# Macro beginner question



## clarnibass (May 14, 2011)

Hello

So far I've only used a P&S camera (Canon A570IS). I'm about to get a Canon 550D with kit lens (18-55mm) and trying to see if I need a Macro lens in addition, or maybe be able to get good results with the kit lens.

I'm not a photographer, but reading so much about it and seeing all the photos I found online really sucked me into this world and I can see it becoming a side hobby. What I really need the camera and lens for is for taking photos for my webiste. This mostly of musical instruments and parts (I'm a musician and woodwind instrument repairer www.nitailevi.com).

Some photos needs to be Macro of small things. These things can vary from a screw smaller than 1cm to a part around maybe 5cm diameter (could be more too). I just started learning about Depth Of Field and one issue I found with some Macro shots is that what can happen is a small screw will have one part focused but too long so the rest is blurred. Maybe that also depends on how much of it is in the frame (or not)?

Here are some examples of some Macro shots like what I need that I got with my A570IS. All severely reduced because the full size look terrible (very blurry and sometimes noisy).
http://www.nitailevi.com/reviews/clarinets/buffet/buffet_bass1193thumb_keys.jpg
http://www.nitailevi.com/useful_advice/overhaul2/dried_ruined_pad.JPG
http://www.nitailevi.com/useful_advice/overhaul2/pad_light_seat.JPG
http://www.nitailevi.com/reviews/tenor_sax/conn/conn_new_wonder_ii_left_pinky_keys.JPG
http://www.nitailevi.com/reviews/tenor_sax/selmer/selmer_ref36_ten_pivot_spring.jpg
http://www.nitailevi.com/reviews/tenor_sax/selmer/selmer_ref36_ten_front_f.jpg

Basically I'm trying to understand if I really need a Macro lens for this or will the kit lens be ok for me. I'd definitely want to get better photos than what I have so far (which I'm sure will improve with more learning and practice too).
If a Macro lens is worth it, I see Canon has a $300 one. I'd really rather not spend more than that... since I'm already spending more than I planned to for the camera. Unless their 50mm Compact Macro isn't good...? Then I'll look for something else, might spend a bit too if it's really necessary.

Or instead, how about a lens with a big zoom? That's something I'm unclear about. Someone told me around 100mm is very good for Macro. Will something like a zoom lens that gets to around 100mm be similar? Sorry, I'm really a beginner and don't know the difference! I see that the basic Macro lenses are as loe as 50mm or 60mm so...?

Thanks and I appreciate any help!

Nitai


----------



## Judobreaker (May 14, 2011)

One thing's for sure: You're going to need some sort of macro setup for these kind of photos.
You're trying to get very close to the objects in your photos and general lenses can not focus this close.
You have several options to achieve a macro shot though, some cheaper, others a little more expensive.

A macro lens is of course a good option for macro shots (as the lens is designed to do so).
However, it is not that important for shots like yours to go to enormous focal lengths.
The reason most people prefer 100mm over 50mm or 60mm is because they are trying to capture things like insects usually.
The problem with insects is that they can be scared off easily. With a 100mm lens you'll have a longer working distance so the insect is less likely to be scared off by an enormous lens being pointed at it.
You on the other hand will not have that problem with your instruments (I have yet to see an instrument that starts running when you point a camera at it).
Therefore you'll have time and opportunities enough to get close enough with a shorter focal length.

Another option you could look into is extension rings. These are rings you place between your body and camera to achieve a focal length.
Because the focus length is still the same (relative to your lens) you can focus closer to your focal point and by this achieve macro shots. (If your closest focus distance is 80mm and your focal length is 50mm you will be able to focus 30mm from your focal point. If you increase the focal length to 60 and you're still able to focus at 80mm you will be able to focus 20mm from your focal point.)
This option is really cheap as an extension ring only costs a few bucks and you can just use your kit lens with it.
The quality of these shots might be somewhat less than with a real macro lens but it costs a lot less so if you're concerned about money this is a very good option for you.
Of course you could start out with this option to see how it goes and upgrade to a real macro lens later. It's not like you'll spend a lot more money. ^^


----------



## bazooka (May 14, 2011)

I wished I knew where you find tubes for a couple bucks.  Mine cost about $150 for a Kenko set.


----------



## Judobreaker (May 14, 2011)

Well of course you can get expensive extension tubes too.
It's all in the quality.
However, an expensive extension ring set is about $150-200 with a cheap set going down to even $10.
Since extension tubes have no optics you do not have to be afraid a cheaper one will drastically lower your image quality (can't see how).
The only thing you'll have to deal with is that a cheap $10 tube set will probably wear out a lot quicker than a $150 tube set but for $10 you can at least get some good cheap practice.


----------



## Overread (May 14, 2011)

Cheap extension tubes also won't have metal contacts, which means you won't be able to control the aperture of your lens directly. That means you'll be shooting with the aperture wide open (smallest f number) and that means a razor thin depth of field. A set of Kenko extension tubes is about one of the best cost effective options on the market; giving you a good quality build (pretty much the same as canon own brand ones) with a much more affordable price (kenko is a set of 3, whilst 1 from canon can be as much or more in cost) and the all important electrical contacts.

For the kind of shots you're after the set of kenko extension tubes on your kit lens along with a solid support (tripod) should be more than enough to let you get a stable shooting platform from which to take the photos. From there you can use a ligthtent setup to light your shots and, with everything still , not have to worry about needing a fast shutter speed.

Extension tubes will remove the infinity focus from a regular lens when used, so the lens (whilst the tubes are attached) won't be able to focus on further off subjects. You might find this a problem if you're shifting from parts shots to full instrument shots. If you think that will be the case you can consider a good quality short focal length macro lens, which will retain its infinity focus. Good options would be Sigma 50mm macro, Canon 60mm macro, Tamron 60mm macro and Sigma 70mm macro. Canon 50mm macro isn't a true macro lens and without its lifesize adaptor, won't get to the same magnification as the others will (note that with the adaptor its price is way above the other options).


----------



## clarnibass (May 15, 2011)

Thanks very much. All this info plus finally finding (through this site) good articles about shutter, aperture, etc. helped a lot and I understand much better. 

For a start at least, I think the kit lens with extension rings will be the best option. I'm wondering if some of the more expensive but still realtively cheap ones (around $80) with metal contact will be essentially the same as the $150 Kenko set. I know with musical instruments at least, some brand names have models made in China or Taiwan for them and other than a known brand name written on it you can find equally as good models with a nameless brand name. But maybe not in this case.

There are a couple of things I am still not sure about.

1) For example the kit lens is 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 
Canon U.S.A. : Consumer & Home Office : EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS II
I understand it is a zoom lens with 18mm to 55mm, but does the f3.5-5.6 mean the aperture minimum is 3.5 and maximum is 5.6? So it doesn't allow the photos with f8, f11, etc. that I see? So not that big of an aperture opening range?



Judobreaker said:


> The problem with insects is that they can be scared off easily.
> You on the other hand will not have that problem with your instruments (I have yet to see an instrument that starts running when you point a camera at it).


Me neither... but there's always a first time 
But I do need a reasonable depth of field i.e. so an entire screw is close and is in focus and not e.g. focused head with blurry threads. So...

2) I see some cameras with no range of f, just one number, for example these (for the moment ignoring the issue that they cost way more than I'm willing to spend on a lens):
Canon U.S.A. : Consumer & Home Office : EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM
Canon U.S.A. : Consumer & Home Office : EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM
Canon U.S.A. : Consumer & Home Office : EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM
Does this mean they can shoot from f/2.8, f/4 and f/2.8 respectively, up to... I don't know what. Or does it mean they can only shoot with this one aperture size (f/2.8, f/4 and f/2.8 respectively)?
The second lens also zooms to 105mm which brings me to my next question...

3) If I understand, the Macro and other lenses with no zoom mean I have to physically change my location to get closer or further away from my subject. But comparing e.g. the second lens above (24-105mm f4L IS) with this Macro lens, the zoom is actually more length 105mm vs. 100mm. In what way would a Macro lens be better than a zoom lens? Wouldn't I be able to do with the Zoom the same Macro shot? If not, curious why not? Is the lens built differently for Macro?



Overread said:


> Extension tubes will remove the infinity focus from a regular lens when used, so the lens (whilst the tubes are attached) won't be able to focus on further off subjects. You might find this a problem if you're shifting from parts shots to full instrument shots.


I see, but I guess I could "simply"(?) remove the ring(s) for instruments, put it back on for closeups, right? I'm not taking so many photos and if this is a little annoying/slow to do it's not a big deal for me I think. 

Although my main purpose is the instruments and small parts, all this research and looking at photos online definitely got my interest and I can see photography becoming a sort of hobby (no where close to playing and working on musical instruments... but still). So I think I'll start with kit lens plus extensions, then get a Macro (or equivalent) lens later (when I understand why a Macro lens is better than a similar focus zoom lens) and maybe sometimes later get a better all-purpose zoom lens.

Thanks very much!

Nitai


----------



## Judobreaker (May 16, 2011)

clarnibass said:


> Thanks very much. All this info plus finally finding (through this site) good articles about shutter, aperture, etc. helped a lot and I understand much better.
> 
> For a start at least, I think the kit lens with extension rings will be the best option. I'm wondering if some of the more expensive but still realtively cheap ones (around $80) with metal contact will be essentially the same as the $150 Kenko set. I know with musical instruments at least, some brand names have models made in China or Taiwan for them and other than a known brand name written on it you can find equally as good models with a nameless brand name. But maybe not in this case.



Yes, the $80 ones will probably be essentially the same as the $150 set.
However keep in mind that it is likely they will wear out earlier.
With an $80 set I would expect you to be able to use them for a long time though depending on how you treat them.




clarnibass said:


> There are a couple of things I am still not sure about.
> 
> 1) For example the kit lens is 18-55mm f3.5-5.6
> Canon U.S.A. : Consumer & Home Office : EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS II
> I understand it is a zoom lens with 18mm to 55mm, but does the f3.5-5.6 mean the aperture minimum is 3.5 and maximum is 5.6? So it doesn't allow the photos with f8, f11, etc. that I see? So not that big of an aperture opening range?



No, this is a bit misleading I guess.
The f3.5-5.6 notation means a variable largest aperture (Note: the smaller the number, the larger the opening, f3.5 is larger than f5.6).
Basically this means that at the shortest focal length (18mm in your example lens) the maximum aperture is f3.5 and at the longest focal length (55mm in your example lens) the maximum aperture is f5.6, the minimum aperture is a lot lower so you still have quite a range.




clarnibass said:


> Judobreaker said:
> 
> 
> > The problem with insects is that they can be scared off easily.
> ...



I don't think you'll find much problems with this. 




clarnibass said:


> 2) I see some cameras with no range of f, just one number, for example these (for the moment ignoring the issue that they cost way more than I'm willing to spend on a lens):
> Canon U.S.A. : Consumer & Home Office : EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM
> Canon U.S.A. : Consumer & Home Office : EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM
> Canon U.S.A. : Consumer & Home Office : EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM
> Does this mean they can shoot from f/2.8, f/4 and f/2.8 respectively, up to... I don't know what. Or does it mean they can only shoot with this one aperture size (f/2.8, f/4 and f/2.8 respectively)?



The notation only states the largest aperture setting, so you can always set them lower than that.




clarnibass said:


> The second lens also zooms to 105mm which brings me to my next question...
> 
> 3) If I understand, the Macro and other lenses with no zoom mean I have to physically change my location to get closer or further away from my subject. But comparing e.g. the second lens above (24-105mm f4L IS) with this Macro lens, the zoom is actually more length 105mm vs. 100mm. In what way would a Macro lens be better than a zoom lens? Wouldn't I be able to do with the Zoom the same Macro shot? If not, curious why not? Is the lens built differently for Macro?



Yes, the focal length of that lens is slightly larger than say a 100mm macro lens.
However, there is one large difference in macro lenses as compared to these zoom lenses. This is the minimum distance at which you can focus on your subject.
A macro lens can focus much closer which means you can actually stand much closer to the subject.
If the macro lens of 100mm has a minimum distance of say 30cm and the zoom lens has a minimum distance of 100cm you can still get your subject much bigger on your photo when using the macro lens.




clarnibass said:


> Overread said:
> 
> 
> > Extension tubes will remove the infinity focus from a regular lens when used, so the lens (whilst the tubes are attached) won't be able to focus on further off subjects. You might find this a problem if you're shifting from parts shots to full instrument shots.
> ...


 
Yes you could do that.




clarnibass said:


> Although my main purpose is the instruments and small parts, all this research and looking at photos online definitely got my interest and I can see photography becoming a sort of hobby (no where close to playing and working on musical instruments... but still). So I think I'll start with kit lens plus extensions, then get a Macro (or equivalent) lens later (when I understand why a Macro lens is better than a similar focus zoom lens) and maybe sometimes later get a better all-purpose zoom lens.
> 
> Thanks very much!
> 
> Nitai



That seems like a good way to start out.
Looking forward to your results.


----------



## Overread (May 16, 2011)

Judobreaker has answered pretty much everything 

I will however expand a little on the depth of field aspect that you are after. First up depth of field is linked to the aperture, the smaller the aperture (bigger the f number) the less light it lets through the lens and the greater the depth of field it can achieve. However there is a limitation on this aspect, not only does each lens have its own minimum aperture value, but also there is diffraction to consider. Diffraction starts to take place on most lenses after around f8/f10 and results in the sharpness of the shot slowly starting to degrade. This continues on, but remains small until around f13/f16 where it starts to drop off more rapidly and shots taken at smaller apertures will show more significant softening (along, of course, with the increased depth of field). 

Of course the values here are rough since image quality is a term both defined by the users own standards and also by the use/output medium of the photo itself - one photographer might find f13 too soft whilst another is quite happy to use f22 or smaller for what they need. 

In addition to this consider that even if the aperture limits you, you can change the angle of your shooting to better cover the subject with the depth of field that you do have; if you imagine the depth of field like a sheet of paper, or a book parallel to the front of the lens you can see how small chances in the angle toward the subject can better allow you to maximise what depth of field you have to work with.

If you still encounter problems with too little depth you can try the method of "focus stacking" whereby two differently focused shots are combined together and (using software) the sharp parts merged to give a photo with a high quality, but with a deeper depth of field than possible with a single shot. You might not need this method at all for your needs - but if you do its widely used and not too complicated to put into basic use.


----------



## AaronCz (May 16, 2011)

ok, so there are a few things to do with your stock lens

you can use the revers lens technique, which is where you turn ur lens around and use it that way.  It basically works like a microscope.   
For extension tubes you can use: Amazon.com: Zeikos ZE-CVAFC Auto Focus Macro Extension Tubes for Canon: Camera & Photo

i have them, and they work well.

What i would recommend is a flash, or build a flash extender for your pop up flash
that will be realy important if you are shooting in low light to get a good DOF and high shutter speed without turning up your iso

before i bought my first macro lens i used the revers lens technique to see if i liked taking macro shots.  It worked really well but it can be cumbersome at times
you get about a 1:1 magnification to a 5:1

Hope this helps!!!


----------



## clarnibass (May 23, 2011)

Thanks very much. I got my camera and kit lens and I'm using it for a while to see how it goes. I'll look into other lenses, probably will ask in the beginners sub-forum.


----------

