Possibilities of macro?

Thanks for reading this.
I like to take pictures of things like insects and small lizards. I found a really cool Mantis yesterday in the garden and took some pictures of it. I used my 70-200 with the 1.4 tc which was pretty good, but I could of course not very close because the limits of depth of focus. I am considering getting the barrel extension tubes: EF 12 II and EF 25 II. What is a good way to go? Here's something that you would use as well as a tc on a 70-200? Or is the wrong type of lens for this kind of work? I also had an initial investigation of the flash macro circular rings. But I am assuming that they would work with my 70-200 cause of large diameter of the front element. He seems to have a lot of options for macro set ups. What kind if the installer should be to make the pretty decent macro shots? I was a big fan of Igor Siwanowicz' work for a very long time.

See you soon,.
CG.

Hello

As ebiggs says, there are several ways to make macro shots.

Personally, I use a number of extension tubes (a set of Kenko of 3-36, 20 & 12 mm - more a 25mm cannon and two Canon 12 mm). These are always useful to have, and I wouldn't be without a few in my camera bag, all the time. They are inexpensive and can allow you to get this macro or close-up when you do not have a lens macro with you, or can be used to increase the capabilities of a true macro lens beyond magnification is 1:1 (general) potential, or simply used to get the nearest minimum focus distance with a telephoto lens.

For example, this was shot with EF 70-200/2.8 IS, Canon 25 mm extension tube and 550EX flash (filling)...

I have been hunting of birds and did not have a macro with my lens.

For sub image to frame the small Bush * i * (replace the astericks with "t"... the cyber censorship allow me to use the actual name of this bird) as tight as I wanted, I needed to add a 36mm extension tube to an EF 500/4 IS lens, so that the lens to focus more closely...

While they are not necessarily designed for the macro or almost macro work teleconverters (Canon calls Extenders) change the effective focal length of a lens, but leave its closest distance focal length quantity... so will increase the potential of magnification. In order to get the slot kick a little fence lizard, I have had to use time - Canon EF 1. 4 X II and an extension of 25 mm - 300/2.8 IS lens...

More the focal length of your lens, the effect less any given amount of expansion will give. An extension of 25mm changes slightly the magnification and the closest focusing distance of a 300mm lens... But the same amount of extension on a 50mm lens would have dramatic effect. Next image was shot with 12mm on the EF 50/1.4 lens extension...

Even more extreme, the following was shot with 12mm on an EF 20/2.8 lens extension (I wanted an extra depth of field to keep more detailed background)...

During the filming of the foregoing, the petals of flowers were actually touch the front element of the lens! Can't get much closer than that!

The macro above or near macro shots were made using lenses "non-macro" that have been made to concentrate more than normally possible, using extension tubes. Those who can work, but there are some advantages to true macro lenses, too. I personally use four in my Canon Kit: Tamron SP AF 60mm f2.0, Canon MP-E 65mm f2.8, Canon 100/2.8 USM (not the L / IS) and Canon 180 / 3.5 L. I also use a Canon TS - E 45/2.8 for big jobs and occasionally a target macro Tamron SP 90/2.5 1:2 vintage, adapted.

When you force non-macro lens to focus closer than expected, there may be side effects. For example, the shot of the rose bud above has a pretty strong vignetting and softer edges. It's characterisic of the EF 50/1.4 lens when it is done to focus very narrow and more openness is used... It is not necessarily a bad thing. I used the lens with extension deliberately for this one, because I wanted so much vignetting and soften the effects.

One thing, you don't need to worry with 'real' macro lenses is image quality. In general, they are all very able to make beautiful pictures. It is lower for other features of macro lenses that set apart them from each other.

Focal length is probably the main consideration. Too short a macro lens can get awfully close to your subjects, which could scare the living creatures, or do you throw an unwanted shadow on the subject or not even you bit or stung! A longer lens gives you more space to work, but a long lens is hard to get a stable shot and makes very very shallow depth of field.

If I could have only one, I would choose my USM Canon EF 100/2.8 macro lens. It's the best all around for my purposes, on both devices of cultures (like yours, although I use 7Ds) and full frame (5 d MkII). 90 to 105mm gives the reasonable working distance, but it is quite easily portable for quick shots. DOF is still shallow, but manageable enough without resorting to ridiculously small openings where lighting is a problem and optical diffraction robs fine detal of images.

Here's an example shot with my 180 / 3.5 L, which demonstrates how depth of field thin razor can get with such a long focal length...

Even if it's a fairly large bee, the plan of sharpness is only of a few mm of depth. This was shot near 1:1 on full frame (with a film camera, actually). The lens and the camera are resting on the ground to help keep their constant. Something close to 100mm is much more easily portable, not too big and makes a bit more depth of field.

There are other features of the Canon EF 100/2.8 USM which make a great macro lens, IMO.

It's 'internal focus' (IF), which means that it does not grow in length when you focus it close, so don't cut your work remotely (note: 100L, Tamron 60/2 and 180 / 3.5 L are also IF lenses). However, there is no such thing as a free lunch, with optics. In order for the 100/2.8 if it starts raining that some other lenses of similar focal length. And the focus distance actually changes somewhat because it brought closer. I heard max with 1:1 magnification, it is closer to the 70mm lens... but it is not particularly notable in the field of work with the goal.

100/2.8 USM macro lens on a crop sensor camera, with 550EX flash, pocket...

Version 100/2.8 that I use has player development USM, which gives it an autofocus fast enough for a macro lens. Macro lenses tend to be slower to focus for a few reasons. One is that they must move their items focusing a long, long way to go all the way from infinity to 1:1 magnification. Another is that most precision signals more speed, so use what is called a mechanism of the development of "throw long". In the old days of manual focus, you have to turn the focus ring a lot more away with a target at long range. Short-range lenses were built for speed and could be used for sports photography. By car from the 100mm USM (who are also the EF - S 60 / 2.8, 100 and 180 / 3.5 L) makes more than one lens dual use, more usable for purposes of non-macro. Despite USM, the 180/3.5 L is significantly more slow development and not as useful for the non-macro works.

I make the distinction between macro and non-macro focus because often the macro shooting focuses more easily manually. I use AF sometimes, but just as often or more often use the development manual method or the other. But if you want to use as a non-macro, also, moderate telephoto lens it can be enjoyable if it is reasonably fast to the point. Another advantage of USM, it's that you haven't disable AF before substitution manually. (Note: there was a version prior to EF 100/2.8, abandoned years ago, that has no USM).

For me, one of the most important features of the Canon 100 mm macro lenses is that they may fit with a Ruff of the tripod mounting. The 100/2.8 USM uses tripod ring B (b) and 100L tripod D ring. I'm not aware of any other macro lenses less than 150mm than a being mounted with a ring of tripod and for me, this is a very important feature. A lot of macro photography is made of a tripod or monopod. That is one of the reasons I really don't think that he had to upgrade to the new version IS..., the more it costs much more. In addition, the stabilization is of limited effectiveness when shooting macro... If this can be nice when you use the goal for non-macro purposes (except that I have several other lenses, so do not rely on the macro for dual use that much). The 180 / 3.5 L and most other 150 mm and more macro lenses equipped with a tripod ring.

Speaking of stabilization, the Canon 100 L uses a hybrid form developed especially for macro, which obviously is one of the most effective. However, the 1:1 mag, it could only be good for one or two stops of assistance. For non-macro photos, the IS could give three or four stops assistance.

I had the Tamron SP 60/2.0 recently because it is quite small and light, easy to store in my camera bag, when I don't know if I'll take any macro shots or not, have other gear to carry around. The same is true for the Canon EF - S 60/2.8 USM, it is just as compact. I opted for the Tamron for its opening of f2, mainly in order to use the lens for portraits, as well. Both the Canon and the Tamron 60 mm lenses are "cultures only" (all other macros mentioned are capable of FF). I don't have the images uploaded of him online yet, but have found the quality to be good enough. It is a bit slow focusing... no problem for the macro or portraits, but not a goal I would use for sport and shooting action. I imagine that the Canon with its USM is developed faster.

I used to use the vintage (25-30 years) Tamron 90 mm as my macro "compact" (shown on one of my 7Ds, above)... and he is used to this end but was less useful for portraits. Yet, for a goal which cost me about 60 US $. It's $20 for the lens - like new with hood, 1:1 adapter, caps and a Nikon Adaptall mount - plus $40 for a China Adaptall-EOS mount. It is slower to work with. Set to manual focus, as well as manual control of the opening, but did a good job (here with the extension tube of 36mm to increase the magnification).

The other lenses I mentioned use are more specialized. The Canon MP-E 65mm macro is a very high magnification, the manual focus lens. The magnification less he can give is 1:1, where most other macro lenses are at their maximum (unless you add extension for them tubes). It goes back to 5 / 1 or 5 X life size, so, essentially, can fill the frame on one of my 7Ds with a grain of rice. Image made with the MP - E 65mm here is a tiny snail, newly hatched which was smaller than the nail on my pinky, at 2 X magnification...

I must say, I would not recommend the MP-E 65mm as a first macro lens. It will especially be a lens only tripod. Depth of field is incredibly deep. Due to the extension of the objective, it's more small aperture of f16 becomes something like an effective f96 at higher magnification. I'll have to work on the development of techniques of stacking with this lens (and will need something much slower moving than a snail, shoot those!).

I use the lens 'Tilt Shift' TS - E 45mm especially for close-ups of small product... Shoots of studio on table, like this that was one of hundreds of fact for the customer's Web site...

Magnification with the 45mm alone isn't really the territory of the macro, but it allows a single control in terms of development with the tilt movements, as well as ways to dodge the reflections with the movements of travel. It is the manual focus lens, too. For higher magnfication work, the TS-E 90mm might be a better choice and magnification of two lenses can be increased by using extension tubes.

As for flash, there are choices with those, too. There are specialized macro flashes or ways to use standard flashes for macro photos.

I used a Canon MR - 14EX Ringlite for turned snail, above. I mainly only use a ring light with very high magnificatioin shots... to the low mags just light seems flat and 'clinical' for me. As far as I know, the MR-14EX is pretty much dedicated to Canon lenses, since it clips directly on the lens, locking silver that is on the Canon lenses.

MR-14EX on MP-E 65mm, on 7 d...

More often, especially for 1:1 magnification and more low blows, I use Canon MT - 24EX Twin Lite or a unique and standard flash with some minor changes. The Twin Lite is great, but a package large enough and not very useful for non macro. Also, it is designed to attach on the front of the Canon lenses, but is more flexible because it can be used with a more generic double flash support, too.

Image of LH: MT-24EX normally mounted. Center: Double Lepp/Stroboframe flash support. Image of HR: MT-24EX on support Lepp.

But do not use a dedicated, macro flash either. Often I will just use a flash unique and standard cord shoes off camera so that I can stand to the side of or above the object...

Note that I put two coats of white qauze bandage on the flash head, maintained by a rubber band. This reduces and diffuse the power of the flash so that it can be used near a small subject. A single flash works surprisingly well, because compared to a small topic, it's like a giant light box in the sky. This Mantis was shot using something similar to the above setup (and EF 100/2.8 USM macro lens)...

Enjoy you shopping!

Macro is lots of fun... and a lot easier today than it was back in the good/bad old days of film! One of my old rigging...

***********
Alan Myers

San Jose, California, USA.
«Market softly and carry a great lens.»
MATERIAL: 5DII, 7D(x2), 50D(x3), some other cameras, various lenses & accessories
FLICKR & REPROGRAPHY

Tags: Canon Camera

Possibilities of macro?

Similar Questions

Maybe you are looking for