Macro lens advice please...

Greystoner

Hi there, I would call myself a 'keen/experienced amateur' and I am looking into getting a Macro lens. At the moment I have the Canon EOS D550 and the lens on it is 18-135mm. The Macro I was looking at is the EF 100mm, which is very pricey, hence the need to research it....


What is the sort of quality difference between a Macro and the lens I currently have? I have taken nice shots of flowers and bees etc up close, but would the Macro give me the whole new dimension of closeness and clarity? In essence, are they worth the money? I have a tripod that is a bit rubbish, so would I need to replace that? Would I get away with a HOKA filter, or would I need the lens hood?

So many questions! I will appreciate any advice. Thanks.

Gregor Samsa

My personal opinion is that a macro lens is worth it. Macro photography is all about sharpness, and you won't get sharper than a dedicated macro lens.

The other solutions for co-opting regular lenses for maco work are diopters and extension tubes. They have their place, but diopters reduce sharpness, and extension reduce light. And if you're looking for even higher than 1:1 magnification, you can always use extension tubes (or even diopters, but you probably wouldn't bother in most cases) with a macro lens anyway.

And to me, around 100mm is the ideal focal length.

I don't know Canon lenses, but a quick search tells me that the EF 100mm has a USM AF motor, and costs about 600 euro. You could save a bit of money going for the Tamron 90mm Macro. It's a very well regarded lens. If there's a non USM version of the Canon lens that works with your camera, you might go with that to save money.

As a plus, a 100mm macro will also make a very decent portrait lens.

When I was starting out experimenting with macro, and moving beyond diopters, I tried to skimp a bit by getting a 50mm lens, which was way cheaper than the 100mm (this is for Sony). But with 50mm, you need to get far too close to the subject to get 1:1 magnification. So I quickly realised that I needed 100mm for any kind of comfortable working distance, and ended up saving up for that. The 50mm macro is now sitting in its box, waiting for me to get around to selling it - so if you're going to spend money on this, I'd encourage anyone to do it right the first time.

I'd be inclined to forget about auto focus for macro. In macro, you really use focus for magnification - a macro lens will have a scale on it that defines distance in terms of magnification ratio. So your best bet is to set the focus manually to the magnification you want, then move yourself to focus. Movements could be on the scale if mere centimetres, so you'll be gently rocking back and forward until you get focus on the subject. Remember, the kinds of depth of field you're talking about could be just a few mm. You're trying to get the bee's eye as the centre of focus, and not the back of his head (for example).

As for a tripod, that depends on what you're shooting. If you're going after insects, you won't have much luck with a tripod (unless they're asleep early in the morning) because they move too much. So you'll have to develop a steady hand. If it's more static subjects, then a tripod is very useful. You'll probably get away with a crappy tripod indoors, where wind shake isn't a factor, and you can let vibrations die down. Personally, I think investing in a good tripod is worth it.

Regarding your last question, sorry I don't know what a HOKA filter is. Do you mean Hoya? And if so, do you mean a UV filter for protection? I used to put UV filters on all my lenses, as it was a habit that was passed to me by my father when I first got into photography, but lately I've taken them all off. It can turn into a religious argument, by my stance on it now is "Free the front element!!!".

Regarding a lens hood, one will come with any lens you buy - you can use it to reduce flare (if the lighting conditions require it) and to protect the front element of your lens a bit. IMHO, it's all the protection you need.

My last thought on the matter is that macro requires practice and patience. A shiny new macro lens can sure give you "a whole new dimension of closeness and clarity" - but only if you use it right. And I'm certainly not claiming that I have this down yet at all.

Greystoner

Thanks. Of course I meant Hoya!!(Bit distracted there!)

amdgilmore

All of the above is good advice, but I'd also consider the Canon 60mm 2.8.

100mm is a better portrait length on a full frame camera, but you'll have to stand back pretty far to get an equivalent head and shoulders shot on a 550D. 60mm is not a classic portrait length, but it's a lot more versatile than 100mm on a crop sensor.


Pros of the 60mm:
Excellent image quality, fast USM focusing, affordable, doubles as a good portrait or general purpose lens.
It's an EF-S lens, and is designed for your APS-C sensor.

Cons:
Shorter length means you'll have to get in a bit closer to your subject (min focus distance is 8" compared to 12" on the 100mm). Getting close is a good thing for portraits of people, but not so much with photos of insects, who are more likely to sting you.
It's an EF-S lens and not designed for the full frame camera you may (or may not) want to upgrade to.

Bottom line: it's an excellent lens, and significantly cheaper, but if you're looking to upgrade to FF anytime soon, get either the 90mm or a 100mm.

Snowie

The sigma 105 macro prime has a beautiful image quality and relatively cheep if your on a budget!

pete4130

Snowie wrote: »

The sigma 105 macro prime has a beautiful image quality and relatively cheep if your on a budget!

I almost regret selling my version in some respects to get the Nikon 105mm 2.8 macro.

The sigma barrel extends on focusing, its noisy and slower to focus but image quality was really good on it and it didn't stop down like the Nikon version the closer you focused!

DaireQuinlan

pete4130 wrote: »

I almost regret selling my version in some respects to get the Nikon 105mm 2.8 macro.

The sigma barrel extends on focusing, its noisy and slower to focus but image quality was really good on it and it didn't stop down like the Nikon version the closer you focused!

Are you sure that it's not the case that it just didn't have the smarts to communicate to the camera body that the effective aperture was changing ? All those things (focal length, aperture ) are measured with the lens focused to infinity, as you focus more and more closely I think the numbers get all messed up. Metering for macro externally for example can be a bit hit and miss, by the time you're at 1:1 you need an extra 2 stops on the metered value to get a correct exposure.