• Photos

  • Level

  • Score

BetterPhoto Q&A
Category: Macro Photography Tip

Photography Question 

Rainer Quesada 		 

What Type of Macro Lens?


Hello, I need some advice. I want to buy both a ultra zoom lens (70-300) and a macro lens (100). But as I scan through mags and check Web sites I find that some ultra zooms have a macro feature. So should I kill two birds with one stone and get the zoom with the macro feature, or get the macro by itself and the zoom separately?


To love this question, log in above
April 25, 2004

 

Bob Cammarata 		  When comparing the macro features of those zooms, pay particular attention to the life-size ratios that they claim to achieve. Many zooms in "macro" will only close-focus to 1/4 or 1/6 life-size. If you plan to to do a lot of close-up work, you would be wise to get a true macro lens, which will give you 1:1 (or life-size) reproduction. It's also a good idea to get one with a wide maximum aperture (like 2.8), to allow for more working light when shooting close, and offer the possibility of later adding extension tubes to permit focusing beyond the lens' normal limits if you want.


To love this comment, log in above
April 26, 2004

 

James P. McGinnis 		  I would have to concur with Bob. There really is no comparison of the so-called "macro" component of most telephoto lenses and the true macro. With most telephoto lenses the sharpness tends to fall off at the extreme ends of the telephoto range. In the case of a 75-300 (which is what I have) there is a "sweet spot" that begins around 85 and extends out to about 200. On either side of that the sharpness drops off. The "macro" at the 300 range. Can I fill the frame with a relatively small subject? Sure. Do I get a razor sharp image? Not at all. Especially when compared to my Canon 100mm f2.8, which is a true macro. The images from that lense tend to be razor sharp. Plus my minimum focusing distance allow me to get really close to the subject. I think that distance is something like 8 inches compared to 5 feet on the telephoto. (Those may not be exact numbers but they are close.)

By all means, go with the two lenses. My experience has been that equipment of any sort (lenses, bicycles, parachutes, fishing rods...anything)that is designed to fulfill two or more "niches" rarely performs beyond "OK" in either niche. Spend the extra money and go with the two separate lenses. You'll be happier!


To love this comment, log in above
April 27, 2004

 

Robert Bridges 		  Tamron 90 mm 2.8 macro. 350 or so new less if used. Good lens, sharp, crisp,
good contrast made for all cameras just specify the mount. May not be autofocus
but you don't need or want auto focus for macro work anyway.


To love this comment, log in above
April 27, 2004

 

Bill Wassmann 		  The macro characterization of zoom lenses is a sales gimmick. A true macro lens focusses to 1:1 or at least 1:2. There is another distinction: good macro lenses are sharp to the corners, they are flat field. Zoom macros have considerable fall off in llight and sharpness at the corners. As to focal length: what are you shooting? If only bees on flowers the 100mm is fine, but if you are copying documents you might want to consider the 50mm for its wider angle of coverage.


To love this comment, log in above
April 27, 2004

 

Harry H. Marsh 		 
 
 
I agree that a "big" zoom is fairly poor for good macro work. I have a Canon 10D and canon 70-300 zoom, and I just purchased a Sigma 28-80 1:2 zoom lens (delivered for $72).

I have uploaded two [reduced] images, one from each. 0022a is from the 70-300 lens (@300mm) at the closest focus point. 0049a was with the Sigma (macro is fixed at 80mm), and I could have gotten even closer if I'd wanted to.

You will want a good tripod for serious macro [or telephoto!] work, and will never use autofocus with macro. Seriously think about how often you might use the 70-300 lens, you will probably have far more fun with a macro! HarryMIV (http://home.comcast.net/~harrymarsh1/dlight.html)


To love this comment, log in above
April 27, 2004

 

Rainer Quesada 		  Wow! A lot of good responses. I will heed the advice and purchase the macro. Thanks to all.


To love this comment, log in above
April 27, 2004

 

Michael Fauman 		  I have a 55mm Nikkor Micro lens that I use on my Nikon D100. It seems to have a very shallow depth of field at approximately 1 ft from the subject at f32. Is there some way of increasing the DOF or is this typical for macro lens? Someone suggested a tilt and shift lens, but they run about $1400.00.


To love this comment, log in above
April 30, 2004

 

Harry H. Marsh 		  ALL macro lenses have very shallow DOF due to the magnification--think microscope (the ultimate macro setup) and how shallow the DOF is for that. It even gets worse if you have a 100mm macro; however, I would think that F32 should have the best DOF you can get. You might borrow/rent a 500mm non-macro lens and see if the DOF is better with that setup.

HHM


To love this comment, log in above
April 30, 2004

 
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here

Report this Thread