50mm lens for closeups?

[jkaufman]

<p>Greetings All,<br>

What do you all think of using a 50mm lens (e.g., the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8) as an inexpensive lens for making closeups of flowers, etc? Thanks.</p>

[luis_g]

<p> It will work. You can get closer with an extension tube or a canon achromatic close-up lens, which is probably your best option for the money.</p>

<p> </p>

[gary_c4]

<p>Jason, I have the Canon ef 50mm 1.4 and tried it recently around the garden. The photo's were ok but not nearly as good as the ef 100mm 2.8L is macro I have, I guess that accounts for the price. I would say that it really depends on what you intend to take the photo's for. If you just wish to enjoy them then it may be fine, if you are looking to sell then you may find it hard to get the type of detail you are looking for. Whichever it is good luck<br>

Gary </p>

[gary_c4]

<p>Jason, I have the Canon ef 50mm 1.4 and tried it recently around the garden. The photo's were ok but not nearly as good as the ef 100mm 2.8L is macro I have, I guess that accounts for the price. I would say that it really depends on what you intend to take the photo's for. If you just wish to enjoy them then it may be fine, if you are looking to sell then you may find it hard to get the type of detail you are looking for. Whichever it is good luck<br>

Gary </p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Yep. The easiest and cheapest solution is the addition of plus 'filters' for the front of the lens. There may be a little loss of sharpness, especially in the corners, but there won't be any 'exposure factor' to compensate for. Extension tubes would produce better optical results, but ones with electronic connections for focus and aperture would be much more costly than the plus lenses (e.g., <a href="http://www.google.com/products/catalog?q=Kenko&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&cid=13940015014470901440&ei=ei0FTPj1EoSSNrLy1I8J&sa=title&ved=0CAcQ8wIwADgA#p">link</a>). That sort of defeats the reason for using the 50mm f/1.8 in the first place (low cost$)</p>

<p>The best solution for a little better quality than the plus lenses, I think, is to get a nice older manual lens* of quality and non-automatic extension tubes, or simply to mount a MF lens with a reversal adapter (MF is easier because it will almost always have manual aperture control).</p>

<p>________<br>

*with an appropriate x>EOS adapter at one end or the other.</p>

[tommyinca]

<p>It will work just fine. You do need a +3 close up lens (ie: Nikon 4T), to get focus range from infinity to 1:2.9. For More, add an 12.5mm on top of the +3 will get you close to 1.7:1. </p>

[jkaufman]

<p>Gentlemen, thanks for the initial responses. Below is an example of the type of closeups I am interested in making. You can see that I am not looking at macro photography, simply the ability to isolate a rather small angle of view with shallow depth of field. I made this photo at 300mm on a Canon 450D, essentially at the minimum focus distance (about 4.9 feet) before having to switch the lens over to its macro setting (which only provides 1:2).</p>

<p>If my math is correct, shooting 300mm at 4.5 ft is going to give me a bit more than half the image size on the sensor as shooting 50mm at 1.5 ft, the minimum focus distance of the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8. Does this sound correct to you guys?</p>

[jkaufman]

<p>Here is the photo:</p><div></div>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>A slower F2 or F1.8 often is better for super closeups than a F1.4 lens</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Admittedly, you did say "closeups" not macro.<br>

You probably don't need anything at all, but a simple +1 add-on would get you a little closer.</p>

<p>Shooting with the lens wide open (aperture-priority) will get you the shallow depth of field. You may need to set the ISO rating to as low as your camera will go. I personally find the 'bokeh' (out-of-focus blur character) of the 50mm f/1.8 to be OK, but there <em>are</em> lenses with smoother bokeh.</p>

[stemked]

<p>I'm really only familiar with Pentax options, but you *should* simply be able to simply reverse the 50mm lens. There were many adapters made to allow for this. Yes, it isn't easy to use, especially focusing, but it is an inexpensive macro lens.</p>

[tommyinca]

<p>"If my math is correct?"</p>

<p>Likely No and No</p>

<p>"Shooting 300mm at 4.5 ft is going to give me a bit more than half the image size on the sensor"<br>

Likely No, If you have a near perfect thin lens, then (3*300mm) + ((1 + 0.5) * 300mm) = 1.35 meter or 4.43 feet. Since no SLR 300mm lens are near perfectly thin nor has the extra long 400mm helicoid needed for a fixed 300mm lens, 1:2 is not going to happen. Most 300mm lens or zoom lens with 300mm setting has internal focus. This type of lens reduce its focal length when it focus close. It will take much less then 4.5 feet to achieve 1:2. </p>

<p>"(Do one get) half the image size on the sensor shooting a 50mm at 1.5 ft, the minimum focus distance of the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8?</p>

<p>No, you get 1/6.7X or 1:6.7. On a EF50/2.5 macro, it take about 9 inches focus distant to achiveve 1:2.</p>

<p>BTW: If your aim is to increase back ground isolation, going to a shorter focal length lens is going in the wrong direction. You get less back ground isolation on the same given magnification on a 50mm then a 300mm. </p>

[jkaufman]

<p>Thanks all for your helpful feedback. Perhaps I shall just keep shooting flowers as I have been doing until I make the decision to fork over the cash for a true macro.</p>

[manuel barrera houston,]

<p>50mm with tubes will give you excellent close ups.</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>Your reverse the lens when your are beyond 1:1; ie image on film/sensor is LARGER than the Object (bug; pinhead, stamp, dodad)</p>

[joe_taylor5]

<p>If the question is for closeups not macro if I understand the term. Sure a 50 mm Lens will work fine for that. Have you considered a wide angle lens something like a 28 mm or less for closeup work? (remember shorter the lens the deeper the depth of field)<br>

If you are doing macro work then a macro lens is the way to go. I fooled with extension bellows, extension tubes, closeup filters. non worked very good. If I would have not done the experiment with all the devices above I could have purchased a macro lens to start with. I spent $100 on a used 50 mm macro and love it. I getting ready to buy a 100 mm macro for about 7x the money.<br>

One thing I have a short extension tube and I put a 100 mm portrait and was amazed at what I could do. then I tied all my lens', up to 300mm, on the tube and got some interesting results.<br>

With the screw on closeup filter the only part of the picture that is in focus is the very center. The out of focus ring around the center does draw you eye to the center of attention.<br>

Joe</p>