Macro Lenses

[GSTARR]

Hello!

 

Just got my first film camera - while I'm experienced with cameras due to my schoolwork, that's mainly only in how to operate it. I don't know a lot about the parts and how to judge them when buying.

 

My question is, how do I judge whether a macro lens is better than another?

 

In school, we put fingerprints up on a wall, and we would shove the camera right up to the walls (maybe an inch away) to get as much detail as possible, down to the pores. With my new camera, the macro lens that came with it can only focus on an object >= 4in away, you can't get close enough to get good detail with it. What tech statistic am I looking for while shopping that will imitate the quality that I'm used to as school?

 

 

Yes, I know macro lenses like that are big bucks

[For Science!]

12 minutes ago, GSTARR said:

-

General considerations, which goes for most lens choosing:

 

Magnification 

Generally a macro lens would be considered to have a 1x magnification at its minimum focusing distance (i.e. a 35 mm object spans the field of view of a 35 mm sensor). However not all marketed "macro" lenses achieve this.

 

Focal length

This will determine your working distance. Depending on what you want to photograph, you may want to have a 180 mm focal length so you don't scare off those butterflies. Alternatively maybe you only want to take close up shots of PCBs, and then you can get away with a 100 mm or a 60 mm lens. Also you will have more background compression with longer focal lengths making the subject stand out a bit more.

 

Image Stabilization

If you like hand held macro, having IS will give you some more leeway with your exposures. If you shoot mainly on a tripod, perhaps you don't care about IS.

 

Image sharpness

See if you are happy with the sharpness of the lens using resources such as the-digital-picture.

 

In my opinion, max aperture is not as important since you tend to stop down to increase depth of view for macro photos.

[LyondellBasell]

4 minutes ago, GSTARR said:

Hello!

 

Just got my first film camera - while I'm experienced with cameras due to my schoolwork, that's mainly only in how to operate it. I don't know a lot about the parts and how to judge them when buying.

 

My question is, how do I judge whether a macro lens is better than another?

 

In school, we put fingerprints up on a wall, and we would shove the camera right up to the walls (maybe an inch away) to get as much detail as possible, down to the pores. With my new camera, the macro lens that came with it can only focus on an object >= 4in away, you can't get close enough to get good detail with it. What tech statistic am I looking for while shopping that will imitate the quality that I'm used to as school?

 

 

Yes, I know macro lenses like that are big bucks

Ifi you just want to match the framing that you had on the previous, school-owned camera, the technical specs you're looking for are: the focal length, and the minimum focusing distance.

 

These two measurements are not the be-all, end-all when it comes to determining quality, but they will give you the same field-of-view and ability to focus close to your subject.

[ThePointblank]

It also depends on which camera ecosystem you want to be in; for example, in the Canon world, they have the MP-E 65mm lens, which can do a reproduction ratio up to 5:1. AFAIK, it's the only lens like this for a DSLR system.

 

As such, it really depends on what you intend on shooting; but for general purpose macro work, something at around 100mm macro is a good, overall workable length to use.

[Guest]

On 7/17/2019 at 11:54 PM, ThePointblank said:

It also depends on which camera ecosystem you want to be in; for example, in the Canon world, they have the MP-E 65mm lens, which can do a reproduction ratio up to 5:1. AFAIK, it's the only lens like this for a DSLR system.

 

As such, it really depends on what you intend on shooting; but for general purpose macro work, something at around 100mm macro is a good, overall workable length to use.

I have the MPE-65, a wonderful lens but a very steep learning curve to use.

 

I have owned many macro lenses, and gone down the extension tube route. Hated the 180mm, which for some reason seems to be the lens which gets recommended to beginners. This is usually on the grounds that it gives more working distance which in my opinion is a daft reason. I just found it heavy and cumbersome. In the field when shooting insects.it was a pain. It really suited tripod only use but when shooting insects that is a recipe for scaring them off. I currently own the aforementioned 65, a 100L IS, a 35mm and the EF-S 60. My most used macro lens by some distance is the 60, on a crop body it is a great focal length. I always shoot macro handheld so having a light lens is an advantage. I also tend to shoot with flash, the Yongnou YN-24EX in this case.

[ThePointblank]

11 hours ago, Phill104 said:

I have the MPE-65, a wonderful lens but a very steep learning curve to use.

 

I have owned many macro lenses, and gone down the extension tube route. Hated the 180mm, which for some reason seems to be the lens which gets recommended to beginners. This is usually on the grounds that it gives more working distance which in my opinion is a daft reason. I just found it heavy and cumbersome. In the field when shooting insects.it was a pain. It really suited tripod only use but when shooting insects that is a recipe for scaring them off. I currently own the aforementioned 65, a 100L IS, a 35mm and the EF-S 60. My most used macro lens by some distance is the 60, on a crop body it is a great focal length. I always shoot macro handheld so having a light lens is an advantage. I also tend to shoot with flash, the Yongnou YN-24EX in this case.

The 180mm is recommended because it has a significant amount of working distance meaning you have less of a chance to scare away critters, and the long focal length creates a lot of background blur that's pleasing.

 

Otherwise, the EF 100mm L IS the easier to use length; it's working distance is fine for most subjects, it's tack sharp, focuses quickly, isn't a monster in terms of size and weight and has IS.

 

Otherwise, you can get macro-like photos with certain telephoto lenses; for example, the Canon EF 100-400mm Mk II is a lens that can do macro-like work if required, because of its extremely short minimum focus distance and high maximum magnification.

[Guest]

4 hours ago, ThePointblank said:

The 180mm is recommended because it has a significant amount of working distance meaning you have less of a chance to scare away critters, and the long focal length creates a lot of background blur that's pleasing.

 

Otherwise, the EF 100mm L IS the easier to use length; it's working distance is fine for most subjects, it's tack sharp, focuses quickly, isn't a monster in terms of size and weight and has IS.

 

Otherwise, you can get macro-like photos with certain telephoto lenses; for example, the Canon EF 100-400mm Mk II is a lens that can do macro-like work if required, because of its extremely short minimum focus distance and high maximum magnification.

I know why it is recommended, I just don’t agree. The skills involved in learning when and how to approach insects will yield rewards. What many do not seem to understand is that minimum focus distance figures are from the sensor, not the front of the lens. As such the total distance you end up from the subject is not that different. So whatever lens is chosen the skills required to approach insects is very important to success. The drawbacks of using the heavy 180 just for me at least don’t make it a lens that I would recommend.

 

I agree the 100-400II can be useful. It feels In use lighter than the 180 and has excellent IS. The slightly lower magnification level means you can get some lovely results.

 

I’ve attached shone shots taken with the EF-S 60, MPE 65 and the 100-400II taken in the last few weeks. The dragons were with the 100-400II. All shots are single frames taken handheld in the wild of live insects. The emerging insect was quite a challenge as getting that close to the water and looking through the viewfinder without dipping hands or camera in the water is not easy. For some reason I just cannot get decent shots handheld using live view.