Macro lens for Canon
Discussion
I've always fancied trying a bit more macro photography but find the standard lenses don't provide anything like the close focussing or quality that I want to achieve (could of course be the photographer!). So, for my 20D what would people suggest. The lens won't get a huge amount of use and therefore I want to keep cost down. Wondering whether a 2nd hand Canon EF 50mm f/2.5 macro or a macro extension ring might be options?
I went down the extension rings route (Kenko). They're good for occasional use and have no glass to worry about.
With a 50mm lens you can fill the frame with a 5p piece - I bought a 50mm 1.8 to use for this as focussing is too hard with zooms. You get used to the fighteningly shallow depth of field.
A (shamelessly reposted) sample; this critter was the size of my thumbnail:
With a 50mm lens you can fill the frame with a 5p piece - I bought a 50mm 1.8 to use for this as focussing is too hard with zooms. You get used to the fighteningly shallow depth of field.
A (shamelessly reposted) sample; this critter was the size of my thumbnail:
UKBob said:
What is the most powerful canon macro lens available, and how does the mm come into it, when looking at focal length? Is a bigger or smaller number more powerful?
The thing to look for is magnification, not focal length. A true macro lens is 1:1 (expressed on 35mm film; a cropped DSLR will be about 0.66:1 in effective terms.) 1:1 means that if you photograph an object say 10mm across, it will appear on the film/sensor 10mm across also.
simpo two said:
The thing to look for is magnification, not focal length. A true macro lens is 1:1 (expressed on 35mm film; a cropped DSLR will be about 0.66:1 in effective terms.) 1:1 means that if you photograph an object say 10mm across, it will appear on the film/sensor 10mm across also.
It's about how close you can get to the subject and retain focus rather than focal length - a different game from telephotos and distant subjects. The image above is about 1:1 but the focal length was 50mm. I'd guess the lens was a couple of inches away from this crtter.Captain Beaky said:
Weeeeell, nearly. I suppose magnification is a combination of focal length and distance to subject. For example the Micro Nikkor 60mm and the Micro Nikkor 105mm both have 1:1 magnification and will give identical results, but the 105mm does it from further away. Working distance is important if you want to photograph nervous critters that will jump or fly away when you shove your front element in their faces!
The two Canon macro lenses I know of are 100mm and 180mm. They are both 1:1, but the 180 is an L lens and it was developed for dentistry work, it can achieve 1:1 from a greater distance so patients didn't feel like they had the camera down thier throat.
Martin.
Taken with the 100mm f2.8
Martin.
Taken with the 100mm f2.8
simpo two said:
Working distance is important if you want to photograph nervous critters that will jump or fly away when you shove your front element in their faces!
Indeedy - catching that little crab before it ran off up the beach was a lesson in that !
The Canon 50mm f2.5 only goes to 1:2 without a converter, so if you want to get really close I think the extension tubes are a better option unless you want a 50mm prime anyway - maybe for portraits on a 20D.
V6GTO said:
The two Canon macro lenses I know of are 100mm and 180mm. They are both 1:1, but the 180 is an L lens and it was developed for dentistry work, it can achieve 1:1 from a greater distance so patients didn't feel like they had the camera down thier throat.
Martin.
Taken with the 100mm f2.8
Nice piccie !
Greater working distance makes for easier lighting as well as less intimidation but you pays your money...
The 100mm is about twice the price of the 50mm, or five times as much for the 180mm
V6GTO said:
so patients didn't feel like they had the camera down their throat.
I've been to a dentist where it's felt like that anyway without them using a camera
Very nice piccie... The longer lens definately sounds a good bet with the extra 'space' it gives. Either that or the extension tubes etc. I'll still probably end up spending more than I was aiming to do anyway..
Guys, I've narrowed it down to the 60mm EF-S or the 100mm. Both will, on their 'normal' cameras give 1:1 and there is about £50 difference in the price. So, any thoughts about the two. The reviews are good for both and one superb example from the 100mm on this thread. The EF-S is obviously designed for the 20D sensor etc but the 100 might give me a bit more flexibility etc. So, thoughts?
simpo two said:
Apart from the longer working distance, I wonder if camera-shake would be more of an issue with the 100mm?
Just comparing specs again, this is a valid point although I suppose if I was sensible I'd be using a tripod!. The 100 is not far off twice the weight and length of the 60 and that may just swing it. The 60 would fit in my bag without adding too much weight and would actually fit in my focal lengths quite nicely. However, having looked at even more sample shots from both, the 100 really does look superb (although, like with anything else on the www, this is quite probably down to the photographer too!).
ahhh, decisions decisions...Why can't they be easy?
60 100 60 100 60 100 heads tails etc etc Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff