Wondering for some advice on macro lenses. I am looking for a cheap macro lens. I have a canon 550d. Was looking at the 50mm f2.5 and wondering if anyone has this lens or has used it? Any thoughts would be great.
I have the Canon Macro 100mm f2.8 USM. It's a fabulous lens, but at $500 it's not what I call cheap. That said, I just LOVE my lens and get such amazing close-ups. I agree with what Andy says above, 50mm is hardly enough zoom, especially for insects. I even wish my 100mm was longer at times!
For flowers/still life the 50mm will be perfect though!
Take a look at my album to see what I have managed with my 100mm... it's a very recent acquisition (I have not even had it a week yet!). :)
@andysg@victorypuzzle thanks guys. I am sure your right that 50mm will not be enough. 100mm would be my prefernece but is on the expensive side. Will mostly be using it for flowers but sure I will want to start getting insect shots.
@victorypuzzle were the shots you took with your 100mm handheld?
@brav Yes, I did not use my tripod in any of the shots! Before buying the lens I read so many reviews saying that the lens could not be used without a tripod, but I totally disagree. I have never had a problem at all, even though the lens has no IS.
I would say, rather save a bit longer and get the 100mm. Otherwise you will probably land up getting it at some stage anyhow! It is such a great quality lens as well - I have had a lot of success using it for portraits. The tone and colour is beautiful.
You simply cannot beat the Canon 100mm f/2.8. Aside from the outstanding optics, what I like most is the short focal length; you can get right up to your subject, and at 100mm that really magnifies what you're shooting! Makes a great walk-around lens too. You might be able to find an affordable used one; though why anyone would want to get rid of theirs is beyond me :)
I got a 70mm macro and, though it's just about good enough for shooting bugs - if you're real patient - I'd certainly not want to try anything shorter.
Ah, one day they'll be a nice long 200mm (or, :drool: 300mm) 1:1 macro... Mmm... almost half a meter of working distance... :daydream: ;)
Tamron has always treated me well. 90mm You can pick one up a used "manual" on ebay for a reasonable price. I went with manual since you typically have to switch to manual when doing close up shots- just my preference. It's f/2.8. BTW, the longer the lens (e.g. 100mm) for better focal distance you have. If you got say a 60mm you need to get fairly close to the subject which doesn't work too good with live subjects such as bees. My $.02
Canon 100mm 2.8 is a great super sharp lens not that bad @ about 500 US. Canon does make a 180mm 3.5 but you will have to save a little longer for that one @ about 1400 US. Bite the bullet and go for the 100mm you want regret it. I have used it for over a year and all my shots are hand held. I just try to keep my shutter speed up if possible.
don't mistake focal length with enlargement factor. for Nikon, 60mm is the sweet spot. the 40mm is too short to get a 1:1 under 3 inches, and the 105mm has a massive 12 inch 1:1, which unfortunately, still puts you at 1 foot from the subject. the 60mm, though, lets you get much closer, giving you a larger insect on your sensor than the 105mm can pull off.
that said, the 105mm 2.8 *does* win when you *want* that 12 inch standoff, like when you're adding artificial light, or want to stay as far away from a wasp or an ugly spider and still get a good zoom.
it comes down to your subject... is it stationary, or does it spook? (or spook you?) I'd love to add a 60mm to my 105mm, but it would be hard to choose one or the other.
I highly recommend the 100mm 2.8 - it does a lot more than just macro shots. Mine rarely comes off my camera! It does great portraits and will even do landscapes in a pinch. Save your pennies - never scrimp on lenses!
@cameronknowlton The 1:1 focal distance is the point at which the subject will be projected on the sensor at 1:1 scale. For most macro lenses, this is also the minimum focal distance. If you photograph an object at 1:1 magnification on a 40mm lens and a 105mm lens, the object will be the same size on the sensor and the resultant photo -- so not sure what you mean when you say the 60mm lens gives you a larger insect on your sensor?
To get the object to appear larger you need a macro lens with a larger than 1:1 magnification factor. I'm not sure about Nikon, but Canon do offer such a lens, the Canon MP-E 65mm, which offers between a 1:1 and 5:1 magnification factor, but it's a very specialised lens.
@brav The downsides with a shorter focal length macro lens is that, as has been mentioned, you need to get very close to your subject to reach 1:1 magnification. This is both difficult with live subjects, and can also provide considerable lighting difficulties without also buying a ring flash. You also have a less shallow depth of field, which makes throwing the background out of focus (often desirable in macro photography) harder.
The downsides with a longer focal length macro lens is that they are harder to hand-hold, and you'll need a shorter shutter speed if doing so. And of course, they're more expensive.
The Canon 50mm f/2.5 lens you are looking at is not a true macro lens -- it only offers a 1:2 magnification factor, so objects will only be half as large in your resultant photo as they could be with a true macro lens. I'd advise either the Canon 60mm EF-S macro, or if possible, the Canon 100mm f/2.8 macro many others have also recommended.
I used the Canon 100mm f/2.8 macro for four years and loved every minute of using it - almost always without a tripod. And in answer to Aaron's comment @grizzlysghost, the only reason I'm giving it to one of my sons for Christmas is because my incredibly wonderful husband got me the newer one with IS. And it is absolutely to die for. . .
@brianl Are the shots you've taken with the tamron lens handheld ? I've read there will be a new version with VR but more expensive .. But I'm not such a fan of tripods either and don't want to spend that much money ;)
Just in case you want a step down in price from the 100 2.8 and don't mind the lesser quality (and I don't know how much the Tamron is), Canon has the 28-135 macro 3.5-5.6 IS. It's $294 and gives some great flexibility. My macro shots are with this lens and they're good enough for me who cannot afford more right now.
@stephaniedc Yes and No. It depends on the lighting conditions and what f-stop I'm using- there's a lot of variables to factor in. Anything with a slow shutter most likely will require a tripod.
@brav If you want to go really cheap? Get a reversing ring. :D They cost about a dollar, and you use it to attach your 18-55mm the wrong way around on your body (so the inside bit of the lens faces outward and vice versa). It allows you to get INSANELY close to your subject, offering significantly larger than 1x1 magnification. Do a tag search for reverse lens macro - I have a bunch of photos under that tag so you can see the sorts of results you can get! :)
Downsides:
- You have to manually focus.
- You have to get really, really, really close to your subject. Like, centimetres away. I have taken a photo of a deadly spider up close, but it was dying (if not dead), and I would not have risked it otherwise!
- Dust and things can get into the end of the lens (the bit pointing away from the camera when it's reversed). But I think as long as you're careful with that, it should be fine :)
- It doesn't capture the exif info of the aperture. (Stores it as f/infinity or f/0.) Doesn't affect your photo in any way.
@pocketmouse Teresa, I often see people recommending this and in fact I have a reverse ring as well. With my lens the aperture is electronically adjusted and when using a reverse ring there's no means to change it since the camera isn't communicating with the lens via the electronic contacts. I use sony but perhaps nikon and/or canon lens are different? I think being able to adjust the aperture is pretty darn important when taking macro shots. Do you usually just let the iris close down to the smallest aperture and shoot away? I've always wondered about this. bl
@abirkill Indeed, because as any high school physics student will tell you, the lens will create a 1:1 image when the subject and the image plane (film/sensor./whatever) are both at twice the focal length of the lens from the lens's optical centre. So a 40mm Macro lens will have a minimum focusing distance of 80mm from the center of the lens. whereas a 100mm lens will be at 200mm (Well, OK ~ish, it depends on the lens design as to where the optical center actually is)
If you move the subject closer to the lens than this distance it will be brought to a focus /behind/ the image plane, albeit at bigger than 1:1 which is clearly useless. However, if you stick an extension tube between the lens and the film, then the distance between the IP and the optical center becomes bigger than twice the focal length, so you can then move the subject a little closer to the lens and, consequently, get a bigger than 1:1; image. Which, I think, is a neat trick.
Well, 'they' do say that understanding light is the key to photography! ;)
@pocketmouse Interesting. When my lens is removed from the camera it defaults to f/22 (smallest) which makes macro shots difficult. That's why I prefer using a macro lens. Thanks...
@brianl With Canon, the way to do it is to set the desired aperture using aperture priority mode, press the DOF Preview button on the camera to stop the lens down to the selected aperture, and while holding the button down, remove the lens from the camera.
Not sure if that will work on Sony though, although it's worth a try.
@abirkill not sure that would work but I will try this weekend. With the Sony there is a lever in the lens that controls the aperture. Once disconnect it springs to the smallest f-stop. I have used tape to keep the aperture wide in the past when I've tried shooting reverse ring.
Now I understand why the canon folks like using reverse rings so much. Thanks for the explanation.
