Macro Lens

[Tanglewood]

I have another topic running about entry level DSLRs - if you've posted there, thank you. I am learning a lot. I want to be able to do two things: 1) shoot action shots, and shoot good macro pics. What are your recommendations for lenses? what do I need to do those two things? Since I will be a beginner, I would prefer not to spend a huge amount of $ - your recommendations, comments, etc., much appreciated!

Edited February 1, 2011 by Tanglewood

[Nubster]

Macro...I love my Tamron 90mm f/2.8. It will run you around $300 used, $450 new.

 

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k289/cashton12/LookinAtYou-1.jpg

[Deirdre]

Go vintage. I sold my Olympus OM 50mm f/3.5 macro for less than $100. You can get high quality used vintage macro lenses for less money than you might think and you can find one that'll work on whatever camera you happen to have.

 

Wimg's made the point, and I agree, that macro doesn't need autofocus, so go for the glass, not for the convenience.

 

This thread on mu-43.com has some experiments in it on the cheap. Obviously, whatever you use needs to be compatible with your camera; essentially, you'd need a lens that's got the same or larger flange focal distance from the body you're using and a suitable adapter if needed.

[eric47]

  On 2/1/2011 at 10:44 AM, Deirdre said:

Wimg's made the point, and I agree, that macro doesn't need autofocus, so go for the glass, not for the convenience.

 

Agreed, for macro you usually manual focus. However, depending on the focal length of the lens, the lens can do "double-duty" where autofocus might be desirable.

 

I have the older non-L Canon USM 100mm f/2.8 macro. On a full frame sensor (35mm equivalent) body, or even one with 1.3x magnification, it makes for an great prime portrait lens -- it's right in the typical range for portraits, e.g. headshots. The USM version is better than the older non-USM version for that purpose, precisely because it autofocuses that much faster. With 1.6x magnification, I find it a wee bit long...but if you've got the space.

[Nubster]

Yeah...I use my macro for other things as much or more than I use it for macro stuff. It does great for shooting the kids.

 

After a hard day of play...

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k289/cashton12/CrustyZander2.jpg

[Deirdre]

Of course you may want autofocus. You can still take non-macro pictures without autofocus, y'know.

 

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5122/5366070743_73cca24cc8_b.jpg

http://gallery.me.com/deirdre/100277/L1000776/web.jpg

 

Manual focus action shots are more difficult but still possible.

 

http://gallery.me.com/deirdre/100179/P1040846/web.jpg

[Tanglewood]

Very lovely. The color and texture are beautiful. Your child is very beautiful.

  On 2/1/2011 at 8:55 PM, Nubster said:

Yeah...I use my macro for other things as much or more than I use it for macro stuff. It does great for shooting the kids.

 

After a hard day of play...

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k289/cashton12/CrustyZander2.jpg

[Tanglewood]

Love the first one especially.

  On 2/1/2011 at 9:37 PM, Deirdre said:

Of course you may want autofocus. You can still take non-macro pictures without autofocus, y'know.

 

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5122/5366070743_73cca24cc8_b.jpg

http://gallery.me.com/deirdre/100277/L1000776/web.jpg

 

Manual focus action shots are more difficult but still possible.

 

http://gallery.me.com/deirdre/100179/P1040846/web.jpg

[Tanglewood]

Wow. That's fantastic!

  On 2/1/2011 at 5:34 AM, Nubster said:

Macro...I love my Tamron 90mm f/2.8. It will run you around $300 used, $450 new.

 

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k289/cashton12/LookinAtYou-1.jpg

[eric47]

  On 2/1/2011 at 9:37 PM, Deirdre said:

Of course you may want autofocus. You can still take non-macro pictures without autofocus, y'know

 

Of course, been there done that.

 

  On 2/1/2011 at 9:37 PM, Deirdre said:

Manual focus action shots are more difficult but still possible.

