Flower Photography

[justin_koenigshof]

<p>What does everyone think. Is it recommended that you have a Macro lense to produce good quality flower close-ups? I've searched the flower critique section and nobody seems to like putting their choice of lense when taking the picture shown. <br>

Thanks!<br>

Justin</p>

[tree]

<p>I think you really want a macro lens when taking flower close-ups: the color images in my portfolio were taken with a Nikon 60mm macro: http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=296992<br>

I've also used the Nikon 50mm reverse mount adapter rings with some decent affect, though you really need to have the camera mounted on a focusing rail to get good results (in my experience.) Unfortunately I haven't had an opportunity to scan any of these. I've also used the Nikon magnification diopters on my 50mm lens, though I really prefer the dedicated macro lens.</p>

 

[Christa Binder]

<p>Justin,<br />I dont have a macro lens, but I have a macro lens adapter ( not sure what it is called?) the model is dcr 250 made my raynox, it is about fifty dollars and attaches to your lens. I have had it for about a month and I really like it, of course I have never used a real macro lens to compare it with.<br />Almost all of the images in my flowers folder were taken with a 50mm 1.8,(without the macro adapter), if you would like to look. For the first 3 images in my flowers folder, I used the Raynox adapter.</p>

[Hector Javkin]

<p>The best lens for flower photography is a macro lens with tilt capability, like the PC-E Micro Nikkor 85mm f/2.8, because it provides unequalled control over depth of field, but these are very expensive. I have a cheap Vivitar 100mm f/3.5 macro, which is flimsy but performs well optically. However, one never knows when an opportunity for photography will arise, and a close-up adapter that attaches to the front of a lens likea filter can be very handy. The attached image was shot with an Olympus Zuiko f/1.4 and a close-up adapter while traveling in the UK.</p><div></div>

[john_mallery]

<p>A macro lens is very helpful for flower photography, although<br>

almost any lens will work. Extension tubes and close up filters<br>

let you get close with any lens. Long lens give a nice perspective.<br>

I recommend Nikon's 105 f2.8 VR macro.<br>

<img src="http://homepage.mac.com/jmallery/.Pictures/Grass%20Valley/Silver%20Puffs%20040309.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[tommyinca]

<p>IMO. You do need to start out with lens that has good characteristics like good focus transitions, color fidelity (ie: CA are not good), smooth/round nice looking spectacular highlight (ie: rounded many aperture blades). Sharp close focus. Some macro lens are good at all these and they also speed things up. Some just speed thing up but not necessary the best. If you start with a right lens (ie: Most 50mm stand lens are good at these), you can get to the closer focus distant via achromatic (dual elements) close up lens. <br>

Here is my sample. Voigtlander 70/2.5 SL with Leitze Elpro VIIb (~+6) </p>

<div></div>

[sandor_a._feher]

<p>A combination of regular and macro lens will help.<br>

Attachment taken w. Olympus E500 and 50mm lens.</p>

[sandor_a._feher]

<p>A combination of regular and macro lens will help.<br>

Attachment taken w. Olympus E500 and 50mm lens.</p><div></div>

[kuryan_thomas]

<p>Groupings can be done with a regular telephoto zoom. This was done with a Nikon 80-200 zoom on a D70. But it's open to debate whether this is a close-up or not.</p><div></div>

[cecelia_spitznas]

<p>I like the Nikkor 105mm f/2.8 VR. Its a prime so you have to move around-it does not zoom. And it sometimes searches which I find annoying so I almost always use it in manual for flowers. And it would be nice to have it go to f/64 because flowers are often so deep. But all in all it is one of my favorites for everything. Its just very nice. We use it for alot of other things too because the VR and F mean it does well for indoor events even hand held. In this photo it was on my D300. </p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[lauren_macintosh]

<p>here is an orchid I shot with my 17-85mm EF-S IS canon lens hand held also</p>

[lauren_macintosh]

<p>well here is the foto : I hope</p>

[lauren_macintosh]

<p>three strikes and your out!</p>

[Mary Doo]

<p><< What does everyone think. Is it recommended that you have a Macro lense to produce good quality flower close-ups? >></p>

<p>Nothing is compulsory, however, I would recommend it if you wish to produce the best quality flower and insect close-ups with some consistency.</p>

[bill_stice1]

<p>Justin, you can take excellent macro images with a variety of lenses. I use a 300 F4 lens with an extension tube regularly. I also have three macro lenses but have been known to take flower photos with a 600 mm lens with an extension tube as well. A good way to start is with a good two element close up accessory lens that screws in the filter threads on many lenses. This will allow a non macro lens to focus more closely than it does normally. In my experience good lighting and technique are more important than which lens you use.</p>

[justin_koenigshof]

<p>Thank you all for your opinions. It seems that it wouldn't hurt to have a macro lense in my bag for flower photography. I've been photographing the blooms here in California over the past two months and have been slightly dissapointed with the level of sharpness in some of my photos. I'd really like the petals to 'pop' out of the image and I was curious if a macro lense would help accomplish this. It also seems like some kind of extender might also get me there. When I try to get real close to the flower my focus doesn't quite allow me to get as close as I'd like (I've mainly been using a Sony DT18-70mm 3.5-5.6). I've attached a picture of one such bloom. </p><div></div>

[forestwander]

<p>I use a sigma 28mm f1.8 and it does really well, but I also love to use a 70-300mm quantary.</p>

<p>Even though it is a cheap leans it has a macro mode and takes great pictures standing up.</p>

<p>You just need plenty of light.</p>

<p>Check it out here is one.<br>

ForestWander <a href="http://www.forestwander.com/2009/01/wild-flower-dolly-sods/">Dolly Sods Wildflower</a></p>

[alvinyap]

<p>There's quite a few good suggestions for lenses.<br>

May I recommend a good lighting rig as well? I've only recently got a SB600, and my D200 together with it allows for wireless off shoe work that really gives my images a new look. I currently use a 55mm 2.8 Micro Nikkor + extension tube when I feel like closeups. However, the working distance is very short - perhaps a longer macro lens (100mm range) would help work further and be easier to light. I also use bounce cards (aka white receipts, scraps of paper) to help bounce light around.<br>

I do not use a tripod - I'm not into macro photography, but I would suggest using one, as I use very high shutter speeds + F8 to ensure I get sharp shots - the downside is the main source of lighting will be the flash. Which can get harsh. A tripod would allow for longer exposures to mix in ambient + fill flash. Plus, you can use it to fend off drop bears.<br>

Cheers!<br>

Alvin</p>

[matthew_newton]

<p>I regularly use my Sigma 50mm f/2.8 macro which will go to 1:1 is outstandingly sharp. My 35-70mm f/3.5 Tamron zoom lens will actually go to 1:2.8 with resonable quality (but not as sharp as my Sigma 50/2.8 macro). I also sometimes use my Vivitar Series 1 70-210mm f/3.5 which goes to 1:4 and also my Sigma 24mm f/2.8 which also goes to 1:4. Not exactly macro for any but the 50/2.8, but 1:4 is close enough for a lot of flower pictures, if not exactly closeups of stamen or petals. I've found that macro lenses tend to be sharper then a non-macro lens at the same maginifications. Also how much magnification you need varies wildly. I was taking some pictures of forget-me-nots a couple of weeks ago and even at 1:1 they are pretty small. I really needed about 2:1 or 3:1 to get a really great picture of them (they are about 4-6mm in size), I'd show a picture but they didn't turn out especially well since I didn't have a tripod handy and had to shot handheld (f/4 and 1:1 does not yield enough DOF in this case to make a decent picture). On the other end pictures of things like Daffodils, Orchids and tulips might only need something like 1:3 to 1:5 to make a good picture which a number of close focusing (but not macro) lenses can manage.<br>

Here is one from my Sigma 50/2.8 macro at around 1:1.2 of a Christmas Cactus.</p><div></div>

[david_barts2]

<p>I'll echo what others have said about it being a convenience, but not a necessity.</p>

<p>You can make any lens focus at close distances by adding extension tubes, and you'll probably spend less money than you would have on a macro lens if you do. But tubes are a lot more fiddly and time-consuming than simply being able to twist the focus ring and make it focus close. Macro lenses save time and frustration. Paying for them is paying for convenience and speed.</p>

<p>I have both 50mm and 100mm macro lenses, plus a set of tubes. Those I use for making the 100mm lens focus extra close (it only goes to 1:2 by itself), and for making close-ups with my non-macro 200mm telephoto (which can come in handy, like the time last weekend when I wanted to shoot a flower growing inside a big patch of poison-oak). It's never occurred to me to look for a 200mm macro lens because I so seldom use that focal length for close-up work. In fact, I only very occasionally use the tubes in general, but they're nice to have when I need them.</p>

<p>There's also bellows, but with those you run into the problem of minimum extension (you can only compress a bellows so far), lack of ruggedness (bellows are easy to damage in the field), and not to mention bulk. Bellows are most suited to in-studio extreme closeup work and not field photography. As for close-up lenses, they compromise optical quality much more than adding extension does, so I've avoided them. </p>

[david_barts2]

<blockquote>

<p>I currently use a 55mm 2.8 Micro Nikkor + extension tube when I feel like closeups. However, the working distance is very short - perhaps a longer macro lens (100mm range) would help work further and be easier to light.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Based on my own experience, indeed it would. One chooses a longer lens for macro work for the same reason one chooses a longer lens for non-macro work: the longer lens lets you fill the frame from further away. 100mm is considered the "classic" focal length for flower photography (assuming 35mm film or a full-frame 24x36 sensor; 70mm is the equivalent for APS-C crop-sensor SLR's) because it's usually the one that lets you fill the frame without being inconveniently close or far from your subject.</p>

<p>If you're frequently frustrated because some part of the plant you're shooting moves because the camera or tripod is physically touching it, a longer lens is worth considering. (Don't unload the 50mm lens, though, it will still come in handy in those situations where the 100mm lens is awkward because it's difficult to back up enough to include all of a subject.)<br>

<br /></p>

[david_barts2]

<blockquote>

<p>Plus, you can use it to fend off drop bears.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Completely unecessary, as I don't live in Australia. Fending off enraged sasquatches, however ....</p>

[tommyinca]

<p>Close up lens are just that a lens meaning quality matter. If you choose the bottom of a coke bottle as one or you choose a super achromatic version, you get what you paid for. Close up lens also work in combination with an extension ring. No reason to limit yourself to a one dimensional solution. For example, if you use a 50mm lens, a +1 close up lens will give you the close up range just south of 0.45m. The extension ring required for that will be too thin. Or if you are using a 300mm telephoto, to get near 1:1, you will need an extra long extension tube making the set-up too clumsy for use. A +2 to +3 achromatic close up lens could be a better option. There is also no reason why you can't combine some extension ring or macro lens with close up lens for optimal results. If you shoot in the shade, close up lens can yield brighter view finder for focusing for given magnifications and lens . </p>