Macro shooting

taff63

Suspended / Banned
Messages
841
Name
mark
Edit My Images
Yes
I really want to get more into macro I have a tamron 300mm with macro also have a Nikon 50mm but could you also recommend a proper macro lens budget I could stretch to would be £200 don't want to use macro filters tbh .
Mark
 
Sigma 105mm goes for around the £200 mark on a certain auction site ;) had the canon version for a number of years and it was perfect!
 
I have the canon 100mm macro and it's amazing! Don't go for extension tubes until you at least have a macro lens. Because most lenses won't even get close to 1:1 even with tubes.
 
I have the canon 100mm macro and it's amazing! Don't go for extension tubes until you at least have a macro lens. Because most lenses won't even get close to 1:1 even with tubes.

A standard set of tubes on most lenses under 150-200mm-ish will get you down to 1:1, more with shorter focal lengths.
 
Perhaps I don't know what I am talking about but out of all my lenses using tubes I can't get anywhere near the quality I can from my 1:1 macro lens....
 
Perhaps I don't know what I am talking about but out of all my lenses using tubes I can't get anywhere near the quality I can from my 1:1 macro lens....

You said nothing about quality, just 1:1 magnification ;)

If you start with a good lens (I use Canon 70-200L) tubes can give very good results, especially when stopped down a bit. I sold two macro lenses and now use tubes in preference. I'm not big into macro but prefer the flexibility and extra working distance I get with the 70-200, and IS helps a bit too. Some claim that because tubes don't contain any glass that the image quality of the lens is unaffected, but that's not true. It depends, but most lenses don't perform as well when moved so far beyond their normal design envelope (eg soft corners, field curvature).

On the other hand, if you're really keen on macro, a pukka lens is the way to go. Excellent edge to edge sharpness, even wide open, and easier to use :thumbs:
 
On the other hand, if you're really keen on macro, a pukka lens is the way to go. Excellent edge to edge sharpness, even wide open, and easier to use :thumbs:

Not quite - at f2.8 at 1:1 magnification the DOF is almost non-existant.

With the 100mm Macro you will find that you usually need at least f11 onwards to help overcome this coupled with good light or a decent flashgun.

Re flashguns the inbuilt one is virtually useless for macro work as it is too low down and the longer length of macro lenses or extension tubes mean you need a tall flashgun.

.
 
Agreed, I shoot Macro with a Sigma 105mm f2.8 lens and the area around f11 give or take 1 stop is the best for dof I've found

Like this - 105mm and off camera flash @1/4 power


DSC00239 Jolly Green by Les Moxon Photography, on Flickr

Tubes are a good cheap route into Macro and if you have a 50mm lens then - if cost is an issue I would use a tubes/prime lens combo

However: as said on certain sites the 105mm sigma goes for around £200-£250

Les
 
Not quite - at f2.8 at 1:1 magnification the DOF is almost non-existant.

With the 100mm Macro you will find that you usually need at least f11 onwards to help overcome this coupled with good light or a decent flashgun.

Re flashguns the inbuilt one is virtually useless for macro work as it is too low down and the longer length of macro lenses or extension tubes mean you need a tall flashgun.

.

Depth of field is determined by the level of magnification, not by the lens or tubes used to achieve it.
 
Depth of field is determined by the level of magnification, not by the lens or tubes used to achieve it.

Which is what I said - "Not quite - at f2.8 at 1:1 magnification the DOF is almost non-existent."

But it is also true that, regardless of the lens or tubes, smaller apertures increase the DOF.

If you don't believe that - try it.

.
 
Back
Top