Canon gear for starting Macro photography

Hey, I am looking for some affordable gear (lenses, extension tubes and whatnot) to getting started in macro photography.

I'm looking for at least 1:1 magnification ratio, higher would be better.

I have my eyes on the Canon RF 100mm f2.8 Macro 1.4:1 (maybe a little expensive to getting started into macro) and the Laowa 100 mm f/2,8 2:1 Ultra Macro lens, way more affordable.

I have no previous experience in macro photography and was wondering if my current RF 35mm f1.8 0.5:1 could be turned into a more close up macro lens, before buying new expensive lenses?

Thanks in advance

You can get started for next to nothing by getting a set of extension tubes.

After that I'd look for a used lens rather than buying new.

I'd hold off on the cost attraction of Loawa until you have a better feel for shooting since (I believe) their lenses are entirely manual.

Depending on what you're planning to shoot you may also need a flash and a flash diffuser/reflector.

Rudolph_i wrote:

Hey, I am looking for some affordable gear (lenses, extension tubes and whatnot) to getting started in macro photography.

I'm looking for at least 1:1 magnification ratio, higher would be better.

I have my eyes on the Canon RF 100mm f2.8 Macro 1.4:1 (maybe a little expensive to getting started into macro)

Yes, but apparently it doubles as a formidable portrait lens, if you do any portraiture. It's also what I call a good XE (extreme environment, don't ask why I don't say "EE") lens.

The lens has a spherical aberration compensation ring. This is a technology Nikon introduced back in 1990, and Canon has finally caught up with. The SA comp ring (or "defocus control" in Nikon parlance lets you dial in a more pleasing bokeh at the expense of a slight bit of detail at the plane of focus.

It may (big "may") allow you to use your camera for automatic focus stacking. Macro depth-of-field is very shallow. I mean fractions of a mm shallow. Focus stacking is a technique were you focus on the closest part of your subject, take a shot, focus a little farther back, take another shot, etc. until you have 10s or 100s of shots. It's most often done with an automated "focusing rail" that moves the camera, lens and all, towards the subject with a motor and "screw drive". You can get a tolerable WeMacro rail for about $300.

Some cameras can control certain lenses to do the stack without a rail. I know Nikon and Oly are pretty good, not sure about Canon, though. They have a really strange love/hate relationship with macro. So you might want to see if your particular Canon can stack with the 100mm before committing to that $1,300 purchase.

Oh, and read all the recent threads in this group. Even if they've got you going "oh, not another bleeping insect!" because a lot of macro shooters discuss their technique, and sometimes the same technique someone used for an icky old bug can transfer over to beautiful minerals...

and the Laowa 100 mm f/2,8 2:1 Ultra Macro lens, way more affordable.

True. And also supposedly high quality. But fully manual. I don't know if that scares you (it doesn't scare me: I shoot most of my macro with a bellows and microscope objectives, enlarger lenses, or highly specialized lenses like Leitz Photars or Zeiss Luminars).

I have no previous experience in macro photography and was wondering if my current RF 35mm f1.8 0.5:1 could be turned into a more close up macro lens, before buying new expensive lenses?

It can with inexpensive "extension tubes". but doing so might put you off macro photograph entirely.

You can find a usable set of two RF tubes, a 12mm and a 20mm for around $50 (inexpensive tubes usually travel in sets. Don't ask me why, but it's basically always been that way). The 20mm tube is sufficient to let your lens cover the range from 0.5x to around 1.1x. But if you do that, you will find your working distance (the distance from the front of the lens to your subject)is annoyingly small. It can get hard to get light to your subject without having the front of the lens get in the way. It can also be hard to get your subject to stay put with a giant eye just a few 10s of mm from them.

I believe working distance is about the most important thing for beginning macro photographers. Longer working distances mean you don't block as much available light, and they make it easier to get small flashes or LED lights close to the subject. Long working distances also make it easier to work without accidentally damaging the subject, or scaring the subject away if it's an insect or other small animal.

Speaking of light, the current darling of the macro scene is the Godox/Flashpoint MF-12. It's a tiny, lightweight light that can work in manual or full TTL. You want to buy a two light kit (I use two two-light kits) because it comes with a handy attachment ring to let you mount up to 6 flashes to the front of your lens. That two-light kit usually goes for around $250 and the controller for your hot shoe is another $50.

Macro tends to always be demanding new bits of gear that can really eat into your budget, so keep that in mind and don't spend every penny you've got on your lens. You may find a fairly outdated lens together with a focus rail and set of macro flashes gives you much better results than using the entire budget for the latest $1,300 lens.

That's why my general advice for beginners is to get a used 100mm Canon or 105mm Nikon, appropriate adapters, and a manual rail like a NiSi NM-180 (lists for $129 but frequently goes on sale. I got mine for $80) or a Haoge FM-160 ($70 on Amazon. Seriously).

The Canon 100mm f/2.8 L is about $550 used in "excellent" condition at KEH. Add the WeMacro for $300, the two-flash MF-12 set and controller for $300, and you've spent $1,150 on a truly formidable setup that can do almost anything from chasing live bugs to creating insanely detailed flower macros.

A Canon FD or Nikon AI manual focus macro can be had for around $100 used, the adapters will set you back another $40, the hand-cranked NiSi or Haoge rails another $70-100, and lighting with available light or your existing flashes (you have at least two, right?) and you're up and running with stunning results for under $250.

Thanks in advance

You're welcome.

Thank you for all the great information.

I think I will get started with a 50mm 1.8 and a few extension tubes to keep the costs as low as possible and also fiddle with my current 35mm macro, to see if I even enjoy what I'll be able to do.

I did not knew anything about diopter filters, thanks for the suggestion.

dwkdnvr wrote:

Joseph S Wisniewski wrote:

Speaking of light, the current darling of the macro scene is the Godox/Flashpoint MF-12.

Holy cow - how am I so out of the loop that I hadn't seen this before?

Perhaps you've been spending time doing something silly like getting out and shooting pictures, lol.

This is brilliant, and relatively inexpensive all things considered.

I find them quite useful.

thanks for mentioning these.

You're welcome.

I have a contrary opinion.

Shooting macro is difficult enough including lighting, limited DOF, camera shake, focusing issues.  As many others have done, I tried diopter lens additions and extension tubes.  The image quality and difficulty of use were not worth it.  If you are serious about macro photography, you need to buy an appropriate macro lens.  When you put down big money for your R6 ii, you should have also realized that lenses were also going to be costly.  You also have another handicap with a FF camera.  Plenty of photographers use one for macro but a smaller sensor such as APS-C greatly helps with DOF.