Recommend me a macro lens

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Pablo, Jul 4, 2012.

  1. Pablo

    Pablo Guest

    Pablo, Jul 4, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Pablo

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 18:54:57 +0200, Pablo <> wrote:
    : I've had it with the extension tubes combined with cheap lenses.
    : Having to stop down like mad, and then the slightest breath of wind
    : or movement of my hand, and the photo is ruined.
    :
    : I have a 1000D. Manual is fine, as is having to buy another m42-eos
    : adaptor.

    Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8. It's relatively inexpensive and highly regarded. My
    wife uses one on her T2i (550D) and has gotten excellent results.

    Bob
    Robert Coe, Jul 4, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Pablo

    Pablo Guest

    Floyd L. Davidson escribió:

    > Pablo <> wrote:
    >>I've had it with the extension tubes combined with cheap lenses. Having to
    >>stop down like mad, and then the slightest breath of wind or movement of
    >>my hand, and the photo is ruined.
    >>
    >>I have a 1000D. Manual is fine, as is having to buy another m42-eos
    >>adaptor.

    >
    > I hear ya! Unfortunately expensive lenses have exactly the same
    > problems. It more or less comes with the territory, and any
    > kind of high magnification (macro or long focal lengths) present
    > the same difficulties.
    >
    > If your idea of "macro" is flowers at magnifications from 1:4 to
    > maybe 1:2 at the most, a lens with image stabilization might
    > help. But if you are shooting 1:1 or anything close, it won't
    > help.
    >
    > Instead, a really good tripod and a really good gearhead along with
    > at least a half decent 4-way focusing rail, might be more useful. It
    > depends on how static your typical subjects are though.


    Well, we're talking bugs, really.

    I'm just thinking that having to stop down so much, leaves me with long
    exposures, resulting in crap images. I suppose I could up the ISO.

    I also don't like having to get so damned close to bugs that sting etc.

    --
    Pablo

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/wibbleypants/
    http://paulc.es/piso/index.php
    Pablo, Jul 4, 2012
    #3
  4. Pablo

    Bruce Guest

    Pablo <> wrote:
    >I've had it with the extension tubes combined with cheap lenses. Having to
    >stop down like mad, and then the slightest breath of wind or movement of my
    >hand, and the photo is ruined.
    >
    >I have a 1000D. Manual is fine, as is having to buy another m42-eos adaptor.



    My long time favourite is the Tamron 90mm SP Macro which goes to 1:2.
    It is available in manual focus as the Tamron 90mm f/2.5 SP Macro
    which takes an Adaptall 2 mount or the Tamron 90mm f/2.8 AF Macro
    which has autofocus and can be obtained in native EF mount.

    Original Adaptall 2 mounts for Canon EF (for the earlier f/2.5
    version) are hard to find but there are plenty of cheap clones on eBay
    starting at £13 with AF confirmation chip.
    Bruce, Jul 4, 2012
    #4
  5. Pablo <> wrote:
    > Floyd L. Davidson escribió:


    >> Pablo <> wrote:
    >>>I've had it with the extension tubes combined with cheap lenses. Having to
    >>>stop down like mad, and then the slightest breath of wind or movement of
    >>>my hand, and the photo is ruined.
    >>>
    >>>I have a 1000D. Manual is fine, as is having to buy another m42-eos
    >>>adaptor.

    >>
    >> I hear ya! Unfortunately expensive lenses have exactly the same
    >> problems. It more or less comes with the territory, and any
    >> kind of high magnification (macro or long focal lengths) present
    >> the same difficulties.
    >>
    >> If your idea of "macro" is flowers at magnifications from 1:4 to
    >> maybe 1:2 at the most, a lens with image stabilization might
    >> help. But if you are shooting 1:1 or anything close, it won't
    >> help.
    >>
    >> Instead, a really good tripod and a really good gearhead along with
    >> at least a half decent 4-way focusing rail, might be more useful. It
    >> depends on how static your typical subjects are though.


    > Well, we're talking bugs, really.


    > I'm just thinking that having to stop down so much, leaves me with long
    > exposures, resulting in crap images. I suppose I could up the ISO.


    Or use a ring flash or paired off camera flashes on either side.

    --
    Chris Malcolm
    Chris Malcolm, Jul 4, 2012
    #5
  6. Pablo

    Pablo Guest

    Bruce escribió:

    > Pablo <> wrote:
    >>I've had it with the extension tubes combined with cheap lenses. Having to
    >>stop down like mad, and then the slightest breath of wind or movement of
    >>my hand, and the photo is ruined.
    >>
    >>I have a 1000D. Manual is fine, as is having to buy another m42-eos
    >>adaptor.

    >
    >
    > My long time favourite is the Tamron 90mm SP Macro which goes to 1:2.
    > It is available in manual focus as the Tamron 90mm f/2.5 SP Macro
    > which takes an Adaptall 2 mount or the Tamron 90mm f/2.8 AF Macro
    > which has autofocus and can be obtained in native EF mount.


    I have the Tamron 70-300 supposedly macro 1:2 4-5.6.

    It's not a macro lens. And the minimum focus distance is about 4 ft. I ain't
    going to get stung, but neither am I going to get a good closeup.

    --
    Pablo

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/wibbleypants/
    http://paulc.es/piso/index.php
    Pablo, Jul 4, 2012
    #6
  7. Pablo

    Ian Guest

    "Pablo" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I've had it with the extension tubes combined with cheap lenses. Having to
    > stop down like mad, and then the slightest breath of wind or movement of
    > my
    > hand, and the photo is ruined.
    >
    > I have a 1000D. Manual is fine, as is having to buy another m42-eos
    > adaptor.
    >
    > --
    > Pablo

    Hello Pablo.

    I had a Sigma 105mm macro lens. It was affordable but was slow, noisy and
    hunted in and out
    of focus
    The manual says that the focusing ring and focusing switch must both be set
    to MF or AF but I found it was too easy to move the ring inadvertently from
    AF to MF.
    I sold it and eventually bought a second-hand Canon 60mm EF-S lens. I also
    tried the
    Canon 100mm macro (the older, non-IS model). I'd have preferred that more
    than the 60mm but it was, for me, too bulky heavy to carry as part of my
    standard kit.

    The Tamron 90mm macro lens has had a very good reputation. I'd have
    considered it had I not found a second-hand Canon 60mm lens.

    Regards, Ian.
    Ian, Jul 4, 2012
    #7
  8. Pablo

    Wally Guest

    On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 20:36:36 +0200, Pablo <> wrote:

    >Bruce escribió:
    >
    >> Pablo <> wrote:
    >>>I've had it with the extension tubes combined with cheap lenses. Having to
    >>>stop down like mad, and then the slightest breath of wind or movement of
    >>>my hand, and the photo is ruined.
    >>>
    >>>I have a 1000D. Manual is fine, as is having to buy another m42-eos
    >>>adaptor.

    >>
    >>
    >> My long time favourite is the Tamron 90mm SP Macro which goes to 1:2.
    >> It is available in manual focus as the Tamron 90mm f/2.5 SP Macro
    >> which takes an Adaptall 2 mount or the Tamron 90mm f/2.8 AF Macro
    >> which has autofocus and can be obtained in native EF mount.

    >
    >I have the Tamron 70-300 supposedly macro 1:2 4-5.6.
    >
    >It's not a macro lens. And the minimum focus distance is about 4 ft. I ain't
    >going to get stung, but neither am I going to get a good closeup.


    Try the Canon 500D close-up adapter. I use it on my Canon 70-300mm and
    get very sharp results. With the 70-300mm/500D combo, the working
    distance is around 1.5 to 2 ft, and with that kind of a distance, you
    can get close to many bugs without spooking them. You can vary the
    magnification by adjusting the focal length and of course the shooting
    distance. (By magnification I mean subject size:image size.)

    The 500D is not expensive, and it is light and easy to toss into the
    camera bag. The Canon version is optically excellent and multicoated.
    There is no light loss due to the adapter.

    Autofocus works fine with this rig.

