Canon macro lens
- Thread starter fiveub
- Start date
Caporegime
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 75,992
- Location
- Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
I am not a BIG user of macro but 2 things you need to know about macro.
Focal length and magnification.
Focal length, it is the distance you are away from the subject. So if it is the 65mm macro lens you would be very close to the subject. So if it is a bug, you might scare it away being so close. something like the 100mm macro would be more applicable. Obviously if it is a controlled subject then it doesn't matter so much...
Magnification, some lenses only does 0.5x magnifcation, you would want at least 1:1 and I think the 65MP-E is up to 5x macro.
You might also need to think about a tripod, one with a gear head would be useful because moving half an inch when you are doing macro work in a tripod can move you completely out of frame.
Others who shoots more macro can tell you more about it.
Focal length and magnification.
Focal length, it is the distance you are away from the subject. So if it is the 65mm macro lens you would be very close to the subject. So if it is a bug, you might scare it away being so close. something like the 100mm macro would be more applicable. Obviously if it is a controlled subject then it doesn't matter so much...
Magnification, some lenses only does 0.5x magnifcation, you would want at least 1:1 and I think the 65MP-E is up to 5x macro.
You might also need to think about a tripod, one with a gear head would be useful because moving half an inch when you are doing macro work in a tripod can move you completely out of frame.
Others who shoots more macro can tell you more about it.
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 Nov 2010
- Posts
- 16,513
- Location
- Swimming in a lake
I'm pretty sure the 100mm F2.8L is the King of macro lenses.
That said, my understanding was that the non L version is also one of the Canon lenses that is closest to it's L counterpart, so may be able to save you some good money.
kd
That said, my understanding was that the non L version is also one of the Canon lenses that is closest to it's L counterpart, so may be able to save you some good money.
kd
Caporegime
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 75,992
- Location
- Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
The 100mm is very good and versatile because of its focal length and the IS and the fact that it is very sharp. You can use it for portraits 1 shot and then macro shot of the eye by stepping forward a few feet. However, if you are after something purely for macro work, the 65mm MP-E would be the king as it has 1-5x macro where as the 100mm can only do up to 1:1 macro.
The 65MP-E is a very specialised lens though.
The 65MP-E is a very specialised lens though.
The Canon 100 macro lenses do not extend and have speedy enough AF for other uses. The Sigma 105 and Tamron 90 are still both capable macro lenses and provide a cheaper option.
What other lenses do you already have? Extension tubes can also be a very cheap way to get into macro.
What other lenses do you already have? Extension tubes can also be a very cheap way to get into macro.
Associate
- Joined
- 13 Sep 2003
- Posts
- 1,642
- Location
- Oxford, UK
Another vote here for the Canon 100mm f2.8L. Love it.
I've got a Sigma 50mm f2.8 EX DG Macro which cost £100.
It does 1:1 macro and is very sharp. However its very slow to focus so as long as you understand its limitations its fine and can be used as a good walk around lens as well.
Here's a few I've took with it to show you what you can get.
Week 5 - My Eye...My EYE by m.ww, on Flickr
Eye on the Fly by m.ww, on Flickr
Crying Grass by m.ww, on Flickr
It does 1:1 macro and is very sharp. However its very slow to focus so as long as you understand its limitations its fine and can be used as a good walk around lens as well.
Here's a few I've took with it to show you what you can get.
Week 5 - My Eye...My EYE by m.ww, on Flickr
Eye on the Fly by m.ww, on Flickr
Crying Grass by m.ww, on Flickr
Seconded.
I wouldn't go for the MPE-65 Macro lens if you are just starting out. It is a very specialised lens, needs a lot of light when used at 5x magnification (think about factoring in a flashgun or ring flash) and it has a very very miniscule depth of field.
I think if you started with that you might be put off very quickly.
Raymond is right to a certain extent, the longer focal lengths do help. It means you can get further away from skittish subjects such as insects.
