• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname

    Register

    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

Macro

Rhys Sage

pro member
How do you do your macro shots? By that I don't mean true macro (1:1) but very close work...

  1. Dedicated macro lens such as Canon 100mm, 60mm, 50mm
  2. Ordinary lens plus close-up filters
  3. Extension tubes

I personally use extension tubes although it's a pain having to focus manually. AF coupling does work but the AF is so minimal it's not worth having. Here's a link to one of my handheld macro shots with tubes...Link

I have never used a true macro lens nor close-up filters.
 

TJ Avery

New member
...I have never used a true macro lens nor close-up filters.

Nor have I. But I don't shoot macro that often. If I was really interested in it, I might go for a 100mm macro lens.

When I do shoot macro, I use tubes and a 70-200mm zoom. I find that zooming is the quickest and easiest way to focus (manually) when a bunch of tubes are stacked on. I usually shoot f/8 - f/11 to get more DOF, and my images (when in focus) look pretty good with respect to resolution.
 

Doug Kerr

Well-known member
Hi, Rhys,

How do you do your macro shots? By that I don't mean true macro (1:1) but very close work...

  1. Dedicated macro lens such as Canon 100mm, 60mm, 50mm
  2. Ordinary lens plus close-up filters
  3. Extension tubes

I have used all three methods. I'm currently mostly using a Canon EOS-40D body.

I just acquired my first so-called "macro" lens, a Canon EF-S 60 mm f/2.8, but I haven't done much work with it yet. At a magnification of 1.0 ("1:1"), the standoff distance is only about 2 inches.

I have had good results with my Canon EF 70-200 mm f/2.8L IS and a Canon 500D auxiliary closeup lens (+2 diopter). It gives me a very nice standoff distance (I forget at the moment just what the number is at various magnifications, though).

I generally find that the use of manual focus is best in this regime.

By the way, there is no justification for considering "true macrophotography" to be only photography at an image magnification of at least 1.0 ("1:1"). I like to remind people that, with an 8" x 10" format, shooting at that modification allows one to fill the frame with an entire ladies' high-heel shoe.

It may be worthwhile to consider one widely-accepted basic definition of macrophotography (or photomacrography), which is "the photography of small objects but not so small that they cannot be seen with the naked eye." (Photography of the latter would be considered microphotography or photomicrography, depending on whether you are a photographer or a microscopist!)

This term flows from the fact that the prefix "macro" of course means "large", and traditionally, in the scientific world, "macroscopic objects" are objects "so large that they can be seen without a microscope".
 
I use a EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro for all of my close up and studio work. With the crop factor, the fl is just about right for my studio space.

I use manual focus exclusively, and a tripod almost always. I want to get into doing some multiple-exposure focus stacking to get more depth of field than is normally available at close focusing distances, but...
 

Rhys Sage

pro member
I use a EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro for all of my close up and studio work. With the crop factor, the fl is just about right for my studio space.

I use manual focus exclusively, and a tripod almost always. I want to get into doing some multiple-exposure focus stacking to get more depth of field than is normally available at close focusing distances, but...

I was very interested in the 50 f2.5. I thought about the Sigma but have never been too impressed by the compatibility of independent lenses with Canon gear. The fact it's 1:2 perplexed me a little then I realised that at 1:1 the depth of field was almost nil and that the close-ups I'm likely to need are of wedding rings where 1:1 would be far too close.

How is it with a pair of wedding rings on a cushion?
 
-snip-

How is it with a pair of wedding rings on a cushion?

No idea, because I don't shoot weddings, but I would imagine it would be OK at those kinds of magnifications.

This is about the same scale as a pair of wedding rings ~1" X 1" The DoF isn't outstanding, but I had lots of light, so shot at f/16 or so.

6908345-lg.jpg




The product photos in this gallery were all shot with the EF-S 60 mm lens. Most are around 1:4 to 1:8.

http://www.charleslwebster.com/RSG_Prototypes/
 

Rhys Sage

pro member
Neat. The white king from a chess set?

I'll probably stick with what I have until my photo biz pays off enough to think about new gear.
 
This is the carved top of a piece of stone intended to become a decorative or ceremonial signature stamp or "chop." It is one of several we found in a small shop many years ago.

I intend to photograph the entire collection, but...
 

Michael Fontana

pro member
Only using the 50 mm and 100 mm macro's for close photos.
They' re excelent lenses for any typ of photography: practically no distortion, and no CA as well.

A today's example:
For the art museum here, the graphic artist wanted a 5 cm x 4 cm-crop of a drawing to be blown up as the exhibition bill at 128 x 90 cm!

Today, I made a linear stitch (4 images, 1:1 ) with the 100 mm macro of the crop aerea and uprezed it to the final size: Pretty impressive, what quality that lens delivers!!!!
 
I normally use my AF-S Micro Nikkor 105mm f/2.8 and I use it all different ways. By itself, with a stack of extension tubes, with teleconverter and tubes, you name it. It is also a VR lens but when doing closeup work I never use that and I always manually focus and almost always use my tripod, shutter release, mirror up, etc. I also use the lens with pleasing results for other, more normal type of photography such as portraits. It does pretty well at that too. It's a fine lens in my eyes and one of my favorites. I use it a lot.
James Newman
 

Michael Fontana

pro member
You' re right James, I had to use manual focusing - with a viewer loupe - too, beeing at 1:1.
Autofocus didn't worked correct, at that distance of 31 cm.... meanwhile its dead on at 50 cm distance.
 
How do you do your macro shots? By that I don't mean true macro (1:1) but very close work...

  1. Dedicated macro lens such as Canon 100mm, 60mm, 50mm
  2. Ordinary lens plus close-up filters
  3. Extension tubes

Hi Rhys,

I mostly use (besides an occasional extention tube or a close up lens/filter) the EF 100mm f/2.8 macro, it's a great macro lens (no additional accessories needed from infinity to 1:1) which leaves some lens to subject room, which helps with lighting and not cast one's shadow on the subject. The lens is also useful as a general purpose (portrait) lens, especially on a full frame 24x36mm sensor, despite it's being optimized for close-up resolution and flatness of field without distortions.

Close-up 'filters', are useful as an convenient and compact interim solution but the combined image quality is still limited by the worse of both lenses, especially at close focusing settings. The better versions of such a close-up lens consist of a combo of two achromatic lenses that reduce optical aberrations. The Canon 500D is a popular one, which reduces the infinity focus distance to 500mm (minimum focus distance of the combination depends on the lens).
The benefit of such a solution is that one doesn't lose light, because one effectively changes the focal length which allows the closer focus and higher magnification.

Extention tubes are nice, because they don't use optical elements and thus are lightweight. They do however depend more on the optical correction of the main lens at close focusing distances. They work most effectively on shorter focal lengths, but they do shorten the minimal focus distance of longer focal lengths.

Regardless of specific benefits of one or the other solution, the quality of the main lens remains a large factor in the resulting quality. That's where a dedicated lens will shine. One also has to consider the reduced DOF at close focusing distances, and the diffraction effects when using an aperture that's too narrow for a given sensel pitch to maintain per pixel micro-detail.

Bart
 

Marian Howell

New member
i shoot most of the time with the 180mm and the 100mm on a 5d. i'd call what i do more intimate closeup than traditional macro, and i tend to print large so i prefer the dedicated lens. i love the color and quality of both thoise lenses. extension tubes and the 1.4x and 2x tele-extenders are useful, although i don't use them all that much. i'm kinda a purist :)
i'd be be curious to hear from those who reverse the lenses...i've seen some interesting stuff done that way but have never tried it.
 
Top