Advice for a macro photography kit

IMO, a mirrorless EVF has pros and cons for macro.

Pros: focus peaking, focus zoom, adaptability of many lenses, viewfinder brightness adjustable

Cons: lower end viewfinders can be difficult to judge focus when DOF is very narrow

What camera do you have now?

What kind of subjects do you plan on taking pics of?

What's your budget?

I have spent a lot of time over the past six years experimenting with various kit for close-up/macro of invertebrates (mainly insects and spiders) and botanical subjects (mainly flowers). I have bridge, micro four thirds, APS-C and full frame equipment, including some that you are thinking about such as an MPE-65 and Laowa 25 2.5-5X.

I have come to the conclusion that, at least for my purposes, with invertebrates, in terms of image quality it doesn't make much difference what camera/lens arrangement I use. Far more important in my experience are the illumination of the scene (flash diffusion etc) and post processing. There is also something else that I find more difficult to pin down, involving a mix of factors - I suppose they might come under the general heading of "technique".

As to choice of kit, what works for some people doesn't work for other people. I think a certain amount of trial and error may be called for, if possible. Given my experience as to image quality, my choice of kit revolves around usability, and for me that has turned out to mean using close-up lenses on telezoom lenses. My preferred kit for medium sized invertebrates is in fact a small sensor bridge camera with Raynox close-up lenses, although I find micro four thirds cameras with Raynox close-up lenses on a 45-175 zoom lens are almost as good for medium sized invertebrates, and possibly better for small invertebrates such as springtails and barkflies.

For flowers etc I have found that one particular micro four thirds camera with a macro lens works best for me.

These conclusions are very much to do with the particular handling characteristics of specific pieces of kit, and how well they fit with my particular preferences and the techniques I use, and so I am not making any sort of recommendation here as to what particular kit, or type of kit (sensor size etc) you would find best to use. My main point is that close-up/macro is a complicated business and there are many ways of tackling it. In that context, and depending on exactly what type of image you want to produce, use of "class leading" equipment may not provide the benefits that one might think they would.

btw, as a specific response to one of your questions, I almost never use a viewfinder; I almost always use an articulated screen. So for me, having a viewfinder, and how well it works, are pretty much irrelevant. Like I said, different things work for different people.

--
Nick
Summary of photo activity and output since 2007 https://fliesandflowers.blogspot.com/2019/01/when-i-retired-in-2006-i-had-it-in-mind.html
Flickr image collections http://www.flickr.com/photos/gardenersassistant/collections/

gardenersassistant said:

I have spent a lot of time over the past six years experimenting with various kit for close-up/macro of invertebrates (mainly insects and spiders) and botanical subjects (mainly flowers). I have bridge, micro four thirds, APS-C and full frame equipment, including some that you are thinking about such as an MPE-65 and Laowa 25 2.5-5X.

I have come to the conclusion that, at least for my purposes, with invertebrates, in terms of image quality it doesn't make much difference what camera/lens arrangement I use. Far more important in my experience are the illumination of the scene (flash diffusion etc) and post processing. There is also something else that I find more difficult to pin down, involving a mix of factors - I suppose they might come under the general heading of "technique".

As to choice of kit, what works for some people doesn't work for other people. I think a certain amount of trial and error may be called for, if possible. Given my experience as to image quality, my choice of kit revolves around usability, and for me that has turned out to mean using close-up lenses on telezoom lenses. My preferred kit for medium sized invertebrates is in fact a small sensor bridge camera with Raynox close-up lenses, although I find micro four thirds cameras with Raynox close-up lenses on a 45-175 zoom lens are almost as good for medium sized invertebrates, and possibly better for small invertebrates such as springtails and barkflies.

For flowers etc I have found that one particular micro four thirds camera with a macro lens works best for me.

These conclusions are very much to do with the particular handling characteristics of specific pieces of kit, and how well they fit with my particular preferences and the techniques I use, and so I am not making any sort of recommendation here as to what particular kit, or type of kit (sensor size etc) you would find best to use. My main point is that close-up/macro is a complicated business and there are many ways of tackling it. In that context, and depending on exactly what type of image you want to produce, use of "class leading" equipment may not provide the benefits that one might think they would.

btw, as a specific response to one of your questions, I almost never use a viewfinder; I almost always use an articulated screen. So for me, having a viewfinder, and how well it works, are pretty much irrelevant. Like I said, different things work for different people.

Click to expand...

Hey There!

I have a Canon 90D (which can be used as a mirrorless when used with the viewfinder) I am planning to get into macro photography and I have read great things about the Raynox DCR-250 and my current lenses are a Tamron 70-300 4.0-5.6 SP Di VC and a Canon 100-400 L II.

What would you say are the main differences in getting a Canon Macro 100 and a Raynox? There are obvious differences since one is a dedicated lens of course and the other one is like an attachment.

I see you mentioning that you you prefer a Raynox sometines and Ive seen your pictures (which are great) and seems you have a lot of experience in this field, so that, I would like to know why do you prefer this over a dedicated lens?

Bottom line is, that I would like to have your guidance and opinion as a purchase decision since I am not planning to get the dedicated lens at this point

Best,

Kevin

Many thanks for all your answers. Nick, I've seen your blog and pictures, and I'm impressed! As Kevin, I'd also appreciate if you could elaborate a bit on the differences you found between a Raynox and a dedicated macro lens. In my case I am interested in the comparison with the MPE 65.

kpr1291 said:

gardenersassistant said:

I have spent a lot of time over the past six years experimenting with various kit for close-up/macro of invertebrates (mainly insects and spiders) and botanical subjects (mainly flowers). I have bridge, micro four thirds, APS-C and full frame equipment, including some that you are thinking about such as an MPE-65 and Laowa 25 2.5-5X.

I have come to the conclusion that, at least for my purposes, with invertebrates, in terms of image quality it doesn't make much difference what camera/lens arrangement I use. Far more important in my experience are the illumination of the scene (flash diffusion etc) and post processing. There is also something else that I find more difficult to pin down, involving a mix of factors - I suppose they might come under the general heading of "technique".

As to choice of kit, what works for some people doesn't work for other people. I think a certain amount of trial and error may be called for, if possible. Given my experience as to image quality, my choice of kit revolves around usability, and for me that has turned out to mean using close-up lenses on telezoom lenses. My preferred kit for medium sized invertebrates is in fact a small sensor bridge camera with Raynox close-up lenses, although I find micro four thirds cameras with Raynox close-up lenses on a 45-175 zoom lens are almost as good for medium sized invertebrates, and possibly better for small invertebrates such as springtails and barkflies.

For flowers etc I have found that one particular micro four thirds camera with a macro lens works best for me.

These conclusions are very much to do with the particular handling characteristics of specific pieces of kit, and how well they fit with my particular preferences and the techniques I use, and so I am not making any sort of recommendation here as to what particular kit, or type of kit (sensor size etc) you would find best to use. My main point is that close-up/macro is a complicated business and there are many ways of tackling it. In that context, and depending on exactly what type of image you want to produce, use of "class leading" equipment may not provide the benefits that one might think they would.

btw, as a specific response to one of your questions, I almost never use a viewfinder; I almost always use an articulated screen. So for me, having a viewfinder, and how well it works, are pretty much irrelevant. Like I said, different things work for different people.

Click to expand...

Hey There!

I have a Canon 90D (which can be used as a mirrorless when used with the viewfinder)

Click to expand...

I have a 70D. I think of the viewfinder as the hole at the top on the back that you can look into to see what you are photographing, and then there is a screen on the back that folds out. You can use the 70D in live view with the screen on the back, but not with (what I call) the viewfinder. I imagine the 90D is the same in this respect.

I used the 70D with an EF-S 55-250 STM, which is sharp and relatively small and light. It worked well with a mild (+2 diopter) Canon 500D close-up lens for flowers and larger insects such as butterflies and dragonflies, and with a Raynox 150 and Raynox 250 for flies, wasps, snails, beetles etc.

I believe there are three versions of the 55-250. The first one I had didn't autofocus very well with the Raynox 150, and hardly at all with the 250. I changed it for one of the later version 55-250s and that worked quite well.

For flies, wasps, snails, beetles etc the 70D + 55-250 and Raynox 150/250 wasn't as good as my Panasonic cameras with the Raynox 150/250. That is because I always used live view for close-up/macro, using the articulated screen, and when using single area focusing in live view on the 70D the focusing box is quite large. This means I couldn't be as precise about where I was putting the centre of focus (and hence the centre of the depth of field) as I could with the Panasonics, with which you can use a much smaller focus box.

I also found that the 70D didn't focus as quickly or as reliably as the Panasonics when using the Raynoxes with live view focusing.

Perhaps the 90D is better than the 70D for these things. I don't know.

kpr1291 said:

I am planning to get into macro photography and I have read great things about the Raynox DCR-250 and my current lenses are a Tamron 70-300 4.0-5.6 SP Di VC and a Canon 100-400 L II.

Click to expand...

The Raynoxes can work well with telezooms (you tend not to get the vignetting that you can get with shorter focal length lenses), so the 70-300 and/or the 100-400 might be very good with Raynoxes.

kpr1291 said:

What would you say are the main differences in getting a Canon Macro 100 and a Raynox? There are obvious differences since one is a dedicated lens of course and the other one is like an attachment.

Click to expand...

When used with the apertures that most people use the Canon 100L Macro is probably much sharper than using a close-up lens on a telezoom lens. However, I use very small apertures so as to get as much depth of field as I can, and when you do that it doesn't make much difference what lens you use because all the finest detail gets lost in blurring caused by diffraction. (I haven't tested that with the Canon 100L Macro because I only had one for a few days some years ago before I was doing a lot of comparison testing. However, I have done comparisons with the Sigma 105 Macro, which I think is generally reckoned to be another good macro lens, and at minimum aperture I didn't find any benefit in terms of fine detail capture, or anything else, with the Sigma 105 Macro.)

One of the big advantages for me of using close-up lenses on telezooms rather than macro lenses is that with close-up lenses on telezoom lenses I get accurate auto focusing (with no hunting) with a small focus box that can be precisely positioned to get the centre of focus/dof where I want it, for all the magnifications I use. In the brief time I had the 100L, and with the Sigma 105 that I have now, I have found that autofocus tends to hunt as I get towards 1:1. You might still get some degree of autofocus beyond that on APS-C if you use suitable extension tubes, but all the dedicated macro lenses that go beyond 1:1 such as the Canon MPE-65 1-5X, the Laowa 60mm 2X and the Laowa 25mm 2.5-5X are manual focus only.

For many people not having autofocus is not a problem because they only want to use manual focus for macro anyway. For me though I find I can get better results with autofocus, especially with subjects that are moving around. The camera can fine tune the focus much faster and more accurately than I can. All I have to do is point the focus box in the right place and keep the camera the right distance from the subject.

Keeping the right distance is another of the difference with close-up lenses. Close-up lenses will only give you a sharp image if you have them with a certain range of distance from the subject. As the close-up lenses get more powerful that range gets smaller. The furthest usable working distance (the distance between the subject and the front of the close-up lens) is around 1000/diopters mm, where diopters is the power of the close-up lens. For example, the Raynox 250 is +8 diopters, and so the largest working distance you can use is around 1000 / 8 = 125mm. How close you can get depends on how close the camera lens will focus. Since macro lenses can focus closer than non-macro lenses, using a close-up lens on a macro lens will give you a wider range of working distances that you can use.

kpr1291 said:

I see you mentioning that you you prefer a Raynox sometines and Ive seen your pictures (which are great) and seems you have a lot of experience in this field, so that, I would like to know why do you prefer this over a dedicated lens?

Click to expand...

See above. I do prefer close-up lenses for insects, spiders etc but for flowers and other botanical subjects I use a macro lens. In that case I rarely use very small apertures and so I can get better fine detail using a macro lens. That is not the main reason though, which is because using a macro lens works particularly well on my Panasonics, and most especially on my Panasonic G9, with two techniques that I use for flowers etc, aperture bracketing and video-based focus stacking. I believe these are not available on the 90D so there is probably no point going into them here. My point is though that I find close-up lenses very good for a particular approach that I use, using very small apertures so as to get maximum depth of field from single shots out in the field, using manual flash (and close-up lenses can have an advantage for use with manual flash too). However, if I was using more normal apertures for single shots, or doing focus stacking for invertebrates (which works best with sweet spot apertures), then I would probably not be using close-up lenses. (I have it in mind to, possibly, try some focus stacking with invertebrates this year. If I do I will be using one of my micro four thirds cameras and a macro lens.)

kpr1291 said:

Bottom line is, that I would like to have your guidance and opinion as a purchase decision since I am not planning to get the dedicated lens at this point

Click to expand...

What you might want to do is to purchase a very inexpensive (around 10 dollars/euros/UKP) set of close-up filters. They come in sets of four of power +1, +2, +4 and +10 diopters, and by combining them you can get to intermediate magnifications. You will not get great image quality from them - they are made of single pieces of glass and tend to suffer from chromatic aberration and lack of sharpness and distortion, especially away from the centre. However, getting a set of them is a very inexpensive way of finding out what it is like to use close-up lenses. You may simply find you don't like the way you have to work with them. It also gives you a chance to work out what power of close-up lens would work best for what you want to do, both in terms of magnification and working distance. Armed with the information you get from trying these you could then be in a better position to decide what route to take next.

kpr1291 said:

Best,

Kevin

Click to expand...

--
Nick
Summary of photo activity and output since 2007 https://fliesandflowers.blogspot.com/2019/01/when-i-retired-in-2006-i-had-it-in-mind.html
Flickr image collections http://www.flickr.com/photos/gardenersassistant/collections/

VicentePG said:

Many thanks for all your answers. Nick, I've seen your blog and pictures, and I'm impressed! As Kevin, I'd also appreciate if you could elaborate a bit on the differences you found between a Raynox and a dedicated macro lens. In my case I am interested in the comparison with the MPE 65.

Click to expand...

I've just done a response to Kevin. Perhaps that will help. I could add some other thoughts about my experience with the MPE-65, but I'm not sure that would be helpful. My experience has been fairly negative. That is not in relation to image quality, but in terms of usability. The thing is though that loads of people use the MPE-65 and are very happy with it. It might be better to get feedback from people who are familiar and successful with it rather than someone like me with hardly any experience and little success with it.

EDIT: If you think it would help I would be happy to tell you about my experience trying to use the MPE-65, as long as the above context is clearly understood.

--
Nick
Summary of photo activity and output since 2007 https://fliesandflowers.blogspot.com/2019/01/when-i-retired-in-2006-i-had-it-in-mind.html
Flickr image collections http://www.flickr.com/photos/gardenersassistant/collections/

I'd love to read your experience with the MPE65, please.

I have recently obtained one, and though finding it reasonably sharp ( but by no means close to Sony 90mm) I struggle with 'handling'.

Regards

LesPickstock said:

I'd love to read your experience with the MPE65, please.

I have recently obtained one, and though finding it reasonably sharp ( but by no means close to Sony 90mm) I struggle with 'handling'.

Regards

Click to expand...

OK, with the caveats above ....

All this is "for me ....". Your and anyone else's experience may well be different.

Like my Sigma 105 Macro, the MPE-65 is heavier than I am used to (these days I always work hand-held btw). That wasn't a big issue in itself, but I think it made some of the problems I was having a bit more difficult to handle.

A major problem I had was finding the subject and focusing on it, especially if it was moving around. The far end of the lens barrel is quite wide and that makes it difficult to work out exactly where it is pointing. This is especially the case for my setup because I have a wide diffuser which blocks my view of the far end of the lens barrel and the subject area, so I have to work entirely from what I can see on the LCD screen (which I always use rather than the viewfinder).

What I am used to is being able to zoom to wider angle/less magnification to find the subject and then zoom in on it to the framing/magnification that I want for the shot. With my setups I can do that with a light, one-finger touch on a conveniently placed zoom lever, which is around the shutter button on my bridge cameras, and on the left hand side of the lens barrel on my micro four thirds setups. Alternatively, the 45-175 lens I use on my micro four thirds setups is fly by wire and the zoom ring can be operated with a very light touch with one finger of either hand, going from minimum to maximum zoom/magnification with less than a quarter turn.

At wider angle/lower magnification the scene is sufficiently in focus over a wide enough area to make finding the subject relatively easy. And with the light touch and (if using the zoom ring) small rotation needed, zooming back and framing the shot is quick and easy.

This approach did not work for me with the MPE-65. You have to turn the focusing ring a lot to change the magnification by a significant amount, and for me this was a left hand only operation and not a light, one-finger operation either. Having found the subject I found that all the barrel turning to get to the desired framing tended, especially if I was trying to do it quickly, to induce lateral movements through which I could lose the subject. In contrast, the telezoom zoom levers can be used without inducing any noticeable lateral movement, so I don't lose the subject while zooming.

An allied problem was that the MPE-65 extends a long way, so at the same time as turning the zoom ring you have to adjust the distance to the subject so as to keep sufficiently in focus to retain a view on the subject (and avoid hitting it). In contrast the 45-175 does not extend at all when zooming, which means I can zoom in and out without moving the camera (since the working distance is, more or less, independent of magnification for a close-up lens on a telezoom). This makes the micro four thirds setups particularly useful for higher magnification work, for example using a powerful Raynox 202, compared to my bridge cameras which do extend when zooming (but not nearly as much as the MPE-65, and they only need distance adjustment when zooming, not needing the turning+movement combination of hand/eye coordination needed with the MPE-65).

The only practical approach to finding the subject with the MPE appeared to be to set the magnification first and then find the subject using that magnification. I've seen Brian Valentine recommend that approach, and I'm sure it works fine for many people. But for me it didn't. Perhaps though I didn't give it a fair try, didn't practice enough (not much at all in fact). With practice it might be fine, although I did see a comment some years ago from someone else who was very handy with the MPE-65 who talked of the frustration involved in trying to find the subject, and re-finding it after losing it. Mind you, he operated beyond 5:1 so that might have been a large part of it as this problem gets worse as the magnification goes up.

I was having difficulty finding small stationary subjects. I'm sure I would have found it pretty much impossible with small moving subjects, which I have tackled with my close-up lens setups. As the subject size goes down the failure rate does go up, and can be pretty high for small subjects like springtails that are moving around, especially if they are moving around on something like a leaf that is itself moving around in a breeze. All the same, I find it is a practical possibility.

For example In this album at Flickr you can see 37 images starting at image 44 where I was photographing a globular springtail as it moved around, at night actually (I could probably process them better these days, but that is another story). I was using the 45-175 for those. Another thing that sequence reminds me about is that with the easy zoom in/out it is possible to capture sequences of images rapidly varying between close in on the subject and further out, more environmental shots, and in between. I like to do that with my subjects if as in that case they are around long enough. That too would I think be more difficult with the MPE-65. In this album at Flickr there are more examples of subjects in motion, and zooming in and out on them, larger subjects this time, for example a 14 image sequence of a shield bug, also a centipede, earwig and snails as they moved around.

Having found and framed the subject I found I needed to use "rocking focus" - move back and forth to get a feel for when/where best focus falls, and then press the shutter button just as you are (about to) move through the required focus plane. Another hand-eye coordination requirement. This compares to my close-up lens setups where I have to align the focus box somewhere suitable and press the shutter button. If I am within the appropriate working distance range the camera will fine tune the focus and take the shot when good focus is achieved. If it doesn't, I know that I'm outside the appropriate working distance range and I move the camera. This is generally quick and effective, and it doesn't require me to look closely at the screen to ascertain when best focus is achieved, sparing my eyes during sessions that can be quite long. I think autofocus is a key factor for me in sequences like those linked above involving moving subject.

(With the MPE-65 on my A7ii it didn't help that the MC11 adapter only works intermittently.)

Another issue I had with the MPE was flash adjustment. There are two aspects to this: changes in effective aperture when changing magnification; and changes in distance to the subject as magnification changes. If you use TTL metering, and especially if you use flash units attached to the front of the lens, neither of these may be problematic. However, I use a manual flash and it is mounted on the camera not on the lens.

When you are using a macro lens, extension tubes, teleconverters, bellows and/or lenses reversed on to the camera body, the effective f-number changes as the magnification changes, according to the approximate formula

Effective f-number = Nominal f-number * ( 1 + magnification)

where Nominal f-number is the f-number you set on the camera/lens. (Except if you are using Nikon gear, another story.)

So, if you have set the camera/MPE-65 to f/8 and you are operating at 3X magnification, the effective aperture, the one you are actually using, is around f/ ( 8 * (1+3)), or around f/32. If you are using TTL flash metering that is fine (as long as the flash can provide enough power), but if you are using a manual flash like I do it needs to be adjusted as the magnification changes.

Also, although the working distance may not change a great deal on MPE-65 between 1X and 5X, if the flash is mounted on the camera then the distance between the flash and the subject will change quite a lot between 1X and 5X because of the amount of lens barrel extension. This can change the flash power needed (in addition to any changes caused by changes in effective aperture). Also, with the flash units mounted on the camera the lens extension means that you probably have to change the position of the flash heads when changing magnification a lot so as to get the light to play on the subject and not be blocked by the lens barrel (and so as to not have the light falling behind the subject when you reduce the magnification).

In contrast, when using close-up lenses on telezoom lenses the effective aperture does not change with magnification, and so having found the right flash level for a scene I can go in and out by way of magnification and keep using the same flash level. Also, with the 45-175, because it doesn't extend when zooming, the distance between the flash heads and the subject remains the same as magnification changes (That is for any particular close-up lens. The flash to subject distance will change if you change to a different power close-up lens because working distance is inversely proportional to the power of the close-up lens.) The lens barrel does extend with my bridge cameras, but not so much as to be troublesome. I generally use the Raynox 150 and to a less extent the Raynox 250 on my bridge cameras and I don't have to change the flash power as I zoom in and out with either of them. (I do have to change the flash power if I change from one to the other of them).

I tried using a Yongnuo YN24EX (a third party alternative to Canon's MT-24EX) with the flash heads mounted on the front of the MPE-65. I know there are excellent macro photographers that use that sort of setup, and that particular flash unit, to make wonderful images, but it is another thing that didn't work well for me, especially towards 5X where the flash heads tended to get in the way. I couldn't arrange diffusers that were large enough to provide the sort of diffusion I like while being small enough to not get in the way.

All that said, look at the great results that some people get with the MPE-65. I'm not knocking it; it just isn't for me. This macro business is very much a personal matter as to what works and what doesn't. (It also changes for me over time btw, so maybe some time in the future you'll find me happily using the MPE-65.)

--
Nick
Summary of photo activity and output since 2007 https://fliesandflowers.blogspot.com/2019/01/when-i-retired-in-2006-i-had-it-in-mind.html
Flickr image collections http://www.flickr.com/photos/gardenersassistant/collections/

Nick, many thanks for your detailed answer. I've found it very useful.

gardenersassistant said:

kpr1291 said:

gardenersassistant said:

I have spent a lot of time over the past six years experimenting with various kit for close-up/macro of invertebrates (mainly insects and spiders) and botanical subjects (mainly flowers). I have bridge, micro four thirds, APS-C and full frame equipment, including some that you are thinking about such as an MPE-65 and Laowa 25 2.5-5X.

I have come to the conclusion that, at least for my purposes, with invertebrates, in terms of image quality it doesn't make much difference what camera/lens arrangement I use. Far more important in my experience are the illumination of the scene (flash diffusion etc) and post processing. There is also something else that I find more difficult to pin down, involving a mix of factors - I suppose they might come under the general heading of "technique".

As to choice of kit, what works for some people doesn't work for other people. I think a certain amount of trial and error may be called for, if possible. Given my experience as to image quality, my choice of kit revolves around usability, and for me that has turned out to mean using close-up lenses on telezoom lenses. My preferred kit for medium sized invertebrates is in fact a small sensor bridge camera with Raynox close-up lenses, although I find micro four thirds cameras with Raynox close-up lenses on a 45-175 zoom lens are almost as good for medium sized invertebrates, and possibly better for small invertebrates such as springtails and barkflies.

For flowers etc I have found that one particular micro four thirds camera with a macro lens works best for me.

These conclusions are very much to do with the particular handling characteristics of specific pieces of kit, and how well they fit with my particular preferences and the techniques I use, and so I am not making any sort of recommendation here as to what particular kit, or type of kit (sensor size etc) you would find best to use. My main point is that close-up/macro is a complicated business and there are many ways of tackling it. In that context, and depending on exactly what type of image you want to produce, use of "class leading" equipment may not provide the benefits that one might think they would.

btw, as a specific response to one of your questions, I almost never use a viewfinder; I almost always use an articulated screen. So for me, having a viewfinder, and how well it works, are pretty much irrelevant. Like I said, different things work for different people.

Click to expand...

Hey There!

I have a Canon 90D (which can be used as a mirrorless when used with the viewfinder)

Click to expand...

I have a 70D. I think of the viewfinder as the hole at the top on the back that you can look into to see what you are photographing, and then there is a screen on the back that folds out. You can use the 70D in live view with the screen on the back, but not with (what I call) the viewfinder. I imagine the 90D is the same in this respect.

I used the 70D with an EF-S 55-250 STM, which is sharp and relatively small and light. It worked well with a mild (+2 diopter) Canon 500D close-up lens for flowers and larger insects such as butterflies and dragonflies, and with a Raynox 150 and Raynox 250 for flies, wasps, snails, beetles etc.

I believe there are three versions of the 55-250. The first one I had didn't autofocus very well with the Raynox 150, and hardly at all with the 250. I changed it for one of the later version 55-250s and that worked quite well.

For flies, wasps, snails, beetles etc the 70D + 55-250 and Raynox 150/250 wasn't as good as my Panasonic cameras with the Raynox 150/250. That is because I always used live view for close-up/macro, using the articulated screen, and when using single area focusing in live view on the 70D the focusing box is quite large. This means I couldn't be as precise about where I was putting the centre of focus (and hence the centre of the depth of field) as I could with the Panasonics, with which you can use a much smaller focus box.

I also found that the 70D didn't focus as quickly or as reliably as the Panasonics when using the Raynoxes with live view focusing.

Perhaps the 90D is better than the 70D for these things. I don't know.

gardenersassistant said:

I am planning to get into macro photography and I have read great things about the Raynox DCR-250 and my current lenses are a Tamron 70-300 4.0-5.6 SP Di VC and a Canon 100-400 L II.

Click to expand...

The Raynoxes can work well with telezooms (you tend not to get the vignetting that you can get with shorter focal length lenses), so the 70-300 and/or the 100-400 might be very good with Raynoxes.

gardenersassistant said:

What would you say are the main differences in getting a Canon Macro 100 and a Raynox? There are obvious differences since one is a dedicated lens of course and the other one is like an attachment.

Click to expand...

When used with the apertures that most people use the Canon 100L Macro is probably much sharper than using a close-up lens on a telezoom lens. However, I use very small apertures so as to get as much depth of field as I can, and when you do that it doesn't make much difference what lens you use because all the finest detail gets lost in blurring caused by diffraction. (I haven't tested that with the Canon 100L Macro because I only had one for a few days some years ago before I was doing a lot of comparison testing. However, I have done comparisons with the Sigma 105 Macro, which I think is generally reckoned to be another good macro lens, and at minimum aperture I didn't find any benefit in terms of fine detail capture, or anything else, with the Sigma 105 Macro.)

One of the big advantages for me of using close-up lenses on telezooms rather than macro lenses is that with close-up lenses on telezoom lenses I get accurate auto focusing (with no hunting) with a small focus box that can be precisely positioned to get the centre of focus/dof where I want it, for all the magnifications I use. In the brief time I had the 100L, and with the Sigma 105 that I have now, I have found that autofocus tends to hunt as I get towards 1:1. You might still get some degree of autofocus beyond that on APS-C if you use suitable extension tubes, but all the dedicated macro lenses that go beyond 1:1 such as the Canon MPE-65 1-5X, the Laowa 60mm 2X and the Laowa 25mm 2.5-5X are manual focus only.

For many people not having autofocus is not a problem because they only want to use manual focus for macro anyway. For me though I find I can get better results with autofocus, especially with subjects that are moving around. The camera can fine tune the focus much faster and more accurately than I can. All I have to do is point the focus box in the right place and keep the camera the right distance from the subject.

Keeping the right distance is another of the difference with close-up lenses. Close-up lenses will only give you a sharp image if you have them with a certain range of distance from the subject. As the close-up lenses get more powerful that range gets smaller. The furthest usable working distance (the distance between the subject and the front of the close-up lens) is around 1000/diopters mm, where diopters is the power of the close-up lens. For example, the Raynox 250 is +8 diopters, and so the largest working distance you can use is around 1000 / 8 = 125mm. How close you can get depends on how close the camera lens will focus. Since macro lenses can focus closer than non-macro lenses, using a close-up lens on a macro lens will give you a wider range of working distances that you can use.

gardenersassistant said:

I see you mentioning that you you prefer a Raynox sometines and Ive seen your pictures (which are great) and seems you have a lot of experience in this field, so that, I would like to know why do you prefer this over a dedicated lens?

Click to expand...

See above. I do prefer close-up lenses for insects, spiders etc but for flowers and other botanical subjects I use a macro lens. In that case I rarely use very small apertures and so I can get better fine detail using a macro lens. That is not the main reason though, which is because using a macro lens works particularly well on my Panasonics, and most especially on my Panasonic G9, with two techniques that I use for flowers etc, aperture bracketing and video-based focus stacking. I believe these are not available on the 90D so there is probably no point going into them here. My point is though that I find close-up lenses very good for a particular approach that I use, using very small apertures so as to get maximum depth of field from single shots out in the field, using manual flash (and close-up lenses can have an advantage for use with manual flash too). However, if I was using more normal apertures for single shots, or doing focus stacking for invertebrates (which works best with sweet spot apertures), then I would probably not be using close-up lenses. (I have it in mind to, possibly, try some focus stacking with invertebrates this year. If I do I will be using one of my micro four thirds cameras and a macro lens.)

gardenersassistant said:

Bottom line is, that I would like to have your guidance and opinion as a purchase decision since I am not planning to get the dedicated lens at this point

Click to expand...

