Macro option - advice needed

[raymond_black]

I am using 5D with 24-105 and 70-200 f2.8 IS. Sometimes I find some flowers beautiful and like to

take a closer shot occasionally (must just a few times a year). However, I have no macro lens.

Just like to hear any advice for macro option :

 

- 70-200 + 500D close up lens. What is the magnification value ? Is the quality good ? Any one

has sample photos ?

 

- 24-105 + extension tube. Is that workable ? What is the magnification value ? Is the quality

good ? Any one has sample photos ?

 

- 180mm L macro. I think quality should be good but I wonder it worths to buy a lens and use a

infrequently ...

 

I exclude 100mm macro b/c I don't want to carry another lens after 24-105 and 70-200 :) If I have

to carry, I would carry 180 instead :)

[zml]

180 macro is big and heavy and requires a tripod for pretty much 100% of macro shots. 100/2.8 is a great lens, light, sharp and contrasty. OTOH if you do macro infrequently, why not get a set of extension tubes (25 and 12 mm ) which will give you closer focus with the 70-200. See your lens manual for specifics. There are also other options, such as a cheap screw-mount macro lens w/adapter, reverse mounting a lens and such.

[steve torelli]

Michael is right on it with his recommendation of extension tubes. A 25mm tube works very well on my 70-200, like you, I don't need a 1:1 macro, I just like to get closer for flower pics. The tube gets you pretty close for flowers and butterflies and such, close enough to fill up the frame most of the time. After a couple of macro lenses, actually more than a couple including the 180 L, I realized I didn't need them for what I do. I use the Kenko tubes as they're cheaper than Canon and do exactly the same thing. Even if you go with a dedicated macro lens later, a 25mm tube, your 24-105 will only take a 12mm, is a cheap way to find out if you really need a lens for your macro work or not. Good luck.

[dave92029]

Funny that you should mention the 24-105mm f4 IS and the 70-200mm f2.8 IS because they are my two favorite lens. I have used the 70-200mm to shoot an orchids exhibit at the SD Wild Animal Park and the shots were very nice, But... I just felt that with a dedicated Macro they could have been just a little better LOL.

I also did not want an other lens to carry around but recently my desire to really shot marcro has gotten the better of me and I bought a 100mm f2.8 Marcro. Here is a review of what I selected:

http://shutterbug.com/equipmentreviews/lenses/0106tokina/

[lester_wareham]

A macro lens is really much more convenient. The 100mm macro is a great lens and can be managed handheld in good light, but for flowers I would recommend a tripod. The 180mm may also be a good option, I often use a 200/2.8 with tubes for flowers to get the perspective (to reduce the background area in the image).

 

For occasional use I would suggest tubes rather than diopter lenses unless using very long focal lengths.

 

Very roughly the magnification you will get is as below:

 

Tubes: M=E/F, where E is the tube length and F is the lens focal length.

 

Diopter Lens (closeup filters) : M=F/Fa, where Fa is the diopter lens focal length, Fa=1000/D mm where D is the power of the closeup filter in Diopters.

 

A lot of background on macro kit here http://www.zen20934.zen.co.uk/photography/Macro_Equipment.htm

[tom l]

I just went through the same kind of thought process. I have an 85mm 1.8 prime and just couldn't justify another similar length prime 100mm for macro. I had some closeup filters (old, 3rd party) and gave them a try and was very disappointed - a lot of chromatic aberration. I went to my local camera store and tested the 100mm macro (for setting the bar of expectations) and a set of extension tubes (3 tubes marketed with promaster label) mounted with my 85mm. Both the 100mm and the tubes were far superior to the closeup filters. The IQ with the tubes & 85 was very comparable with the 100mm macro. Maybe not as close, but only just a little (I had all 3 tubes stacked together) but really very good results. So I went for the tubes - much lower cost and can be used with my other lenses.<div></div>

[sandra_weber]

Wow, Tom, great flower shot with your 3 tube set. I wanted to do some macro shots. I couldn't spring for a macro lens (saving for that) but did buy the Canon close-up lens. I use it with my 70-200 f4 IS. It screws onto the front of the 70-200. It does a pretty decent job. I still want a macro, but in the mean time I get pretty clear, closeup shots without having to be on top of the flower or whatever I am trying to shoot.

[khealey]

I love taking pictures of flowers and have the same problem, being new to photography I have a limited camera system. I went to a camera shop and told them what I wanted to do and what would be the next lens I should think about purchasing. They recommended the Macro 100/2.8, same as others have suggested.

[ronald_biggar]

I love the Canon 50 2.5 macro. It is perfect for flowers.

[tdigi]

The Tamron 28-75 2.8 does a pretty good job for close ups with the flexibility of a

zoom. I have the 100 macro and it blows the tamron away as far as getting close but

for fun the Tamron does a decent job.<div></div>

[alan_myers]

On a full frame camera like your 5D, get a 90 to 105mm macro lens for the most convenience. Canon's is excellent, but so are Sigma, Tokina and Tamron.

 

Forget the 500D on your zoom. There's noticeable loss of image quality with it.

 

The Kenko set of extension tubes is a good value (about $160 for 12mm, 20mm & 36mm tubes, which give you seven possible configurations) and will work well with your 70-200, as well as many other lenses. Canon's extension tubes are fine, too, but more expensive and only available individually (25mm and 12mm). There are also individual Kenko extension tubes (12mm, 25mm).

 

The 180mm is a fine lens and has kept me out of striking range of snakes, from being stung by wasps, etc. Not as useful on crop sensor cameras (where it's too long a focal length) as it is on full frame like your 5D. However, it is also more of a dedicated macro lens. It doesn't serve particularly well as a non-macro tele. AF is slower, even using the limiter switch properly. the 100mm is much more dual purpose, due to faster AF response and more hand holdability.

 

In my Canon kit I have and use both the 100 and 180, and the Kenko tube set, and several of the Canon tubes. The 100 and some of the tubes are practically always with me when I'm out shooting. There's a "like new" 77mm 500D sitting gathering dust on my office shelf right now, if anyone wants to buy it.

 

Over the past 20-25 years, I've used a wide range of macro gear in other systems. 50mm lenses I've always found too short for field work, although on crop sensor cameras like I use today a 50-60mm would be much more usable. Macro bellows are great for higher mag, but too big and delicate to use out in the field much, and higher magnification than I usually need (same with the 1X to 5X MP-E 65/2.8). Helicoids are generally useful, sort of an adjustable extension tube, but not available for Canon EF mount. Lens reversing and stacking can work, but not very well with electronically controlled lenses like Canon EF mount.

 

Oh, and avoid the "cheap" extension tube sets you might see on eBay or elsewhere. They are just plain tubes, lacking the electronic connections for AF and aperture control in the lens. Not very useful!