 

Sure it's possible -- done it before for years complete with manual winding. But for me, autofocus ups the odds for better and/or more shots -- not that autofocus is always perfect. Still I'll take the autofocus (even on a macro lens), particularly to use as well for shots like Nubster's headshot with the narrow depth-of-field (great photo by the way). Kids don't always stay that still. Same with pets, sports, dance, etc.

 

Just wanted to point out that, when buying a lens even with a specific particular purpose, e.g. macro, to nonetheless think wider. Depending on the (other) type of photos one wants to shoot, it may for instance make sense to say pay more and opt for a longer macro lens, e.g. 90 or 100, rather shorter, e.g. 50, and one with autofocus.

 

The only manual (no autofocus) lens I own is a tilt-shift, and when I use it the subjects, much like in macro, are much more static.

Edited February 1, 2011 by eric47

[Deirdre]

I hear you. One of my favorite lenses is my Elmarit 45mm Macro (a Leica-branded micro-4/3 lens, so it's 90mm effective). I sold my manual focus macro lens when I bought it. Why? Because it does have autofocus. On the other hand, it's an expensive lens which is why I didn't have it earlier. It has what I really like about the Elmarits I've used: vivid color. Well, that and I cranked up the vibrancy setting on the camera, so it's a bit painful on a couple shots but I really like this one.

 

But if one wants an inexpensive macro lens, it is possible to have a lens that mostly handles that one task for less money and is likely to be a better lens (film cameras don't correct for barrel distortion, etc.). That was my point.

 

I have a grand total of seven lenses at the moment, from 15mm to 135mm, and only two are autofocus, but that's to be expected when you have a rangefinder addiction.

[Tanglewood]

Stunning and inspirational.

  On 2/1/2011 at 10:18 PM, Deirdre said:

I hear you. One of my favorite lenses is my Elmarit 45mm Macro (a Leica-branded micro-4/3 lens, so it's 90mm effective). I sold my manual focus macro lens when I bought it. Why? Because it does have autofocus. On the other hand, it's an expensive lens which is why I didn't have it earlier. It has what I really like about the Elmarits I've used: vivid color. Well, that and I cranked up the vibrancy setting on the camera, so it's a bit painful on a couple shots but I really like this one.

 

But if one wants an inexpensive macro lens, it is possible to have a lens that mostly handles that one task for less money and is likely to be a better lens (film cameras don't correct for barrel distortion, etc.). That was my point.

 

I have a grand total of seven lenses at the moment, from 15mm to 135mm, and only two are autofocus, but that's to be expected when you have a rangefinder addiction.

[WRob]

  On 2/1/2011 at 9:42 PM, Tanglewood said:

Wow. That's fantastic!

  On 2/1/2011 at 5:34 AM, Nubster said:

Macro...I love my Tamron 90mm f/2.8. It will run you around $300 used, $450 new.

 

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k289/cashton12/LookinAtYou-1.jpg

 

Indeed it is!

 

Sir, you are an artist! I never thought it possible to make a house fly look beautiful

[eric47]

  On 2/1/2011 at 10:18 PM, Deirdre said:

But if one wants an inexpensive macro lens, it is possible to have a lens that mostly handles that one task for less money and is likely to be a better lens (film cameras don't correct for barrel distortion, etc.). That was my point.

 

Agreed, that's looking at it from another perspective.

 

I took both considerations of action and macro shots, and tried to satisfy it with a single lens. But depending on the type of action even 100mm macro might be too short.

 

Of course if macro's less a principle need or an occasionally thing, there are other cost effective routes like extension tubes. Close-up filters are another, but usually you want good glass, which costs, in which case you're back to considering an inexpensive dedicated macro lens.

 

We'll leave aside the issues of what to carry in the bag, e.g. two lenses or one lens + extension tubes.

