimate how much money you can pump into macro photography.
With more studio-like setups, I often found myself shooting with 3 or 4 flashes in a lightbox, but also a dual flash bracket + ballheads and wireless triggers etc.

Of course, even then it's probably cheaper than a 500 f/4 IS
Gotta photograph what draws you.

My dad gave up on shooting birds in favour of looking at them instead. We still have a M42 mount Pentax 400mm prime however.

Peoples are the most fun to shoot, but when I sell of a holiday lens I might try to take some garden bugs.

find a way to get close to the birds without frightening them, or stalk them when they are in a place they don't want to leave. My biggest lens is my 100-400. Spending all that prime lens money on a boat will get you in close, silently, on birds that want to stay at the waters edge if at all possible. Bugs are cheaper, I agree.
But I can't justify a boat to shoot bugs, can I?

birdfromboat wrote in post #11295164
find a way to get close to the birds without frightening them, or stalk them when they are in a place they don't want to leave. My biggest lens is my 100-400. Spending all that prime lens money on a boat will get you in close, silently, on birds that want to stay at the waters edge if at all possible. Bugs are cheaper, I agree.
But I can't justify a boat to shoot bugs, can I?

Tell your wife I gave you permission. That should do it.

For macro I use a Canon 100mm macro + 430EXll. I have some other macro stuff but I don't really use it. The 100/430 combo set me back about $650. This set up will allow you to take amazing images. You could save over $100 more if you buy a different macro lens and older flash ... so it's fairly inexpensive.

For birding the cheapest options pretty much start at $1000 (used 400mm 5.6 or Sigma 150-500mm). I'm selling my 150-500 only because I don't use it that much. But it's a great option for $1000 or less until you can afford the 500mm f4 IS or longer.

So macro and birding doesn't need to be 'too' expensive.

birdfromboat wrote in post #11295164
But I can't justify a boat to shoot bugs, can I?

Very nice

Boat is far more expensive than a sport car BTW

I have been tried to 'sell' my wife a sport car and she still say no

Just google 'DIY telephoto lens' and none of the thread is practical;
But I can see many of practical 'DIY Macro' tips.

No wonder Canon has so many all white super-telephoto lens , and no 'consumer grade' super-telephoto lens'.

Hey have you seen the price on an electron microscope!? Macro photography sure can be expensive - it just depends how far you take it

But yes in general its cheaper to build up a strong macro setup than it is for a wildlife one. Heck wildlife/birds is one of the most expensive areas (in line with sports) of photography. Heck a 300mm f2.8 IS L M2 is likley to cost more than my entire investment in photography thus far - and that's only 300mm!!

Macro also leans itself a lot more to DIY setups - esp in the lighting area where expensive screens and studio supports are now ducttape, paper and matches.

It doesn't make it any easier though

Heh! Yeah, I guess those electron microscopes can take it out of your budget!

It is an interesting topic -- the Canon 100mm Macro was one of the very first lenses I got when I made the move to DSLRs, because I enjoyed macro shooting even with smaller cameras, but I also struggled to shoot birds, so my first "major" step was the 300mm f/2.8 IS, which, well, did get me running with the birds! I had to sell it a couple years ago, but have the 100-400 to "fill in". If I had the funds I once did I would be looking at the 500 f/4...but...oh well!

Both can be expensive, both can be done on the (somewhat) cheaper side. Especially macro.

For macro you've got to improvise a lot to do it on the cheap, but it can actually be done for very cheap. For bird photography it's more a matter of accepting the use of a shorter focal length and learning how to get closer to the birds (hiding out, being patient, etc).

My macro lens is the Sigma 150, birding lens the Canon 400 F/5.6.

For Macro you need flash and a way to mount it, but you can save a fortune with Ebay. Canon's flash bracket is a big fancy affair that cost several hundred bucks. I got a simple (but effective) little device for $16, and excellent Nissin flash for $120, and a nice diffuser for $4, and a cord to connect my flash for $17. Since you have to Manual focus anyway, you can buy older lenses on ebay, or even use a $5 reversal ring and use lenses you already have! It's cheap to dabble in macro...

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …las-pixgalore/5174209973/

well, probably not the intended "genre" for the lense, but i have used my 400 5.6 for some macro work aswell, but yeah the MPE-65 is no 400 2.8 price-wise

Mookalafalas wrote in post #11298580
For Macro you need flash and a way to mount it, but you can save a fortune with Ebay. Canon's flash bracket is a big fancy affair that cost several hundred bucks. I got a simple (but effective) little device for $16, and excellent Nissin flash for $120, and a nice diffuser for $4, and a cord to connect my flash for $17. Since you have to Manual focus anyway, you can buy older lenses on ebay, or even use a $5 reversal ring and use lenses you already have! It's cheap to dabble in macro...

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …las-pixgalore/5174209973/
Bee Lips Revealed by Mookalafalas, on Flickr

Nice work. I would add that an older canon ml-3 ringlight works great even if it does require use of manual exposure setting. I got mine for around a hundred bucks, and it mounts right on the end of my 100 macro. include a couple of cheap extension rings (manual focus required) and you can get some very nice shots for well under 750 bucks.