macro lens or no for flowers...?

<p>Hi, <br>

For really close work, called macro, you need a macro lens. <br>

What about the close up work which doesn't require you to 1:1...like flowers lets say...<br>

Is it better to have macro lens for that, or is it actually better that you don't shoot flowers with a macro lens...?<br>

So lets say, a 60mm macro vs. a 85 or 50...<br>

what's your take?<br>

regards,</p>

 

<p>I will almost always use my macro to shoot flowers. It is sharp, the focal length is usually appropriate (working distance is usually more important than perspective in this case), and I often also shoot a close-up detail of the flower (can use the same lens).</p>

<p>Reasons not to use a macro: you don't have it with you, you are working in close quarters and need a shorter focal length, you want to shoot a very limited DOF shot at an aperture smaller than your macro has.</p>

<p>It really depends on the size of the flower. Inexpensive extension tubes used with a decent lens or a lens that has close focus abilities can often get the job done nicely as well. </p>

<p>I`d shoot flowers with a macro lens, mine is a 55mm. I tend to think that macro lenses are better for close-ups than for 1:1.<br>

And they let you to shoot without distance limitations.</p>

I use some pretty low techno stuff but it all works great. My go-to is an 85mm f1.8 AF (old version) with either 5T or 6T

Nikon Diopter. My next choice is an old Tamron SP 28-85 that focuses quite close at 85mm by itself and is very sharp.

After that I use a 180mm f2.8 AF-D ED-IF which I really like to isolate groupings of flowers. On the Hasselblads I use an

assortment of extension tubes.

I use some pretty low techno stuff but it all works great. My go-to is an 85mm f1.8 AF (old version) with either 5T or 6T

Nikon Diopter. My next choice is an old Tamron SP 28-85 that focuses quite close at 85mm by itself and is very sharp.

After that I use a 180mm f2.8 AF-D ED-IF which I really like to isolate groupings of flowers. On the Hasselblads I use an

assortment of extension tubes.

 

 

iPads and Photo.net, perfect together....

<p>I would get a Canon 500D macro adapter for your longest lens, or its Marumi equivalent (ebay.) This gives you very good quality at a low price. Also, a tripod starts becomming very important for macro shots.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>There's no question that true macro lenses can be used to good effect in flower photography. Not least is the ability to get in really close details of those "pistil-packing mamas". But single focal length can be limiting too.</p>

<p>If you like to work all the way from the whole flower bed to the individual bloom, then a zoom lens does work for that kind of shooting. The ones that have a "macro" label on them are not real macros, but 1:1 is not necessary all, or even most, of the time either.</p>

<p>Macro lenses are designed for close focusing. When you are close to your subjects, even not at 1:1, potentially you can get better results using dedicated macro lenses. For example, my 24-120mm/f4 AF-S VR can focus quite close also. I have used it a number of times as an "emergency" macro lens, but it is not difficult to tell the images aparat compared to ones captured with my 105mm/f2.8 macro Nikkor.</p>

<p>Dave, what do you put on the 180 to make it a Macro lens?</p>

<p>Anurag, I like to use a 200mm macro or 300mm with extension tubes to isolate the subject and blur the back ground. That is just my preference. I seldom use my 60mm and use my 105 primarily underwater. Good hunting. Andy</p>

<p>I have an old and very cheap 55mm micro f3.5. I have to make all my exposure decisions with no metering and no AF when I use it, but for flowers, that's perfect. It only goes to 1:2, but that's fine for flowers, too.</p>

<p>I can do that with other lenses, but it doesn't come out as good. Get a micro!</p><div></div>

<p>Macro lens. I tried the alternatives, and settled on the macro lens for convenience.</p>

<p>The macro lens will focus all the way from infinity to much closer than you need. With other alternatives (e.g. an aux closeup lens) the focusing range was much too limited. Who wants to be changing closeup lenses?</p>

<p>Here's one I took just before to demonstrate 85mm f1.8AF (1990) with 6T dual element diopter.<br /> Nikon D5100, ISO 125, 1/500, f5.6, JPEG-LF at low angle hand held, btw what I like the tilt screen and LV for sometimes.<br /> And in answer to 180mm question, I don't use anything, I just use it to shoot clusters or separate bigger flowers and eliminate background, it focuses to a bit less than 5 ft</p><div></div>

<p>shun is right, it's kind of all about the close-focusing distance. very few non-macro lenses will let you get closer than 1:3 without an adapter. but for flower shots and the like that don't need to be 1:1, i would say that a 70-300 VR (or the tamron equiv.) would be a good all-purpose outdoors lens which should work for casual semi-macros. for one thing, you get stabilization, which helps in handholding with still subjects. you also get pretty decent compression at longer focal lengths, which aids subject isolation, provided you place some distance between the main subject and the background. the downside to those lenses is their slow aperture, which makes them best in good light if you're gonna handhold. of course, the closer you get to 1:1, the likelier it is you're gonna need to stop down anyway.</p>

<p>another good all-purpose zoom with a good close-focus is the nikon 28-105, which has a switch that lets you get to 1:2. they're pretty inexpensive used.</p>

<p>i dont shoot macro much, but i own two macro lenses: the tokina 35 and the tokina 100. the 35 is the sharpest "normal" DX i've tried, including the sigma 30/1.4 and the nikon 35/1.8. it focuses closer than any other lens i own as well. if you dont mind 2.8, it works well as a walkaround prime lens as well. the tokina 100 is also super sharp and can double as a portrait lens (on FX), although it may be "too sharp" for some portrait subjects. that's a good lens for highlighting an eye during a model shoot, etc.</p>

 

<p>Depends on your definition of close-up, I use a 105 micro for flowers & smaller stationary subjects. But as Eric wrote, 70-300 is very useful too. I use mine as is or with a +1 close-up lens for bugs & butterflys. And all by itself it makes a dandy lens for close-ups of rattlesnakes from a safe distance.</p>

<p>Thanks so much guys...</p>

<p>> So lets say, a 60mm macro vs. a 85 or 50...<br>

Mind the focal length (perspective). Determines how much background you get. There is the Depth of Field; in addition, longer FLs make more relative background blur. <br>

Image quality differences are subtle... there are the standard measurable things such resolution, contrast, distortion, lateral/axial CA, vignetting. What usually matters most is bokeh ie the visual quality of the out-of-focus part of the image, because you tend to have lots of this close up as DoF gets scarce. </p>

<p>But don`t think that a longer lens will provide a shallower DoF; this is a common mistake. A longer lens will give you a shallower viewing angle, so you will get an "smaller background area" if compared to a shorter lens. That background subjects will be shown at a higher magnification, hence with a more "blurred look". DoF will be more or less the same.</p>