What you might want to do is to purchase a very inexpensive (around 10 dollars/euros/UKP) set of close-up filters. They come in sets of four of power +1, +2, +4 and +10 diopters, and by combining them you can get to intermediate magnifications. You will not get great image quality from them - they are made of single pieces of glass and tend to suffer from chromatic aberration and lack of sharpness and distortion, especially away from the centre. However, getting a set of them is a very inexpensive way of finding out what it is like to use close-up lenses. You may simply find you don't like the way you have to work with them. It also gives you a chance to work out what power of close-up lens would work best for what you want to do, both in terms of magnification and working distance. Armed with the information you get from trying these you could then be in a better position to decide what route to take next.

gardenersassistant said:

Best,

Kevin

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Hello,

Thank you so much for taking the time to response in such a detailed way. I'll be looking for these other close-up filters to see if they are what I am looking for as I have a canon 50 mm 1.8 that I would like to use for macro also.

Aditionally, I was looking at your Flickr and came across with this album https://www.flickr.com/photos/gardenersassistant/albums/72157713283023701

What lenses did you use and what was the post processing you applied on those?

Thanks,

Kevin

kpr1291 said:

Hello,

Thank you so much for taking the time to response in such a detailed way. I'll be looking for these other close-up filters to see if they are what I am looking for as I have a canon 50 mm 1.8 that I would like to use for macro also.

Click to expand...

50mm may be a bit short for use with close-up lenses. They tend to be more suitable on longer focal lengths. That is something you could easily test with cheap close-up filters.

kpr1291 said:

Aditionally, I was looking at your Flickr and came across with this album https://www.flickr.com/photos/gardenersassistant/albums/72157713283023701

What lenses did you use and what was the post processing you applied on those?

Click to expand...

11 of them used bridge cameras (Panasonic FZ200 and FZ330) which have 25-600mm equivalent lenses.
10 of them used micro four thirds cameras (Panasonic G3, G5, G80, G9) with a 45-175 lens.
3 of them used an APS-C camera (Canon 70D) with an EF-S 55-250 STM lens.

I would have used a Raynox 150 for most of the images.
I might have used a Raynox 250 for some, such as, possibly, 1.3, 2.4, 3.5 and/or 3.6.
I would have used something more powerful for 1.7 and 2.2, possibly a Raynox 202, or perhaps two Raynox 250s stacked or a Raynox 250 and 150 stacked.
For image 2.7 I would have used something less powerful, either a Canon 500D or no close-up lens at all.

All but one of them were processed using Lightroom and DeNoise AI. The other one started in Silkypix and then went to Lightroom and DeNoise AI. They were processed part way through the exercise, which is ongoing, and that workflow will not be the one I will use when the exercise is finished. That album and two related albums may disappear from Flickr and be replaced with ones using whatever workflow I eventually decide on by the end of the exercise.

kpr1291 said:

Thanks,

Kevin

Click to expand...

VicentePG said:

Hi,all

I would appreciate your advice for a macro photography kit.

Click to expand...

To give you my own background I've shot a lot of macro lenses, from both Canon and Nikon, including the following:

• Canon 100mm f/2.8
• Canon 100mm f/2.8L
• Canon MP-E 65mm 1-5x Macro Photo
• Canon 180mm f/3.8L
• Irix 150mm f/1.8 1:1 Dragonfly Macro
• Laowa 25mm f/2.8 2.5 to 5x Ultra Macro
• Laowa 100mm f/2.8 2x Ultra Macro APO
• Nikkor 20mm f/2.8 AIS, Reversed
• Nikkor 28mm f/2.8 AIS, Reversed
• Nikkor 50mm f/1.2 AIS, Reversed
• Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8G VR
• Micro-Nikkor 200mm f/4D ED IR
• 5 different Zoom-Nikkors, Reversed
• Sigma 180mm f/2.8 ‘APO’ Macro (EF-Mount)
• Sigma 180mm f/2.8 ‘APO’ Macro (F-Mount)
• Voigtländer SL 125mm f/2.5 Apo-Lanthar Macro
• Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 Distagon T*, Reversed
• Zeiss 25mm f/2.8 Distagon T*, Reversed
• Zeiss 50mm f/2 Makro-Planar T*
• Zeiss 135 f/2 APO Sonnar (1:4)

So, I have used a top-shelf macro lens or two. That said, unless you're shooting bees in flight, and need AF, the Laowa 100mm f/2.8 2x Ultra Macro APO best and most useful overall field lens I've ever used.

It is extremely sharp wide-open, for stacking, it has outstanding bokeh and CA control, for image quality, and (quality-wise) it is basically better than every lenses mentioned above, except perhaps the Voigtländer / Zeiss APOs.

VicentePG said:

Preferred option right now:

Canon EOS 90D and a Canon 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM lens, and later, a Canon MP-E 65mm f / 2.8 1-5x Macro lens. The main reason is that I’ve read great things about those two lenses, although I would prefer a more compact mirrorless body. I have considered a Canon EOS M6 Mark II with an EF adapter, but you can’t use its EVF and a flash at the same time. I think that having a viewfinder is a must in macro photography. Am I right?

Click to expand...

I would upgrade your camera. I also think the Laowa offerings are better than the Canon native offerings. Better and 1/3 the cost.

VicentePG said:

Alternative option #1:

A mirrorless camera with a viewfinder, a 1:1 lens, and a macro magnification lens (Raynox or similar). The Olympus ED 60mm f/2.8 macro lens seems very popular. I could combine it with an Olympus E-M5 mark III. I also like the Fujifilm XT-30 with an XF 80mm f/2.8 R LM OIS WR Macro. My main concern here is the loss in quality and functionality with a magnification lens versus a dedicated 1-5X macro lens. This aspect is very important to me.

Click to expand...

I've seen some great images from Olympus gear online. But they're not going to be as good looked at, full-size, on your monitor as the same shots taken on Nikon's best. I also think Nikon and Canon's colors are more attractive than Sony files.

VicentePG said:

Alternative option #2:

A Sony or Nikon mirrorless, a 1:1 macro lens and the Laowa 25mm f/2.8 2.5-5X Ultra Macro lens. I haven't researched this option much, really. Here again my doubts focus on how the Laowa lens compares with the Canon 65mm 1-5X in quality and functionality. There are other Laowa lenses with a 2X factor with Sony mounts, although I would prefer a larger magnification.

Click to expand...

The Laowa 25mm actually blows the Canon out of the water, as does the the Laowa 100 APO. The Laowa 25 is not CA-corrected, but neither is the MPE. Nikon has no answer here, and neither does Sony.

The Laowa and the Canon 100 L have equivalent sharpness, but the Laowa has far cleaner CA control, and is far more useful with 2:1 capability. Both have excellent bokeh. The Nikon 105G has worse CA control also. The Sony 90 can't measure up, either.

VicentePG said:

I don't know if I'm missing some combination of lenses and bodies through adapters. I would only be interested in this if there is no loss of quality and functionality.

Sorry for the long post, and for my use of English, I'm not a native speaker

Click to expand...

In closing, although I've owned the full gamut of the best and the most expensive macro lenses, from both Canon and Nikon ... I now own "cheap gear" ... and yet my macro kit is better than ever before. (Trust me, I could repurchase that whole list above, today, if I wanted to, but what's listed below is simply better.) That said, here is my kit and why I kept it:

• Irix 150mm f/1.8 1:1 Dragonfly Macro
• Laowa 100mm f/2.8 2x Ultra Macro APO
• Laowa 25mm f/2.8 2.5 to 5x Ultra Macro

I use these lenses on my Z7, my D850, and my D500. For me, nothing compares to Nikon colors, especially at base ISO with the D850 and Z7.

The Irix 150 I use with a tripod for macro portraits. I never handhold it. It is not as sharp as the Micro-Nikkor 200, but it renders better, and has beautiful CA control. The Canon 180 had decent CA control, but is pretty soft. The Irix is sharper than the Canon, with better rendering than the Nikon. The Sigma 180 APO is too big and has no CA control; while the Sigma 150 is soft wide-open, but has decent CA control. The Irix is simply the best balance of everything. (It's also compact and very pleasant to use,)

The Laowa 100mm f/2.8 2x Ultra Macro APO is the most valuable lens of the bunch. On the large sensor of the D850, or on a D500, the crop factor basically makes it 3:1, which is all you really need in the field. I have never been more pleased with any macro lens, ever, than this Laowa as a field lens. Sharp as heck, beautiful bokeh, excellent CA control, 2:1. It doesn't get much better ... and I can't wait to get the Z-mount dedicated version.

The Laowa 25mm f/2.8 2.5 to 5x I use the least, as I'm not so much a high-mag macro shooter these days, but it's nice to have it when you need it. It is very, very sharp, sharper than the Canon, with some CA in certain situations.

You can click on the link below and see some of the images of shot with all three of these lenses.

Best of luck,

--
* My Flickr Page

VicentePG said:

Preferred option right now:

Canon EOS 90D and a Canon 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM lens, and later, a Canon MP-E 65mm f / 2.8 1-5x Macro lens. The main reason is that I’ve read great things about those two lenses, although I would prefer a more compact mirrorless body. I have considered a Canon EOS M6 Mark II with an EF adapter, but you can’t use its EVF and a flash at the same time. I think that having a viewfinder is a must in macro photography. Am I right?

Click to expand...

Normally I'd tell you to choose your lenses based on the light source that you want to use, but then you mentioned going above 1x eventually and that means using a flash. I don't recommend the MP-E 65mm for a beginner, but what you could get is the Canon EF-S 60mm macro lens and eventually a full set of extension tubes. The 60mm is actually a 37mm lens at minimum focus, so it only takes 37mm of extension to get to 2x and a full set of Kenko tubes will get you to almost 3x. Using the 60mm would also get you use to shooting with the MP-E 65mm since you'd be use to pretty much the same working distances, at least up to about 3x. You might actually decide that you don't need the MP-E. It's up to you if you want to use a standard camera flash on a bracket (do not leave it mounted to the camera!) or to get a macro twin flash (avoid ring flashes -flat light and terrible specular highlights). Here's an example of what I can do with the 80D and an MP-E 65mm, uncropped, hand held, and no focus stacking:





I do not recommend lenses in the 100mm range since they offer too much working distance for flash based macro, and not enough for natural light shooting. It's just not the right tool for the job.

Here's my rig and how I diffuse the MT-26 EX RT:







--
Also known as Dalantech
My Book: http://nocroppingzone.blogspot.com/2010/01/extreme-macro-art-of-patience.html
My Blog: http://www.extrememacro.com
My gallery: http://www.johnkimbler.com
Macro Tutorials: http://dalantech.deviantart.com/gallery/4122501/Tutorials
Always minimal post processing and no cropping -unless you count the viewfinder...

John K said:

Normally I'd tell you to choose your lenses based on the light source that you want to use, but then you mentioned going above 1x eventually and that means using a flash. I don't recommend the MP-E 65mm for a beginner, but what you could get is the Canon EF-S 60mm macro lens and eventually a full set of extension tubes.

Click to expand...

Interesting choice of words, "telling him" what to do. Making a "suggestion" is more respectful.

John K said:

The 60mm is actually a 37mm lens at minimum focus, so it only takes 37mm of extension to get to 2x and a full set of Kenko tubes will get you to almost 3x. Using the 60mm would also get you use to shooting with the MP-E 65mm since you'd be use to pretty much the same working distances, at least up to about 3x. You might actually decide that you don't need the MP-E.

Click to expand...

With Laowa in the market, nobody "needs" an MP-E. And with other camera brands available, nobody "needs" a Canon, either.

John K said:

It's up to you if you want to use a standard camera flash on a bracket (do not leave it mounted to the camera!) or to get a macro twin flash (avoid ring flashes -flat light and terrible specular highlights). Here's an example of what I can do with the 80D and an MP-E 65mm, uncropped, hand held, and no focus stacking:

Click to expand...

That is a sharp shot of an interesting subject. However, your very setup (a flash that's too close), washes the entire image with a harsh, ugly yellow light. Those are not the natural colors of the environment.

Careful scrutiny shows all the color detail is gone from both the subject's "fur" as well as the background, both of which have been washed-out by the harsh, yellow flash that you have injected into the scene.

Finally, what is wrong with stacking? Stacking allows the person willing to put in the work the rewards of a cleaner and much more beautiful image. Here are some stacked shots with much better lighting:


Golden Huntsman


Green Oak Crab Spider

Both of these were taken with the Laowa 100 2x Macro, with high CRI Phosphor LED lighting (far more pleasing to the eye than the primitive MT-24 diffuser).

Using better lighting, and giving yourself the extra "step back" with a 100mm 2x macro, allows you not to explode light onto the scene and wash away the natural colors, so everything isn't washed-yellow. And the difference in sharpness, acuity, is literally night and day.

** Note: The EXIF says the lens is 28mm, but the Laowa 100 doesn't transfer EXIF to a Nikon camera. The 28 mm was where my manual settings were at. But the lens deployed was the Laowa 100

John K said:

I do not recommend lenses in the 100mm range since they offer too much working distance for flash based macro, and not enough for natural light shooting. It's just not the right tool for the job.

Click to expand...

This is simply nonsense. People take better photos than your bee shot, every day, in both natural light as well as by diffused flash. My eyes want to squint, to avert every time I look at the yellow wash.

Here are some (in my view) much, much more pleasant macro images than the above, taken with a 100mm Laowa. Not saying they're any sharper than yours, nor better-composed. They are simply much more pleasant to the eye ... precisely because they were taken either with natural light ... or with a much, much better-diffused flash set up ... that actually does diffuse the harsh light out.

John K said:

Here's my rig and how I diffuse the MT-26 EX RT:

Click to expand...

Again, I got rid of all of that because it's not optimal.

There are better lenses, better light sources, better cameras, and better diffusers than the above.

I think you take excellent shots of some very cool subjects, but your light setup actually spoils the effect, imo, by washing everything with a harsh yellow cast.

This diffuser here is further back, as as such, it doesn't produce such a harsh result.


Much better diffuser.

There is a different Laowa lens on there, but the lighting is far superior to the MT 24 flash, and diffuser is much farther back, so the colors are much more natural ... and not washed-out with yellow.

Good shooting,

Jack

--
* My Flickr Page

John Koerner said:

Here are some (in my view) much, much more pleasant macro images than the above, taken with a 100mm Laowa. Not saying they're any sharper than yours, nor better-composed. They are simply much more pleasant to the eye ... precisely because they were taken either with natural light ... or with a much, much better-diffused flash set up ... that actually does diffuse the harsh light out.

Click to expand...

Is there a link to some other macro images missing here, or are you referring to your two images above (being much, much more pleasant) in relation to John K's image further above?

John Koerner said:

John Koerner said:

Here's my rig and how I diffuse the MT-26 EX RT:

Click to expand...

Again, I got rid of all of that because it's not optimal.

Click to expand...

Could you clarify please as to what is the "all that" of which you got rid, and with what you replaced "all that" (if you did replace it, or perhaps it was simply superfluous and did not need replacing?).

John Koerner said:

There is a different Laowa lens on there, but the lighting is far superior to the MT 24 flash, and diffuser is much farther back, so the colors are much more natural ... and not washed-out with yellow.

Click to expand...

Could you explain the mechanism please by which variation in the distance between the light source and the subject causes variation in the colour recorded from the subject.

Is it the distance between the subject and the flash or the distance between the subject and the nearest (to the subject) surface of the diffuser (or some other distance) that determines the degree of colour change?

Would I be right in thinking that this phenomenon of distance-related colour change means that the images captured by everyone who is using a twin flash which mounts on the front of the lens are inevitably polluted by unnatural colours?

Could you advise please on the subject to light source distance at which this colour-changing phenomenon ceases to be significant.

Would I be right in thinking that the effects of this distance-related colour change cannot be corrected by means of altering the white balance?

--
Nick
Summary of photo activity and output since 2007 https://fliesandflowers.blogspot.com/2019/01/when-i-retired-in-2006-i-had-it-in-mind.html
Flickr image collections http://www.flickr.com/photos/gardenersassistant/collections/

gardenersassistant said:

Is there a link to some other macro images missing here, or are you referring to your two images above (being much, much more pleasant) in relation to John K's image further above?

Click to expand...

I only posted 2.

gardenersassistant said:

Could you clarify please as to what is the "all that" of which you got rid, and with what you replaced "all that" (if you did replace it, or perhaps it was simply superfluous and did not need replacing?).

Click to expand...

What I got rid of was Canon APS-C cameras (with the lowest sensor rating), Canon MP-E 65, which dramatically loses sharpness after 3:1, the Canon MT-24 Twinlight, and using DIY diffusers.

I already explained what replaced these with. You can also have a moment of clarity, and click my Gear List. As a veteran poster, you should know this.

gardenersassistant said:

Could you explain the mechanism please by which variation in the distance between the light source and the subject causes variation in the colour recorded from the subject.

Is it the distance between the subject and the flash or the distance between the subject and the nearest (to the subject) surface of the diffuser (or some other distance) that determines the degree of colour change?

Click to expand...

No, I am not a physicist. Maybe a rocket scientist could explain to you that the closer the flash, the more intense the light, and they harder to diffuse. Or maybe you could just use common sense?

gardenersassistant said:

Would I be right in thinking that this phenomenon of distance-related colour change means that the images captured by everyone who is using a twin flash which mounts on the front of the lens are inevitably polluted by unnatural colours?

Click to expand...

Yes. Most veteran macro shooters I know no longer use the TwinLight Flash (of any brand) for this very reason.

gardenersassistant said:

Could you advise please on the subject to light source distance at which this colour-changing phenomenon ceases to be significant.

Click to expand...

Could you please stop asking me patronizing questions?

gardenersassistant said:

Would I be right in thinking that the effects of this distance-related colour change cannot be corrected by means of altering the white balance?

Click to expand...

Yes. And no.

While it is true that white balance can be adjusted, it's also true that doing so cannot correct everything. In other words, you can't make a silk purse out of a pig's ear, but you can correct small problems.

Otherwise, people could take photos in the middle of the day, and turn it into a sunset in post (as an extreme example). Even if some Photoshop genius could do this, it's a lot of extra work.

It's much better just to take the shot in optimal lighting to begin with. Or to use optimal light sources (High CRI Phosphor LED Light), rather than the archaic MP-24 TwinFlash lights, with gym socks over them to diffuse.

Of the many macro shooters I know who have used twin lights, most no longer do so. Most now use a single flash, oriented much further back, with the light spread out over one, much larger, common concave diffuser.

--
* My Flickr Page

gardenersassistant said:

Could you clarify please as to what is the "all that" of which you got rid, and with what you replaced "all that" (if you did replace it, or perhaps it was simply superfluous and did not need replacing?).

Click to expand...

With this:









Camera Upgrade: D500
Lens Upgrade: Laowa 100mm f/2.8 Ultra Macro 2x APO (Infinity to 1x up to 2x)
Lens Upgrade: Laowa 25mm f/2.8 2.5-5x Ultra Macro (Infinity to 2.5x up to 5x)
Flash Upgrade: SB-700 AF Speedlight
Diffuser Upgrade: Imported from specialist in Malaysia
Macro Rail: Hejnar Photo 50mm Micrometer Adjusting Macro Rail

The flash is much further back away from the subject, the diffuser spreads the light across the subject much more evenly. The greater working distance means subject less likely to fly away.

If you're baiting bees, you can get away with getting super-close, but if you're shooting various wildlife, it's helpful to have more working distance.

With all that said, I normally don't like to use flash at all. I have 3 different, imported diffusers (various iterations of the above), but to my eye, taking single shots w/ flash @ f/8 to f/16, just "looks different" to me, even on my own rig.

I prefer natural light, and stacking with a micrometer rail (for DOF), as it retains more micro-contrast and detail, while leaving a really creamy bokeh. There are certain subjects of course that you just can't stack, which is when I deploy a diffused flash.

But to say, "Don't get a 100mm," is preposterous ... it just depends on what you're after. The Laowa not only is sharper than almost any macro, it goes 2:1, and it has better CA control also.

If you want to go over 2:1, then use the Laowa 25mm f/2.8 2.5-5x Ultra Macro (or whatever your equivalent is).

If you're shooting w/ flash @ f/16, it's all about the same. But if you're stacking @ f/2.8 to f/4, the sharper and better the lens is, wide-open, the more you notice.

I can only think of 3 macro lenses that are razor-sharp @ f/2.8, and two of them only go 1:1. Most macro lenses aren't sharp wide-open, they peak @ f/5.6 to f/8. That's okay if you're shooting single images.

--
* My Flickr Page

John Koerner said:

John K said:

Normally I'd tell you to choose your lenses based on the light source that you want to use, but then you mentioned going above 1x eventually and that means using a flash. I don't recommend the MP-E 65mm for a beginner, but what you could get is the Canon EF-S 60mm macro lens and eventually a full set of extension tubes.

Click to expand...

Interesting choice of words, "telling him" what to do. Making a "suggestion" is more respectful.

Click to expand...

Me thinks either you've never heard of using a figure of speech, or you just have some person issue with me...

John Koerner said:

John Koerner said:

The 60mm is actually a 37mm lens at minimum focus, so it only takes 37mm of extension to get to 2x and a full set of Kenko tubes will get you to almost 3x. Using the 60mm would also get you use to shooting with the MP-E 65mm since you'd be use to pretty much the same working distances, at least up to about 3x. You might actually decide that you don't need the MP-E.

Click to expand...

With Laowa in the market, nobody "needs" an MP-E. And with other camera brands available, nobody "needs" a Canon, either.

Click to expand...

Never said that anyone needed anything. Me thinks you're really sensitive...

John Koerner said:

John Koerner said:

It's up to you if you want to use a standard camera flash on a bracket (do not leave it mounted to the camera!) or to get a macro twin flash (avoid ring flashes -flat light and terrible specular highlights). Here's an example of what I can do with the 80D and an MP-E 65mm, uncropped, hand held, and no focus stacking:

Click to expand...

That is a sharp shot of an interesting subject. However, your very setup (a flash that's too close), washes the entire image with a harsh, ugly yellow light. Those are not the natural colors of the environment.

Click to expand...

Those are the natural colors.

John Koerner said:

Careful scrutiny shows all the color detail is gone from both the subject's "fur" as well as the background, both of which have been washed-out by the harsh, yellow flash that you have injected into the scene.

Click to expand...

Nope, it's all there. The red channel isn't even hot, which is tricky since most digital sensors are very sensitive to the red spectrum.

John Koerner said:

Finally, what is wrong with stacking? Stacking allows the person willing to put in the work the rewards of a cleaner and much more beautiful image. Here are some stacked shots with much better lighting:

Click to expand...

Never said anything was wrong with stacking -it's just another tool in the macro toolbox. It's not "the tool" and I've pretty much proven it thousands of times over ...

John Koerner said:

Both of these were taken with the Laowa 100 2x Macro, with high CRI Phosphor LED lighting (far more pleasing to the eye than the primitive MT-24 diffuser).

Click to expand...

FWIW: I'm shooting with the MT-26EX RT, although I did use the MT-24 for many years.

LED lighting will never fire fast enough to freeze motion, so you can only photograph completely lethargic, or dead, subjects. A lot of the critters I photograph are in motion, and I get the flash/diffuser close to the subject to keep the duration of the flash to a minimum (to help freeze motion). Your lighting setup is way too limiting for the images I produce.

John Koerner said:

Using better lighting, and giving yourself the extra "step back" with a 100mm 2x macro, allows you not to explode light onto the scene and wash away the natural colors, so everything isn't washed-yellow. And the difference in sharpness, acuity, is literally night and day.

Click to expand...

Not sure what you're on about where color is concerned. If there's any color issues in my images it's due to how I set the white balance and not the light that the flash is producing (unless I use a CTO gel, and I have in the past). If there's a difference in sharpness it's most likely due to me shooting at higher magnifications than you at F11, and you shooting at lower mag and stacking. I will agree that the quality of the light and the angle between light source, subject, and sensor can influence the level of detail in an image.

John Koerner said:

** Note: The EXIF says the lens is 28mm, but the Laowa 100 doesn't transfer EXIF to a Nikon camera. The 28 mm was where my manual settings were at. But the lens deployed was the Laowa 100

Click to expand...

So you're using a primitive lens?

John Koerner said:

John Koerner said:

I do not recommend lenses in the 100mm range since they offer too much working distance for flash based macro, and not enough for natural light shooting. It's just not the right tool for the job.

Click to expand...

This is simply nonsense. People take better photos than your bee shot, every day, in both natural light as well as by diffused flash. My eyes want to squint, to avert every time I look at the yellow wash.

Click to expand...

You can take just about any photo with just about any lens. But shooting with a 100mm macro lens is like trying to remove a Philips head screw with a flat head screw driver. Can it be done? Sure. Is it the best tool to use? Nope. If you weren't using an LED light to photograph stationary subjects you'd understand.

John Koerner said:

Here are some (in my view) much, much more pleasant macro images than the above, taken with a 100mm Laowa. Not saying they're any sharper than yours, nor better-composed. They are simply much more pleasant to the eye ... precisely because they were taken either with natural light ... or with a much, much better-diffused flash set up ... that actually does diffuse the harsh light out.

Click to expand...

Again, you're comparing apples and oranges. When you need to freeze motion in macro physics says no to LEDs and natural light.

John Koerner said:

John Koerner said:

Here's my rig and how I diffuse the MT-26 EX RT:

Click to expand...

Again, I got rid of all of that because it's not optimal.
There are better lenses, better light sources, better cameras, and better diffusers than the above.

I think you take excellent shots of some very cool subjects, but your light setup actually spoils the effect, imo, by washing everything with a harsh yellow cast.

Click to expand...

Nope, no yellow cast. Just subjects that have a lot of yellow and red in them.

My setup is very technique dependent, and I don't recommend it for everyone. It is one of the most practical ways to shoot hand held, but it's really difficult to diffuse a small light source in a tight space. I'd love to be able to use a huge diffuser, but it's just not practical for me cause I want to deal with as few limitations as possible...

John Koerner said:

This diffuser here is further back, as as such, it doesn't produce such a harsh result.


Much better diffuser.

There is a different Laowa lens on there, but the lighting is far superior to the MT 24 flash, and diffuser is much farther back, so the colors are much more natural ... and not washed-out with yellow.

Click to expand...

...and there's one of those limitations that I don't want to deal with; a tripod. I took the training wheels off of m camera a long time ago...

The distance between the diffuser and the subject has nothing to do with the color cast in an image. You're getting flat white light due to the color temp of the LED that you're using. Getting the diffuser further way from the subject actually hurts the diffusion that you can get from that rig due to the apparent light size principle.

In a nutshell: You want to believe that what you're doing is superior (even though you really don't understand light that well), and you think that everyone should be lighting subjects the way that you do, even though you're lighting only works for your style of shooting.

John Koerner said:

Good shooting,

Jack

Click to expand...

I'm having a blast taking photos that you can't with that rig of yours

Regards,

John

--
Also known as Dalantech
My Book: http://nocroppingzone.blogspot.com/2010/01/extreme-macro-art-of-patience.html
My Blog: http://www.extrememacro.com
My gallery: http://www.johnkimbler.com
Macro Tutorials: http://dalantech.deviantart.com/gallery/4122501/Tutorials
Always minimal post processing and no cropping -unless you count the viewfinder...

John Koerner said:

gardenersassistant said:

Could you clarify please as to what is the "all that" of which you got rid, and with what you replaced "all that" (if you did replace it, or perhaps it was simply superfluous and did not need replacing?).

Click to expand...

With this:









Camera Upgrade: D500
Lens Upgrade: Laowa 100mm f/2.8 Ultra Macro 2x APO (Infinity to 1x up to 2x)
Lens Upgrade: Laowa 25mm f/2.8 2.5-5x Ultra Macro (Infinity to 2.5x up to 5x)
Flash Upgrade: SB-700 AF Speedlight
Diffuser Upgrade: Imported from specialist in Malaysia
Macro Rail: Hejnar Photo 50mm Micrometer Adjusting Macro Rail

Click to expand...

OK, that's an actual flash gun and not an LED light source like you mentioned in your previous post to me. Let me explain a few things about what you're doing cause you don't understand flash photography very well.

The majority of the light that a flash produces is coming straight out, think of it as a high pressure stream from a hose. Due to your flash being camera mounted, and pointing straight out, most of the light it produces is simply being wasted since it won't hit the subject. Some of it will get diffused by that last piece of diffusion material and bounced down to the subject, but the majority of it won't.

The top of the diffuser is going to bounce some of that light down, but that bounce is gonna cost you a full stop plus you'll lose some more with that last piece of diffusion on the end. You're getting diffused light because only because you're using the light that's spilling out the bottom of the flash, and the light that's spilling out of the top off your flash and bouncing off of the top of your diffuser. Again, with most of the light wasted cause it's just going out into space. So as you shoot above 1x and with the lens stopped down you're gonna have a tough time keeping your flash duration short enough to freeze motion. Motion blur in macro doesn't look like traditional motion blur, but what you will see is a loss of detail because the motion is amplifying diffraction. Doesn't take much motion, probably no more than 1/4 the width of a pixel, and diffraction softening will get noticeably worse.

You, like many people who shoot macro, probably started focus stacking because you're having a tough time getting sharp single frame images with a lens that's stopped down. And like most you probably blame diffraction for all of the softness that you see in an image. But motion, the sharpness of your lens (and how that sharpness changes as you add things to increase the mag like tubes, diopters, teleconverters, etc.) and the quality of the light you're using (including the angle between the light, subject, and sensor) can impact image sharpness by increasing diffraction softening. Your technique might be forcing you to focus stack...

Check out the Apparent Light Size article at Strobist to see why getting your diffuser further away from the subject is a mistake.

Last, but not least: You might even have issues getting a proper exposure without increasing the ISO or decreasing your Fstop due to the flash being camera mounted and pointing out into space.

--
Also known as Dalantech
My Book: http://nocroppingzone.blogspot.com/2010/01/extreme-macro-art-of-patience.html
My Blog: http://www.extrememacro.com
My gallery: http://www.johnkimbler.com
Macro Tutorials: http://dalantech.deviantart.com/gallery/4122501/Tutorials
Always minimal post processing and no cropping -unless you count the viewfinder...