Macro Photography

[hebert1]

I've been taking pictures for a long time now.

We moved from TX. to Oklahoma about a year ago. my wife and her daughter started 3 gardens around the house.

1 bulb garden, 1 Rose garden and 1 mixed flower garden.

I've been kind of slacking off taking pictures since we moved to OK. Gettin old I guess.

All of a sudden I realised I had all these beautiful flowers to work with.

I think I would love to try getting into Macro photography. I have been reading about it in the photo Mags. ie Popular

Photography and Outdoor Photography. But I get a little confused with all that.

Now that that's said.

 

What I have in the way of Photo equipment is as follows.

Sony A100 digital camera.

Sony 18 - 70, 3.5 - 5.6 (came with the A100)

Minolta Maxxum 5 (35mm) and I even have my Minolta X700.

Minolta 24mm, 2.8

Minolta 50mm, 1.4

Minolta 100mm 2.8 macro

Tamron 28 - 200 3.8 - 5.6

Tamron 70 - 300 4.0 - 5.6

 

My Question is..........What lens do I use to get the beautiful macro Pics, and

do I need something other than what I have? Should I ditch some that I do have?

 

That's about it.

 

Respectfully

H.A. Morrison

hamorrison@gmail.com

[randall ellis]

Depending on how close you want to get, your macro lens should do fine, at least until you work with it enough to figure out what you would like to do that it won't do for you. Then you can look into getting something that will do that. Extension tubes allow you to get really close, but they are only available for certain of your cameras, at least that I'm aware of. You can also get reversing rings, close up 'filters' and other things that allow you to get even closer, but for now, try to learn how to use what you have and then come back and ask us about how to do whatever you find you can't already do. Macro can be very rewarding with any camera, so have fun! Oh, and congratulations on finding interest in something right in your own yard!

 

- Randy

[shots worth sharing]

I don't know your gear at all but the Minolta 100mm 2.8 macro sounds like the place to start.

[JDMvW]

Technically, true macro means going down to 1:1 (image on sensor/film is the same size as the real world object). However, there is a whole world more properly called "close-up" photography, that is in the range often misleadingly marked "macro" on zoom lenses, for example. For flowers, unless you are going really teeny, that sort of close-focus lens will suffice and you don't need to invest in a true macro.

[Tom Wiggins Photography]

The lens you have should be a good starting point. I suggest that you read http://www.photo.net/learn/macro/ it does a great job of discussing many of techniques needed to get a good picture.

[papasan]

you may want to look into extension rings too they are not very expensive and they can bring a whole new world of macro subjects to your attention.

[inspiration point studio]

I have a short blog that talks about various flower photography techniques. It talks about lens selection also. Hope that helps.

 

http://www.inspirationpointstudio.com/IPS/Gallery/636461A8-6F93-4B69-97C4-8CFF67BDB37C.html

[joseph_wisniewski]

First, although there is plenty of good, free advice here, I would recommend the book "Closeups in Nature" by John Shaw. You will learn loads about equipment, lighting, and composition of macros. Lighting is the key to this. That, and stabilizing camera and subject.

 

That 100mm macro is the lens you want to start with. Ignore the rest of the lenses for the time being. I take it that it's an AF lens, purchased with the X5. (if memory serves, the MD version for X700 was a 100mm f4, the f2.8 was only AF). It should work fine on the A100. All the snotty, nasty things Minolta did with 3i should have settled out by that time, so you should be fine on

 

That lens will let you take closeups of flowers at any magnification up to 1:1. At 1:1, a 1 inch (25mm) flower will fill the frame on film, a 5/8 inch (16mm) flower fills the frame on digital. You need a good tripod, and a cable release, if you don't currently have one. Master the 100mm macro, and you can do anything.

 

100mm is a wonderful length for flowers. It excludes more background than a 50mm or 60mm macro, so "ugly" backgrounds are easier to control. And the 100mm gives you more room for lighting than a 50mm or 60mm.

 

When you want to go past 1:1 up to about 2x (1/2 inch or 12mm flower fills the frame on film, 5/16 inch or 6mm flower fills it on digital) It works on Minolta Alpha mount extension tubes, and Kenko makes lovely ones. If you feel a need to get really crazy and go after flowers smaller than 1/2 inch (12mm) reversing the 24mm in front of the 100mm can get you 4x magnification. That's an awful lot for a beginner...

[hakon_soreide]

It is great fun taking close-ups of flowers. I use a 70-200mm lens on my Canon 5D, which gets to about 1:5 magnification. Sometimes I wish I could get even closer, but for the most part, that is enough. I will get some close-up filters some day soon, though to get a bit closer. I don't think I'll need a dedicated macro lens. <p>

<p>

<b><font color="red">[urls in signature removed. Violation of Photo.net policy]</font></b>

[sandysocks]

You have it covered lens-wise. Also check out gardening magazines where most of the images are created with wide angle and telephoto lenses, but very few macros. A wide angle gets you a lot of flowers in the frame where there is not much space. A wide angle is good for lying on your back under flowers and shooting upwards to the sky. Lots of flowers look nice with a blue background. A tele allows you to isolate a flower or two from a distracting background if you use f2.8 or 4.0. Use all of your equipment for good coverage. About the only thing you are missing, and this is minor, is a long macro of 180-200mm which is good for butterflies, hummingbirds, and other small wildlife that may wander into your beds. Most of the garden shots in my portfolio are from my macro lenses because I really like rain, frost, and snow, but as my garden is maturing, I am using macro less.