Macro lens choice?

Kodiak Qc said:
•

True!

…but Nick is devoted more to macro
technologies within the equipment he
intends to use and explores (and ex-
plains well too) the different possible
approaches.

His working conditions are not the sa-
me as Andy's who intends to use a DX
DSLR.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm on mirrorless, myself, which is far from FF.
 
WingTsun said:
Well, I'm on mirrorless, myself, which is far from FF.
Click to expand...
•

I understand that! :)
I understand too that different tools
require different solutions.
 
Kodiak Qc said:
•

True!

…but Nick is devoted more to macro
technologies within the equipment he
intends to use and explores (and ex-
plains well too) the different possible
approaches.

His working conditions are not the sa-
me as Andy's who intends to use a DX
DSLR.
Click to expand...

OT? Sorry folk, I don't normally post here so I don't know the etiquette. But Daniel's post sparked some thoughts. Might as well share them now I've written them down. Probably not relevant to the discussion, so perhaps best ignored. :)

I don't do studio work like you do Daniel, and I don't use full frame, but I use APS-C as well as MFT and small sensor bridge. The fact I use close-up lenses on all of them at the moment isn't a matter of having decided that close-up lenses were the answer and working from there. My thread in the macro and close-up forum is all about a year and more's exploration and comparison of dSLR, MFT and bridge, with prime macro lenses including the MPE-65 with MT-24EX, Canon 100L IS and Sigma 105 DG HSM, and also extension tubes, teleconverters and reversed lenses, as well as close-up lenses ranging from the low power 500D to the extremely powerful (takes me further than the MPE-65) Raynox MSN-505. So my investigations were not constrained by budget or prior decisions as to the best technology to use. (The only reason I didn't try FF was that my experiments indicated that it wouldn't help, not for me, not for what I wanted to do, not for how I wanted to work. But it is something I have considered, and still do, especially for botanical work.)

I was as surprised as anyone that I ended up choosing (at least for now) to work exclusively with general purposes telezoom lenses with/without close-up lenses on APS-C (for natural light botanical and large invertebrate work) and MFT (for very small subjects), and with close-up lenses on a consumer grade bridge camera (for most of my invertebrate work). But it was a result of an open-ended, exploratory, evidence-based approach aimed at finding technologies that worked for me (and that includes ancillary issues like ambient vs flash, diffusion methods, tripod or not, and very important indeed post processing products and techniques).

I feel quite strongly that it is preferable not to over-constrain newcomers to close-up and macro with assumptions drawn from one's own experience about what will or won't work. People have a wide variety of interests, time availability, comfort zones, budgets, techno-love/techno-fear, current equipment, subject availability, aesthetic sensibilities, hand-eye coordination, eyesight, mobility and more. Despite my own strong preferences for what I (currently) use and how I (currently) use it, I try to be as open minded as I can about what may suit others.
 
GardenersHelper said:
Probably not relevant to the discussion, so perhaps best ignored.
Click to expand...
In no way to be ignored… so much wisdom!
GardenersHelper said:
I feel quite strongly that it is preferable not to over-constrain newcomers to close-up and macro with assumptions drawn from one's own experience about what will or won't work. People have a wide variety of interests, time availability, comfort zones, budgets, techno-love/techno-fear, current equipment, subject availability, aesthetic sensibilities, hand-eye coordination, eyesight, mobility and more. Despite my own strong preferences for what I (currently) use and how I (currently) use it, I try to be as open minded as I can about what may suit others.
Click to expand...
+1 …but one should not ignore the budget limitations
set by the thread's author.
•••
One day, I will be able to write in English like that :)
 
WingTsun said:
t most starting out won't.
Click to expand...

I know. But why is that? Arguably because they are told it doesn't work so they don't bother trying.

I need to be clear about this. AF only works with some equipment. I have tried AF with the Canon 100L and Sigma 105 on my 70D and I found it unfit for my purposes (both phase detect and hybrid/contrast detect). Slow, lots of hunting, refusal to focus at all some of the time. And obviously with the MPE-65 or Venus Optics 60mm you don't have the option of AF at all. I'm talking about AF that is quite fast and very accurate, and that either focuses or it doesn't (quick decision, yes or no - no hunting). That is what I get with my systems, well beyond 1:1 in FF and APS-C terms. If they are using suitable equipment I think some of those starting out might find close-up/macro much easier to do if they used autofocus.

(And, although it is something I do not want to do, I have occasionally heard of people happily using autofocus even with prime macro lenses.)
 
Having played, the Sigma and D7200 AF together beautifully at 1:1, even in low light. However it's quite apparent that at 1:1 you need to be benched or on a tripod as the DOF changes so quickly. So it's easier to just set to manual and move the camera or object.

I haven't had a play outside yet as the weather here is appalling. I'm learning, I'll listen to everyone and anyone, try it all and determine what's best for me and what I'm shooting. If the sun every shines here I'll get out and go flower/bug hunting :D.
 
andythilo said:
Having played, the Sigma and D7200 AF together beautifully at 1:1, even in low light.
Click to expand...

