My bag got heavier totay!
Discussion
Brilliant pictures, all of them.
I love macro photography, it's like a whole new world. If a little scary at times.
Anyone care to explain roughly how a macro lens works or is it that it just has a realy low minimum focal lenght?
iv'e seen some realy cool pics of flies where you can see every individual cell thingy in their eye.
great stuff martin, expect to see some closup shots of those lizards now
I love macro photography, it's like a whole new world. If a little scary at times.
Anyone care to explain roughly how a macro lens works or is it that it just has a realy low minimum focal lenght?
iv'e seen some realy cool pics of flies where you can see every individual cell thingy in their eye.
great stuff martin, expect to see some closup shots of those lizards now
bilko2 said:
Anyone care to explain roughly how a macro lens works or is it that it just has a realy low minimum focal lenght?
It's not focal length so much but the abilty to focus very close that gives the magnification. They're very clever things - this id from www.photo.net/macro/primer :
'Fortunately, it is difficult to buy a bad macro lens. This is kind of odd in a world where 90% of the lenses sold are bad. Here's my theory: Every day at least one man wakes up and says to himself "I have a 1.5 inch long penis; I think I will buy a big SLR like a pro. But I don't want to spend money on frills like lenses so I'll get a Tokina zoom." However, no man ever wakes up and says to himself "I have a 1.5 inch long penis. I think I will buy a macro lens so that I can make a 1:1 photograph of my penis and distribute this photo from my Web server. But I don't want to spend too much on this lens so I'll try to find a cheap Sigma."
In short, anyone in the market for a macro lens is already fairly sophisticated and quality conscious. If you read USENET then you know that the world is full of people asking "is this $150 Tamron 75-300 zoom as good as a $900 Nikon 300 prime?" Can you blame Tamron/Tokina/Sigma for trying to separate people like this from their $150? But there isn't apparently a big enough collection of fools in the market for macro lenses to support a junky macro lens subcategory.
In my humble opinion, the best macro lenses are the latest autofocus mount models made by Nikon (my primary 35mm system is Canon EOS, by the way). Nikon makes 60mm, 105mm and 200mm focal lengths. Each lens will focus continuously from infinity to 1:1. You can shoot the moon and capture the bear claw without stopping to change lenses or screw in filters. How do these lenses work? Do they just have a much longer helical than the 50mm normal lens? Yes and no.
Yes a macro lens helical has much more travel than a normal lens helical. You can watch the front element move an inch or two. However, these helicals aren't just pushing a stack of glass back and forth like the 50mm's helical. Inside one of the elements is moving ("floating") so that the optical design changes to a more appropriate one for close-up photography. Thus you get sharp images at all focussed distances.
How do you choose a focal length? The same way you do with a non-macro lens. If you can't get very close to your subject at a soccer game, you don't pull out a 50mm lens; you get a 300. If you can't get close to an insect without it getting scared and flying away, then you want the 200mm lens and not the 50. If you want to compress features in a woman's face, you don't get a 28mm lens; you get a 105mm lens. It is the same with macro work; longer lenses give you a flatter perspective.'
bilko2 said:This site does a pretty good job
Anyone care to explain roughly how a macro lens works or is it that it just has a realy low minimum focal lenght?
www.photo.net/macro/primer
Nuggs said:Ooh exciting!
Some really nice shots there 
Does the macro work well with AF, or do you have to go manual? Also, I'm guessing a tripod's mandatory for the really close up stuff?
Mr Hasler - liked the photo in this month's Sprint. A worthy winner...
I've not seen Sprint yet!! Which one was it? When you get close with macro, depth of field is so small that accurate focus is critical. I find that when I get really close, the object is waving all over the frame, even if I brace myself and hold my breath, so a tripod is very useful, although not mandatory if you can lean the camera on something like a beanbag. In fact, if you're getting close to the ground, most tripods won't give you the flexibility to shoot that far down, so may be more of a hindrence.
Manual focus is probably easiest to use, and one trick is to focus the camera manualy, then move the camera back and fowards to get the right part of the object in focus.
Nuggs said:
Does the macro work well with AF, or do you have to go manual? Also, I'm guessing a tripod's mandatory for the really close up stuff?
AF is fine unless you want the very closest distance - then as Ed says it's easier to prefocus and move the camera back and forth instead. Be warned though, a millimetre makes a difference! The magnification makes you more prone to camera-shake, although if you're in sun you should be OK. (Unless you want max DOF which takes you back to wobble-land of course)
If you're looking for a tripod for macro work, look for one that does tricks... like this splits - allez-oop:
And if that's not low enough:
... although I haven't worked out how to look through the viewfinder on that one!!
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff