New [Geriatric] Kid on the Macro Photography Block

[LensofNature]

I'm new to this forum and have enjoyed close-ups of flowers and other forms of nature.  While my photos may not be technically considered macro or micro yet in terms of the magnification ratio, I hope to get a true macro lens once I learn more about the techniques involved in this type of photography - and how heavy the lens is.  Any recommendations for relatively lightweight entry level macro lens would be greatly appreciated.  The lenses I use for close up at this time are the 55-250 mm and the 85 mm ( I have a Canon Rebel T7 crop sensor camera, so photos are that much more enlarged on these lenses).

[John Seaman]

Do you have the 18-55mm kit lens? They focus pretty close, and if it's image stabilised, so much the better. Adding a simple  close up lens gets you closer still, without noticeable loss in image quality in my experience.

[LensofNature]

5 hours ago, John Seaman said:

Do you have the 18-55mm kit lens? They focus pretty close, and if it's image stabilised, so much the better. Adding a simple  close up lens gets you closer still, without noticeable loss in image quality in my experience.

Thank you, yes I do have the kit lens - I recently "upgraded" from a T6 to the T7 recently.  I wanted something without a steep learning curve and the ability to use the lenses I already have.  The Rebel T7's kit lens has Image Stabilization.  It sounds like the close-up lens would be more manageable to handle - and cheaper.  I'll check it out.

[paddler4]

First, regular image stablization isn't much use for macro. It controls for angular movement, which isn't the primary problem in macro work. the more important problem is linear displacement of the sensor. To control that, you need either Canon's hybrid lens IS or the 5-axis in-body stabilization in many mirrorless cameras. However, depending on the sort of macro you do, it doesn't much matter. Flowers you can do with a tripod. 

There are fewer macro lenses available for EF or EF-S mount Canons than there used to be. 

You can get the old EF-S 60mm macro used in Ex+ condition for about $350 from KEH.com, less for more worn copies. This is a very sharp lens and is small and light. the only drawback is that because it's only 60mm, the working distance is short, so it's not great for bugs (although I've used it for that).

A common focal length for macro is 100mm, plus or minus. The Canon 100mm EF L is superb and reasonably light (625g, 1.4 pounds). It also has hybrid IS. However, it's very expensive and has gone up in price recently. 

Canon used to make a 100mm non-L macro that was just about as sharp, but much cheaper and without the hybrid IS. You could probably find one used. I don't know the weight, however. If you do look at used, be careful which of the two you are buying. The L has a red ring by the front end.

[LensofNature]

7 hours ago, paddler4 said:

First, regular image stablization isn't much use for macro. It controls for angular movement, which isn't the primary problem in macro work. the more important problem is linear displacement of the sensor. To control that, you need either Canon's hybrid lens IS or the 5-axis in-body stabilization in many mirrorless cameras. However, depending on the sort of macro you do, it doesn't much matter. Flowers you can do with a tripod. 

There are fewer macro lenses available for EF or EF-S mount Canons than there used to be. 

You can get the old EF-S 60mm macro used in Ex+ condition for about $350 from KEH.com, less for more worn copies. This is a very sharp lens and is small and light. the only drawback is that because it's only 60mm, the working distance is short, so it's not great for bugs (although I've used it for that).

A common focal length for macro is 100mm, plus or minus. The Canon 100mm EF L is superb and reasonably light (625g, 1.4 pounds). It also has hybrid IS. However, it's very expensive and has gone up in price recently. 

Canon used to make a 100mm non-L macro that was just about as sharp, but much cheaper and without the hybrid IS. You could probably find one used. I don't know the weight, however. If you do look at used, be careful which of the two you are buying. The L has a red ring by the front end.

Thank you so much for this information.  What is linear displacement?  I noticed on a couple of student online groups I was in that focusing with a macro lens can be a bit challenging and require a bit of a learning curve.   The EF-S 60 mm sounds interesting to me.  I saw the lens you mentioned on KEH; it will be a bit more with the exchange rate and shipping because I live in Canada, but the prices are ridiculous and the HST makes it worse.  So, can you give a concrete example of the 60 mm working distance for a spatially challenged hobbyist like me, lol, such as almost on top of the flower, across the street, on the path.  I keep getting mixed up between the focusing distance and the focal length, but discovered the former on the Exif data on my photo editing software.  I'm also going to check out the 100 mm, although wouldn't I be able to use the 55-250 mm for that or is it a special macro lens? 

[Tony Parsons]

I don't do much macro work myself, although the lens is usually with me - I use a Sigma 105mm lens on a Pentax K3 body, if that is any help, often on a tripod with the 2 second delay, which on my camera turns off image stabilisation. This lens covers infinity to 1:1 reproduction, with very good results at all focal lengths. Major issue at very close focus, with this lens or others I have used, is subject movement, I have found.

And 'Geriatric' ? Shame on you - it just means the others haven't caught up yet 😄 

 

Edited October 29, 2023 by Tony Parsons

[LensofNature]

2 hours ago, Tony Parsons said:

I don't do much macro work myself, although the lens is usually with me - I use a Sigma 105mm lens on a Pentax K3 body, if that is any help, often on a tripod with the 2 second delay, which on my camera turns off image stabilisation. This lens covers infinity to 1:1 reproduction, with very good results at all focal lengths. Major issue at very close focus, with this lens or others I have used, is subject movement, I have found.

And 'Geriatric' ? Shame on you - it just means the others haven't caught up yet 😄 

 

Re: Geriatric - Lol, that's a good way of putting it.

Re: macro lenses:  Yes, I always use a tripod, unless the subject is a bird in flight (which usually turns out to be a blur anyway) or other fast moving object.  That's why I tend to choose stationary subjects.  I have my remote shutter release and usually have Image Stabilization turned off, unless I forgot to do so while attempting hand-held shots  Before I bought my shutter release remote, I used the timer as well.  I'll check out the Sigma 105 lens.  Thanks!

[SCL]

When I was doing a number of macros with my film based Canon T90 my favorite macro lenses were the FD 50/3.5 and a Lester Dine 105/2.8 (used). Both very good. The Dine was also sold as a Vivitar Series 1 lens. Both manual focus lenses. Although I eventually sold the Dine, I still use the 50/3.5 these days, mostly with a mirorless body to digitize my film negatives and slides. Keep up the good work...I find macro and near macro to be quite rewarding in exploring nature.

[John Seaman]

I still think you can achieve much of what you want with the kit lens. Here's a hand held shot I just did in my garden with a simple +4 close up lens screwed on to my 18-55. I could go in quite a bit closer, preferably on a tripod for best results of course.

[LensofNature]

2 hours ago, John Seaman said:

I still think you can achieve much of what you want with the kit lens. Here's a hand held shot I just did in my garden with a simple +4 close up lens screwed on to my 18-55. I could go in quite a bit closer, preferably on a tripod for best results of course.

Wow!! Gorgeous!  Yes, tripod is a must.  I remember it took me many years to overcome my self-consciousness about carrying one - and difficulty operating one; my manual dexterity/mechanical aptitude is the pits.  However, once I got used to it, it was actually amusing.  Quite a conversation starter - people thought I was a professional photographer, lol. 

 

[paddler4]

17 hours ago, LensofNature said:

Thank you so much for this information.  What is linear displacement?  I noticed on a couple of student online groups I was in that focusing with a macro lens can be a bit challenging and require a bit of a learning curve.   The EF-S 60 mm sounds interesting to me.  I saw the lens you mentioned on KEH; it will be a bit more with the exchange rate and shipping because I live in Canada, but the prices are ridiculous and the HST makes it worse.  So, can you give a concrete example of the 60 mm working distance for a spatially challenged hobbyist like me, lol, such as almost on top of the flower, across the street, on the path.  I keep getting mixed up between the focusing distance and the focal length, but discovered the former on the Exif data on my photo editing software.  I'm also going to check out the 100 mm, although wouldn't I be able to use the 55-250 mm for that or is it a special macro lens? 

By linear displacement I'm referring to the sensor (and camera) moving up, down, or sideways. As you get closer to an object, rotation becomes less of an issue, and linear movement becomes more of one. 

Minimum working distance is related to focal length, but indirectly. it refers to the distance between the subject and the front of the lens at  maximum magnification, which for most true macro lenses is 1:1 (image on the sensor is the same size as the object in real life). The minimum working distance of the EF-S 60mm macro is 90mm. Minimum focusing distance is often given but isn't quite as useful; it's the distance from the subject to the sensor.

Re the 55-250: No! Don't be misled. Manufacturers routinely put "macro" on zoom lenses to indicate that they can focus reasonably close, but that isn't what macro means. Virtually all true macro lenses focus at least to 1:1. None of them, as far as I know, are zooms. The maximum magnification of the 55-150 is 0.29x, meaning that the maximum image on the sensor is a bit more than 1/4 the size of the subject.

It sounds like you are really at the beginning stages. Macro is a very technical type of photography, and it isn't for everyone. So I recommend that you buy a decent but cheap second-hand macro lens to try it out and see whether it's for you. That's what I did. I started with a used Canon EF 50mm "compact macro" (https://www.keh.com/shop/canon-ef-50mm-f-2-5-compact-macro-lens.html), which isn't quite a regular macro lens because it goes only to .5x, not 1x. But it's very sharp and enough magnification for flowers. I graduated from there to the EF-S 60 mm, which is a true macro, and then to the 100mm.

[paddler4]

PS: you should think about the size of the objects you want to photograph before choosing a lens. If your interest is images of entire large flowers, you won't need a true macro lens because you will want to reduce the size of the subject to fit onto your APS-C sensor, which is roughly 25 x 17mm. So if you have a non-macro lens with maximum magnification of only 0.25, you can fit something 4 times that size onto your sensor. With a little room for a border, say 3.8 x 2.7 inches. So if you want entire flowers, you can make do with a close-focusing non-macro lens.

The smaller the subject, the more magnification you need. Tiny flowers, or bugs, require true macro lenses. 

[Edwin Barkdoll]

I agree with @paddler4's remarks about choosing how "macro" you want to go and what you want to do with the resulting images. Do you intend to post images online? Print them and if so, how large? With a mirrorless or DSLR with interchangeable lenses, one can go from the truly tiny to not-really-macro and spend a lot of time and money. A camera I often use in the field is the Olympus TG-6 – basically a specialized point-and-shoot camera. Even the TG-4 or TG-5, which are no longer manufactured but can be bought on the used market for a song, can take good macro photos and can be excellent learning tools.

I like the TG series for its excellent macro capabilities, waterproofing, rugged build, and the fact that I can carry it in a coat pocket if needed.

Don't get me wrong – I will use a DSLR or mirrorless with a tripod, macro lens, etc., if appropriate. But don't sell the TG-6 short.

Attached are photos of a tiny snowflake and a Dobsonfly larva (underwater) taken with the TG-6.

 

[LensofNature]

7 minutes ago, Edwin Barkdoll said:

Do you intend to post images online? Print them and if so, how large? With a mirrorless or DSLR with interchangeable lenses, one can go from the truly tiny to not-really-macro and spend a lot of time and money.

@Edwin Barkdoll Good question.  Most images are on my computer, sharing with friends/family and online photography groups.  However, I am wanting to get comfortable with learning how to set them up for printing by commercial camera shops (e.g. Black's, in Canada).  That brings up the question of size of prints.  I was told by one photo shop that it would be better to go with larger sizes for closeups.  I have recently bought a 5x7 photo album and had some prints made of a photography outing, which entailed close-up shots of owls/hawks.  My camera is a DSLR Canon Rebel T7 (after a number of years learning the ins/outs and manual mode for Rebel T6).  As I am a hobbyist, my main goal is capturing the beauty and developing my skills to the best of my ability in light of visual perceptual/spatial/motor learning challenges.  I have a 50 mm (the standard one, I understand they come with larger apertures as well); a wide angle 10-18 mm which I'm trying to get used to in terms of the distortion it creates (e.g. fisheye/converging objects); a 55-250 mm lens; the "kit" lens (is it 18 to 55?); 85 mm (which I find is good for close-up shots of nature); I think that's it.  You bring up a good point about the degrees of macro and the associated cost.  I don't have a lot of money to spend, and there is a higher risk for me that I would invest in these fancy lenses and not be able to use them properly. 

[Edwin Barkdoll]

@LensofNature Another option that is relatively inexpensive but does have a bit of a learning curve is to get extension tubes for your 50mm and 85mm. Exte tubes go between the lens and the body. FOr example a 50mm tube used with the 50mm lens would give you 1:1 magnification. I'm not familiar with the canon line and accessories but Ideally, you'd get a "smart", electronically coupled tube – aperture control, etc. Similarly, 85mm of extension on the 85mm will also give you 1:1 mag.

Extension tubes are not expensive but don't be tempted to get crappy ones.

[Tony Parsons]

You could also explore the use of 'Close-up filters', which are actually auxiliary lenses attaching to the filter threads. Many say that they give poor edge coverage, but I find (and I've not used them much) that the macro subject is usually towards the middle of the frame, or else the image can be cropped in PP to give the result required. Another advantage is that no exposure adjustment is required, but with digital having no added cost, it is free to experiment to your patience extent. It's a great big (small) world out there, but the learning curve can be steep. 

[Nick D.]

+1 for " to get extension tubes for your 50mm and 85mm". Or get specialized macro lens, I have old 55/2.8 Nikon AF and love them.

Edited November 15, 2023 by Nick D.

[ajkocu]

Good luck and have fun with your projects. 

I did buy an inexpensive extension tube set a while back and sometimes they worked, other times they didn't! They did not always make contact (apparently) with the camera body. I wound up buying a used Canon 12mm (or maybe 12.5mm) and 25mm extension tubes. 

I'm pretty sure I had the 25mm extension tube on the EF100mm L IS with my R7 and off camera flash for this critter that had a hard time scaling the side of the bathtub.