I'm relatively new to the concept of macro photography and have recently acquired a new lens. Although it has a great range (18-200) I've noticed it still doesn't quite get close enough to capture the much desired extreme details. Perhaps this is a question with a simple answer but is the best way to achieve that common look via an extension tube?
OO there's loads of threads about macro on here. I've got close up filters.....very cheap from ebay. I know there are lots of people who use extension tubes though. The BEST way is to get a dedicated macro lens...but these are expensive. The filters are OK ...here's one I took with them...
The 18-200 should be a great candidate for reverse-lens macros, since it should cover a relatively big range from pretty close to super close.
The plane of focus will be very very small, so be warned. (Just try it out, holding the lens reversed in front of the sensor.)
Extension tubes and especially Macro filter lenses will lower the image quality of your pictures, but are for work that's meant only for the web still a cheap and often good-enough solution!
ive managed reasonable macro style shots with my 18-55 .... but would love some of those close up filters to test out before spending out on a macro lens !
Yep there are plenty of threads on this so a search will yeild you plenty of results.
Personally I use a full set of Kenko tubes for all of my macros - which is about 90% of my album and overall am pretty happy with the results. I use a 50mm prime lens and this gives around 1.4-1.5x magnification which can give you some great details.
In terms of image quality, as Ludwig mentioned, filters will generally degrade the image but I haven't seen a difference between the 50mm when using tubes compared to not using them.
this was taken with my 70-300mm telephoto and it kinda looks like a macro... its not a real close up but by setting the f-stop as low as you can go, in this case around f-4.0, and by standing around 4ft back from the subject, even a telephoto can focus on a very tiny area, have heaps of DOF and bokeh and can look macro(ish).
but for where you want to focus on something right at the end of your lens, then I go for a dedicated 35mm Macro lens with 2x converter. For real tiny bugs like this.
Hi Allura
Just a few pointers to help, macro actually means magnify, cheap macro lenses will produce 1:1 images ie life size good macro lenses will produce 2:1 or more actually making the subject bigger a normal zoom lense will get you closer but the subject will not be anywhere near life-size. As another person said filters in front of the lense will badly degrade the image quality, extension tubes on the other hand do not degrade the quality but do cut down the amount of light making shutter speeds slower. Kenro make a set of 3 for about £125 compared to one tube from canon for about £150. The tubes go between the lense and the camera and the bigger this gap the more magnification you get add all 3 tubes and you will get about 5 times I think. You can turn the lense around using a special adapter this is cheap but you must then focus manually and use manual exposure which can be tricky if you are not very experienced. If you are not too sure have a look at www.goingdigital.co.uk they do courses around the country including a macro course. Hope this helps.
I use macro filters for the majority of my shots; they're a cheap way to approach macro photography before investing in a lens (and maybe finding that it's not something you enjoy). They're not half bad either. My set of four cost me under EUR30 if memory serves.
I am a new user of a Canon EOS 7D and am still on my L plates with the manual settings. I have acquired a Canon 100 mm macro lens which is supposed to be a great lens. However, the depth of field is really small and I can't get those brilliant photos with heaps of detail that others get. I've tried on auto and manual settings and still can't get the effect I'm after. What am I doing wrong?
Hi all, Thank you for your feedback. So many great suggestions! LOVE all your macro images, thank for you sharing. Some really inspiring results! i'm excited :) Sounds like I may try out extension tube & filters first with new macro lens. Great idea Ludwig about the reverse macro - had a fun time trying out this technique. It took me a while to figure out what I was doing, but was interesting discovering all the different ways you can magnify your object detail. :) Thanks!!
Here's some of the results I achieved when experimenting with the reverse macro technique.
Margaret - perhaps the aperture (f stop) is set too low, resulting in smaller DOF. Try playing around with the settings to see what works for your desired effect, otherwise AP mode could work :)
I have just started doing "Reverse Macro" and I have been pretty impressed with the results (using the kit lens- 18-55). It also works with my 55-250mm IS lens
This is from hand-holding the lens:
And this using my new $8 reverse macro adapter:
I would love to get the 100mm canon macro lens, but I don't have the money for that right now
@indiannie_jones Thank you, Annie. I have been looking to buy some for a while now. I think I will try and go with what you use. If I can find them that is :)
I love macro photography. I recently purchased the canon powershot sx30 and im having a difficult time with macro mode. Id like to get close up of bugs, but this is proving to be far more difficult than i had imagined it would be.
As far as I have been able to discern, extension tubes will not degrade the image quality because you're not putting glass between your lens and the sensor. You can, however, see some vignetting, especially if you stack your tubes, so you might need to leave some room for cropping. Another consideration with extension tubes: you are much more likely to need to use a tripod because you will lose a couple of stops on your light. That part is, in my opinion, the only major drawback to extension tubes vs. a macro lens. The macro lens could be worth the extra expense if you 1) take a lot of macro shots and/or 2) do a lot of portraits (provided you go for one of the popular macro lenses that are portrait focal length).
@margaretg , dun use the extreme end of the aperture (f/2.8) unless u only want to look at the bug's eyes only.I normally use f/6.3 or up to capture the entire creature clearly. you may have to bump up the ISO or/and use a diffused flash. You may need to use manual focus or spot autofocus in the case of 7D.
Here's mine using my beloved 7D and 100mm Macro Len,
i bought an opteka hd 10x macro lens 52mm(that's what it says on the side) that screws onto the 18-55 kit lens that i have,i think it gives some pretty god results for less than £30
@sallycheese@tori3012 Love your pictures! And the price for the lens is more than reasonable. On amazon it is 20 pounds so I will definitely order one. Already in love with the fisheye, too. Thanks for sharing :)
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
The plane of focus will be very very small, so be warned. (Just try it out, holding the lens reversed in front of the sensor.)
Extension tubes and especially Macro filter lenses will lower the image quality of your pictures, but are for work that's meant only for the web still a cheap and often good-enough solution!
Personally I use a full set of Kenko tubes for all of my macros - which is about 90% of my album and overall am pretty happy with the results. I use a 50mm prime lens and this gives around 1.4-1.5x magnification which can give you some great details.
In terms of image quality, as Ludwig mentioned, filters will generally degrade the image but I haven't seen a difference between the 50mm when using tubes compared to not using them.
but for where you want to focus on something right at the end of your lens, then I go for a dedicated 35mm Macro lens with 2x converter. For real tiny bugs like this.
Just a few pointers to help, macro actually means magnify, cheap macro lenses will produce 1:1 images ie life size good macro lenses will produce 2:1 or more actually making the subject bigger a normal zoom lense will get you closer but the subject will not be anywhere near life-size. As another person said filters in front of the lense will badly degrade the image quality, extension tubes on the other hand do not degrade the quality but do cut down the amount of light making shutter speeds slower. Kenro make a set of 3 for about £125 compared to one tube from canon for about £150. The tubes go between the lense and the camera and the bigger this gap the more magnification you get add all 3 tubes and you will get about 5 times I think. You can turn the lense around using a special adapter this is cheap but you must then focus manually and use manual exposure which can be tricky if you are not very experienced. If you are not too sure have a look at www.goingdigital.co.uk they do courses around the country including a macro course. Hope this helps.
I'm a Canon user as well.....can I ask which Canon Macro you ended up going with?
Hi all, Thank you for your feedback. So many great suggestions! LOVE all your macro images, thank for you sharing. Some really inspiring results! i'm excited :) Sounds like I may try out extension tube & filters first with new macro lens. Great idea Ludwig about the reverse macro - had a fun time trying out this technique. It took me a while to figure out what I was doing, but was interesting discovering all the different ways you can magnify your object detail. :) Thanks!!
Here's some of the results I achieved when experimenting with the reverse macro technique.
Margaret - perhaps the aperture (f stop) is set too low, resulting in smaller DOF. Try playing around with the settings to see what works for your desired effect, otherwise AP mode could work :)
This is from hand-holding the lens:
And this using my new $8 reverse macro adapter:
I would love to get the 100mm canon macro lens, but I don't have the money for that right now
Here's mine using my beloved 7D and 100mm Macro Len,
those are a few of my shots taken using it