Make it a macro

[tdigi]

I have a 40D and I would like to ad a macro lens but i hear of ways to make a regular lens act as a macro.

What are some ways to do this? I hear of extension tubes etc but how well does it work and how well does

it compare to a regular macro like the 100 2.8.?

[phule]

http://www.photo.net/learn/macro/

[m_barbu1]

The EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM is going to yield better results than altering the properties of non-Macro lenses via extension tubes, reversing, etc. The trade-off is that it's more expensive than the other "work-arounds".

[lester_wareham]

You can use extension tubes very successfully, specially if you have a sharp prime to use them with. Zoom lenses can be used but tend to be less successful or straight forward in use.

 

Tubes work by moving the lens away from the body forcing the focus to be closer giving magnification.

 

Other options are dioptre lenses, this are generally not as useful as extension tubes. These work rather like reading glasses.

 

A regular macro like the 100mm focuses down to life size, because this is an internal focus design the lens does not get any longer. In theory it will give better results because it will be well corrected for close work. This will be most obvious with flatness of field although this is important for document copy work it is not that important for nature work.

 

The real advantage of a macro lens is convenience and ease of working. If you are serious about macro then go for a macro lens, the Canon 100mm is probably the best allround choice.

 

If you are not sure then try extension tubes with a short telephoto lens. These will still be useful if you later get a real macro lens to give more than life size magnification.

 

This page has a lot of macro equipment info http://www.zen20934.zen.co.uk/photography/Macro_Equipment.htm

 

and this page has some comparative tests of macro lenses and ordinary lenses with tubes http://www.zen20934.zen.co.uk/photography/LensTests/Macro/index.htm

[tdigi]

I currently have a 50mm 1.4 so an extension tube seems like a pretty good choice. I am only

casual when it comes to macro and while I hear the 100 2.8 is a great lens I would probably

rather put that money toward a 70 - 200 IS lens which would be more versatile.

[tdigi]

btw great info Lester, thanks. As I read more I realize the 50mm 1.4 is not a really good

choice. I may end up just getting a real macro. Bob Atkins gives the 100 2.8 high marks as

well as many people on here so thats what I will probably end up with.

 

thanks again all

[m_barbu1]

Sounds like you've answered your own question. :)

[tdigi]

haha yea, its probably going to be an expensive year.

[JDMvW]

The Tamron 90mm macro is a little cheaper than the Canons and is optically and quality-wise pretty equivalent to the Canon 100mm (see Photozone.de reviews, for example, and I think Bob Atkins has a review as well)

[ken munn]

JDM beat me to it.

 

The third party 100mm (or so) macro lenses all have a pretty good rep for image quality, and

make sense for non-regular macro use.

[alan_myers]

Hi,

 

The 50/1.4 will work with extension tubes. So will the 70-200 you plan to buy.

 

The 50mm just leaves you a little closer to your subject, which might be an issue if it's something like a butterfly that might startle and fly away, or if it's something that might bite or sting you, or if you cast a shadow over your subject.

 

Non-macro lenses used with extensions just tend to get a little soft in the corners and sometimes vignette a little (light falloff). This can actually be used to good advantage.

 

Another thing is that non-macro lenses often don't have and aren't really optimized for the extra small apertures sometimes used in macro work. Depth of field at macro distances gets shallow, making small apertures more desirable. But, those small apertures force slower shutter speeds, that can make a flash very desirable.

 

I think a set of macro tubes is a great way to dip your toe into trying macro shooting. It's relatively inexpensive, and they can always come in handy for future use, no matter what.

 

I've got several macro lenses, but also have used macro extension tubes for 25 years with various camera systems, on lenses from 20mm to 500mm. Even with macro lenses for even higher magnification.

 

Extension tubes are to be highly recommended, IMHO!

 

If it comes down to getting a set of extension tubes and a flash with an off camera shoe cord, or just a macro lens that costs more, I'd go with the ext tubes and flash. If you enjoy it, you can always add a macro lens later and will still have the benefit of the other items in your kit.

[wilbur_wong]

In regard to the use of extension tubes, my personal experience didn't work too well using them in conjunction with zoom lenses. I believe that this approach will work reasonably well with fixed focal length lenses short of their design limitations.

 

With zoom lenses, most appear to have varying relationships of lens groups as they are zoomed and are specifically designed for the flange distance of the lens from the focal plane. Upsetting the flange distance made my attempt at this very fuzzy at the edges.

 

I had better luck with the Canon close up "filters" which fit on the front of the lens. YMMV. Of course my ultimate would be to pop for a properly designed macro which I would adopt if I did considerable work in this area. My experience was for doing some very casual copying of some old photographs from my parents and was not for critical work and for that purpose was fine.

[tdigi]

Alan when you say macro tubes are you referring to extension tubes? Can I just get 1 to fit all?

 

What about the things you put on the front of the lens to act like a magnifying glass? does those work

pretty well.

 

How much better will this be then my Tamron 28 - 75 which has a macro setting of like 1/3.

 

Thanks, I know very little about this aspect of photography