@brianl Wow, I didn't realise Sony still used a manual aperture lever! I guess that must be a carry-over from the Minolta mount that they based it on. Learn something new every day -- thanks!
@abirkill just to clarify, its not manual like an old school lens. Sony controls the aperture via the camera electronics. The mechanism that adjusts the aperture is built into each lens which when connected to the body is then controlled by the camera. I just know it springs to f/22 when the lens is taken off the body. I'm not a big reverse lens user anyways....prefer macro lens. Hope what I wrote makes sense...
@brav Richard I have been using a 60mm for nikon, I get really close, and have had some success. grat for flowers and great for portraits too. When I see other people's macro shots that I love, they are almost always shot with a 100mm. I did buy extension tubes but can;t say as of yet, that I have had great success with them.
My hunky hubby is getting me a macro lens fo my birthday (yikes).. I have a cannon eos 600d.. Any newer recommendations @cameronknowlton@emjay8@glenmoor@lyno@timandelke ??? Thanks in advance xx
Grab yourself an achromatic close up filter to add on to your macro lens... You can get seriously close with that combination. Make sure your focal plane is even with your subject, and get some focus stacking software... macro shots have razor thin DOF.
@mrsbaldy read my note above... this is my most recent shot using both my macro lens *and* my achromatic Nikon 6T close up filter (which I ***scored*** on eBay for a mere $100):
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
For flowers/still life the 50mm will be perfect though!
Take a look at my album to see what I have managed with my 100mm... it's a very recent acquisition (I have not even had it a week yet!). :)
@victorypuzzle were the shots you took with your 100mm handheld?
I would say, rather save a bit longer and get the 100mm. Otherwise you will probably land up getting it at some stage anyhow! It is such a great quality lens as well - I have had a lot of success using it for portraits. The tone and colour is beautiful.
Ah, one day they'll be a nice long 200mm (or, :drool: 300mm) 1:1 macro... Mmm... almost half a meter of working distance... :daydream: ;)
that said, the 105mm 2.8 *does* win when you *want* that 12 inch standoff, like when you're adding artificial light, or want to stay as far away from a wasp or an ugly spider and still get a good zoom.
it comes down to your subject... is it stationary, or does it spook? (or spook you?) I'd love to add a 60mm to my 105mm, but it would be hard to choose one or the other.
To get the object to appear larger you need a macro lens with a larger than 1:1 magnification factor. I'm not sure about Nikon, but Canon do offer such a lens, the Canon MP-E 65mm, which offers between a 1:1 and 5:1 magnification factor, but it's a very specialised lens.
@brav The downsides with a shorter focal length macro lens is that, as has been mentioned, you need to get very close to your subject to reach 1:1 magnification. This is both difficult with live subjects, and can also provide considerable lighting difficulties without also buying a ring flash. You also have a less shallow depth of field, which makes throwing the background out of focus (often desirable in macro photography) harder.
The downsides with a longer focal length macro lens is that they are harder to hand-hold, and you'll need a shorter shutter speed if doing so. And of course, they're more expensive.
The Canon 50mm f/2.5 lens you are looking at is not a true macro lens -- it only offers a 1:2 magnification factor, so objects will only be half as large in your resultant photo as they could be with a true macro lens. I'd advise either the Canon 60mm EF-S macro, or if possible, the Canon 100mm f/2.8 macro many others have also recommended.
Downsides:
- You have to manually focus.
- You have to get really, really, really close to your subject. Like, centimetres away. I have taken a photo of a deadly spider up close, but it was dying (if not dead), and I would not have risked it otherwise!
- Dust and things can get into the end of the lens (the bit pointing away from the camera when it's reversed). But I think as long as you're careful with that, it should be fine :)
- It doesn't capture the exif info of the aperture. (Stores it as f/infinity or f/0.) Doesn't affect your photo in any way.
If you move the subject closer to the lens than this distance it will be brought to a focus /behind/ the image plane, albeit at bigger than 1:1 which is clearly useless. However, if you stick an extension tube between the lens and the film, then the distance between the IP and the optical center becomes bigger than twice the focal length, so you can then move the subject a little closer to the lens and, consequently, get a bigger than 1:1; image. Which, I think, is a neat trick.
Well, 'they' do say that understanding light is the key to photography! ;)
Not sure if that will work on Sony though, although it's worth a try.
Now I understand why the canon folks like using reverse rings so much. Thanks for the explanation.