robert_thommes1 Posted February 23, 2010 Share Posted February 23, 2010 <p>Can one achieve truely great macro shots without using a true macro lens?<br> What are my chances with these lenses: Canon 50 1.8, 70-300IS USM, and/or Tamron 28-75 2.8? I understand that I would likely need to invest in extension tubes and/or quality close-up diopters. But, that being the case, which of my lenses would offer the best potential for the BEST macro IQ(especially sharpness)? What's the best combo for the best results here?<br> And then, just how good is that inexpensive Vivitar(et.al)90/100mm f2.5 lens? I've heard that it's build quality is terrible, but optics are surprisingly good. Would I get better results with that as an option? Thanks for your comments.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert_thommes1 Posted February 23, 2010 Author Share Posted February 23, 2010 <p>I forgot to mention that I have a Panasonic FZ30, too. Maybe this camera with one of those good close-up adapters might offer even better results? Just one more thing to consider.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zyg_zyg Posted February 23, 2010 Share Posted February 23, 2010 <p>try a set of extension tubes on the 50 or other prime</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alan_bryant1 Posted February 23, 2010 Share Posted February 23, 2010 <p>There's some good information at</p> <p>http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/eosfaq/closeup.htm (tables)<br> http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/eosfaq/closeup2.htm (faq)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gabriel_l1 Posted February 23, 2010 Share Posted February 23, 2010 <p>One solution that hasn't been mentioned yet: reverse mounting a lens (typically a 50mm). You'd need a reverse mount adapter which may or may not be able to transmit electronic control/feedback to the camera, but it's one more way of getting macro results.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert_thommes1 Posted February 23, 2010 Author Share Posted February 23, 2010 <p>So it appears that a prime lens is more important for good macro results. What kind of working distance(front of lens to subject)can one expect with a reversed 50mm lens?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alan_bryant1 Posted February 24, 2010 Share Posted February 24, 2010 <p>Based on my experience, there's very little working distance with a reversed lens - maybe a couple inches. Basically you're putting the subject where the film plane normally is, and the film plane where the subject normally is. Reversing a lens is generally used for very high magnification, greater than 1x. It's fun to do and the equipment is not very expensive. But it takes a ton of light to get a picture, and the depth of field is almost zero.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sbp Posted February 24, 2010 Share Posted February 24, 2010 <p>If you want to try reversing a lens, Novoflex makes adapters that maintain all electronic functions of the lens. I have not used this item, but their other products are very well made. <br> Look here... http://www.novoflex.com/en/products/macro-accessories/reverse-adapter-eos-retro/</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quinny Posted February 24, 2010 Share Posted February 24, 2010 <p>Buy a set of cheap extension tubes from 'the bay'. I've got a set with the electrical contacts connected (for autofocus and aperture control).</p> <p>With the 50mm f1.8, you'll get about 1.3:1 magnification (with 65mm of tubes between the lens and the body).</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_hitchen Posted February 24, 2010 Share Posted February 24, 2010 <p>The Vivitar is highly regarded for macro but they are as rare as hens teeth.<br> The two cheap options are extension tubes or a dioptre lens. The magnifying of an extension tube is related to the ratio of the physical lengh of the to the tube length so they have a greater effect on shorter lenses. The problem with them is that because of the inverse square law, the image is darker so you need more light.<br> Dioptres are much smaller to carry than extensino tubes and have no light loss, but you are putting another air-glass inteface in the path of the light so can degrade the image - cheap dioptres can cause signifcant loss of quality. Also distortion can be an issue which it is why it is better to go for 2-element dioptres like the Canon 250D/500D.<br> I have not used extension tubes and bought the 500D (for my 70-300mm) to see if I would get interested in macro but have so far only taken a few test snaps with little real intent. Good fun though!</p> <p>Which lens would offer the best macro quality? Optically, I think it would be the 50mm f1.8 but the payoff is that you need to get closer to the subject than if using the 70-300 and this can affect the amount of light to illuminate the subject.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teresa_atkinson Posted February 24, 2010 Share Posted February 24, 2010 <p>Your 50mm f/1.8 (or other prime lens) would probably offer the best results with extension tubes, although ALL of your lenses would work with the tubes. If any of your tubes are EF-S mount, Kenko makes tubes that work with those as well (Ask before buying if the tubes being sold are the ones that also support EF-S mount. They ARE available. I have them.). I have found that autofocus works okay sometimes with the Kenko tubes, although sometimes manual focus is best.<br /><br />Search Flickr for Extension tubes or Kenko and you'll see an amazing array of pictures with them. I have a few Kenko tube/50 mm f/1.8 shots on Flickr as well, but I was manually focusing so they're soft. I've found I need autofocus because my eyesight is terrible. People have done far better shots with the tubes than I ever have.<br /><br />The nice thing about tubes is if you later get a macro lens, you can use the tubes with it to get even CLOSER. The especially close photos in my Flickr primrose set were taken with a macro lens and Kenko tubes -- and autofocus at times: <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/41766223@N00/sets/72157623356355455/">http://www.flickr.com/photos/41766223@N00/sets/72157623356355455/</a><br /><br />Teleconverters along with extension tubes also add additional magnification to macro shots..<br /><br />If you want to see how a reverse mounted 50mm f/1.8 will work, take off its caps, turn it around and look through the part that's usually facing out from the camera, and point the end that usually attaches to your camera toward the computer (or some other bright thing). Move the lens in and out until you see an image that is in focus. You'll need to get VERY close to focus, so I don't think it's the greatest option if you want to shoot bugs. And unless that Novoflex reverse mounter really allows electronics to work, everything, including aperture will be manual....which is a pain because with the Canon 50mm Mark II, you have to mount the lens to chang the aperture, then unmount and reverse it to shoot the macro.<br /><br />I've heard diopters like the Canon D500 diopter work well too, but I haven't tried them. The best option there is to get one with a filter size matching the largest lens you'd like to use it on, then use step rings to size it down to your other lenses.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teresa_atkinson Posted February 24, 2010 Share Posted February 24, 2010 <p>BTW, I searched for the Novoflex reverse ring adapter that passes the electronic controls. At that price, you should opt for a macro lens instead! ;-).<br />The Novoflex non-electronic reversing rings are also overpriced. Fotodiox sells a perfectly acceptable reversing ring thru Amazon for a much lower price</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_morton1 Posted February 26, 2010 Share Posted February 26, 2010 <blockquote> <p>"BTW, I searched for the Novoflex reverse ring adapter that passes the electronic controls. At that price, you should opt for a macro lens instead! ;-).<br /> The Novoflex non-electronic reversing rings are also overpriced. Fotodiox sells a perfectly acceptable reversing ring thru Amazon for a much lower price"</p> </blockquote> <p>I started using a simple reverse ring on my 35mm Minolta XG1 in the early '80s. They work just fine. If you use an older manual aperture lens, you have full aperture control. Otherwise, you're wide open, which is fine too.<br> I was wondering how you could get a reverse ring to communicate electronically with the camera. Now I guess I know. It works about as I expected, only more simply constructed.<br> The cheap Chinese reverse ring a friend got for me off of Ebay works just fine on my Rebel Xt. I've also used a cheap set of non-automatic extension tubes, both by themselves and in combination with the reverse ring. I'm quite happy with the results.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now