    Stop down (no more than around f11 if you can), crank up the ISO and
    wait till the wind dies down as necessary, and/or use flash.

    Read on macro photography. The closer you get, the more challenges.

    BTW, extension tubes work great for close-up/macro, but they are most
    effective with shorter focal lengths. And you want a longer focal
    length if you want greater working distance.

    W
    Wally, Jul 4, 2012
    #8
  9. Pablo

    Bruce Guest

    Pablo <> wrote:

    >Bruce escribió:
    >
    >> Pablo <> wrote:
    >>>I've had it with the extension tubes combined with cheap lenses. Having to
    >>>stop down like mad, and then the slightest breath of wind or movement of
    >>>my hand, and the photo is ruined.
    >>>
    >>>I have a 1000D. Manual is fine, as is having to buy another m42-eos
    >>>adaptor.

    >>
    >>
    >> My long time favourite is the Tamron 90mm SP Macro which goes to 1:2.
    >> It is available in manual focus as the Tamron 90mm f/2.5 SP Macro
    >> which takes an Adaptall 2 mount or the Tamron 90mm f/2.8 AF Macro
    >> which has autofocus and can be obtained in native EF mount.

    >
    >I have the Tamron 70-300 supposedly macro 1:2 4-5.6.
    >
    >It's not a macro lens. And the minimum focus distance is about 4 ft. I ain't
    >going to get stung, but neither am I going to get a good closeup.



    The Tamron 90mm SP Macro is a specialist macro lens which goes to 1:2,
    and 1:1 (life size) with an extension tube.
    Bruce, Jul 4, 2012
    #9
  10. Pablo

    Pablo Guest

    Wally escribió:

    > BTW, extension tubes work great for close-up/macro, but they are most
    > effective with shorter focal lengths. And you want a longer focal
    > length if you want greater working distance.


    Perhaps I'll just practice more with my helios 2/58 and the 36mm tube.

    I suppose I could try my favourite lens (Samyang 85 1.4) with a tube or two.

    --
    Pablo

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/wibbleypants/
    http://paulc.es/piso/index.php
    Pablo, Jul 4, 2012
    #10
  11. Pablo

    RichA Guest

    On Jul 4, 2:07 pm, Bruce <> wrote:
    > Pablo <> wrote:
    > >I've had it with the extension tubes combined with cheap lenses. Having to
    > >stop down like mad, and then the slightest breath of wind or movement ofmy
    > >hand, and the photo is ruined.

    >
    > >I have a 1000D. Manual is fine, as is having to buy another m42-eos adaptor.

    >
    > My long time favourite is the Tamron 90mm SP Macro which goes to 1:2.
    > It is available in manual focus as the Tamron 90mm f/2.5 SP Macro
    > which takes an Adaptall 2 mount or the Tamron 90mm f/2.8 AF Macro
    > which has autofocus and can be obtained in native EF mount.
    >
    > Original Adaptall 2 mounts for Canon EF (for the earlier f/2.5
    > version) are hard to find but there are plenty of cheap clones on eBay
    > starting at £13 with AF confirmation chip.


    The Tamron is the best of the old bunch. The Kiron's were beautifully
    built, but too much CA. Oddly enough, I took a Nikon 50mm f1.8 E
    lens, cobbled the front lens of a cannibalized Tokina zoom on it and
    it (through sheer luck) compared favorably with the results I was
    getting from a new 60mm Nikon macro lens. You never know...
    RichA, Jul 5, 2012
    #11
  12. Pablo

    PeterN Guest

    On 7/4/2012 12:54 PM, Pablo wrote:
    > I've had it with the extension tubes combined with cheap lenses. Having to
    > stop down like mad, and then the slightest breath of wind or movement of my
    > hand, and the photo is ruined.
    >
    > I have a 1000D. Manual is fine, as is having to buy another m42-eos adaptor.
    >


    Sometimes the cheap lens will give you a decent result. With even the
    most expensive lens you can anticipate wind issues. One solution is an
    inexpensive wind rent. You can make your own from a plastic jug, or buy
    one. They go from $15 up. This article may help you. The end portion on
    equipment is very helpful.

    <http://www.desertusa.com/mag08/apr08/intimate_landscapes.html>

    --
    Peter
    PeterN, Jul 5, 2012
    #12
  13. Pablo

    PeterN Guest

    On 7/4/2012 2:36 PM, Pablo wrote:
    > Bruce escribió:
    >
    >> Pablo <> wrote:
    >>> I've had it with the extension tubes combined with cheap lenses. Having to
    >>> stop down like mad, and then the slightest breath of wind or movement of
    >>> my hand, and the photo is ruined.
    >>>
    >>> I have a 1000D. Manual is fine, as is having to buy another m42-eos
    >>> adaptor.

    >>
    >>
    >> My long time favourite is the Tamron 90mm SP Macro which goes to 1:2.
    >> It is available in manual focus as the Tamron 90mm f/2.5 SP Macro
    >> which takes an Adaptall 2 mount or the Tamron 90mm f/2.8 AF Macro
    >> which has autofocus and can be obtained in native EF mount.

    >
    > I have the Tamron 70-300 supposedly macro 1:2 4-5.6.
    >
    > It's not a macro lens. And the minimum focus distance is about 4 ft. I ain't
    > going to get stung, but neither am I going to get a good closeup.
    >


    No pain, no gain. <G>

    --
    Peter
    PeterN, Jul 5, 2012
    #13
  14. Pablo

    Sandman Guest

    In article <>,
    Bruce <> wrote:

    > Pablo <> wrote:
    > >I've had it with the extension tubes combined with cheap lenses. Having to
    > >stop down like mad, and then the slightest breath of wind or movement of my
    > >hand, and the photo is ruined.
    > >
    > >I have a 1000D. Manual is fine, as is having to buy another m42-eos adaptor.

    >
    >
    > My long time favourite is the Tamron 90mm SP Macro which goes to 1:2.
    > It is available in manual focus as the Tamron 90mm f/2.5 SP Macro
    > which takes an Adaptall 2 mount or the Tamron 90mm f/2.8 AF Macro
    > which has autofocus and can be obtained in native EF mount.


    +1

    The 90mm Tamron is a fantastic macro lens.




    --
    Sandman[.net]
    Sandman, Jul 5, 2012
    #14
  15. Pablo

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Wednesday, July 4, 2012 8:15:36 PM UTC+1, Wally wrote:
    > On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 20:36:36 +0200, Pablo <> wrote:
    >
    > >Bruce escribió:
    > >
    > >> Pablo <> wrote:
    > >>>I've had it with the extension tubes combined with cheap lenses. Having to
    > >>>stop down like mad, and then the slightest breath of wind or movement of
    > >>>my hand, and the photo is ruined.
    > >>>
    > >>>I have a 1000D. Manual is fine, as is having to buy another m42-eos
    > >>>adaptor.
    > >>
    > >>
    > >> My long time favourite is the Tamron 90mm SP Macro which goes to 1:2.
    > >> It is available in manual focus as the Tamron 90mm f/2.5 SP Macro
    > >> which takes an Adaptall 2 mount or the Tamron 90mm f/2.8 AF Macro
    > >> which has autofocus and can be obtained in native EF mount.

    > >
    > >I have the Tamron 70-300 supposedly macro 1:2 4-5.6.
    > >
    > >It's not a macro lens. And the minimum focus distance is about 4 ft. I ain't
    > >going to get stung, but neither am I going to get a good closeup.

    >
    > Try the Canon 500D close-up adapter. I use it on my Canon 70-300mm and
    > get very sharp results. With the 70-300mm/500D combo, the working
    > distance is around 1.5 to 2 ft, and with that kind of a distance, you
    > can get close to many bugs without spooking them. You can vary the
    > magnification by adjusting the focal length and of course the shooting
    > distance. (By magnification I mean subject size:image size.)
    >
    > The 500D is not expensive, and it is light and easy to toss into the
    > camera bag. The Canon version is optically excellent and multicoated.
    > There is no light loss due to the adapter.
    >
    > Autofocus works fine with this rig.
    >
    > Stop down (no more than around f11 if you can), crank up the ISO and
    > wait till the wind dies down as necessary, and/or use flash.
    >
    > Read on macro photography. The closer you get, the more challenges.
    >
    > BTW, extension tubes work great for close-up/macro, but they are most
    > effective with shorter focal lengths. And you want a longer focal
    > length if you want greater working distance.


    does anyone use bellows, I used to with my canon A1 (film) and a 'normal' tamron 80-210 zoom in the late 70s early 80s , not brillant results but I was happy enough.
    sometimes for extra safety I used a cheap 400mm F6.3. I had two small flashes mounted on a rifle grip too.

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/whiskydave/616965752/



    >
    > W
    Whisky-dave, Jul 5, 2012
    #15
  16. Pablo

    Pablo Guest

    Floyd L. Davidson escribió:

    > Pablo <> wrote:
    >>I've had it with the extension tubes combined with cheap lenses. Having to
    >>stop down like mad, and then the slightest breath of wind or movement of
    >>my hand, and the photo is ruined.
    >>
    >>I have a 1000D. Manual is fine, as is having to buy another m42-eos
    >>adaptor.

    >
    > I hear ya! Unfortunately expensive lenses have exactly the same
    > problems. It more or less comes with the territory, and any
    > kind of high magnification (macro or long focal lengths) present
    > the same difficulties.
    >
    > If your idea of "macro" is flowers at magnifications from 1:4 to
    > maybe 1:2 at the most, a lens with image stabilization might
    > help. But if you are shooting 1:1 or anything close, it won't
    > help.
    >
    > Instead, a really good tripod and a really good gearhead along with
    > at least a half decent 4-way focusing rail, might be more useful. It
    > depends on how static your typical subjects are though.


    Ok. Just been out on the patio with a Jupiter 8, a Helios 58 w 35mm ext and
    a Samyang 85 w the same 35mm ext.

    Very sunny, light breeze, hand-held.

    I tried at 5.6 and 8.0.

    1/500 and 1/320.

    Either my eyes aren't very good (which is true) or there isn't a fat lot of
    difference between all 3.

    I've stuck them on flickr in case anyone fancies having a gander and maybe
    commenting.

    Straight from the camera, no cropping nor scaling nor compression.

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/wibbleypants/sets/72157630433289256/

    --
    Pablo

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/wibbleypants/
    http://paulc.es/piso/index.php
    Pablo, Jul 5, 2012
    #16
  17. Pablo

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 14:46:16 +0200, Pablo <> wrote:
    : Floyd L. Davidson escribió:
    :
    : > Pablo <> wrote:
    : >>I've had it with the extension tubes combined with cheap lenses. Having to
    : >>stop down like mad, and then the slightest breath of wind or movement of
    : >>my hand, and the photo is ruined.
    : >>
    : >>I have a 1000D. Manual is fine, as is having to buy another m42-eos
    : >>adaptor.
    : >
    : > I hear ya! Unfortunately expensive lenses have exactly the same
    : > problems. It more or less comes with the territory, and any
    : > kind of high magnification (macro or long focal lengths) present
    : > the same difficulties.
    : >
    : > If your idea of "macro" is flowers at magnifications from 1:4 to
    : > maybe 1:2 at the most, a lens with image stabilization might
    : > help. But if you are shooting 1:1 or anything close, it won't
    : > help.
    : >
    : > Instead, a really good tripod and a really good gearhead along with
    : > at least a half decent 4-way focusing rail, might be more useful. It
    : > depends on how static your typical subjects are though.
    :
    : Ok. Just been out on the patio with a Jupiter 8, a Helios 58 w 35mm ext and
    : a Samyang 85 w the same 35mm ext.
    :
    : Very sunny, light breeze, hand-held.
    :
    : I tried at 5.6 and 8.0.
    :
    : 1/500 and 1/320.
    :
    : Either my eyes aren't very good (which is true) or there isn't a fat lot of
    : difference between all 3.
    :
    : I've stuck them on flickr in case anyone fancies having a gander and maybe
    : commenting.
    :
    : Straight from the camera, no cropping nor scaling nor compression.
    :
    : http://www.flickr.com/photos/wibbleypants/sets/72157630433289256/

    Unless your 1000D is out of alignment or something (it hasn't been dropped,
    has it?), I'd say those lenses aren't doing the job. My wife gets far better
    results on her T2i with the Canon 60mm f/2.8. She too sometimes has focusing
    issues (macro photography is tricky), but nothing like what I see in your
    examples. The moderate to severe underexposure may or may not be related, but
    at least it's apt to be easier to diagnose after you solve your lens problem.

    Bob
    Robert Coe, Jul 5, 2012
    #17
  18. Pablo

    Pablo Guest

    Robert Coe escribió:


    > Unless your 1000D is out of alignment or something (it hasn't been
    > dropped, has it?), I'd say those lenses aren't doing the job.


    I don't understand that.

    > My wife gets
    > far better results on her T2i with the Canon 60mm f/2.8. She too sometimes
    > has focusing issues (macro photography is tricky), but nothing like what I
    > see in your examples. The moderate to severe underexposure may or may not
    > be related, but at least it's apt to be easier to diagnose after you solve
    > your lens problem.



    Sticking with the Helios; stopping down, ISOing up and slowing down, things
    improve a tad:

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/wibbleypants/7508818754/in/photostream

    --
    Pablo

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/wibbleypants/
    http://paulc.es/piso/index.php
    Pablo, Jul 5, 2012
    #18
  19. Pablo

    Wally Guest

    On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 18:40:17 +0200, Pablo <> wrote:

    >Robert Coe escribió:
    >
    >
    >> Unless your 1000D is out of alignment or something (it hasn't been
    >> dropped, has it?), I'd say those lenses aren't doing the job.

    >
    >I don't understand that.
    >
    >> My wife gets
    >> far better results on her T2i with the Canon 60mm f/2.8. She too sometimes
    >> has focusing issues (macro photography is tricky), but nothing like what I
    >> see in your examples. The moderate to severe underexposure may or may not
    >> be related, but at least it's apt to be easier to diagnose after you solve
    >> your lens problem.

    >
    >
    >Sticking with the Helios; stopping down, ISOing up and slowing down, things
    >improve a tad:
    >
    >http://www.flickr.com/photos/wibbleypants/7508818754/in/photostream


    Your previous shots are way too dark. You should seriously
    trouble-shoot that issue IMHO. The shots are also unsharp -- probably
    because of too big of an aperture. Try closing to f11. If the shutter
    speed is then too low, then you need a tripod or higher ISO or flash.

    This current one is still too dark but reasonable for exposure. The
    fibers look real sharp to me in the middle area. There is potential
    here.

    W
    Wally, Jul 6, 2012
    #19
  20. Pablo

    Pablo Guest

    Wally escribió:

    > On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 18:40:17 +0200, Pablo <> wrote:


    >>Sticking with the Helios; stopping down, ISOing up and slowing down,
    >>things improve a tad:
    >>
    >>http://www.flickr.com/photos/wibbleypants/7508818754/in/photostream

    >
    > Your previous shots are way too dark. You should seriously
    > trouble-shoot that issue IMHO. The shots are also unsharp -- probably
    > because of too big of an aperture. Try closing to f11. If the shutter
    > speed is then too low, then you need a tripod or higher ISO or flash.


    Kind of like:

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/wibbleypants/7508818754/meta/in/photostream/

    I've also ordered an off camera flash cable. A ring flash costs 300€ and the
    cable 20€.

    --
    Pablo

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/wibbleypants/
    http://paulc.es/piso/index.php
    Pablo, Jul 6, 2012
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. J. Cod
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    408
    J. Cod
    Sep 29, 2004
  2. ship
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    728
    Frank ess
    May 22, 2005
  3. Replies:
    2
    Views:
    466
    Charles
    Sep 28, 2005
  4. Donkey
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    332
  5. John Ortt

    Dedicated Macro or Normal Macro?

    John Ortt, Nov 21, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    785
    John Ortt
    Nov 22, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page