Cheap macro lens- canon

C

czhey

Suspended / Banned
Messages
92
Name
charlie
Edit My Images
Yes
I just bought a Canon 30D, and looking for a half decent lens to take photos of things down to maybe 2inches across. I will save for a 100mm f2.8 macro eventually but its a bit over budget at the moment :( Will a 'normal' lens like a 55-250mm or a 'nifty fifty' focus this close?

Thanks,
Charlie.
 
Hey Charlie,

As standard, it is unlikely that you will get the results you want from a 50 or 55-250mm. The 50mm 1.8 has a minimum focusing distance of 600mm.

It is possible to use extension tubes with a "normal" non-macro lens. These can provide some very good results, although I don't know much about them.

Also, I saw some macro bellows reviewed in a magazine the other day.


Hopefully someone will be able to explain them a bit better on here!
 
When looking at DSLR macro you need to move away from thinking about minimum focus distance and start thinking about magnifiction.

Magnification refers to the relative size of the subject when projected onto the sensor in your camera. The size of the sensor used for image capture in your 30D is 22.5 x 15mm - so if we take the Canon 100mm Macro with it's 1:1 magnification you can fill the frame with a subject that is 15-20mm across.

You'll notice a lot of lenses have a magnification value - and this is what it refers to.

The minimum focus distance of the 55-250mm is just 1.1m - which for a 250mm lens is very good. The magnification is approximately 1:3 although this can be increased using either extension tubes or a close up adapter. Personally I would say pick up a set of Kenko auto extension tubes and use them on both your 50mm and the 55-250mm for getting into macro.
 
I use a cheap used 28mm I got for £25 reversed on a set of tubes which can be bought from ebay for around £10 which gives me much better results than my Sigma 105 macro lens which has not be used for over a year now...
Some examples:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jusbrown/
 
Charlie, if you already have the two lenses mentioned, then consider adding a Raynox DCR250 to your collection. It clips onto the filter rings of the lens. With the 55-250 and my 450d, I can about get up to 2.5x magnification with it. It works by changing the min focus distance from 1.1m down to 12cm. It's pretty cheap, and you can convert the 55-250 from Macro to Telephoto in only a couple of seconds, just by removing it, which doesn't involve removing the lens, and you still maintain full lens control, and the IS still works. If you get cheap ebay tubes, you will lose lens control, and tubes with connections in them, cost nearly double the Raynox.
 
Thanks for all the quick replies.

Just to clarify i only have a 22-55mm at the moment, but will probably get the 2 lenses i mentioned as they seem good value for money 'entry level' lenses.

What are the disadvantages of using 'tubes', and do you get good/bad quality ones? or is there no glass in them :shrug:

richard- The 1:1.3 stuff doesn't really make sense to me! but you explained it well and i think 1:1.2 would be plenty for me at the moment!

Jus- great shots you've got there :thumbs: but reversing lenses and things sounds a bit complicated for me!

JGS- the raynox looks good, does it ruin the Image quality?



Many thanks
Charlie.
 
If you can find one the cosina 100mm f2.8 with 1:1 adaptoer can be had for about For under £100, its a great bit of glass but the build quality and AF is poor, not really a concern for macro thou.
 
Cheap tubes are a pain to use as you lose all control over the lens, but they can be had for under a tenner (probably). They have no glass in them, so don't affect image quality. Proper connected tubes, allow you to do the same but with full control over the lens, but they cost a lot more.

I'm certain that my 55-250 and Raynox combo is nowhere near as good as a dedicated macro lens for IQ, but I think it comes up nicely for me, on a tight budget.

a couple of threads, all the images were shot with the Raynox and 55-250

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=235455
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=238985
 
0.45m 'tis what 't Canon web site sez.
 
I use my nifty with a set of kenko extension tubes which are pretty good as they have metal mounting rings not plastic. I think this fine as a beginner in macro the only disadvantage being you lose the autofocus function.
 
and also what's written on my nifty...
 
You shouldn't need Af for macro ........ get much better result with manual focusing
 
my experience with macro is my Tamron 70-300 lens.
http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-tamron-70-300mm-f4-5-6-di-ld-macro-lens-canon-fit/p1013817

Tamron now offers a lightweight, compact, high-image-quality telephoto zoom lens with macro capability of 1:2 that can be used with digital cameras. This new Tamron 70-300mm lens is a Di type, using an optical system with improved multi-coating designed to function with digital SLR cameras as well as film cameras.

Here are some example of the lens at with macro switched on, taken on my Canon 40D.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidwhoward/5025761470/sizes/l/in/photostream/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidwhoward/4719984129/sizes/l/in/photostream/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidwhoward/4585013452/sizes/l/in/photostream/

Don't get me wrong its got some serious CA when in bright out door light but for Macro it is fun to play around with for very little money. think i bought mine second hand for about £70 i think.
 
jgs001 said:
Cheap tubes are a pain to use as you lose all control over the lens, but they can be had for under a tenner (probably). They have no glass in them, so don't affect image quality. Proper connected tubes, allow you to do the same but with full control over the lens, but they cost a lot more.

I'm certain that my 55-250 and Raynox combo is nowhere near as good as a dedicated macro lens for IQ, but I think it comes up nicely for me, on a tight budget.

a couple of threads, all the images were shot with the Raynox and 55-250

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=235455
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=238985
Click to expand...


Thanks, the shots you've taken are great.



I'll have a think and either get some decent tubes, or the raynox.



Many thanks, Charlie.
 
clairec said:
I use my nifty with a set of kenko extension tubes which are pretty good as they have metal mounting rings not plastic. I think this fine as a beginner in macro the only disadvantage being you lose the autofocus function.
Click to expand...

I thought you kept the autofocus with Kenko tubes?
 
find a cheap FD macro lens @1.8 and eos/fd converter, use manual focus for macro. cheap as chips,

or get a nifty and a reversing ring cheaper still and get a decent 50mm prime into the bargain

or i got the sigma 50mm 2.8 ex macro, sharp prime, and fantastic macro,£135.00 all in.

Merc
 
For a good quality cheapish macro lens, the Sigma 50mm macro is a belter and a true macro lens
 
mercmanuk said:
find a cheap FD macro lens @1.8 and eos/fd converter, use manual focus for macro. cheap as chips,

or get a nifty and a reversing ring cheaper still and get a decent 50mm prime into the bargain

or i got the sigma 50mm 2.8 ex macro, sharp prime, and fantastic macro,£135.00 all in.

Merc
Click to expand...

How do these reversing rings work and where do i get one from? I'll be buying a nifty anyway!
I have been considering saving hard and treating myself to the 100mm canon in the next couple of weeks, but it would be a stretch.

The 50mm macro sounds great, but ideally i'd have a longer lens i think.


Thanks, Charlie
 
The cheapest option is a set of close up lenses off Ebay.

These just screw on your kit lens in place of a filter.

You can get 4 different strengths (dioptres) for about £10.00.

Lots of people on here decry them but I've used them a lot and for what you want they could be ideal.

This was taken on a Canon 350D with a +4 dioptre on the 18-55mm kit lens:

​

.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top