Macro and close up solutions

[dawson31]

I guess it depends on how much you want to zoom in but in my experience so far the quality of the lens is not as important as light, composition and magnification.

Here is a comparison:

Canon5dsr+tameron90mm | a6000+Sony90mm | a6000+55-210

The Canon was obviously using a flash and if you zoom in you can see a bit more detail but the setup is around $4000+ compared to the 55-210 setup around $850

the 55-210 shot was at 210mm and if I had kept it in it's sweet zone (around 80-140) and got the ISO at 100 instead of 400 it would have been better

The a6000+90mm can actually do better than the picture here but it goes to show how other variables can effect the IQ.

I can see now right away that image stacking is going to play a much bigger role in IQ particularly with very small things where the DoF is so narrow

Here is a flower with a 3 photo stack from the 5018 vs single shot from the 55-210

For taking pictures of insects the long focal lengths are much better but also tubes because the raynox250 will require the front of the lens to be within 6 inches and two sets of tubes will allow to to focus between a few inches and a few feet on the 55-210

--
-Chris
https://www.flickr.com/photos/cspics/albums

But for lighting wise. Effective diffusing of light can be achieved if your diffuser is nearer to the subject? Having a longer distance allows you to shoot at ease but lighting wise greatly depend on the flash power if its sufficient enough to reach the subject.

 

[csintexas]

Yes that is true but i think that the on camera flash is not going to cut it. You need a more powerful flash anyway to get a good quality light. But image focus stacking allows a wider f-stop so that light is not as big of a problem anyway.

You can find the older minolta 100mm macro for around $180+ but it is not stabilized like the 55-210 and you end up either having to use a tripod or doing negative things to keep the shutter speed up. I do not think it will beat the 55-210 by much.

I have trouble enough just getting butterfly's to sit still long enough to get within 3 feet of them much less 6 inches.

 

[dawson31]

Yes that is true but i think that the on camera flash is not going to cut it. You need a more powerful flash anyway to get a good quality light. But image focus stacking allows a wider f-stop so that light is not as big of a problem anyway.

You can find the older minolta 100mm macro for around $180+ but it is not stabilized like the 55-210 and you end up either having to use a tripod or doing negative things to keep the shutter speed up. I do not think it will beat the 55-210 by much.

I have trouble enough just getting butterfly's to sit still long enough to get within 3 feet of them much less 6 inches.

 

[dawson31]

Nice set

I guess those where all with the Sony 90mm macro?

I suppose that the greater DoF of crop sensors is an advantage in macro

 

[csintexas]

This depends on your goals and what you want to shoot

For a good start the 55-210 + a tube set + the Raynox can do just about everything

then add a low cost manual flash so that low light levels are not so hard to work with

If the IQ is not enough than any dedicated macro will be a bit better than the 55-210

if you need a long working distance for dragonflies and butterflies than than 90mm or more FL would be best -otherwise there are some very nice and inexpensive lenses around 50mm (but the the Sony 5018 with tubes and Raynox also does well)

So you have the 55-210 + Diopters -what do you feel you are lacking there? Sharpness? range? low light ability? what?

Here is a comparison between the 55-210 with tubes and the Minolta 100mm macro

--
-Chris
https://www.flickr.com/photos/cspics/albums

 

[Joachim Wulfers]

Nice set

I guess those where all with the Sony 90mm macro?

I suppose that the greater DoF of crop sensors is an advantage in macro

--
-Chris
https://www.flickr.com/photos/cspics/albums

Sony FE 90mm macro is beyond my budget. Can anyone give your valuable advice if should get a true macro lens ( likely going adapted) or stay with my 55210 + Raynox as it has OSS. I will be shooting mostly handheld. Not sure if The additional OSS is more useful to me.

daw

A Minolta MD Macro 100/4 gives you a 1:2 and its corresponding extension tube brings you to 1:1. It is a great and inexpensive lens. This shot was taken handheld w/o the extension tube

--
Joachim

Joachim Wulfers

Explore Joachim Wulfers’s 2,024 photos on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

 

[metaldood]

Which flash do you recommend?

 

[snapa]

This depends on your goals and what you want to shoot

For a good start the 55-210 + a tube set + the Raynox can do just about everything

then add a low cost manual flash so that low light levels are not so hard to work with

If the IQ is not enough than any dedicated macro will be a bit better than the 55-210

if you need a long working distance for dragonflies and butterflies than than 90mm or more FL would be best -otherwise there are some very nice and inexpensive lenses around 50mm (but the the Sony 5018 with tubes and Raynox also does well)

Chris... maybe the 90 mm, tubes, Tayox, primes, flashes may be better for macro shooting, but I still like to see what I can get from just the simple 55-210 kit lens can produce. If you are not into pixel peeping or spending huge amounts of $ on additional gear, I think you can still get acceptable pictures.


Taken today with the a6300 & 55-210 with built-in flash in auto mode! Why make it more complicated if not really needed. Taken hand held BTW.

It is challenging to me to see how well close ups can be taken. It may not be a true macro shot, but it is close to it. Maybe all those additional true macro lenses, tubes, extension lenses, etc can do better, but for me, it can still be done with just a simple camera and kit lens if shot correctly. Better macro shooting can be made better with stacking SW, but I'm not into real macro shooting to get into all that trouble. Maybe if I was, I would go that route.

--
Life is short, make the best of it while you can!
Snapa

 

[csintexas]

That is a good question -I am trying to figure that one out myself.

My thought so far is that a decent flash will be good for macro as well as other kinds of photos. Since I am not on a very tight budget I might go for a full featured one like the Godox but I am sure a manual flash would work for most situations and be less expensive and maybe more reliable and the Neewer TT560 seems very popular.

And then if I still need something more for macro I might look at ring flashes later.

In general a prefer natural light and do not mind missing a shot much.

In my experience flashes produce a fairly flat look. They do make a sync chord so that you can take the flash off the camera which is less expensive than a wireless trigger and allows you to have the flash more to the side to produce a more higher contrast natural look. -but that becomes hard to manage.

A ring flash would be good for really close up subjects and also be convenient but I doubt they are powerful enough to get very far away and they will produce the most even illumination.

Do you think that you are missing a lot of good shots because of no flash?




-Chris

Chris Stewart’s albums | Flickr

www.flickr.com

 

[dawson31]

Anyone tried if the kit Len PZ1650 will be decent enough for a wide angle macro as well as decent macro close up?

dawson

 

[viperkeeper]

Anyone tried if the kit Len PZ1650 will be decent enough for a wide angle macro as well as decent macro close up?

dawson

No it's pretty poor by itself but you can add a Raynox 250 or extention tubes.

 

[AndyHWC]

nice, have you tried cheap extension tube?

 

[csintexas]

yes I have tried it.

With the Raynox there is some vignetting at 16mm -so a single lens magnifier would work better. With the 26mm tubes at 16mm FL the subject would be nearly touching the lens front

-but with one 10mm tube it can be about 3/4 inch off and get about 1:1.5 or so

Then as you zoom to 50mm the working distance becomes greater but you loose the wide angle.

So the working distance at 16mm is tricky and I would guess that you would be much better off with something like the Venus 15mm macro

but on a budget the 16-50 might produce some interesting shots at not quite 1:1

the nice thing about having a tube set is that they work with any lens.

Here is an example of the 1650 kit +10mm tube:

--
-Chris
https://www.flickr.com/photos/cspics/albums

 

[rayrik]

That is a good question -I am trying to figure that one out myself.

My thought so far is that a decent flash will be good for macro as well as other kinds of photos. Since I am not on a very tight budget I might go for a full featured one like the Godox but I am sure a manual flash would work for most situations and be less expensive and maybe more reliable and the Neewer TT560 seems very popular.

And then if I still need something more for macro I might look at ring flashes later.

In general a prefer natural light and do not mind missing a shot much.

In my experience flashes produce a fairly flat look. They do make a sync chord so that you can take the flash off the camera which is less expensive than a wireless trigger and allows you to have the flash more to the side to produce a more higher contrast natural look. -but that becomes hard to manage.

A ring flash would be good for really close up subjects and also be convenient but I doubt they are powerful enough to get very far away and they will produce the most even illumination.

Do you think that you are missing a lot of good shots because of no flash?

-Chris
https://www.flickr.com/photos/cspics/albums

Why not LED lights ? Unlike flash which is sort of lottery, lights are more predictable, you can adjust intensity , angles, colour etc. before and not only after shutter release.

 

[Nikolausz]

That is a good question -I am trying to figure that one out myself.

My thought so far is that a decent flash will be good for macro as well as other kinds of photos. Since I am not on a very tight budget I might go for a full featured one like the Godox but I am sure a manual flash would work for most situations and be less expensive and maybe more reliable and the Neewer TT560 seems very popular.

And then if I still need something more for macro I might look at ring flashes later.

In general a prefer natural light and do not mind missing a shot much.

In my experience flashes produce a fairly flat look. They do make a sync chord so that you can take the flash off the camera which is less expensive than a wireless trigger and allows you to have the flash more to the side to produce a more higher contrast natural look. -but that becomes hard to manage.

A ring flash would be good for really close up subjects and also be convenient but I doubt they are powerful enough to get very far away and they will produce the most even illumination.

Do you think that you are missing a lot of good shots because of no flash?

-Chris
https://www.flickr.com/photos/cspics/albums

Why not LED lights ? Unlike flash which is sort of lottery, lights are more predictable, you can adjust intensity , angles, colour etc. before and not only after shutter release.

The very short pulse of flash light helps to "freeze" the movements/shake of your camera holding hands causing blur and loss of sharpness in the final image. Continuous led lights don't do this, so they are useless for macro photography.

 

[dawson31]

yes I have tried it.

With the Raynox there is some vignetting at 16mm -so a single lens magnifier would work better. With the 26mm tubes at 16mm FL the subject would be nearly touching the lens front

-but with one 10mm tube it can be about 3/4 inch off and get about 1:1.5 or so

Then as you zoom to 50mm the working distance becomes greater but you loose the wide angle.

So the working distance at 16mm is tricky and I would guess that you would be much better off with something like the Venus 15mm macro

but on a budget the 16-50 might produce some interesting shots at not quite 1:1

the nice thing about having a tube set is that they work with any lens.

Here is an example of the 1650 kit +10mm tube:

--
-Chris
https://www.flickr.com/photos/cspics/albums

Thank you Chris! What about at 50mm focal lens for 1650 as compared to 5018 prime both with tube or close up filters?

 

[csintexas]

Oh yes, I guess I had just assumed you where interested in the wide angle aspect.

the vignetting does not occur at 18mm or greater so the Raynox would mostly work (the 16-50 does have an odd filter thread size so attaching it may be a little more dificult)

As far as tubes go the longer the focal length the longer the working distance. With one tube set (26mm) I can get almost 1:1 at about 2" distance and the furthest I could get is about 5" away and about 1:2 (and then you could use the tube pieces separately to get less mag. but greater working distance)

the wind is blowing a lot today which makes it hard to get good focus (one tube set)

While it may not be the sharpest lens around it is nicely serviceable. Since many people already own the kit lens adding a tube set would be a very easy way to get some macro shots

With two tube sets (52mm) it is possible to get 2:1 at about 40mm FL

16-50 + two sets of tubes at 50mm FL

The 5018 is a tad sharper but the 1650 seems to be able to focus a bit closer (so more magnification).

5018 + two tube sets



--
-Chris
https://www.flickr.com/photos/cspics/albums

 

[rayrik]

The very short pulse of flash light helps to "freeze" the movements/shake of your camera holding hands causing blur and loss of sharpness in the final image. Continuous led lights don't do this, so they are useless for macro photography.

Lights useless for macro photography ? never heard of tripods ? I find flash rather useless (ugly to be precise) except for add on for actions, sports, so in case of macro bees and whatever insects, which are not all that exciting.

 

[Pixel Pooper]

Lights useless for macro photography ? never heard of tripods ? I find flash rather useless (ugly to be precise) except for add on for actions, sports, so in case of macro bees and whatever insects, which are not all that exciting.

LED lighting is just as ugly as flash if not diffused properly, but without the advantage of being able to freeze motion. In my opinion, motion blur is the biggest issue to overcome in macro photography. People worry about diffraction or lens sharpness, but neither of those will have any effect if you have even the tiniest amount of camera or subject movement. Tripods are useful for shooting coins and such, but for live subjects they are just a hindrance. Flash allows you to shoot hand held at base ISO with no motion blur, which is why pretty much every good macro photographer uses it.

 

[davelok]

I'd guess most insects would get scared away if one were to approach them with a bright, constant light source. I've seen butterflies flee when I approached them with a white cloth flash diffuser.