BetterPhoto Q&A
Category: Macro Photography Tip

Photography Question 

Jessica McCollam
 

Macro Photography: What's Needed to Get Close


I have the Canon Elan 7e, and 2 lenses that have macro settings, yet I can never seem to get close enough! Is there a better lens I could buy that would let me get closer? Thank you.


To love this question, log in above
April 10, 2005

 

Michael H. Cothran
  It depends how close you actually want to get. Lenses (zooms) with "macro settings" are not true macro lenses. Canon makes four true macro lenses - a 50mm, 100mm, and 180mm, all with 1:1 capability. The fourth lens is a special 65mm lens that gets even closer. If macro is your thing, then you should own a true macro lens.
If, for some reason, you want to stick with what you own, there are lots of accessories you can buy cheaply to get you closer - front end close-up diopters and/or rear end extension tubes. Still not as good as a true macro, but a lot cheaper.
Michael H. Cothran
www.mhcphoto.net


To love this comment, log in above
April 11, 2005

 

Karma Wilson
  Hi Jessica,
Zoom lenses with macro aren't true macro lenses, as Michael mentioned. You could get extension tubes or diopters. I think extension tubes are preferred. My understanding is that the problems with any add-ons you buy like this is that you lose light and usually detail around the edges. But if budget is a concern, these still might be the best option for you, especially if you want to take certain types of macro (soft, dreamy flower shots, for instance, and not detail crisp insect shots).
I made the decision to invest in an actual macro lens. It dawned on me that when the weather is crummy or the time of year is ugly macros are always an option that I really enjoy. One bouquet for $10 and I have days worth of shots! They can also make excellent portrait lenses.
Canon makes some, as mentioned, that are excellent and expensive! Budget was a bit of a concern for me, but I didn't want to sacrifice tons of quality. I chose a Sigma 105mm 2.8 EX that got excellent reviews. I just love it. I purchased mine from eBay for about $300. It's a great lens! The sacrifice on this lens is that autofocus doesn't work worth beans ... it hunts and hunts. But I'm fine with that trade-in as I like to use manual focus for macros anyway - it's so much more precise at that close distance. This lens also has a pretty good working distance, which is nice for taking bug shots. It's pretty fast too. VERY SHARP as well and contrasty.
I now want extension tubes as well, so I can get even closer with my macro lens! You can NEVER get too close!
Karma


To love this comment, log in above
April 11, 2005

 

Janis Herd
  I have the Sigma 2.8 105mm macro and love it. I have four Nikon lenses (three zooms and the 50mm 1.8) and the Sigma is the sharpest lens I own. I know that's partly because it's not a zoom, but whatever, I love it! I paid 369.00 new at B&H. It's a great portrait lens, too.


To love this comment, log in above
April 12, 2005

 

Patricia A. Cale
  The Canon close-up diopters are excellent for getting closer and are very reasonable. I also use extention tubes, which work very well. I usually shoot at Aperture Priority so I don't notice any light loss with either. You get a loss of light from teleconverters, which actually have some glass elements in them. The extension tube has no glass at all. One problem with diopters is that they screw into the front of your lens and you need one for each diameter size.

I have been doing close-ups with my 75-300mm zoom lens at 300mm and it works well, even with my extension tubes. Of course, I don't want to get only a piece of a flower petal, for example. I prefer to shoot close, but still show a little part of the surroundings of my subject. But, because I'm shooting at 300mm, I can blur them so you can still see what they are, but the subject pops out or looks 3-dimensional.

Even with a true macro (I have a 50mm macro), you still can only get within a certain distance from your subject. Go to the photo websites like Adorama, Calumet or B&H and read the specs they have on each lens you're interested in, especially minimum focusing distance. As to what lens I would buy...the Canon 100mm macro is an excellent lens and only a little more than the Sigma Janis uses. I have switched all my Sigma and Tamron lenses for Canon..they are much better and work well with all Canon EOS cameras, including the digital SLR's. I had a problem with my Sigma lens and my Digital Rebel -- they didn't like each other!! :)


To love this comment, log in above
April 12, 2005

 

Karma Wilson
  My lens (Sigma 105 2.8 Macro) was rechipped for EOS before I bought it and it works like a charm and is VERY, VERY sharp and gets quite close. It's rated almost identical in quality as Canon 100mm by both users and benchmark tests. In some areas the canon beats the sigma, and in other areas the sigma beats the canon but not enough either way for their to be a discernable difference in image quality. The canon is about $80 more new than the Sigma. However, I bought mine for $300.

http://www.geocities.com/Yosemite/8917/sigma105.html

As for extension tubes my understanding is that if you combine a 50mm extension tube with a 50mm lens you get an effective 2stop loss. While your camera will compensate for the loss with the in camera meter it still effects the shots you can take so it's definately something to consider. I think a true macro lens is the best place to start and then work with reversing the lens, diopters or extension tubes and discover your preference.

Karma


To love this comment, log in above
April 12, 2005

 

Mark O'Brien
  For information on macro, you can check out my pages here:
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mfobrien/macro/


To love this comment, log in above
April 13, 2005

 

Janis Herd
  Mark, thanks! I'm looking at your info and it looks good.
One more comment on the Sigma macro -- it's about 300.00 cheaper than the Nikon 105 macro and it works fine on my D100, no problems at all.


To love this comment, log in above
April 13, 2005

 
- Bob Cournoyer

BetterPhoto Member
Contact Bob Cournoyer
Bob Cournoyer's Gallery
  Karma, were you a salesperson in a former life? I read this discussion about an hour ago and went out to buy the Sigma lens.....they weren't in stock, I ordered it....but that's okay...my front porch will benefit from the dusting it gets from my sitting on it waiting for the Fedex man...:-)
Bob


To love this comment, log in above
April 13, 2005

 

John V. Carey
  There is another option. Reverse mounting lens. Its a way to put some older lens to work. You can get some good magnification at a cheap cost. And you can mix lens. i.e mount a nikon on a canon. Its fun and a way to eperiment. --John V Carey--


To love this comment, log in above
April 13, 2005

 

John V. Carey
  There is another option. Reverse mounting lens. Its a way to put some older lens to work. You can get some good magnification at a cheap cost. And you can mix lens. i.e mount a nikon on a canon. Its fun and a way to eperiment. --John V Carey--


To love this comment, log in above
April 13, 2005

 

Karma Wilson
  Robert,
I'm not a sigma salesperson--promise! LOL Actually the two best lenses I own are sigmas and the two worst lenses I own are sigmas! The best are from the EX line and that's the only type of Sigma I buy now--after extensive research. Believe me, I'd love canon L glass as much as the next guy, but I put thousands of dollars into this "hobby" and I have to set limits somewhere. If I can buy MORE third party lenses and open up my options so be it!

My all time favorite lens is also a third party. It's not the sharpest, or the fastest or the best made lens, but it is the most versatile and compact. That lens is my Tamron 28-300mm "all purpose". That is the lens that goes on my camera if I'm out on a day hike, travelling or driving around. It's primary benefit is it's light and works well with my camera--and I have such a range. It even does some pretty good macro (nothing like my sigma though). It takes very nice photos too. I tried the Sigma 28-300mm and couldn't get a sharp picture from that lens. NONE. Not even at F8 in bright sunlight with a tripod! But the tamron is great.

Don't know why I just went off on the tamron in a macro thread--must be late!

Karma


To love this comment, log in above
April 13, 2005

 

Andrew Laverghetta
  I'm not sure if these are what you were talking about in diopters, but when I had a few extra dollars I bought some close up filters that screw on to the end of the lens just like any other filters. Of course, adding the extra glass will slightly degrade the image quality but if you absolutely can't wait or want aren't too picky (?) as I wasn't and still am not because I don't do that much macro, this is an ok solution.

Downsides are probably that it's probably going to end up being a few extra layers of glass that won't be the best quality. It takes a while to get them all assembled and screwed on and once you have, you have to take them off to be able to focus past a foot. The case that the filters also take up a bit of room if you keep them in their original box.

If I had the money, I would probably get a real macro lens. Not just a lens that has a small flower on it. That just means that's where it focuses the closest. Extension tubes that just increase the distance between the lens and the film would be my next choice because it doesn't include any glass but I still don't think you can focus further away without taking it off?

Also, if you want to check it out, I have some macro shots on my gallery that I used these filters for. Everything that's macro uses these filters in my gallery. There are some less than ideal colors on some of these shots but from what I can tell, it's because I used slide film and scanned them on a really bad scanner. The color looks great on the slide though. On the rose picture, I even used a low quality 80-200mm lens around f/16 with three of those filters (+1, +2, and +4), a tungsten correcting filter, and a polarizer. That's a lot of glass and it still looks pretty good on the slide. Hope this helps you out a little bit after all of my babbling.

PS...for the set of three close up filters, I paid around $35 to fit on a lens with 52mm threads.


To love this comment, log in above
April 13, 2005

 
Log in to respond or ask your own question.