That said like all creatures there are techniques you can use to get close to them with even 50mm and 60mm macro lenses. First thing in the morning when insects have not warmed up and late evening when they're settling down to sleep often yields some superb shots (lighting is better too). Make sure your shadow doesn't cross them and moving in low and from one side works too (bear in mind most bugs have compound bulbous eyes with good all round vision). With patience you can get very close. In fact you can often get Butterflies sitting on your finger (Dragonflies are even cooler, they're not afraid of anything!).
If you are going to get a Canon 100mm Macro lens, there isn't much between the non L and the L versions, other than the price difference. The quality of both lenses is superb.
One thing you might need pointing out is that the dedicated Canon Macro Speedlites do no fit directly onto the L series lens. They need an adaptor, whereas they will fit directly onto the non L.
If you've got particularly deep pockets take a look at the Canon 180mm L Macro as well... a very well respected lens.
All of the below were taken with the non L Canon 100mm Macro
Common Blue by Andy2580, on Flickr
Weevil by Andy2580, on Flickr
Brimstone and Bluebell by Andy2580, on Flickr
I think if you started with that you might be put off very quickly.
Raymond is right to a certain extent, the longer focal lengths do help. It means you can get further away from skittish subjects such as insects.
That said like all creatures there are techniques you can use to get close to them with even 50mm and 60mm macro lenses. First thing in the morning when insects have not warmed up and late evening when they're settling down to sleep often yields some superb shots (lighting is better too). Make sure your shadow doesn't cross them and moving in low and from one side works too (bear in mind most bugs have compound bulbous eyes with good all round vision). With patience you can get very close. In fact you can often get Butterflies sitting on your finger (Dragonflies are even cooler, they're not afraid of anything!).
If you are going to get a Canon 100mm Macro lens, there isn't much between the non L and the L versions, other than the price difference. The quality of both lenses is superb.
One thing you might need pointing out is that the dedicated Canon Macro Speedlites do no fit directly onto the L series lens. They need an adaptor, whereas they will fit directly onto the non L.
If you've got particularly deep pockets take a look at the Canon 180mm L Macro as well... a very well respected lens.
All of the below were taken with the non L Canon 100mm Macro
Common Blue by Andy2580, on Flickr
Weevil by Andy2580, on Flickr
Brimstone and Bluebell by Andy2580, on Flickr
Last edited:
If your shooting wildlife, bugs etc then I'd suggest a minimum 100mm lens, the working distance is a tad larger and its easier to frame up shots without scaring the insects away.
If you can afford it the canon 180mm or sigma 150mm would be great for wildlife as the working distance will be even better but they are heavy lens.
If your doing still life then a 50-60mm lens will be fine and also doubles up as a good portrait lens.
forget about the MP-e its a specilist lens and require a lot of technique and light to get the best from it.
all dedicated macro lens will produce 1:1. If you want higher magnification then extension tubes are the way to go, but this will likely also require a flash unit of some sort as the light drop off it substancial.
Forget about IS and auto focus if your shooting wildlife at 1:1. 99% of the shots will be manual focus and 100% if you're using extension tubes.
It all really depends on what you're taking pictures of. but a good starting ground would be a 100mm, whether its a camon, sigma, tamron, tokina, there all much of muchness. if you can afford it get the canon, if not any of the other 3 get good reviews.
I use the tokina with tubes and a homemade flash light rig. once you have the gear its all down to technique
If you can afford it the canon 180mm or sigma 150mm would be great for wildlife as the working distance will be even better but they are heavy lens.
If your doing still life then a 50-60mm lens will be fine and also doubles up as a good portrait lens.
forget about the MP-e its a specilist lens and require a lot of technique and light to get the best from it.
all dedicated macro lens will produce 1:1. If you want higher magnification then extension tubes are the way to go, but this will likely also require a flash unit of some sort as the light drop off it substancial.
Forget about IS and auto focus if your shooting wildlife at 1:1. 99% of the shots will be manual focus and 100% if you're using extension tubes.
It all really depends on what you're taking pictures of. but a good starting ground would be a 100mm, whether its a camon, sigma, tamron, tokina, there all much of muchness. if you can afford it get the canon, if not any of the other 3 get good reviews.
