Options for macro

[david_hedley]

I've had a 5D with the 24-105mm lens for a while now, initially to supplement my large format work, but I'm interested

in getting more out of a versatile and powerful workhorse. To start with, I'd like to do some macro work, and would

like guidance on the options I think I have.

 

First, would a 25mm extension tube work well with the 24-105 zoom? (If possible, I'd like to avoid getting another

lens as I have far too many already, and one of the nice things about the 5D is the way in which the 24-105mm zoom

handles most of what I need). If the extension tube/zoom lens combination works, what maximum magnification

could I achieve?

 

If that's not a viable option, what are the main differences in the field between the 100 and 180 macro lenses? (I'd

incline towards the 180 as it would complement the 24-105, but would either of these lenses do a much better job

than a simple extension tube?)

 

Thanks

[joseph_martines]

Just buy the 180 mm and get it over with.

[zml]

The effect of extension tubes is described in your lens manual. A better option IMO is a macro lens (you'll get 1:1 reproduction for one.) Both Canon EF macro lenses (100 and 180) are excellent, but keep in mind that at close focusing distances these lenses effectively "lose" some focal length: the EF 100 macro behaves like a 70-75 mm lens (and the 180 like a 120-130 mm lens) making the latter a much better choice for a full frame camera.

[JohnMWright]

25mm extension gives you about 1/4 life-size at 105mm. Having an extension tube is never a bad option, but less convenient than a true macro lens. It is a good cheap way to get started.

 

Another good option is a Canon 500d or 250d closeup lens. It acts like a filter, screwing into the front of your lens, which I find more convenient than taking off a lens to add extension. The lenses are two-element designs and very high quality, although you will lose a little sharpness by adding more glass to a lens. They are designed to work at longer focal lengths so you'd probably want to keep it near 105mm.

 

The biggest difference between the 100mm and 180mm macros is the working distance. Depending on the subject, having more distance may be very useful. The farther back you are, the less likely you are to spook small animals for instance.

 

The 100mm is lighter and smaller, the 180mm comes with a tripod collar making verticals much easier.

 

I have the 100mm and it is great, but I often would like the extra working distance of the 180mm. I don't think you'll go wrong either way.

[tom l]

I like my 3 tube set so far quite well. If your not dedicated to macro work, this is a versatile solution that will work with many lenses.

 

A similar discussion here: http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00Piwj

It includes an image I shot with extension tubes.

[mark u]

I wouldn't start with a 180mm macro, even with a full frame camera. I don't think tubes on your zoom are the way to go either. The choice of focal length for a macro lens is firstly a question of suitable working distance and secondly about subject isolation from the background due to angle of view - though this is often not an issue if the background is going to be out of focus anyway. It's important to understand that focal length has no influence on depth of field with macro work - that is controlled by magnification and effective aperture.

 

There are many fine macro lenses currently available - many of them from third parties, and you are unlikely to be disappointed with any of them. Read the reviews here:

 

http://www.nnplus.de/macro/Macro100E.html

[JDMvW]

"Officially" true macro is the ability to focus down to where the image on the sensor plane is the same size as the real-world object (known as 1:1). If you don't need that great a magnification you can get by with some of the lenses that are more properly described as "close-focus" though they are sometimes labeled "macro" on the lens barrel.

 

True macro lenses are, at their best, distinguished by high resolution, flatness of field, rectilinearity, and good corner to corner sharpness, among other less critical attributes. Even the best zoom lenses are going to have problems keeping up with ordinary prime lenses in these criteria, much less with real macro lenses. Extension tubes will help get closer focus, but they will not change the basic contradictions between what a zoom lens is meant to do and what a macro lens is designed to do.

 

The main advantage of the longer macro over the shorter focal length macro is that the former allows a greater working distance from the front lens element to the subject. If your subjects are dead or immobile, this is not usually a problem, although lighting is always simplified by having more room between lens and subject, of course.

[JohnMWright]

"It's important to understand that focal length has no influence on depth of field with macro work - that is controlled by magnification and effective aperture."

 

That is always true, regardless of subject.

[j_smith6]

What kind of pictures would you like to take? Flowers/insects? 1:1 might be not enough for you (especially on full

frame camera). If you're not going to take pictures of flowers etc. even 100/2.8 macro USM makes no sense because

it goes only to 1:1. It makes is a macro lens but 1:1 magnification might not be enough. First you have to decide

what is going to be your main subject.

[andre_reinders]

I have a buddy who first got the Canon 100mm Macro, then also got the 180mm - while he 'says' he uses them both - I

think he really prefers the 180mm. It certainly has a nice ability to give smooth bokeh, and a focal length to allow you to

pick your background.

 

I also became interested in Macro - but did not want to spend the $ on another new lens. My solution (for my 20D) was

to get a Micro-Nikkor n/ai 55mm f3.5 lens (older Manual NIkon macro lens) and a Nikon to Canon adaptor off e-bay (from

KAWA). Shipped - it came in at a little over $100. With my cropped sensor, I got an 88mm Macro that goes to 1/2 life

size (which I find adequate for most things). While you have the 5D you would still be at 55mm - but as much macro

work is performed in manual mode anyway, it is worth considering getting a manual macro lens and adaptor for EOS.

Although a bit more expensive, the Micro-Nikkor 105mm f2.8 Manual focus has a great reputation.

[mark u]

The maximum magnification of the 24-105 is 0.23 on its own, or up to 0.6 with an EF 25 tube - which can only be used at 105mm: just one of the indications that this lens isn't calculated with macro work in mind.

 

http://www.canon-europe.com/For_Home/Product_Finder/Cameras/EF_Lenses/Image_Stabilization_Lenses/EF_24-105mm_f4_L_IS_USM/index.asp?specs=1

 

If you are using a 180mm macro to cover magnifications higher than say 0.2 you could find that working distance is inconveniently long at the lower magnifications (and perhaps even at the higher ones), depending on the subject. That is one reason why shorter focal length macros are offered: 50mm works well for copystand work, for example. Another reason for considering a shorter focal length is that should you wish to use high than life size magnification, you will get there more easily with extension tubes. A useful compromise for a first macro lens on a full frame body is 90-105mm. This has the added advantage that it can double as a reasonably fast portrait lens.

[geoff_foale]

If you had a substantial zoom or prime, say 200/300 mm then I would say extension tubes would be worth considering. But with your lens, you aren't going to make that much difference and for the price of a 25mm tube you would be well on the way to a 'real' macro lens. Unless you go for one of the top price lenses, in which case you will be getting greatly improved quality.

 

It seems that your choice of new lens will depend on how close you can get to the subject and the depth of your pocket.

[mark u]

John Wright's assertion is incorrect: see the actual math here:

 

http://www.vanwalree.com/optics/dofderivation.html#eq11

 

Focal length only becomes irrelevant when the subject distance is significantly shorter than the hyperfocal distance. However, it is a common mistake to assume that focal length affects DoF for macro work. Of course, we are not considering tilts which complicate the calculations considerably without really changing the underlying fundamentals.

[JDMvW]

I got my daughter the 105mm Micro-Nikkor f/4 (NOT to be confused with the all time classic 105mm f/2.5 portrait lens). The Micro-Nikkor which goes 1:2, does need an extension tube to go to 1:1, but any Nikon mount ring can be used. She uses it with a Nikon>EOS adapter. The manual focus and stop down are not really a problem in macro work.

 

Non-AI Nikkor lenses are relatively inexpensive and many of them are good candidates for special uses on Canon EOS (or FD, for that matter) bodies with inexpensive adapters.

[zml]

<i>focal length and DOF</i><br>

In the practice of photography, with subject-to-film-plane distance greater than (say...) 10-50x the focal length (i.e. "at normal shooting distances"), including the focal length in the near/far DOF equation changes the result by a negligible value, if at all, a few millimeters at most in practice. Therefore it can be safely stated that focal length has no influence on DOF at normal shooting distances.

[lester_wareham]

A lot has been said so I will not add too much. The focal length trade off is one of handhold’ ability and weight vs reach.

 

What is best depends on what you will shoot.

 

Strangely for insects people assume you want reach, but in fact one wants to work handheld most of the time because mobility is paramount – the exception being working in the early morning when the insects are torpid due to the chill.

 

Conversely, for flowers longer lenses are desirable to minimise the size of the backdrop due to the compressed perspective.

 

An exception to both rules are relatively large but nervous insects such as dragonflies, damselflies and many butterflies, here a longer lens is often desirable.

 

The upshot is many longer lens close-up applications only require quite modest magnifications of 0.3 to 0.5X which can be achieved with a standard 200 or 300mm telephoto lens and perhaps a tube – good examples are the 200/2.8 and 300/4 IS.

 

For true macro use the 100mm macro is the best compromise IMHO.

 

For the smaller insects many use the excellent MP-E 65mm but this is a specialist macro lens that in any event requires an ordinary macro like the 100mm anyway and the MP-E’s minimum magnification is 1X.

 

See http://www.zen20934.zen.co.uk/photography/Macro_Equipment.htm for more on Canon macro kit.

 

The 24-105 can give quite good results with tubes but is not as good as a real macro lens, some test results here http://www.zen20934.zen.co.uk/photography/LensTests/Macro/index.htm

[josylvestre]

"focal length and DOF

In the practice of photography, with subject-to-film-plane distance greater than (say...) 10-50x the focal length (i.e. "at

normal shooting distances"), including the focal length in the near/far DOF equation changes the result by a

negligible value, if at all, a few millimeters at most in practice. Therefore it can be safely stated that focal length has

no influence on DOF at normal shooting distances."

 

A few millimeters is not negligible when your subject are few millimeter deep and your DOF is not more.

 

Correct me if Im wrong : If I have a Canon EF100 and a 180 mm, for a same magnification I will have a greater DOF

with the 100 mm ?

 

David : I use a Canon EF100 mm with my 40D body (and before) and I can tell you this is a wonderfull lens. If you

want to do macro photo, you will not go wrong with this lens. The 180 mm give you more working distance (and the

magnification will decrease slower as your focusing distance increase than the 100 mm) but it is expensive and

heavier and its is hader to get enough DOF with small subject (need to be confirmed).

[zml]

<i>Correct me if Im wrong : If I have a Canon EF100 and a 180 mm, for a same magnification I will have a greater

DOF with the 100 mm ? </i><br>At normal shooting distances the difference in DOF will be tiny (millimeter or a

fraction thereof )

between the 100 and 180 mm lens all else (magnification, f/stop, etc.) being equal. There will be differences in near-

far

object size relationships, though.

[geoffm]

"Correct me if Im wrong : If I have a Canon EF100 and a 180 mm, for a same magnification I will have a greater DOF with the 100 mm ? "

 

I have always understood that DOF was fundamentally independent of focal length. That is, for the same field of view (which I guess means the same image/same magnification) at the same aperture, the DOF will be the same regardless of focal length.

[lester_wareham]

"Correct me if Im wrong : If I have a Canon EF100 and a 180 mm, for a same magnification I will have a greater DOF with the 100 mm ? "

 

At the same magnification and effective aperture.

 

Effective aperture and DOF are both affected by lens pupilary magnification P and linear image magnification M.

 

Lens pupilary magnification is easily eyeballed using a ruler to guage the entry exit pupil size and is a measure of the lens focal length asymitery; or equivalently the degree of telephoto and retrofocus used.

 

More at http://www.zen20934.zen.co.uk/photography/dof/dof.htm#DoF_with_Macro_Photography

[jamie bushley]

I'd suggest getting the three extension tube set from kenko first. It's super inexpensive and it can be used on

all of your lenses. You can stack all three tubes to get more extension. 25mm isn't all that much extention so

you might not be able to get as close as you'd like. I have two sets of the kenko tubes and use them both

together (136mm of extension) with my 100mm macro to get super close up photos.Using lots of extension causes

there to be very little depth of field, but it is ok for nearly flat subjects. You can get some interesting

photos with wide angles and extension tubes, but the plane of focus will meet the front of the lens quite quickly

as you add extension.

 

Since there are no optics inside there is no real reason to go with the canon tubes, besides perhaps build

quality, but the kenko's are also very well built. The kenkos also work flawlessly with the cameras electronics,

lenses apertures and ETTL flash control.

 

What JDM said about true macro lenses are the benefits of using a real macro lens. Using the tubes on your zoom

won't give nearly as good image quality as a true macro lens, but it will give you a feel for macro photography.

Extension tubes are often used with macro lenses. So, if you get the tubes first you can always get the real

macro lenses later and you'll be happy you have the tubes when you take the plunge!

 

If you decide you like macro photography I'd definitely recommend the 100mm USM Macro. It's an awesome lens! I've

never used the 180mm, but I do find I'd like the extra distance (from the lens to the subject) for some

situations (hummingbirds) so I may have to add that to my arsenal soon!

[rafikrkamel]

Get a raynox macro adapter for $40 only! All the macros in my portfolio are taken with it, it gives even more than 1:1 depending on the focal length of your lens.

 

Regards,

[JohnMWright]

On page 53 in "The Nature Photographer's Complete Guide to Professional Field Techniques", John Shaw states:

 

"Regardless of the focal length used, photographs taken at the same image size and at the same f-stop will have the same depth of field."

[rafikrkamel]

Well John, i ll assume that you are addressing that response to me. Well, i havent read that book or any books related to photography, but i have taken macro shots with my adapter (and i humbly think that are good); and the more you zoom in the more magnification increases. MY suggestion i beleive is the cheapest by far, and the difference in quality (assuming you have a decent technique) is not that mind blowing).

 

Regards,

[JohnMWright]

Rafik,

 

No, that wasn't aimed at you. There was a question of focal length determining DOF.

 

You are right. If you stay in one location, then the more you zoom in, the more magnification increases.

 

What Shaw is saying in his book is... if you use a (for example) 50mm and a 100mm lens on the same subject, and move the camera between shots with each lens so that the main subject in each image has the same magnification, then the depth of field at a given f-stop is the same.

 

I assume the raynox macro adapter is an extension tube? Yes they are cheap and a good way to get started in macro, though I find zooms + extension awkward. I found it easier to use extension on primes. In general, my 500D is, I think, much easier to use, though it was close to $200 as I recall, and the quality is still quite high. One of the benefits of the closeup lenses is that with zooms you don't need to refocus and move the camera around as you zoom, at least in theory. I do find I need to refocus some when I zoom in general with my Canons. That didn't seem to be the case with my older manual Minoltas.