That is good to know.

andythilo said:
However it's quite apparent that at 1:1 you need to be benched or on a tripod as the DOF changes so quickly.
Click to expand...

When you say the DOF changes so quickly, do you mean that when you are hand-holding the camera, the place where the focus falls keeps changing because the camera is moving?

andythilo said:
So it's easier to just set to manual and move the camera or object.
Click to expand...

Is this because the AF is working too slowly for it to be practical?

andythilo said:
I haven't had a play outside yet as the weather here is appalling. I'm learning, I'll listen to everyone and anyone, try it all and determine what's best for me and what I'm shooting. If the sun every shines here I'll get out and go flower/bug hunting :D.
Click to expand...

I hope you get better weather soon.
 
I tried both the Nikon 105 and the Sigma 105 on my D7100 and both worked very well, I couldn't really separate the two in terms of performance but the Nikon definitely had the edge in build quality, in the end the Sigma made more sense due to cost and I am very pleased with it.
 
GardenersHelper said:
Is this because the AF is working too slowly for it to be practical?
Click to expand...

No, it's more that it's such a finite level of AF when at 1:1. You could AF and breathe too heavily and the slight movement would then place you out of focus, it's just easier to move forwards or backwards very slightly to bring it back to focus.
 
odd jim said:
No, it's more that it's such a finite level of AF when at 1:1. You could AF and breathe too heavily and the slight movement would then place you out of focus, it's just easier to move forwards or backwards very slightly to bring it back to focus.
Click to expand...

Ah, I understand. We are using autofocus differently. The way I work the camera captures an image immediately after finding focus and there is insufficient time for enough movement to take place to be troublesome. That lets me use autofocus well beyond 1:1. I find the camera autofocus is faster and more reliable at finding focus than I am, and that I can place the centre of focus very precisely where I want it to be, and I don't have to strain my eyes during the course of sessions that may be five or six hours long. (I use the LCD not the viewfinder, and all if have to do is place the focus point where I want it, which doesn't require concentrated vision.) This only works with some of my cameras. It doesn't work well with my dSLR.
 
I like to use a loupe or viewfinder attachment to the LCD to magnify the image 3X and allow me to focus more accurately.
 
Recently I have been using AF a lot more for close up work especially when I cant get myself in a decent position to be able to rock into focus.

I turn the tracking sensitivity right up, spot AF and shoot burst of 6/8 images at a time.

When I can get a comfortable position then I usually use AF to get me in the ball park and then rock back and for.

I think that you need to be receptive to other methods which can be useful under certain conditions. Of course, if you don't have a lens that AFs then you're optons are somewhat limited.
 
Last edited:
GardenersHelper said:
That is good to know.



When you say the DOF changes so quickly, do you mean that when you are hand-holding the camera, the place where the focus falls keeps changing because the camera is moving?



Is this because the AF is working too slowly for it to be practical?



I hope you get better weather soon.
Click to expand...

Hi

I meant getting focus right at 1:1 or greater using AF is nigh on impossible as the slightest movement will change the focus point.

AF on the 105 OS is lightning fast, maybe using continuous AF will be ok at 1:1, not had a chance to test yet.

Weather still sucks lol, maybe better at the weekend :(
 
Finally got out and, well, not much around in the garden that I could find LOL. Only critter was this fly on my brick wall. He was facing down so I tried best to get a shot without disturbing it. This is the best I could get.

DSC_1690 by AndyThilo, on Flickr
 
Just out of interest I am using a Tamron SP AF 180mm F/3.5 Di LD[IF] MACRO 1:1 on a full frame Canon EOS5D MkIII, and getting some really good results. You can see them in my gallery at:
https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/gallery/albums/default-album.1996/
I am considering buying the Tamron SP 90mm (F017), which is the latest more expensive version as I like the 3 stop limiter on the AF which my present lens does not have. I am beginning to find the hunting for focus a little annoying as I am missing one or two shots. The earlier version of the Tamron SP 90mm the F004 has the same optical quality as the newer lens, the differences and improvements are elsewhere according to the reviews. The F017 is considered in many reviews to be better than both the Canon and Nikkor equivalents.
My wife, who uses a Canon EOS7D MkII uses the Sigma 105mm f2.8 Macro EX DG OS HSM. This is giving her some really excellent results with insects and flowers - in many cases better than I am getting. It includes the 3 stop limiter, so you have much greater control over focus hunting.
Truth is all these lenses are really good quality and are excellent value for money - so you just need to take the plunge. Have fun!
 
anisah said:
Truth is all these lenses are really good quality and are excellent value for money - so you just need to take the plunge. Have fun!
Click to expand...

I think you're right. There is little to chose between the big 5 (Nikon, Canon, Tamron, Tokina & Sigma). Ultimately it comes down to affordability for me. Everything I read said that the Nikon was really no better than the Sigma. If money wasn't a concern then I would have bought the Nikon for brand loyalty, and that would be have been my only reason. Oh and the Sigma has 3 years UK warranty, Nikon only 2.

Same thing goes for ring/macro flashes, the Nikon R1 is over £400!, Sigma is £290. Meike? £60. Offers TTL and is more than enough for me at the moment. The fly above was shot with that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top