[DwarvenChef]

I'm in the process of getting my daughter a digital camera, she's taking a strong liking to photography and at 15 aced her first college class on photography (proud papa moment ) This topic is huge to me as I do maybe 99% of my pictures in the macro setting of my current camera... Ok my current camera is my cell phone and it shoots better pics than my camera

 

I'm searching for a NOS digital camera body, in hopes that the cost will be lower, but a good base to learn from and expand on later. So when she really takes off and decides to expand she can just upgrade the body and keep using her lenses and equipment. But thats another post...

 

I'm more interested in the dedicated Macro lens and halo lighting (that what I heard it was 25 years ago when I was messing with Canon's. Please keep up with what these lenses can do and what are things to look for

[Nubster]

Big question is what's the budget? As you can imagine, like anything, you can get a lot more bang for the buck buying used and something that is a no longer produced model...perfect example being a Nikon D70. Great camera and can be found for $250 or less for the body.

[futhark]

If you get a compatible Nikon body there are many 55mm f3.5 lenses available that are macro lenses, although Nikon called them "micro" lenses. These optics are razor sharp and very inexpensive on the used market. However, you will not have the longer working distance that a 90-100mm lens provides.

[wimg]

One thing one needs to take into account with macro lenses is that a 'normal' macro lens 'only' goes to 1:1. For me that is where macro really only starts. I've also found, not only with film but also with digital, that a good quality lens which isn't a WA lens often yields very good results, and sometimes better results, even at very close focus range in combination with extension tubes, especially for 3D objects.

 

I even found that between my 50 mm, 135 mm lens and 100-400 mm zoom (granted, all of pro quality), I stopped using my 100 mm macro completely - I preferred the results of the 50 and 135 with extension tubes, and the 100-400 with a quality close-up lens. With either I can easily obtain 1:1 magnification this way. It has to be said here that I often do macro and close focus shots in the field, when it isn't always practical to have a lot of equipment with me, i.e., no good and sturdy, and therefore heavy tripod. However, I also do have some dedicated equipment for macro, such as bellows, a few high grade enlarger lenses and adapters (ideal for use on macro, and they are designed for large magnifications, specifically when reversed), and a dedicated 1X to 5X macro-only lens. Other than these lenses and combinations, I also like to use a tiltshift lens for macro work (currently own a 17, 45 and 90 mm - all manual lenses).

 

With the bellows setup I always use a tripod, because there is no way you can work fast with that setup, but even with the 1X - 5X macro I use a mobile and dynamic approach. Focusing by setting the magnification and move in until what I want in focus is sharp in the viewfinder (and I prefer the viewfinder over LiveView), in combination with an extra, large handgrip (old Vivitar 6X6 handgrip for use with a 283 flash) and a ring flash. This allows me to hold the camera like an underwater housing for extra stability, close in, and when focus is achieved, press the shutter button. I do use a manual ring flash, which means i have to adjust the amount of light from the flash and the aperture myself, but that is IMO a given in macro photography for best results anyway.

 

As Deirdre mentioned, I don't think AF is something one wants to use for macro. This for a couple of reasons:

1) At large magnifications, the amount of light received by the AF-system gets too low for accurate AF very rapidly, and below EV 6 the AF system may not function correctly anymore (at 1:1, 1/100s, F/2.8 lens, 400 iso we are below this limit already).

2) Contrast may not be high enough for AF, especially as there may not even be enough detail in the contrast available to AF on.

3) The AF-point indicators are apprximately 3X as large as indicated in the viewfinder, both horizontal and vertical, and may not be positioned exactly as the indicator suggests. Combine this with the fact that the AF-algorithm determins on which contrast transition it will focus within that area, which means that the camera may AF on a different part of the subject than one expects quite easily.

4) DoF is absolutely minimal, so that it becomes even more critical to get the focus point exactly right, otherwise the picture just doesn't look right.

