Macro Lenses

Hi. Can i just appologise first from my absence from NPN for a while. My Question seems a bit daft for this site, but i need to ask, what are macro lenses for, and are they what i am looking for? I have moved fairly recently from a compact camera to a DSLR, and the macro setting on the compact was for taking pictures of close up images. Now i want to do this on my DSLR, and i know that a macro lens is for taking pictures in a 1:1 ratio, but are they for close up pictures? If not, can someone direct me to what I am looking for?
My camera is a canon EOS 350D.

Much appreciated.
Arthur

Yes Macro lens can be used for close-up work. The Canon 100mm/ 2.8 is probably one of the best Macro lenses in the Canon line-up. It can be used for other photography as well though it is a bit too sharp for portraits. I use the 100mm/2.8 for a lot of close -up and macro photographs. I am still learning to perfect my techniques and post processing before I really start posting forums.

Good luck you will enjoy your 350D and a good macro lens.

Freda

I'll second the recommendation for the Canon 100/2.8 USM Macro!

Arthur: Much depends on what you want to shoot. 1:1 Macro lenses of any focal length will let you put a full size image on the sensor, i.e. a subject the same size as the sensor will fill the frame. I have 100mm and 200mm macro lenses. For nature work you won't find many folks using the 50-60mm versions. I shoot flowers and butterflies with my gear and much prefer the 200mm as it lets me get further away from my subject and it has a narrower angle of view making it easier to control the background elements. The Canon 100mm lens is excellent as is their 180mm macro. Lots of folks save serious $$$ by going with the Sigma 180 macro. The small world is a great world to explore photographically. >=))>

You might want to consider the Canon 500D close-up lens. The quality is excellent and it will turn any lens into a macro lens without having to carry an extra lens in your bag. You can get a 72mm lens with adapters for all your lenses for probably 1/4 the cost of a macro lens.

Arthur,

I own the Canon 180, Canon 100, Nikon 105 and Zeiss 50 macro lenses. The Zeiss is not a true macro but is very sharp and still lets me get pretty close. What I use depends on the field of view I want. However, If I had to choose one lens for macro work it would be the 180. That said, the Sigma 180 gets excellent reviews and is a much better value than the Canon 180 IMO. It's the lens I'd buy for most of the shooting I do, if I needed to replace my Canon 180. Oh, and also remember extension tubes are an option.

Pat

To answer your question, Arthur, yes macro lenses are for close-up work. Their design allows you to focus closer than you would be able to with a standard lens of the same focal length. This allows you to capture an image on the sensor that is the same size as your subject, i.e. 1:1 or life-size. The longer the focal length of a macro lens, the farther you can be from your subject to get a 1:1 ratio. Macro lenses do focus to infinity and can be used as a standard lens would be used.

There are other ways besides a macro lens to accomplish close-up phoptography, such as adding a diopter lens such as the Canon 500D (sometimes called a close-up filter) to the front of your standard lens. Extension tubes, which contain no optics, are inserted between the camera and a lens to allow closer focusing.

As well as the excellent advice you've received in this thread, John Shaw's classic book Closeups in Nature will give you a thorough and authorative introduction to macrophotography.

You will probably have to copy and paste this URL into your browser for it to work:

http://www.amazon.com/Shaws-Closeups-Nature-Practical-Photography/dp/0817440526/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1230958545&sr=8-1

Arthur, great advice so far. I own the Canon 100 f2.8 macro and use it for macro but for portraits as well. It's a dynamite lens and one of Canon's sharpest lenses and best values.

That being said, can you tell us what lenses you already own? There are a number of Canon lenses that can give you macro performance if you buy a set of three of the extension tubes Buck mentioned. I use the tubes with my 100 macro when I need to get even closer and render something larger than 1:1 allows.

I use the Kenko brand tubes, which cost about $160 for a set of three. They come in different sizes, and you can mix and match them to get the magnification you want. Put simply, by adding space between the camera and sensor the tubes allow you to focus the lens closer than it would normally operate. You do, however, lose distant focus ability while the tubes are on. I prefer the the tubes over a teleconverter or close-up lenses because you're not adding another piece of glass to the setup so there's no potential for any image degradation.

Sometimes there are so many different ways to accomplish a goal in photography that it can be somewhat blinding.

Arthur: Just to flesh out some of the suggestions you've received so far here are some considerations with regard to close-up filters (Canon 500D) and extension tubes. (BTW, Shaw's book is really good). Close up filters like the Canon 500D are an effective and relatively inexpensive way to get into macro and can be used on any of your lenses. The downside is that the focal length of the 500D is 500mm which means you can't focus on anything beyond 500mm or about 18 inches even when your lens is set to focus at infinity. Extension tubes also restrict your far point but nowhere near as much as a close-up filter. Where I find tubes to be a nuisance is when trying to use them with zoom lenses. If you change focal length you have to refocus/rezoom and fiddle like crazy to get the framing and focus right. The only time I use my tubes is on prime lenses and then they're wonderful aids to allow closer focusing. Again, a lot depends on what you want to shoot. Stationary subjects like flowers can be composed and shot at your leisure but if you want to go for bugs and moving targets then its hard to beat the versatility of a true 100 or 200mm macro lens. >=))>

Lots of great advice so far, but another aspect of macro that you need to be aware of is the difference between close-up photography with your compact digital camera versus with the DSLR. The major difference is that the super zoom mode of compact digital cameras gives you much more of the scene in focus than you can get from a DSLR with a longer lens. This is caused by the huge difference between the focal lengths of the lenses you are using. Look at the front of a compact super-zoom lens and you will see for example that a “36-360 mm. equivalent” lens is really something like a 6 to 60 mm. lens, due to the tiny sensors on those cameras. The depth of field with such short lenses is tremendous, even though their apertures can’t stop down beyond about f/5.6 or f/8 at the most. Switching to a 180mm. macro lens may be quite a shock. While some images look great with very shallow depth of field, at other times you may want to see more detail in focus than just part of a flower petal or an insect’s eye.

What do you do about that? Either pick a shorter lens and get closer, or use a longer lens to give you more room, and shoot with a smaller aperture. You may find yourself wanting to stop down to f/22 or smaller if your lens permits, but that can be a problem with shorter lenses, because the physical size of the aperture gets so small that diffraction scatters the light, causing a fuzzy image. Everything in photography seems to be a trade off, but the limitations are also somewhat self-compensating. Longer lenses deliver less depth of field, but they also allow you to shoot with smaller apertures without losing resolution. Even so, you will notice that a lot less will be in focus using a long lens on your DSLR. Bottom line is that getting everything in focus in a close-up is a bit more difficult with a DSLR than with a compact digital camera. Keep this in mind when choosing equipment.

As others have mentioned, many lenses serve well for macro work, using extension tubes. People like NPN macro gallery moderators Ronnie Gaubert and David Chauvin often use 300mm. telephoto lenses with tubes for stunning macro shots. This takes careful camera positioning to line up the parts you want in focus on the same plane. When I am shooting from my kayak, I often use my Canon 100-400 zoom for macros because it can be hard to get close to subjects when I am on the water.

Speaking of lenses, I see that the Canon 100 and 180 macros have been recommended, as well as the Sigma 180. One lens that has been overlooked is the Sigma 150mm. F/2.8 macro. Don’t overlook this lens! It is even as sharp at f/22 as the other three are at f/16. (See a test report here and compare the figures.) Paradoxically, the Sigma 150 is well-built, sharper than any of the other lenses mentioned, and it is also the least expensive – a real bargain! (My 150 is great, but I have read that Sigma may be a bit more likely to deliver a “lemon” than more expensive brands – another trade-off I guess – so test any lens as soon as you get it. Most dealers will replace a lemon immediately.)

Thanks to everyone who has replied so far.
In reply to Steve Foss, i already own the 18-55mm EF-S that comes as standard with the lens, and I also own a 75-300mm EF lens. They aren't the most expensive or best lenses in the world, but they do me fine so far.
Thanks again

Thanks, Arthur. Based on the lenses you have, I'd definitely recommend buying a dedicated macro lens over the extension tubes. As Bill mentioned, the tubes don't do as well with zooms as with primes.