-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Macro Photography
- Thread starter G Hahn
- Start date
I use a Raynox DCR150 on my 70-200mm f4. The DCR150 is a well corrected triplet 4.8 diopter snap-on lens. Fits on lenses that have a 67mm filter size or less
I prefer this combination over my dedicated Sigma 105mm 1:1 macrolens. As a matter of fact, I think I'll buy a DCR250 as well. That's an 8 diopter model.
For Raynox check here:
http://raynox.co.jp/english/digital/d_slr/index.html
and for sample images here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sankax/sets/72157603919442073/
I prefer this combination over my dedicated Sigma 105mm 1:1 macrolens. As a matter of fact, I think I'll buy a DCR250 as well. That's an 8 diopter model.
For Raynox check here:
http://raynox.co.jp/english/digital/d_slr/index.html
and for sample images here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sankax/sets/72157603919442073/
Hard to say, I don't have that one.
But the canon is a doublet and the raynox a triplet. Triplets allow fore better correction of lens aberrations than doublets. I've never seen a trace of colour fringing with the raynox. It seems to have a perfect flat field and is really sharp all the way to the edges of the image. The coating looks impressive too.
I've used the DCR150 on a Fuji bridge camera (filter size 58mm) and now use it on the 70-200mm (filter size 67mm). The Canon will fit only one filter size.
The Canon is a 2 dioptre lens, the raynox DCR150 is 4.8 dioptre, i.e. much stronger.
The focal length equals the working distance of these lenses. The focal length in metres is the reciprocal of the dioptre strength.
For the Canon, the focal length (and working distance) is 1/2=0.5m. With the DCR150 you get a focal length (and working distance) of 1/4.8=0.2m. The closer you get, the more magnification.
The DCR150 will give you about 2.5 times more magnification.
Raynox is less than half the price of the Canon (which seems grossly overpriced)
Please take this into account: more magnification leads to a smaller "sharp zone". In other words: more dioptres means more magnification, but less depth of field.
I found it easy to get used to the DCR150. The DCR250 will prove quite a challenge since it has a whopping strength of 8 dioptres.
For macro photography you either use a high f/number or a focus stacking program (or both) to increase the depth of field. I often use f/16 or f/22 and the free program Combine ZP.
I'll see if I can find an example - I'm not a good photographer, just a gear freak, so don't expect too much!
But the canon is a doublet and the raynox a triplet. Triplets allow fore better correction of lens aberrations than doublets. I've never seen a trace of colour fringing with the raynox. It seems to have a perfect flat field and is really sharp all the way to the edges of the image. The coating looks impressive too.
I've used the DCR150 on a Fuji bridge camera (filter size 58mm) and now use it on the 70-200mm (filter size 67mm). The Canon will fit only one filter size.
The Canon is a 2 dioptre lens, the raynox DCR150 is 4.8 dioptre, i.e. much stronger.
The focal length equals the working distance of these lenses. The focal length in metres is the reciprocal of the dioptre strength.
For the Canon, the focal length (and working distance) is 1/2=0.5m. With the DCR150 you get a focal length (and working distance) of 1/4.8=0.2m. The closer you get, the more magnification.
The DCR150 will give you about 2.5 times more magnification.
Raynox is less than half the price of the Canon (which seems grossly overpriced)
Please take this into account: more magnification leads to a smaller "sharp zone". In other words: more dioptres means more magnification, but less depth of field.
I found it easy to get used to the DCR150. The DCR250 will prove quite a challenge since it has a whopping strength of 8 dioptres.
For macro photography you either use a high f/number or a focus stacking program (or both) to increase the depth of field. I often use f/16 or f/22 and the free program Combine ZP.
I'll see if I can find an example - I'm not a good photographer, just a gear freak, so don't expect too much!
Click on the word "original" in the picture's description to see it at 1920x1080 pixels.
I used 5 images , each taken at f22, to get a really deep sharp zone. The moth, from from wing tip to the end of the antennae is about 5mm long. I used a kenko 1.4x, teleconvertor so my lens had a focal length of 280mm.
An afterthought:
Use manual focus and focus your lens at infinity. Then move in and out from your subject to get the sharp zone where you want it and take the photo.
Another oine:
I like to use an off-camera flash set at high speed sync and a really short shutter time to avoid motion blur. For the five shots in this stack I used the M setting at 1/2000 sec shutter speed and f/22 aperture. With ETTL the flash will make sure that the exposure is correct.
one more thing, about the 5 images.
The first was sharp on the end of the anttennae, the last was focussed on the wing tip, the rest were sharp on the bits in between.
For each picture I moved the camera a little backwards.
The pictures were processed with Combine ZP, which you can get here:
http://www.hadleyweb.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/CZP/Installation.htm
The first was sharp on the end of the anttennae, the last was focussed on the wing tip, the rest were sharp on the bits in between.
For each picture I moved the camera a little backwards.
The pictures were processed with Combine ZP, which you can get here:
http://www.hadleyweb.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/CZP/Installation.htm
and have used it on a 70-200L f2.8 which IMO is a sharper lens that the 70-300 (I have owned this in the past) but was never very impressed with the results. You will also not get true 1:1 macro.
A prime will always produce a sharper image and adding glass to glass will degrade images. The new 100L macro is quality plus; super sharp, great contrast and despite the masses saying that the IS does not help at high magnifications, any user will tell you it does.
If you want a cheap option, go for the EFS60; this has great contrast and sharpenss and a fraction of the price.
Hope this helps
Stephen
A prime will always produce a sharper image and adding glass to glass will degrade images. The new 100L macro is quality plus; super sharp, great contrast and despite the masses saying that the IS does not help at high magnifications, any user will tell you it does.
If you want a cheap option, go for the EFS60; this has great contrast and sharpenss and a fraction of the price.
Hope this helps
Stephen
Good advice already given.
Some people love closeup and macro but to try it out I would get a Raynox closeup lens as described earlier which will fit on your existing tele lens. Because they have a clip on holder they are quick and can be used on various lenses. Great for occasional use and light to carry. I have seen some stunning images with a Raynox used on a bridge camera.
If you take to it, you can then buy a Macro lens which will give 1:1 magnification and focus to infinity if needed. The canon 60mm is excellent and a good protrait lens too. The Canon 100L and Sigma 150 are good if you want longer working distances (insects?) and have more to spend.
I use Raynox on my Canon G12 compact and Sigma 150 on my 7D. I shoot Butterflies, Dragonflies and smaller insects (few shots in my gallery)
Post some pics once you get started. Enjoy
Some people love closeup and macro but to try it out I would get a Raynox closeup lens as described earlier which will fit on your existing tele lens. Because they have a clip on holder they are quick and can be used on various lenses. Great for occasional use and light to carry. I have seen some stunning images with a Raynox used on a bridge camera.
If you take to it, you can then buy a Macro lens which will give 1:1 magnification and focus to infinity if needed. The canon 60mm is excellent and a good protrait lens too. The Canon 100L and Sigma 150 are good if you want longer working distances (insects?) and have more to spend.
I use Raynox on my Canon G12 compact and Sigma 150 on my 7D. I shoot Butterflies, Dragonflies and smaller insects (few shots in my gallery)
Post some pics once you get started. Enjoy
Navi_Inside
Active member
that picture with canon 100 mm? ( without L )
what the difference? because in my place the price
is half of L series x_x
so that's why i thinking to buy without L someday
when i have extra money
--
~ Life is so unpredictable, that's why life is so much fun. ~
visit my Flickr : http://www.flickr.com/photos/53450141@N03/
what the difference? because in my place the price
is half of L series x_x
so that's why i thinking to buy without L someday
when i have extra money
--
~ Life is so unpredictable, that's why life is so much fun. ~
visit my Flickr : http://www.flickr.com/photos/53450141@N03/
S
Scotsman
Guest
I really like the 250, even though I have the Tamron 90 macro. I can put the 250 on any lens that will fit. It's a lot of fun and a great place to start. You do look funny though rocking back and forth.
--
A DSLR is a black hole that you throw money in to, and enjoy every minute of it!!!!
--
A DSLR is a black hole that you throw money in to, and enjoy every minute of it!!!!
I can really recommend the the 7D with the 100L lens, I've been using it for a few months now and it's much sharper (and a lot faster) than my 105 sigma lens.
Here's an overview of the shots I've made so far:
http://flickrhivemind.net/flickr_hvmnd.cgi?search_domain=Tags&textinput=smitbj%2C100L&search_type=Search+Tags&photo_number=50&photo_type=250&sort=Interestingness&page=1&tag_mode=all
Bart
Here's an overview of the shots I've made so far:
http://flickrhivemind.net/flickr_hvmnd.cgi?search_domain=Tags&textinput=smitbj%2C100L&search_type=Search+Tags&photo_number=50&photo_type=250&sort=Interestingness&page=1&tag_mode=all
Bart
Navi_Inside
Active member
How about 100 without L ? i see the review, and i think it's good too
the difference is IS things
--
~ Life is so unpredictable, that's why life is so much fun. ~
visit my Flickr : http://www.flickr.com/photos/53450141@N03/
the difference is IS things
--
~ Life is so unpredictable, that's why life is so much fun. ~
visit my Flickr : http://www.flickr.com/photos/53450141@N03/
About a yr ago when i was shopping the 100 macro USM vs the newer L IS version i saw a reputable testing that showed the newer L 100 macro IS in some rare cases has an optical issue(vignetting or such) but not on the original 100 USM macro. They even illustrated it in side-by-side photos.
Between that & not being able to justify the higher price of the IS L (hadn't tasted IS at the time lol), i went with the original non-IS 100 macro USM + hood(recm'd). I've not regretted it a second. It's clarity still blows me away(many owners are mystified Canon didn't call it L to begin with - myself included). Even without IS, Canon's 100 macro USM is so exceptionally sharp it wouldn't matter if the newer L version were optically better besides IS(which my research did not find at least).
Having said that, naturally if $ was less an issue i'd go with the new L IS version simply because of the general shooting opportunities IS has opened with my 70-200/f4. Either 100 macro makes an optically exceptional mild tele or portrait lens too. Though i've not tried it myself, with macro work .5x and more expert testing seems to rule out IS as being any sure advantage real world no matter what some owners are claiming. As long as IS has been out now, i think(granted, i'm speculating) there's a reason Canon waited so long to put it on a basically special purpose lens. Reviews indicate it's not THAT effective w/true macro(close to 1X), leading one to believe it's another tactic the clever Japanese use to sell more lenses since the original 100 USM has had a good run & surely declining in sales. An "update" was overdue to get buyers to bite in the macro segment.
I'm sure you'll be happy w/either one you choose.
Good luck w/your decision & let us know how you make out!
Mark
Between that & not being able to justify the higher price of the IS L (hadn't tasted IS at the time lol), i went with the original non-IS 100 macro USM + hood(recm'd). I've not regretted it a second. It's clarity still blows me away(many owners are mystified Canon didn't call it L to begin with - myself included). Even without IS, Canon's 100 macro USM is so exceptionally sharp it wouldn't matter if the newer L version were optically better besides IS(which my research did not find at least).
Having said that, naturally if $ was less an issue i'd go with the new L IS version simply because of the general shooting opportunities IS has opened with my 70-200/f4. Either 100 macro makes an optically exceptional mild tele or portrait lens too. Though i've not tried it myself, with macro work .5x and more expert testing seems to rule out IS as being any sure advantage real world no matter what some owners are claiming. As long as IS has been out now, i think(granted, i'm speculating) there's a reason Canon waited so long to put it on a basically special purpose lens. Reviews indicate it's not THAT effective w/true macro(close to 1X), leading one to believe it's another tactic the clever Japanese use to sell more lenses since the original 100 USM has had a good run & surely declining in sales. An "update" was overdue to get buyers to bite in the macro segment.
I'm sure you'll be happy w/either one you choose.
Good luck w/your decision & let us know how you make out!
Mark
Navi_Inside
Active member
I think i will go with non IS version because "money" things
btw why u recommend hood? is it useful for macro things?
and yeah, many people said that in forum, said that it's sharp and people
wonder why this one don't have red ring ...
--
~ Life is so unpredictable, that's why life is so much fun. ~
visit my Flickr : http://www.flickr.com/photos/53450141@N03/
Others highly recm'ded the hood to prevent stray light causing optical issues. The glass is very close to the front. So the hood is also great protection from dust and ruination(damage). I think the hood is included w/the L IS, but optional w/the non-IS(even if mandatory really). The EF-S 10-22 i want plays the same game, it really needs a hood but Canon makes you buy it. A cheaper aftermarket hood for the macro is available for maybe $20 less if you don't want to spend a high $40 for the Canon. The canon is nice though, has that nice flat velvet inside it to stop reflection in its tracks.
I waited...and waited...then bingo! Finally got lucky after hunting for some time and found a barely used, mint condition 100 macro USM only 6 mths old that included the Canon hood and all paperwk on Ebay, only $465 free shipping. Generally the 100 macro USM's have great resale(for good reason) often selling well over $500 + shpg, drove me nuts some bid them near new at the time($600). Whatever you do i'd avoid the original non-USM focus macro.
I love mine - not a zoom but very versatile being so fast, & likely the sharpest lens i own.
Mark
I waited...and waited...then bingo! Finally got lucky after hunting for some time and found a barely used, mint condition 100 macro USM only 6 mths old that included the Canon hood and all paperwk on Ebay, only $465 free shipping. Generally the 100 macro USM's have great resale(for good reason) often selling well over $500 + shpg, drove me nuts some bid them near new at the time($600). Whatever you do i'd avoid the original non-USM focus macro.
I love mine - not a zoom but very versatile being so fast, & likely the sharpest lens i own.
Mark
Navi_Inside
Active member
Ooo ic, maybe i will take one later. I still need to save a lot for this lens.
i hope it can be my 3rd lenses
( 1st is kit 15-85, 2nd 50mm 1.8 ).Wow, you are lucky to get that offer haha.
--
~ Life is so unpredictable, that's why life is so much fun. ~
visit my Flickr : http://www.flickr.com/photos/53450141@N03/
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum