"Macro" kit results - A clearer picture

[SineV]

Hello all!

(Full disclosure, i posted this to both macro and kit buying advice since those are the forums across the web that i see people looking for the same advice I was looking. Hopefully one of them will help people decide)

I recently tried to decide some new kit to buy and from the few people who gave advice across the several sites i tried, it really only left me just as confused as when i started. It is hard to find an answer to what you are really looking for, but it is like asking someone in their mid to late thirties "whats a good video game?". Let me tell you about Adventure for the Atari!!! Too many answers because there are too many answers.

I wanted to try something new so I went with a closer to macro route than I have in over a decade. I made my choice, and made my purchase.

What I want to do here is post the results of that decision. Over the next few days I am going to take a bunch of pictures and post the exact results of that so anyone who is looking for this kind of advice can just decide (in a way that I think would have been helpful to me before I made the purchase) for themselves. No opinion based "nikon sucks, get canon. casio makes calculators, buy roland" etc.

These are strictly the facts and I hope this helps people like me who couldn't find what they were trying to find (answers, advice, clarity, language they could fully understand).

I have the canon ef 100-400 L IS USM lens and I bought the 500D. If anyone out there is considering, has considered, or will consider that pairing or something of similar build, I hope I can help you decide. Less of a forum debate style and more of a Ken Rockwell style. For those interested, stay tuned and I will endeavour to have something up by next week.

 

[John K]

Curious to see what you create!

Funny you mentioned Ken Rockwell because he has a Best Macro Lens page where he lists every macro lens below 100mm as "Too short for serious macro use.". So he's just another photographer giving advice about macro lenses who doesn't even shoot at 1x or higher mag...

 

[SineV]

Curious to see what you create!

Really, all I want to create is the thing I could not find the answer to myself.

Funny you mentioned Ken Rockwell because he has a Best Macro Lens page where he lists every macro lens below 100mm as "Too short for serious macro use.". So he's just another photographer giving advice about macro lenses who doesn't even shoot at 1x or higher mag...

Yea, jack of all, master of some. I really enjoy Ken's reviews though. In my opinion, you want to buy a lens or something and want a bunch of details on as few pages as possible, that is my first stop. But numbers and reviews only go so far and what I want to see is the difference between a and b, and a and z, etc.

 

[SineV]

So I don't know if this is frowned upon but for the time being (unless someone says so and i find the time to figure out how to attach all the pics to this post) I will just link my gallery folder that I uploaded my comparison pics.

(https://www.dpreview.com/galleries/3555628678/albums/side-by-side)

If you are trying to decide whether a close up lens is right for you, this is a visual comparison as best I can make it (I was going to use a tripod and better set up but turns out my tripod and binoculars were stolen, so that is news to me).

I hope this helps someone trying to decide whether to get extension tubes, close up lenses, macro lenses, or whatever else they might be trying to decide between. If you have read that the image quality greatly suffers, they all look terrible because they aren't true macro and therefore cant get close enough, well, decide for yourself. These are all the same everything, except focus distance and with/without the close up lens.

 

[BobORama]

I'm not sure what you are trying to demonstrate with the images in the gallery. Is each shot the closest focus you can achieve with a given lens at a given focal length?

-- Bob
http://bob-o-rama.smugmug.com -- Photos
http://www.vimeo.com/boborama/videos -- Videos

 

[SineV]

I'm not sure what you are trying to demonstrate with the images in the gallery. Is each shot the closest focus you can achieve with a given lens at a given focal length?

Yes. Did you not read the album description, or was it not clear enough for you? I would like to know where you were having problems understanding so I can fix that.

 

[John K]

Curious to see what you create!

Really, all I want to create is the thing I could not find the answer to myself.

...depends on how you want to shoot and what you want to shoot...

If you want to shoot at 1x and higher magnification it really depends on the light source. For flash based macro you want a lens in the 60mm range because you need to get the flash as close to the subject as possible to get good diffusion and to keep the duration of the flash to a minimum (to help freeze motion). A macro lens in the 60mm range is a great option for hand held macro. I took this one with an MP-E 65mm hand held at about 2x, and it's a single frame @ F11:

If you want to use natural light as the primary light source then you want a long focal length lens, one in the +150mm range. The more working distance you have the easier it will be to set up without spooking the subject. Odds are you're gonna have the camera on a tripod and you'll probably want a focusing rail as well. Shoot in the golden hours before sunset and after sunrise, or when there are some light thin clouds overhead that are diffusing the big yellow ball.

If all you want to do is shoot closeups with natural light then I think a zoom telephoto lens that can get you to 1/3 life size is a better option than an actual macro lens. I took this one with a 70-200 F4 + a 1.4 TC. If memory serves me I found a long reed at the lake and used it like a monopod to help steady the lens.

So it really just boils down to how you want to shoot, and the light source you want to use. The rest is just learning the habits and quirks of the subjects you want to photograph so you can get close to them.

--
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...

 

[SineV]

Curious to see what you create!

Really, all I want to create is the thing I could not find the answer to myself.

...depends on how you want to shoot and what you want to shoot...

If you want to shoot at 1x and higher magnification it really depends on the light source. For flash based macro you want a lens in the 60mm range because you need to get the flash as close to the subject as possible to get good diffusion and to keep the duration of the flash to a minimum (to help freeze motion). A macro lens in the 60mm range is a great option for hand held macro. I took this one with an MP-E 65mm hand held at about 2x, and it's a single frame @ F11:

If you want to use natural light as the primary light source then you want a long focal length lens, one in the +150mm range. The more working distance you have the easier it will be to set up without spooking the subject. Odds are you're gonna have the camera on a tripod and you'll probably want a focusing rail as well. Shoot in the golden hours before sunset and after sunrise, or when there are some light thin clouds overhead that are diffusing the big yellow ball.

If all you want to do is shoot closeups with natural light then I think a zoom telephoto lens that can get you to 1/3 life size is a better option than an actual macro lens. I took this one with a 70-200 F4 + a 1.4 TC. If memory serves me I found a long reed at the lake and used it like a monopod to help steady the lens.

So it really just boils down to how you want to shoot, and the light source you want to use. The rest is just learning the habits and quirks of the subjects you want to photograph so you can get close to them.

I am very confused. Did you post this in the wrong thread my dude?

 

[gardenersassistant]

I have the canon ef 100-400 L IS USM lens and I bought the 500D.

I will be interested to see how you get on with that combination. For six years I used a 90-400 FF equivalent with and without a 500D on Canon APS-C as my preferred kit for flowers and larger invertebrates such as dragonflies and butterflies, interleaved with a 90-350 FF equivalent with and without a 500D on Panasonic MFT. For two years before that I used bridge cameras with and without a 500D for those subjects. (For the last three years I have used a macro lens on MFT for flowers as this lets me use focus-racked video for stacking and also aperture bracketing, neither of which can I use with my bridge, APS-C or FF cameras.)

I my experience the 500D is a good performer. I imagine you will be able to get some very good results with it on the 100-400 and 5D.

 

[John K]

Curious to see what you create!

Really, all I want to create is the thing I could not find the answer to myself.

...depends on how you want to shoot and what you want to shoot...

If you want to shoot at 1x and higher magnification it really depends on the light source. For flash based macro you want a lens in the 60mm range because you need to get the flash as close to the subject as possible to get good diffusion and to keep the duration of the flash to a minimum (to help freeze motion). A macro lens in the 60mm range is a great option for hand held macro. I took this one with an MP-E 65mm hand held at about 2x, and it's a single frame @ F11:

If you want to use natural light as the primary light source then you want a long focal length lens, one in the +150mm range. The more working distance you have the easier it will be to set up without spooking the subject. Odds are you're gonna have the camera on a tripod and you'll probably want a focusing rail as well. Shoot in the golden hours before sunset and after sunrise, or when there are some light thin clouds overhead that are diffusing the big yellow ball.

If all you want to do is shoot closeups with natural light then I think a zoom telephoto lens that can get you to 1/3 life size is a better option than an actual macro lens. I took this one with a 70-200 F4 + a 1.4 TC. If memory serves me I found a long reed at the lake and used it like a monopod to help steady the lens.

So it really just boils down to how you want to shoot, and the light source you want to use. The rest is just learning the habits and quirks of the subjects you want to photograph so you can get close to them.

I am very confused. Did you post this in the wrong thread my dude?

Nope. You seemed to indicate in your OP that you couldn't figure out what lens to buy for macro. I explained how to figure that out

--
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...

 

[Peter in Canberra]

Curious to see what you create!

Really, all I want to create is the thing I could not find the answer to myself.

...depends on how you want to shoot and what you want to shoot...

...

If all you want to do is shoot closeups with natural light then I think a zoom telephoto lens that can get you to 1/3 life size is a better option than an actual macro lens. I took this one with a 70-200 F4 + a 1.4 TC. If memory serves me I found a long reed at the lake and used it like a monopod to help steady the lens.

out of curiosity, how far away were you from the dragonfly with that setup?

I have the Nikon 85mm VR micro lens and have had a bit of success (by my estimation only) with it for handheld shots of jumping spiders, sometimes using the little SB-400 flash. Thom Hogan's review of it is pretty positive - http://www.dslrbodies.com/lenses/ni...lens-reviews/nikon-85mm-f35g-micro-nikko.html

I have toyed with the idea of the Nikon 60mm micro but can't see I would gain much over what I already have in the 85.

Do you have thoughts on that?

cheers Peter

 

[John K]

If all you want to do is shoot closeups with natural light then I think a zoom telephoto lens that can get you to 1/3 life size is a better option than an actual macro lens. I took this one with a 70-200 F4 + a 1.4 TC. If memory serves me I found a long reed at the lake and used it like a monopod to help steady the lens.

out of curiosity, how far away were you from the dragonfly with that setup?

I want to say that it was between 4 and 5 meters. Not very close considering the types of images that I take now.

I have the Nikon 85mm VR micro lens and have had a bit of success (by my estimation only) with it for handheld shots of jumping spiders, sometimes using the little SB-400 flash. Thom Hogan's review of it is pretty positive - http://www.dslrbodies.com/lenses/ni...lens-reviews/nikon-85mm-f35g-micro-nikko.html

I have toyed with the idea of the Nikon 60mm micro but can't see I would gain much over what I already have in the 85.

Do you have thoughts on that?

cheers Peter

If I didn't have a macro lens, and wanted to use a flash as the primary light source, then hands down I'd buy the 60mm. Not sure what the working distance is on either lens, but odds are the difference between them isn't that significant. In order to get a really noticeable difference in diffusion you either need to double the size of the diffuser, or drop the distance between the diffuser and the subject by half, and I doubt that the working distance of the 60mm drops that much compared to the 85mm.

One of the things that I do is hold on to the plant stem that the critter is perched on with my left hand, and then rest the lens on that same hand to keep everything steady. It's easier to do when the working distance is short, roughly 4" or less. So if you want to get shots like this one you could add extension tubes to increase the mag, and drop the working distance, of your 85mm:

Tech Specs: Canon 80D (F11, 1/250, ISO 200 with highlight tone priority) + a Canon MP-E 65mm macro lens (around 2x) + a diffused MT-24EX (both flash heads on the Canon flash mount, E-TTL metering with -1 2/3 FEC). This is a single, uncropped, image taken hand held.

--
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...

 

[Peter in Canberra]

If I didn't have a macro lens, and wanted to use a flash as the primary light source, then hands down I'd buy the 60mm. Not sure what the working distance is on either lens, but odds are the difference between them isn't that significant. In order to get a really noticeable difference in diffusion you either need to double the size of the diffuser, or drop the distance between the diffuser and the subject by half, and I doubt that the working distance of the 60mm drops that much compared to the 85mm.

One of the things that I do is hold on to the plant stem that the critter is perched on with my left hand, and then rest the lens on that same hand to keep everything steady. It's easier to do when the working distance is short, roughly 4" or less. So if you want to get shots like this one you could add extension tubes to increase the mag, and drop the working distance, of your 85mm:

thanks John. I have a set of extension tubes I have played with a little bit.

I will look into the working distances between both lenses. I like your left hand trick for extra stability.

 

[John K]

I will look into the working distances between both lenses. I like your left hand trick for extra stability.

In this shot the honeybee is resting on my fingers:

Tech Specs: Canon 80D (F11, 1/250, ISO 200 with highlight tone priority) + a Canon MP-E 65mm macro lens (over 2x) + a diffused MT-24EX (both flash heads on the Canon flash mount, E-TTL metering with -1 1/3 FEC, second curtain sync). This is a single, uncropped, frame taken hand held.

--
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...

 

[Peter in Canberra]

If I didn't have a macro lens, and wanted to use a flash as the primary light source, then hands down I'd buy the 60mm. Not sure what the working distance is on either lens, but odds are the difference between them isn't that significant. In order to get a really noticeable difference in diffusion you either need to double the size of the diffuser, or drop the distance between the diffuser and the subject by half, and I doubt that the working distance of the 60mm drops that much compared to the 85mm.

On rereading this I am not sure I understand what you mean about diffusion - are you referring to the light from the flash? and are you recommending that the flash be used with a diffuser?

was looking at 60mm used lenses online - a few about. AF-S versions about Aust$450-500, AF-D versions not that much less. Don't think I can spring for one right now and will do what I can with 85.

 

[Peter in Canberra]

I will look into the working distances between both lenses. I like your left hand trick for extra stability.

In this shot the honeybee is resting on my fingers:

Tech Specs: Canon 80D (F11, 1/250, ISO 200 with highlight tone priority) + a Canon MP-E 65mm macro lens (over 2x) + a diffused MT-24EX (both flash heads on the Canon flash mount, E-TTL metering with -1 1/3 FEC, second curtain sync). This is a single, uncropped, frame taken hand held.

fabulous image. I am inspired that this can be done handheld.

 

[John K]

If I didn't have a macro lens, and wanted to use a flash as the primary light source, then hands down I'd buy the 60mm. Not sure what the working distance is on either lens, but odds are the difference between them isn't that significant. In order to get a really noticeable difference in diffusion you either need to double the size of the diffuser, or drop the distance between the diffuser and the subject by half, and I doubt that the working distance of the 60mm drops that much compared to the 85mm.

On rereading this I am not sure I understand what you mean about diffusion - are you referring to the light from the flash? and are you recommending that the flash be used with a diffuser?

I'm talking about getting better diffusion (softer specular highlights) either by getting the flash/diffuser closer to the subject, increasing the size of the diffuser, or both. Check out the Apparent Light Size post at Strobist. The quality of the light that you are shooting with will make or break you as a photographer. Take a look at the colors in this shot and keep in mind that I had the saturation slider in the Elements RAW editor set to zero.

Tech Specs: Canon 80D (F11, 1/250, ISO 100) + a Canon MP-E 65mm macro lens (2x) + a diffused MT-26EX-RT (E-TTL metering, -1/3 FEC). This is a single, uncropped, frame taken hand held. I used an artificial flower to keep the background from being black.

--
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...