Marc
i am very new to photography and would like to know more about macro lens. My fiancee bought me a cannon 550d for an engagement present and i have 2 lens's that came with the package. the EFS 18-55mm lens with marco 0.25m/0.8ft and 75-300mm lens with macro 1.5m/4.9ft. i would like to start taking photo's of nature (insects mainly) and i do not have a clue what to do.
i have taken some decent(ish) close up photo's but i would like to get closer (think ant on a pin head or pollen on a bee's head) i have been into a couple of camera shops but they have tried to sell me stuff rather than advising me what i need to achieve these types of pictures. as i said i am very new to photography so my knowledge base is ZERO. could somebody please give me any advice about taking extreme close up pictures and anything else they think i need to know.
thank you in advance
thank you nick i have looked in to MPe65 and it is a bit out of my price range at the moment. is there a compatible brand that makes this type of lens? pollen shots were probably a bad example. your fly shot is amazing and that is deffinatley that type of shot i would like to achive
Answer
For those extremely close shots like this,
http://imageshack.us/a/img803/3808/flly.jpg
you have several options. The easiest, but most expensive is get an MPe65 Canon lens. It has the highest magnification ratio of any macro lens out there.
A cheaper option is to reverse wide angle lenses, which is what I used to shoot the fly you see here. It costs next to nothing, but is rather hard to do for a beginner. These days I rely on an MPE65 for very close macro shots. To adequately light your subjects, use a speed light with diffuser, or even better, a ring light setup.
BTW showing pollen is getting EXTREMELY close. You would need extension tubes with your MPE65 lens or reversed lens to show that in any detail.
EDIT:
No other brand makes a macro lens that has a magnification ratio of 5:1 like the MPe65 can. They're all 1:1 ration. The good news is you can get around the same amount of magnification by adding extension tubes to your macro lens. 3rd party brands like Tamron and Sigma offer some excellent macro lenses at around $400. Add to that some cheap extension tubes with electronic contacts, and you have an extreme macro machine for around $500. Some suggestions:
Sigma 70mm f2.8 EX DG - $430: This my favorite macro lens. Optically it's superior to any macro I've ever used, including Canon's 100mm. SUPER sharpness, contrast, and color! Built quite well too. Focusing is slow, but most don't auto focus for macro anyway. I shot these with this lens attached to a full set of extension tubes.
http://imageshack.us/a/img845/4899/dragfly.jpg
http://imageshack.us/a/img210/7674/damsfly.jpg
Tamron 90mm f/2.8 Di Macro - $415: This lens is legendary as a "fantastic plastic". Cheap plastic outside, wonderful optics inside.
Extension tubes: These are glassless tubes that fit between your lens and camera. They essentially put the camera farther away from the sensor plane, increasing the magnification, but at the same time cutting down on available light, so it's recommended to use a light source when shooting because available light may not be enough (insect/flower macros ALWAYS look better with a ringlight or speedlight). If you don't have a speedlight, even the popup flash can help. For modern lenses you always want to get extemsion tubes with electronic contacts so the lens can communicate with the camera body. The cheap ones work just as well as the more expensive ones by Canon or Novoflex. They're around $100
http://www.amazon.com/Vivitar-VIV-EXT-C-3-Set-Extension-Tubes/dp/B00570TLJY/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1349553069&sr=8-3&keywords=extension+tube+set+for+canon
- Nick
For those extremely close shots like this,
http://imageshack.us/a/img803/3808/flly.jpg
you have several options. The easiest, but most expensive is get an MPe65 Canon lens. It has the highest magnification ratio of any macro lens out there.
A cheaper option is to reverse wide angle lenses, which is what I used to shoot the fly you see here. It costs next to nothing, but is rather hard to do for a beginner. These days I rely on an MPE65 for very close macro shots. To adequately light your subjects, use a speed light with diffuser, or even better, a ring light setup.
BTW showing pollen is getting EXTREMELY close. You would need extension tubes with your MPE65 lens or reversed lens to show that in any detail.
EDIT:
No other brand makes a macro lens that has a magnification ratio of 5:1 like the MPe65 can. They're all 1:1 ration. The good news is you can get around the same amount of magnification by adding extension tubes to your macro lens. 3rd party brands like Tamron and Sigma offer some excellent macro lenses at around $400. Add to that some cheap extension tubes with electronic contacts, and you have an extreme macro machine for around $500. Some suggestions:
Sigma 70mm f2.8 EX DG - $430: This my favorite macro lens. Optically it's superior to any macro I've ever used, including Canon's 100mm. SUPER sharpness, contrast, and color! Built quite well too. Focusing is slow, but most don't auto focus for macro anyway. I shot these with this lens attached to a full set of extension tubes.
http://imageshack.us/a/img845/4899/dragfly.jpg
http://imageshack.us/a/img210/7674/damsfly.jpg
Tamron 90mm f/2.8 Di Macro - $415: This lens is legendary as a "fantastic plastic". Cheap plastic outside, wonderful optics inside.
Extension tubes: These are glassless tubes that fit between your lens and camera. They essentially put the camera farther away from the sensor plane, increasing the magnification, but at the same time cutting down on available light, so it's recommended to use a light source when shooting because available light may not be enough (insect/flower macros ALWAYS look better with a ringlight or speedlight). If you don't have a speedlight, even the popup flash can help. For modern lenses you always want to get extemsion tubes with electronic contacts so the lens can communicate with the camera body. The cheap ones work just as well as the more expensive ones by Canon or Novoflex. They're around $100
http://www.amazon.com/Vivitar-VIV-EXT-C-3-Set-Extension-Tubes/dp/B00570TLJY/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1349553069&sr=8-3&keywords=extension+tube+set+for+canon
- Nick
What is the best Canon telephoto and macro lens??
hello
I purchased a Canon EOS Digital Rebel XSi and I want to go all out and buy ONE great lens. I want super mind-blowing macro and telephoto so I can get amazing photos of flowers and bugs and also things like the moon or other things that happen to be farther away. Is there such a lens?? If not, what would be the best macro and telephoto lens (separately)?
Answer
I also have the XSi (450D). I didn't buy the kit lens, but an 85mm f/1.8 prime and a 17-50mm f/2.8 lens. Unfortunately, there's no such thing as ONE great lens that will do it all.
For Macro, I would recommend the excellent, EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro. It's super sharp and rates very well. It also makes a great portrait lens.
For telephoto, I would recommend the EF 70-200mm f/4 L IS USM. It's a great lens with the added benefit of image stabilization. It's a lot cheaper and lighter than the f/2.8 version and makes a great choice, especially for shooting in good lighting.
Or for super telephoto, the EF 100-400mm f4-5.5 L IS USM is a great choice.
I wouldn't recommend the cheap, EF 70-300mm lens...it's not the best.
I also have the XSi (450D). I didn't buy the kit lens, but an 85mm f/1.8 prime and a 17-50mm f/2.8 lens. Unfortunately, there's no such thing as ONE great lens that will do it all.
For Macro, I would recommend the excellent, EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro. It's super sharp and rates very well. It also makes a great portrait lens.
For telephoto, I would recommend the EF 70-200mm f/4 L IS USM. It's a great lens with the added benefit of image stabilization. It's a lot cheaper and lighter than the f/2.8 version and makes a great choice, especially for shooting in good lighting.
Or for super telephoto, the EF 100-400mm f4-5.5 L IS USM is a great choice.
I wouldn't recommend the cheap, EF 70-300mm lens...it's not the best.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
No comments:
Post a Comment