Close up lens recommendation please

[heath_hays]

I'm an amateur 'photographer' with just enough knowledge to be dangerous to myself.  I have the typical Canon Rebel T7 with 18-55mm lens package and I pretty much shoot with it on auto all the time.  Only problem I have is that I can't get close in shots with this lens.

I'll be needing to make some close up shots of really small insects here shortly and need a recommendation for a close up lens that's about my speed.  A good and cheap (if the combination exists) lens is exactly what I'm looking for.  Just whatever gets the job done.

Any recommendations for a lens?  Thanks.

[Wayne Melia]

100mm macro. Brand is not critical ... most are pretty good and the differences are incremental.

BUT to fill the frame and eliminate the need for cropping, you need more. Extension tubes and/or bellows will get you close, but that's only a start. You still have to address lighting and shallow focus. Lighting is problematic in that as close as you will be, there's a good chance you may cast a shadow over the subject. (if it's still there when get that close, assuming it's alive). At that close distance, depth of field is virtually non-existent, and "focus stacking" is probably going to be required. Tolerances are critical, and the focus cannot be adjusted easily by just twisting the focus ring on the lens. Focusing rails are gadgets that go in between the camera and the support (tripod) to very precisely tune the distance of the camera rig from the subject, and come in various degrees of price and ease of use.

Take my words with a grain of salt .. I am not one with a breadth of experience.

[Dustin McAmera]

I think that's an APS-C camera, so is 100mm going to be a bit long?

I'd get extension tubes. I wouldn't pay Canon's price for their own brand. For the price of one Canon tube you can get a set of three from a brand like Kenko:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/375102-REG/Kenko_AEXTUBEDGC_Auto_Extension_Tube_Set.html

 

There is a nice Canon 35mm macro lens with a built-in lamp, the EF-S35mm f/2.8 Macro IS STM:

https://global.canon/en/c-museum/product/ef460.html

but I can't see it for sale anywhere. There's an EF-M version, but that's no good for your camera.

 

[victor2]

6 hours ago, heath_hays said:

I'll be needing to make some close up shots of really small insects here shortly and need a recommendation for a close up lens that's about my speed.  A good and cheap (if the combination exists) lens is exactly what I'm looking for.  Just whatever gets the job done.

 

Greetings heath,

1- good and cheap...  no    2- shooting in auto for macro will not give you results you expect.   3- need to accomplish "shortly"... takes time and practice, Patience and extreme attention to detail.

I suggest you start with a set of extension tubes a good tripod and good lighting and start shooting.  Don't know how serious you want to get (sounds like you have a quick project coming up) Photography, Quick, Cheap and Macro don't go together.

Regards

 

 

[SCL]

You could also get a set of inexpensive "auxiliary" lenses to mount like a filter on the front of your main lens...they usually come in diopters...the higher the diopter the greater the magnification, but the closer you  need t be to your subject. Personally, the extension tubes are the best way to go. Good macro lenses are expensive, but worth it if you use them frequently, as I do.

[mikemorrellNL]

7 hours ago, heath_hays said:

I'm an amateur 'photographer' with just enough knowledge to be dangerous to myself.  I have the typical Canon Rebel T7 with 18-55mm lens package and I pretty much shoot with it on auto all the time.  Only problem I have is that I can't get close in shots with this lens.

I'll be needing to make some close up shots of really small insects here shortly and need a recommendation for a close up lens that's about my speed.  A good and cheap (if the combination exists) lens is exactly what I'm looking for.  Just whatever gets the job done.

Any recommendations for a lens?  Thanks.

I have very little experience in 'close-up' photography  as you describe it but IMHO a lot depends on a) the distance from which you need (or want to) take photos and b) the quality of the photos you want/need to take. A secondary factor is how often you want/need to take these kinds of photos.

My very limited experience in 'close-up' photography has been divergent. You could (in principle) use a tele-lens to 'zoom in' on small details (small insects) but these photos would appear relatively 'flat' with no 'depth of field'. Pretty much all 'close-up' photographers use a macro lens (and or lens modifiers).

Hard as it might sound, I suggest you take some time (via internet articles) to delve into the world of 'close-up' (macro) photography before making any fast decisions. I'm not a macro photographer so I can't give any real advice. Maybe you should post your question in the PN macro forum too.

As far as I understand it, dedicated macro lenses give a better ( for example 1:1) representation of details than a 'general purpose lens'. As I understand it, the focal length of macro lenses are designed to photograph details from different distances to the subject. In general, 'short' macro lenses are cheaper than 'long' macro lenses.

The Canon brand macro lenses are relatively expensive ($1000+). Thankfully, other Canon-compatible third-party brands are more affordable.
Check out the Canon-compatible macro lenses from Tamron, Sigma and Tokina.

The Tokina atx-i 100mm F2.8 FF MACRO PLUS is the cheapest I've found but has good reviews.

I'd also suggest looking around (Adorama, ....) for used Canon-compatible macro lenses. My guess is that macro lenses are less subject to the (outdoor) 'wear and tear' of other lenses. It's also possible that photographers (like me) once bought macro-lenses and discovered that they seldom used them.

 

[John Seaman]

1 hour ago, SCL said:

You could also get a set of inexpensive "auxiliary" lenses to mount like a filter on the front of your main lens

I've tried this and have been quite happy with the results, but with somewhat larger subjects like small flowers. The 18-55 already focuses pretty close and a plus 2 or plus 4 diopter may get you close enough, given that you should also be able to crop in on the 24MP images. If the lens is image stabilised, this will still work and should give better image quality when hand holding. It's surely worth a try at a fraction of the cost of a specialist Macro lens.

[Ken Katz]

While Robin uses Olympus, there is a whole lot here to explore about macro photography of insects.  Robin shoots mostly handheld, with additional lighting, usually with a macro lens, but also uses an inexpensive auxiliary close-up lens:

https://robinwong.blogspot.com/search/label/Macro Photography

 

 

Edited December 7, 2022 by Ken Katz

[paddler4]

I do a lot of macro shots of bugs. It is a very difficult form of photography, the  most difficult I do by a large measure, so be prepared to spend time studying and practicing. It's not for the faint of heart.

1. As posted, auto doesn't work. I most often shoot in full manual, f/13 or so, 1/250, with E-TTL flash to control exposure and ISO set to control how much the background is illuminated.

2. Your camera is fine; there is no need for fancy bells and whistles because everything is manual.

3. Focusing is difficult; I usually do it by setting the focus to the approximate distance I want and rocking the camera slightly on a monopod. This requires taking AF off the shutter button or putting the lens in manual focus mode.

4. 100mm on an APS-C camera is a very good length. That's my most common combination.

5. Depth of field is very narrow, but focus stacking with bugs in the field is very difficult and usually not necessary, if you keep the bug roughly parallel to the sensor and close the aperture to f/13 or so.

6. Extension tubes with a regular lens would be a cheap way to explore, but it will be very dark through the viewfinder. A screw-on macro lens (adapter) might be an alternative way to try this out.

7. Extension tubes are not necessary for shooting bugs with a macro lens, but they are for extremely close shots, that is, for magnification more than 1:1. I usually shoot with a 36mm tube on a 100mm lens. However, this is harder to do than shooting without the tube, so it's not what I would recommend for someone starting out. I only started doing this routinely after a few years of bug chasing.

8. Lighting is the big issue. I almost always use a highly diffused flash held very close to the end of the lens, although some people leave the flash in the socket on top of the camera. Sometimes available light is sufficient, but it often isn't and tends to be harsh when it is.

I think this was shot with a 36mm tube: https://photography.dkoretz.net/Bugs/Bees-and-wasps/i-hddN9FC/A. No focus stacking.

 

 

 

Edited December 8, 2022 by paddler4

[Sandy Vongries]

Until you get into extremes, this genre isn't very hard.  I shoot lots of insects, nice and sharp.  I use a Nikon D810 with a AF Micro Nikkor 105 1 : 2.8 D Aperture set in the teens and auto focus.  I have done nearly as well with a D7200 and a AF Nikkor 70-300 1: 4.5 5.6.  Just practice, a good hold and a bit of anticipation of behavior.  It isn't like film all you risk is time and energy when you try.  There are bunches of bugs in my photos.

[glen_h]

Extension tubes don't have any lens, and so should not be all that expensive.

Ones that don't pass through electronic signals might be cheaper, but for EOS

they might not do that.

 

Since they don't have any lens, there isn't an image quality reason to prefer one brand.

 

There are ones like this:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1413542-REG/fotodiox_macro_tube_eos_macro_extension_tube_set.html/overview

which I believe don't pass through electrical signals.

This one has one part that adapts to the camera, one that adapts to the lens,

and then three different lengths of tube that go in between. 

 

That makes it much cheaper than otherwise.

 

Ones like this:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/787223-REG/vello_ext_cd_auto_focus_ext_tube.html

pass through the electrical signals.  Also, all three have camera/lens coupling.

You can use them separately, or stack them together.

It should make auto exposure work.  I don't know about auto focus.

Edited December 8, 2022 by glen_h

[Edwin Barkdoll]

I shoot a lot of small things - bugs etc. My go to setup is a 105 macro with a Raynox 150 or 250 "closeup" lens if i'm shooting at a bit higher than 1x magnification in the field. I shoot in aperture priority, f/16, ISO 100 or lower if I can, with dual flashes and autofocus.

I find autofocus handheld with a twin flash to be much quicker than manual focus with a monopod with as many if not more keepers; the monopod slows me way down. There are some situations that manual focus works better for me, though. Of course YMMV.

In my experience extension tubes are a bit unwieldy, especially when stacked - the optics can get rather long.

 

The butterfly was shot with a 105mm as outlined above, i think, at a bit less than 1:1, the ambush bug and yellowjacket were shot with the Raynox 250 on a 105mm i think.

 

[Ken Katz]

Like the butterfly,  but the yellowjacket creeps me out (like all stinging insects / or any insect not yet identified as non stinging).  The day the murder hornets start showing up in NY State is the day I move to mountains of New Hampshire.

I guess this is why I don't get much use out of my Olympus 30mm macro lens.

[Edwin Barkdoll]

13 hours ago, Ken Katz said:

Like the butterfly,  but the yellowjacket creeps me out (like all stinging insects / or any insect not yet identified as non stinging).  The day the murder hornets start showing up in NY State is the day I move to mountains of New Hampshire.

I guess this is why I don't get much use out of my Olympus 30mm macro lens.

Rest assured the ambush bug had taken care of the yellow jacket - a tasty meal.

[JDMvW]

IMHO, best is a real macro lens like the Tamron 105mm. Corrections are automatic...

 Simplest is a +1 diopter screw-on "supplementary lens" - no corrective 'factors' but not much flexibility.

 

From way-back time

2004-02 Pop Photo

Edited December 12, 2022 by JDMvW