Macro Lens?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Ishtim, Dec 12, 2013.

  1. Ishtim

    Ishtim Super Moderator

    What is good macro lens to start with for Canon 7D?

    I've always wanted one, but not sure where to start... :think:
     
  2. Chai

    Chai Administrator Staff Member

    Do you want Canon lens or 3rd party? Our resident Canonite should know best. :mrgreen:
     
  3. Ishtim

    Ishtim Super Moderator

    No need to have a red stripe on my lenses, but I thinks its more about "bank for the buck" especially since I am a self proclaimed novice. I really don't know much about macro s lets just say "anything goes" for now but keep it mainstream, e.g. I don't want to sell my car to by more glass. :wicked: Also curious about the min focus distance and why I shouldn't use my 70-2mm f2.8 to do macro.. seems to be a big topic with macro shooters
    :think:
     
  4. atwl77

    atwl77 Just Started

    The 100L is great, it may have a red ring but doesn't break the bank at all. It's great for both portraits and macro; the stabilizer is very useful in times when you're wandering around the garden without a tripod.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
  5. atwl77

    atwl77 Just Started

    You mean 70-200?

    There are two important things that differentiate macro lenses from normal ones.

    1) magnification, or reproduction ratio. Macro lenses can fill the frame with smaller items than conventional lenses. It's a combination of minimum focusing distance and focal length that allows this; long telephoto lenses like the 70-200 aren't really optimized for close-up shots, you only get 1.4m distance which doesn't help at all.

    2) performance that is optimized for close distances and flat field of focus. Any decent macro lens worth its salt is already very sharp wide open, and gets very, very sharp when stopped down. The flat field of focus is also something worth taking note of, a lot of lenses actually have a bit of curvature (some not so bad, some very bad like the EF 20mm f/2.8).
     
  6. Chai

    Chai Administrator Staff Member

    One of the classic cheap and good macro lens is the Tamron SP90.
     
  7. Adrian Wong

    Adrian Wong Da Boss Staff Member

    I have that, but it's dead... Really need to get it repaired. :(
     
  8. Ishtim

    Ishtim Super Moderator

    Certainly not intuitive as many of the "MACRO" lenses are long focal lengths.

    I understand flat field focus having a strong astrophotography background. :thumb:

    What do I look for in magnification?
     
  9. atwl77

    atwl77 Just Started

    Lots of normal lenses just have the word "macro" tacked on that actually mean "close focus".

    Dedicated macro lenses generally can do 1:2 or 1:1, though 1:1 is more common. This means if your sensor size is 22.3mm x 14.9mm, it can fill the frame with a subject that size.

    There's also the ultra-specialized Canon MP-E 65mm lens that can only do super macros and nothing more, beginning at 1:1 and up to 5:1.

    So, in general you want 1:1, unless you don't need to shoot things that small then 1:2 would also be fine.

    The Canon 100L does 1:1, and its focal length is also good for portraits and other 100mm-ish kind of shots; if you want shorter, there's the EF-S 60mm which is also quite highly rated by Bryan Carnathan (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-60mm-f-2.8-Macro-USM-Lens-Review.aspx).

    And if you want short and ultimate quality, there's the Zeiss 50mm Makro Planar but it is manual focus only and the most expensive among those I mentioned.
     
  10. Chai

    Chai Administrator Staff Member

    And shorter focal length may be tougher if you are trying to shoot insect as it's easier to scare them away.
     
  11. Ishtim

    Ishtim Super Moderator

    Finally broke down and got the EF-S 60mm f/2.8. I need to get out into the garden and test it out. :wave:
     
  12. Chai

    Chai Administrator Staff Member

    Cool! We need more pics in this forum!
     
  13. Ishtim

    Ishtim Super Moderator

    I have to admit that macro is a bit odd. Choosing a magnification then adjusting the focus by adjusting distance between camera/subject. Next is the lack of motion (outdoors) required (bugs, or wind etc.) and then the lighting vs. DOF. :confused: I began maxed @ F/32 for most DOF and read somewhere that diffraction makes images less crisp so I am experimenting. The following was @ F/2.8. Its a wild flower called "Black-eyed Susan".
     

    Attached Files:

  14. atwl77

    atwl77 Just Started

    Well, you don't have to do it that way (choose magnification first, frame later) -- especially for flowers where your distance and magnification aren't that high.

    It's only when you get close to the high magnification ratios (1:2, 1:1, etc) that you need to watch your framing, since the framing can change significantly as you focus.

    And yeah, diffraction can be nasty for macro; for non-moving subjects, some people use focus stacking technique to get more DOF with moderate apertures. Or get a TS-E 90mm along with extension tubes.
     
  15. Ishtim

    Ishtim Super Moderator

    I'll look into stacking, seems like a LOT of work...

    This common fly "posed" for me. :wave:

    I am looking into a focus rail, any suggestions/experiences?
     

    Attached Files:

  16. atwl77

    atwl77 Just Started

    I'm using the Manfrotto 454 micropositioning plate:
     

    Attached Files:

  17. Adrian Wong

    Adrian Wong Da Boss Staff Member

    How long did you get it to pose for you? :mrgreen:

    The DOF looks a little too narrow. May I ask what aperture size did you use?
     
  18. Ishtim

    Ishtim Super Moderator

    The fly stayed in that pose for a while until I accidentally smashed it. It was actually dead when I found it lying in that position on a window sill.

    :arrow: f/11 on that shot.
     
  19. Ishtim

    Ishtim Super Moderator

    Excellent! I am looking into it now... :thumb:

    HOLY COW these can be expensive!!! :faint:

    I don't see how you one could get repeatable focus/framing without one. The 454 seems to be reasonable... adding to shopping cart.
     
    Last edited: Jun 22, 2014

Share This Page