I use the tokina with tubes and a homemade flash light rig. once you have the gear its all down to technique
Are you talking about magnifying filters that screw onto the front of a lens? if so I wouldn't bother with them.
They have many draw backs. Mainly they massively reduce image quality, the working distance becomes tiny and they can cause vignetting and CA.
Because extension tubes have no glass they have zero effect on image quality.
You can pic up manual extension tubes for a tenner and seeing as 99% of macro work is done in manual its a no brainer.
Only problem with manual tubes is the inability to set the lens aperture, unless you have an aperture ring on the lens (another reason i like the tokina) or you know the depth of field preview trick to set the aperture. but I'm not sure if thats just a nikon thing.
If you can pick up the lens attachments for a few quid there ok for a bit of fun, but if you want to do a lot of macro work them I'd recommend some auto extension tubes or manual ones if you have a lens with a manual aperture ring.
They have many draw backs. Mainly they massively reduce image quality, the working distance becomes tiny and they can cause vignetting and CA.
Because extension tubes have no glass they have zero effect on image quality.
You can pic up manual extension tubes for a tenner and seeing as 99% of macro work is done in manual its a no brainer.
Only problem with manual tubes is the inability to set the lens aperture, unless you have an aperture ring on the lens (another reason i like the tokina) or you know the depth of field preview trick to set the aperture. but I'm not sure if thats just a nikon thing.
If you can pick up the lens attachments for a few quid there ok for a bit of fun, but if you want to do a lot of macro work them I'd recommend some auto extension tubes or manual ones if you have a lens with a manual aperture ring.
Does this even apply to ones like Canon's own? Was perhaps naively thinking that official ones might actually be quite effective, shame if thats not the case. Sounds almost like a bit of profiteering!
Sorry wasn't aware canon made macro filters, no doubt they will be better quality than budget ones but I'd still have extension tubes over macro filters.
thing with macro filters is you have to stack them to get a decent magnification and the more you stack the worse the image quality gets, you also get more distortion in the image edges.
If you have a very sharp lens to begin with then you could get some decent pictures, but if you're thinking of putting them on a budget lens forget it, the image quality will be dire.
like I say extension tubes will give you more magnification and have no effect on image quality. You could stack as many as you want the only limiting factor would be light fall off.
I've stacked two sets of tubes (6 rings) to get near 2x mag, not sure on the actual number, and still got sharp images. It's hard work to hold the camera still with all the rings plus the lens and two flash guns hanging off the sides but its possible. The view finder is near pitch black though. If you want to get more magnification than x2 the MP-e is the best option, or bellows but again there a lot of messing around.
just found this review if its any help.
http://photography.timtrott.co.uk/closeup-filter-vs-macro-lens/#
thing with macro filters is you have to stack them to get a decent magnification and the more you stack the worse the image quality gets, you also get more distortion in the image edges.
If you have a very sharp lens to begin with then you could get some decent pictures, but if you're thinking of putting them on a budget lens forget it, the image quality will be dire.
like I say extension tubes will give you more magnification and have no effect on image quality. You could stack as many as you want the only limiting factor would be light fall off.
I've stacked two sets of tubes (6 rings) to get near 2x mag, not sure on the actual number, and still got sharp images. It's hard work to hold the camera still with all the rings plus the lens and two flash guns hanging off the sides but its possible. The view finder is near pitch black though. If you want to get more magnification than x2 the MP-e is the best option, or bellows but again there a lot of messing around.
just found this review if its any help.
http://photography.timtrott.co.uk/closeup-filter-vs-macro-lens/#
Last edited:
Something like the Canon 100mm or Sigma 105mm would be fine for a general purpose macro lens. I wouldn't go for either the Canon L or MPE-65 unless you thought macro was something you really enjoyed.
I love macro and can't wait for spring until all the bugs come out again.
I love macro and can't wait for spring until all the bugs come out again.
Thanks, I've always liked your shots and have the 1:1 canon myself. Took the plunge as I wanted to try it out without fully reading up on the methods and gear
I was curious how you got so much closer than I can I will invest in a set of tubes when I can then