Having a go at macro photography

B

BeeJayEff

Suspended / Banned
Messages
85
Name
Bernard
Edit My Images
No
I'd like to try some macro shots, and am wondering whether to start off cheap with a close-up lens, or extension tubes, or dive right in and go for a macro lens straight away.

Aside from the obvious cost considerations, what other factors come into play here ?
 
Or perhaps a DCR-250, that works well as an entry point.
 
I started with the close up filters (£10) (in about 2004)
Then a set of Macro tubes (£50) (last year)
And then a Canon 100mm (non-usm) Macro lens, but only because it came up cheap.

The 50mm & 13mm extension tube is still one of my favorites!

Really, as always, it comes down to cost and how much you will use it!
 
50mm lens and extension tubes for me. But saving up for a 105mm macro.

Enjoy your macro photography- whole new world opens up
 
I had a set of close up filters on my 18-55 IS kit lens and they really got me into macro. I was left some money in a will and jumped straight in with a 100 f2.8 L Macro and have never looked back. I love this lens and it gives me some great photos, this being one of my early attempts.

6163685840_b718cd263b_z.jpg
[/url][/IMG]

Taken with my 550D and 100 2.8 L macro, f11, ISO640 at 1/125 and is a Jpeg SOOC.
 
Well I've jumped in. My local Jessops had a 100mm 2.8 Macro lens. So I thought I'd better try it. And yes, it's now in my camera bag :):)
 
Nice... ok only can suggest you get some tubes (your choice whether the manual tenner ones or the af kenko type ones)

They'll get you even closer than the 100mm you got :D


If you want to get even more closer... mp-e (I think it is) is a costly but worthy lens... ;)
 
Congrats on your new lens Bernard, as far as I know the only difference between the L and the non L is the IS system. The optics are the same so you should be able to get some great photos from it. You could even get some extension tubes for it and get some real close up's, but you tend to think the bugs look really ugly that close up. I did have an MP-E65 for a while, but an accident meant I couldn't get the best use out of it outdoors so I sold it on. It's a great lens if you want to scare or amaze yourself, I got the eye of a sewing needle up to around 9-10 inches across and the cotton looked like a rope. Have fun with your new lens, hope to see some of the results soon.
 
modchild said:
Congrats on your new lens Bernard, as far as I know the only difference between the L and the non L is the IS system. The optics are the same so you should be able to get some great photos from it. You could even get some extension tubes for it and get some real close up's, but you tend to think the bugs look really ugly that close up. I did have an MP-E65 for a while, but an accident meant I couldn't get the best use out of it outdoors so I sold it on. It's a great lens if you want to scare or amaze yourself, I got the eye of a sewing needle up to around 9-10 inches across and the cotton looked like a rope. Have fun with your new lens, hope to see some of the results soon.
Click to expand...

Not quite true, at least according to the MTF-50 charts at dpreview linked here
The L is sharper at f/2.8 and seems to rise to its sharpest at around f/4.
The non-L is sharpest at around f/6.3, but of course, if we are to assume that either will be used as a Macro lens (and therefore perhaps used at around f/8 or so), there really isnt much in it (and indeed the non-L is showing less CA at these apertures).

I have the non-L, and have to say I've been very happy with it so far. Though the IS would be nice to have, the IQ on the non-L is stunning enough that I'm in no rush to upgrade certainly!

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