 

You can get around the above problems by takign a lto fo pictures, and just selectign the best, but personally I prefer to concentrate on composition rather than having to bother with accurate AF. Framign at large magnifications is increasingly difficult, either because shooting handheld means that the slightest movement may throw the composition off completely, and with static work on a tripod it is a real pain to position the camera correctly to get the correct focus and framing, as camera movements (i.e, tripod movements) required are generally much larger than focus adjustments to achieve the results, and is much more fiddly to do.

 

A few examples:

http://www.lumifer.com/fs/2flwr-02.jpg

 

The above shot was taken with 135 mm lens, and a few extension tubes, handheld. If the focus had been further to the front or back, it just would have not been right - try this with AF . This was done with prefocus and framing and checking for correct focus in the viewfinder by slightly moving the camera until it looked right in the viewfinder.

 

http://www.lumifer.com/fs/sage01.jpg

 

This was taken with 50 mm and extension tubes, also handheld. It would have been impossible to get the pointy part of th eflower in focus with AF, due to th efact that there was a lot fo wind. Waiting for AF and press would have been totally impossible, apart from compositional issues, as the point of focus just doesn't overlap with an AF point well enough.

 

http://www.lumifer.com/fs/flower-side-01.jpg

 

Taken with 100-400 mm zoom at approximately 400 mm, also in strong wind. To brighten up the gloomy, dreary winter days, I currently have a 24"X 36" (60 cm X 90 cm) framed print of this photograph on the main wall in my living room right now.

 

http://www.lumifer.com/fs/purple_flower.jpg

 

Taken with MP-E 65 lens (1X - 5X dedicated macro lens) with ring flash and extra grip, handheld. BTW, thsi is a smokebush flower, i.e., tiny, tiny, tiny, about 1 to 1.5 mm in size.

 

http://www.lumifer.com/fs/appleblossom05.jpg

 

The above was taken with the 24 mm tiltshift on an APS-C camera as an exampel of possibilities of a tiltshift lens, when I still had both (sold the 24 mm, as the 45 mm has approximately the same AoV on FF). The plane of focus runs almost at 90 degrees from what one would expect here, fron tto back rather thna left to right. This si often used for fake miniature shots, but ti can also be used effectively for "normal"shots to increase apparent DoF.

 

For pens I also like to use tiltshift lenses. My avatar was shot with the 90 mm. See below:

 

http://www.lumifer.com/fs/maj+ink01.jpg

 

One thing all of these shots have in common, is that not single one was taken using AF, all MF by literally manualy focusing, or by moving my body and camera until focus was achieved. And only the last one was shot using a tripod, while all are sharp enough to yield very large prints (24" X 36", or 60 cm X 90 cm, and larger).

 

All these shots are the complete images, BTW, with the exception of the pen shot, which was cropped to a more or less square format.

 

In short, if you want to get going with macro, the easiest and cheapest way could well be to get a non-Wa lens such as a 50 mm, and a couple of decent extension tubes. The latter can be used with any macro lens you may get at a later stage as well. Other than that, it is just up to your own creativity, and perseverance with regard to practicing, practicing, and more practicing .

 

HTH, warm regards, Wim

[Deirdre]

These are manual focus at about 3" and 6" handheld with my GF1 and the Panasonic/Leica 45mm (which is not an inexpensive lens). It does show that there's a fairly shallow depth of field (at f/2.8, late afternoon, in shadow). There was a breeze, so I did take 5 shots, getting the focus where I intended. On the second picture, I missed getting the focus a little more perfect, but it's acceptable for the size of print I'll make for my mother-in-law. These are straight out of camera with no post-processing.

 

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5135/5419761533_28f1d34393_b.jpg

 

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5131/5420603815_aecd5ff8fb_b.jpg

Edited February 6, 2011 by Deirdre

[epo]

Where still life pictures are concerned consider getting a pair of adjustable geared camera mounts which can be attached to a tripod at right angles, this let's you move the camera in 4 directions to get optimal focus/composition. I bought 2 from China one bay for about £20.