First macro lens

Excuse me if I'm being really thick, as I really don't know about camera lenses, but could I take he path of a small lens say a 50mm then use extension tubes? Or does it not really work like that?
 
Christopher Twell said:
Excuse me if I'm being really thick, as I really don't know about camera lenses, but could I take he path of a small lens say a 50mm then use extension tubes? Or does it not really work like that?
Click to expand...
Yeah you can do that.
 
You can attach extension tubes to a 50mm lens and use that set up to do macro photography.
 
A macro lens is a great bit of engineering - obviously it focuses very close and is razor sharp in terms of clarity and detail. They are reasonably fast (often f/2.8) but not ultra-fast like many 50mm primes etc.

So... as a newbie who doesn't know if he's going to like macro, I'd recommend either having a play with something which will get you partly into macro but is cheaper - extension tubes or reversed lenses (harder to work with but a lot less expensive)... or buy a macro lens which will double as something else.

I started off with reversed lenses then a Raynox. I found both quite challenging to work with, but they were a good start.

I then upgraded on my Pentax (crop sensor) and loved my Sigma 70mm f/2.8 Macro. It was superb for portraits where I wanted sharp details such as eyelashes etc. - a very nice length for that but was obviously also a macro lens for when I wanted to do something very close up.

In the end I didn't really use it that much for macro but it is still a mainstay of my Pentax gear :)
 
alfbranch said:
The likes of a Raynox is much better quality
Click to expand...

Yep. The B&W +10 Diopters are pretty good, too, though I've heard the Raynox are slightly better. That was from another forum where they were using them in conjunction with 10x and 20x microscope objectives as the glass in a tube lens.
 
I've got a Raynox (DCR250) as well as the Sigma, it's a great piece of kit. Sometimes I use the two together!
 
odd jim said:
I've got a Raynox (DCR250) as well as the Sigma, it's a great piece of kit. Sometimes I use the two together!
Click to expand...
I use a Sigma 105 a raynox 250 and tubes on my Olympus m4/3 cameras.
 
To the OP, your profile suggests that you don't have a prime lens yet at all (just the 11-16mm, 18-55 and 100-400mm), I would suggest buying the Canon 50mm f1.8 STM and a macro extension tube (or two). This should cost you between £100 and £130 together.
You really do need a prime lens with a wider aperture for macro stuff because it needs lots of light (and because the "effective aperture" changes when you get close to your subject).
Check out this page http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/macro-lenses.htm, it has a lot of useful information about macro photography on it, including information about effective aperture and magnification.
There's a lot of info there, but the nub is "A rule of thumb is that at 1:1 the effective f-stop becomes about 2 stops greater than the value set using your camera."

If you really want to get a macro lens, you could go for a secondhand copy of the older versions (without OS/VC/IS) of either the Sigma 105mm, Tamron 90mm or the Canon 100mm. These older versions should be easy to find for less than £200. But it really depends on your budget.
The 50mm & extension tube option I suggested is cheaper and gives you a good 50mm lens to use for other photography (if you don't already have one).
 
Moey said:
Oh right, I didn't know that, i've only ever owned to Sigma 105.

Just to add, it doubles up as a nice portrait lens too...
Click to expand...

Not all macro lenses have slow AF. The Canon 100mm L is fast to focus, my Tamron 90mm VC is fast to focus when you limit the focus to non-macro distances.

Yup. My 90mm is a nice portrait lens too. ;)
 
ABTog said:
Not all macro lenses have slow AF. The Canon 100mm L is fast to focus, my Tamron 90mm VC is fast to focus when you limit the focus to non-macro distances.

Yup. My 90mm is a nice portrait lens too. ;)
Click to expand...
I didn't find the Canon L particularly fast to focus?

The Tamron wasn't fast either? I thought they were both on par with all the other Macro lenses I've used. By fast, I'm comparing them to Sigma 70-200 HSM / Canon 70-200 f/2.8 etc, even with focus limiters they aren't "fast".
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
I didn't find the Canon L particularly fast to focus?

The Tamron wasn't fast either? I thought they were both on par with all the other Macro lenses I've used. By fast, I'm comparing them to Sigma 70-200 HSM / Canon 70-200 f/2.8 etc, even with focus limiters they aren't "fast".
Click to expand...

I'm fairly sure my Tamron is as fast as my Canon 50mm f1.4 USM. Hmm, I'll have to do some tests now... ;)
 
so basically theres more than one way to get to the stage i want to. is there any advantages or disadvantages to using extension tubes or just a lens like a 100mm
 
Christopher Twell said:
so basically theres more than one way to get to the stage i want to. is there any advantages or disadvantages to using extension tubes or just a lens like a 100mm
Click to expand...
Optically the Macro lens will be better and more versatile, and it'll autofocus (though I use MF and simply moving a few MM each way to focus). They also make very good portrait lenses as well. You'll also lose a lot of light and sharpness using extension tubes.

Macro lenses are designed for very close focusing, so they are well corrected in this regard.

A proper macro lens will always perform better, but extension tubes are a good way to work out if you want to spend the money on a dedicated lens.
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
Optically the Macro lens will be better and more versatile, and it'll autofocus (though I use MF and simply moving a few MM each way to focus). They also make very good portrait lenses as well. You'll also lose a lot of light and sharpness using extension tubes.

Macro lenses are designed for very close focusing, so they are well corrected in this regard.

A proper macro lens will always perform better, but extension tubes are a good way to work out if you want to spend the money on a dedicated lens.
Click to expand...

That's good advice. Grab a cheap 20mm lens and reverse it with a reversing ring. Try a cheap enlarger lens like the brilliant EL-Nikkor 50mm f/2.8 and use it straight or reversed. Use a cheap macro lens with tubes. Try any of these options and then see what you feel you're missing or what you can't do with those setups. Then you'll be to understand both macro photography and which lens you need to throw some good money at.
 
A work mate has suggested the Sigma 150mm to me, pretty much same price as the canon 100mm, but I can get a used one for just over £300 any thoughts?
 
Christopher Twell said:
A work mate has suggested the Sigma 150mm to me, pretty much same price as the canon 100mm, but I can get a used one for just over £300 any thoughts?
Click to expand...


When I was looking for a macro lens, someone advised me that although a 150mm would give me greater distance between myself and the subject, finding the subject and focussing in from a distance would be harder than on something like a 105mm... so i went for the 105mm and i've been happy with it. Maybe someone with experience of a 150mm will be able to advise better on this?
 
Moey said:
When I was looking for a macro lens, someone advised me that although a 150mm would give me greater distance between myself and the subject, finding the subject and focussing in from a distance would be harder than on something like a 105mm... so i went for the 105mm and i've been happy with it. Maybe someone with experience of a 150mm will be able to advise better on this?
Click to expand...

I've done some research on the 150mm and a lot of reviews have said that your point of focus can be tricky, just had a phone call from my work mate, he's bringing it to work tomorrow so i can have ago in my dinner hour haha.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top