DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> Macro lens?
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 21 of 21, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 04/12/2006 10:04:45 AM · #1
If I want to be able to take close up shots with my Canon 10D, what kind of lens do I need? I have a 70-300 that says Macro on it, but can't get any closer than about 6ft away. I can zoom in, but it's not the same.

I want to be able to hold the camera very close to my subject and still be able to focus.

Thanks!

Judy
 04/12/2006 10:06:27 AM · #2
Sigma 105mm Macro works for me. you can get about an inch away. 1:1 is very nice.

Misses focus a little indoors, outdoors it's fine.
04/12/2006 10:23:51 AM · #3
Originally posted by wavelength:
Sigma 105mm Macro works for me. you can get about an inch away. 1:1 is very nice.

Misses focus a little indoors, outdoors it's fine.


I will look around at that one. Thanks. What exactly tells me how close a lens can focus? What can I look for on my own?
 04/12/2006 10:32:44 AM · #4
you want to look for the "minimum focus distance" which is listed on most macro lenses.

for instance, the 105mm has a "minimum focus distance" of about 12 inches, which means it can't focus on items closer than that.

2nd thumbs-up for the sigma 105, by the way. i have had it for about a month and just love it.
 04/12/2006 10:38:18 AM · #5
Judy,

You should also consider extention tubes rather than lenses. An extention tube is really just a spacer without any glass in it. You mount the extension tube to the camera and then mount the lens to the extension tube. With the lens further out, the focusing range is much closer.

I have both the 12 and 25 mm Canon extension tubes. This

was taken with one of them.

If you want to stop by my house in Cincinnati, I'll let you try them out.

Here is the link to Canon extension tubes at B&H.

--DanW
 04/12/2006 10:45:28 AM · #6
.

Message edited by author 2006-12-26 22:16:18.
 04/12/2006 10:46:30 AM · #7
what you really want to look for is not just the minimum focusing distance, but also the reproduction ratio. A true macro lens will give you 1:1 or better. 1:1 means that the image captured on the film/sensor is lifesize. The minimum focusing distance will be how close you have to be to the subject to get that reproduction ratio. At a given reproduction ratio, a longer focal length lens will let you shoot from father away. That can be a non-issue if you want to shoot macros of inanimate objects, but for bugs and other critters, it may be hard (or undesirable) to get that close.
 04/12/2006 11:28:10 AM · #8
Very helpful information. Thanks so much!

And Dan, thanks for the offer. When I get to that point I just might take you up on it.

Are you a member of the Camera Club of Cincinnati? I was for about 6 months, but dropped membership for now due to financial reasons and using the money instead toward the new camera.

Message edited by author 2006-04-12 11:30:11.
 04/12/2006 11:46:03 AM · #9
For a true macro lens, I donĂ¢€™t think there is a better option for canon then the 100mm F2.8. Fast and accurate focus and minimum focal dist of 7 inches if I remember right. Makes for a good fast 100mm prime as well.

This was taken with the Sigma 70-300 APO DG Macro (I believe at 200mm).

The Sigma 70-300 does a pretty good job but the Canon 100mm is sharper, better focus and lets you get much closer.

04/12/2006 12:05:37 PM · #10
I got a 100mm a few weeks ago and love it. I plan on getting extension tubes so I can get even closer shots.

Here's a shot with the 100mm, but I did crop in a fair piece:


It's also very nice for portraits, pretty awesome actually.


The first two shots, so far, in my Portrait per Day project were taken with it too, but the focus isn't perfect as I was using a remote, but still pretty good.

It's fast to focus and very good in low light. Not cheap, though. :-(
 04/12/2006 12:10:08 PM · #11
Judy,

No, I'm not a member of the Camera Club of Cincinnati. I don't think I'm the "club" type.

It would be good for you to think about what you want to be able to shoot in macro mode. The most important issue is the size of the objects. You want to be able to move close enough so that the object you are shooting fills the frame. My extension tubes enable me to get close enough to fill the frame with something that is two or three inches across.

The "reversed lens" method suggested by dudephil will let you get much closer; you'll be able to fill the frame from part of a dime. If that is what you want to do, this is definitely the way to go.

Getting a separate lens for macro work also has advantages. With an extension tube installed, you cannot focus beyond a certain point. I was shooting at the Krohn Conservatory on Monday and I kept needing to switch back and forth between tube and no tube. But the extension tubes will work with your current lenses - and those you will get in the future.

It would be nice to meet up with you sometime.

--Dan

04/12/2006 10:38:51 PM · #12
An alternative to the Sigma lens is a Tamron 90mm - it goes down to 1:1. I recently got one and have been happy with it.

The extension tubes suggestion is also good. I got a set of these long before I got the Tamron, they worked particularly well with a non-macro 50mm lens. In fact I recently used the extension tubes with the Tamron.

A lot of manufacturers like putting "Macro" on zoom lenses that aren't really macro at all, just able to focus moderately close.
04/14/2006 09:57:11 PM · #13
From what I understand, there are 4 primary circles of macro shooting.

#1 Fudged lengths. This refers to shooting 'macro' at magnifications less than 1:1. It's really good for shooting slightly larger subjects (like moths and butterflies or flowers) when you want a bit more DOF and need the lens to do other things too. The Sigma 70-300 is a good example of this. The longer working distance isn't always a bad thing.

#2 True magnification. Usually these are prime lenses with true macro 1:1 function. I personally prefer the 100mm f/2.8 for the IF and possibly the autofocus in non-macro situations, but they are all pretty good. Longer focal lengths tends to give more flexibility because you are using a longer working distance. This is good for shooting live subjects. For those with cash, there's also the Canon 180mm f/3.5L USM, but similar results can be obtained with the cheaper 100mm. You MAY have a little more freedom over DOF when shooting with a single True Magnification lens, which is difficult to do otherwise.

#3 Reversed lens method. This is a fantastic way to get seriously large magnifications. 50mm seems like a good happy medium. The equation for magnification is Focal_Length_of_on-camera_lens/F_L_of_reversed_lens. With a 100mm macro lens on camera and a 50mm reversed, you get 100/50 or 2:1. Shooting a 300mm on camera and a 50mm reversed, you get 300/50 or 6:1 If you want to go crazy, you can try the Bigma and shoot 500mm/50 and get 10:1.

Here's a link that has some information that might be helpful.

#4 Extension Tubes. Cheap, but useful. Macro fans would do well to have a small collection of these even if you are using the reversed lens method as it can help to reduce vignetting. I forget the formula for calculating the effect on the focal length, but it's also a really good way to go.
 04/14/2006 10:43:35 PM · #14
Originally posted by eschelar:
From what I understand, there are 4 primary circles of macro shooting...


Great list! But let me add one more.

#5 Close-up filters. These are filters that fit onto the front of your lens. Available in both normal threads and for Cokin-style filter holders. Like extension tubes, they come in varying strengths and are relatively inexpensive compared to true macro lenses. However, unlike extension tubes they do introduce an extra layer of glass.
04/14/2006 11:20:29 PM · #15
I have a Sigma 50mm. I can't complain about it's work, although it rarely gave me brilliant shots, but macro is tricky. True macro lens are built with a bit more quality so they do have an edge over prime/converter combination, methinks. If you don't have a tripod, you will have to get one: even at 1/3 of lifesize handheld work becomes impossible due to huge fluctuations in focus with a tiny shift in distance.

Message edited by author 2006-04-15 00:17:07.
 04/22/2006 04:31:01 PM · #16
Taken with my EF 100mm USM Macro with Extension tubes both 12 and 25

//img212.imageshack.us/img212/8805/mg3240large4tj.jpg

Fly Pic

Message edited by karmat - please post links or thumbs in forums.
 04/22/2006 04:41:00 PM · #17


is this the widest thread ever?


04/22/2006 04:44:46 PM · #18
Originally posted by soup:
is this the widest thread ever?


lol! oh, do I spy sensor dust?
 04/22/2006 05:27:22 PM · #19
I have a Tokina 100mm ATX macro, use it a lot more as a portrait lens than as a macro.Its good and sharpwith a F2.8 apature. Got it used for $150.nz had it cleaned and checked for another $80nz. best deal I ever got
04/22/2006 06:18:28 PM · #20
I don't see that this gem has been mentioned yet:

Sigma 150mm
 04/22/2006 08:19:47 PM · #21
I don't think I've ever heard of a bad dedicated macro lens.

They're all good and it's just a matter of selecting the one with the working distance you want while still being in your budget.

bazz.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 09/24/2025 12:01:51 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/24/2025 12:01:51 PM EDT.