Worth getting a Macro lens?
Discussion
I have a Sony A57 SLT camera with the 18-55 that came with it, and a longer zoom lens, (70-300).
A lot of the photo's I would like to take are of our pets, Cats and fast moving Rats. The rats have fantastic detail so I would like to get some real close up shots. If I try and get close enough to see what I want my photo to show, I cannot focus on the picture.
Over the weekend I saw a guy using a Canon with a 50mm F1.8 macro lens, and was getting some amazing close up shots.
Is it worth getting a Macro lens? I have had a look and the Sony 30mm F2.8 is quite reasonably priced. Is this any good? Or do I have to be 30mm from anything?
Another thing, When I take close up shots I get a lot of washout, is this due to my lens only being F3.5, will the F2.8 be better for this or should I aim for a 50mm F1.8 Macro?
A lot of the photo's I would like to take are of our pets, Cats and fast moving Rats. The rats have fantastic detail so I would like to get some real close up shots. If I try and get close enough to see what I want my photo to show, I cannot focus on the picture.
Over the weekend I saw a guy using a Canon with a 50mm F1.8 macro lens, and was getting some amazing close up shots.
Is it worth getting a Macro lens? I have had a look and the Sony 30mm F2.8 is quite reasonably priced. Is this any good? Or do I have to be 30mm from anything?
Another thing, When I take close up shots I get a lot of washout, is this due to my lens only being F3.5, will the F2.8 be better for this or should I aim for a 50mm F1.8 Macro?
I think you're getting a bit confused over what a Macro lens actually is. The Canon 50mm f1.8 isn't a macro lens - the Canon macro lenses are 60mm f2.8, 100mm f2.8 and 180mm f3.5.
A proper macro lens puts what you've photographed on the sensor in life size. Given that your sensor is 23.5mm by 15.6mm, you can imagine that at full macro distance, even with a rat, you wouldn't be getting a huge amount in shot!
Having said that, a macro lens can, of course, focus from much further away as well, so it would take all the shots you want, but at the same time, they're generally more expensive, and when you get to real close up shots, you'll need to start looking at flash options as well, since very close shots mean not a great deal of light gets through the lens, and you can't use the built in flash or even a standard hotshoe flash, as your subject would be so close to the front of the lens that the lens itself would cast a shadow in the flash beam.
There is a 50mm Sony Macro lens, which costs around £450 (or a 100mm for around £550), and a Macro ring flash which is around £275. If you've got the budget, and you're interested in taking shots of insects and other things which really benefit from macro treatment (which is great fun, although I'd recommend the 100mm), then go for it, but if you're not sure you'd use it, or it's too expensive, then take a look at minimum focal distances on some of the other Sony lenses, or read up on extension tubes, which are a much cheaper way of adapting one of your existing lenses to get closer.
A proper macro lens puts what you've photographed on the sensor in life size. Given that your sensor is 23.5mm by 15.6mm, you can imagine that at full macro distance, even with a rat, you wouldn't be getting a huge amount in shot!
Having said that, a macro lens can, of course, focus from much further away as well, so it would take all the shots you want, but at the same time, they're generally more expensive, and when you get to real close up shots, you'll need to start looking at flash options as well, since very close shots mean not a great deal of light gets through the lens, and you can't use the built in flash or even a standard hotshoe flash, as your subject would be so close to the front of the lens that the lens itself would cast a shadow in the flash beam.
There is a 50mm Sony Macro lens, which costs around £450 (or a 100mm for around £550), and a Macro ring flash which is around £275. If you've got the budget, and you're interested in taking shots of insects and other things which really benefit from macro treatment (which is great fun, although I'd recommend the 100mm), then go for it, but if you're not sure you'd use it, or it's too expensive, then take a look at minimum focal distances on some of the other Sony lenses, or read up on extension tubes, which are a much cheaper way of adapting one of your existing lenses to get closer.
tim2100 said:
The rats have fantastic detail so I would like to get some real close up shots. If I try and get close enough to see what I want my photo to show, I cannot focus on the picture.
Is it worth getting a Macro lens? I have had a look and the Sony 30mm F2.8 is quite reasonably priced. Is this any good? Or do I have to be 30mm from anything?
30mm is the focal length, which is perhaps most easily understood as angle of view. It's very short for a macro lens - I found this review: http://www.photozone.de/sony-alpha-aps-c-lens-test...Is it worth getting a Macro lens? I have had a look and the Sony 30mm F2.8 is quite reasonably priced. Is this any good? Or do I have to be 30mm from anything?
At full magnification (1:1) the front of your lens will be only 2cm from the subject - in reality, unworkable. That's why macro lenses are usually much longer - more working distance is usually better and also allows better lighting.
tim2100 said:
Another thing, When I take close up shots I get a lot of washout, is this due to my lens only being F3.5, will the F2.8 be better for this or should I aim for a 50mm F1.8 Macro?
By washout do you mean over exposed, ie too light/white? If so are you using flash/do you have it on Auto-ISO or ISO set to 1600+ etc?Simpo Two said:
tim2100 said:
The rats have fantastic detail so I would like to get some real close up shots. If I try and get close enough to see what I want my photo to show, I cannot focus on the picture.
Is it worth getting a Macro lens? I have had a look and the Sony 30mm F2.8 is quite reasonably priced. Is this any good? Or do I have to be 30mm from anything?
30mm is the focal length, which is perhaps most easily understood as angle of view. It's very short for a macro lens - I found this review: http://www.photozone.de/sony-alpha-aps-c-lens-test...Is it worth getting a Macro lens? I have had a look and the Sony 30mm F2.8 is quite reasonably priced. Is this any good? Or do I have to be 30mm from anything?
At full magnification (1:1) the front of your lens will be only 2cm from the subject - in reality, unworkable. That's why macro lenses are usually much longer - more working distance is usually better and also allows better lighting.
Simpo Two said:
tim2100 said:
Another thing, When I take close up shots I get a lot of washout, is this due to my lens only being F3.5, will the F2.8 be better for this or should I aim for a 50mm F1.8 Macro?
By washout do you mean over exposed, ie too light/white? If so are you using flash/do you have it on Auto-ISO or ISO set to 1600+ etc?My initial thoughts to your post are that you need to learn what you like and what your camera does. Learn what f stops are and how exposure time alters with subjects corresponding to f stops as well.
A macro lens gives 1:1 size on the camera but depending on what you want you may not need that. Have a look in the macro thread on here to see if that is the sort of lens you want. Don't forget it is a good wedge of cash to spunk on something you may not need.
A macro lens gives 1:1 size on the camera but depending on what you want you may not need that. Have a look in the macro thread on here to see if that is the sort of lens you want. Don't forget it is a good wedge of cash to spunk on something you may not need.
14-7 said:
My initial thoughts to your post are that you need to learn what you like and what your camera does. Learn what f stops are and how exposure time alters with subjects corresponding to f stops as well.
A macro lens gives 1:1 size on the camera but depending on what you want you may not need that. Have a look in the macro thread on here to see if that is the sort of lens you want. Don't forget it is a good wedge of cash to spunk on something you may not need.
Fair comment. I really need to learn a lot more about using the camera. Most of the time I seem to be using it as a glorified point and shoot A macro lens gives 1:1 size on the camera but depending on what you want you may not need that. Have a look in the macro thread on here to see if that is the sort of lens you want. Don't forget it is a good wedge of cash to spunk on something you may not need.
. It is a lot of cash and I don't want to get the wrong thing.
tim2100 said:
Thank you, as Kermit says I may be confused about Macro. It is close-ups I want.
Try to avoid the phrase 'close up' and think of magnification. If you want to fill the screen with a postage stamp, you can either do it with a long lens from further away, or a wide angle lens from very close. The area in the viewfinder is the same. You don't have to be close up to get a 'close up' if you see what I mean, and if you have a rat sticking its snotter in the lens, distance will be a good thing.tim2100 said:
Yes over-exposed, I was using flash on Auto-ISO.
Double bingo 
The shot is over-exposed because either the flash cannot give a very small flash (the closer you are to the subject the less power you need), or because it's selecting a high ISO which is forcing over-exposure. Try turning Auto-ISO off and select the lowest ISO you have, maybe 100 or 200. If that still doesn't work turn the flash off as well.
As said above, a true macro lens will get a life size shot on the sensor, also refered to as 1:1. (1mm on your subject covers 1mm on the sensor.)
However many lenses are labled as being 'macro' which don't even get close to this level, it just means they can focus closer than a standard lens so check them out before buying.
For what you're after, I would have thought the 70-300 would have been able to zoom in/focus close enough to get something the size of a rat in detail.
One of the effects of higher magnification (getting closer or zooming in,) is a reduced depth of field (a shorter distance in focus, more blury in front & behind the focal point.) Using wide apertures also reduce it. Combining the two just makes things difficult I've had DoF's of less than 1mm when doing high level macro work (@f.10), the closer you get the harder it is. The higher apertures needed to get a usable DoF will require the use of external lighting, you will be so close the lens will block any light from a flash on the camera.
If you're not getting enough of the rat in focus try changing the aperture to f.8 or higher. If your shots are over exposed check the iso, the cameras metering mode (read the manual,) and the 'Flash Exposure Compensation' if your camera has it will allow you to turn down the flash if it isn't already at minimum (in which case using an even smaller aperture wll help).
For a cheap entry into macro photography have a look at Extension Tubes, hollow tubes which fit between the lens and camera and can greatly reduce the minimum focus distance of a lens allowing you to physically get much closer to your subject making it look bigger. Available with auto focus & aperture controll from £42 on Amazon. Non-auto tubes are available but are a pain to use.
Or 'Reverse Lens' technique. For £3 (yes, £3) you can get a mounting adaptor to mount a lens backwards on your camera for extreme magnification. For £3 it's worth trying anyway
As an example using a reverse lens @~20mm: http://www.flickr.com/photos/56025993@N03/67773793...
If you do want to try out macro photography, my reccomendation would be the auto focus extension tubes, they are so much easier to use than the non-af.
I hope all that makse sense, it's getting a bit late
However many lenses are labled as being 'macro' which don't even get close to this level, it just means they can focus closer than a standard lens so check them out before buying.
For what you're after, I would have thought the 70-300 would have been able to zoom in/focus close enough to get something the size of a rat in detail.
One of the effects of higher magnification (getting closer or zooming in,) is a reduced depth of field (a shorter distance in focus, more blury in front & behind the focal point.) Using wide apertures also reduce it. Combining the two just makes things difficult
I've had DoF's of less than 1mm when doing high level macro work (@f.10), the closer you get the harder it is. The higher apertures needed to get a usable DoF will require the use of external lighting, you will be so close the lens will block any light from a flash on the camera.If you're not getting enough of the rat in focus try changing the aperture to f.8 or higher. If your shots are over exposed check the iso, the cameras metering mode (read the manual,) and the 'Flash Exposure Compensation' if your camera has it will allow you to turn down the flash if it isn't already at minimum (in which case using an even smaller aperture wll help).
For a cheap entry into macro photography have a look at Extension Tubes, hollow tubes which fit between the lens and camera and can greatly reduce the minimum focus distance of a lens allowing you to physically get much closer to your subject making it look bigger. Available with auto focus & aperture controll from £42 on Amazon. Non-auto tubes are available but are a pain to use.
Or 'Reverse Lens' technique. For £3 (yes, £3) you can get a mounting adaptor to mount a lens backwards on your camera for extreme magnification. For £3 it's worth trying anyway
As an example using a reverse lens @~20mm: http://www.flickr.com/photos/56025993@N03/67773793...
If you do want to try out macro photography, my reccomendation would be the auto focus extension tubes, they are so much easier to use than the non-af.
I hope all that makse sense, it's getting a bit late
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff