# To all of you macro-ers.



## Markw

I am extremely interested in shooting macros when I get my DSLR and I have questions as to how to do some things so I figured I would start a poll about it. Bear with me and please vote to help me out. Thanks.

Mark


----------



## mack1time

A tripod is not realistic unless you are shooting still subjects.

Your best bet will be hand help with insects and fauna. By the time you set up your tripod the instance may be gone.  

A still hand will still be needed and a fast frame rate to capture all motion/


----------



## Markw

So still use a monopod?

Mark


----------



## doenoe

I just shoot handheld with a non-VR macro lens. I also use a Speedlite 430EX, which helps alot. The handheld thing is just something you have to do alot and then you'll get better and better in it.


----------



## LaFoto

When you see HOW Daan (doenoe) takes the majority of his macro photos, you will understand that neither tri nor monopod can be of assistence to him!

(Photo taken by "Antarctican" during the TPF Germany Meet-Up in May, to be found in Post 144 on Page 3 of the Meet-Up thread in the General Gallery!)

http://img514.imageshack.us/img514/8554/img0155pcrch9.jpg


----------



## tirediron

Always use a tripod if you can. There are some situations where it's not practical, but I've used a tripod for probably 75% of my macro work. A monopod has limited application as does VR/IS. If you can't use a tripod, then hand-held is generally the next best option.


----------



## Overread

Just a point, but Nikon is the only camera company that makes a VR macro lens - and the VR does not function in macro mode (if it does you gain no advantage and might even lose sharpness). The VR does work in the normal mode for using the lens - so its not waste to have.

Myself I currently shoot handheld with my sigma 150mm f2.8 macro and a canon speedlite 580M2. I have recently been adding my 2*teleconverter to the setup to get 2:1 macro from the lens - though this is a very tricky lens to use like this as the plain of focus is very fine (takes a lot of practice and more than a few waste shots where the focus is just off).
Handheld gives you a great speed advantage - and if you keep working at it you can get good enough to take shots whilst insects are inflight (though concentrate on grounded ones first!)

Tripod insect macro I have also done - it is slower and works best in the early morning before most insects have warmed up - thus they are more likley to be resting still on a plant - get them still with no wind and you can use a tripod and very wide aperture (f2.8) and you can take series of shots at differnet focuses (moving the focusing rail closer/further away) and then combine the shots together toget a stacked effect - that gives you the great background blur of f2.8 along with the deeper depth of field that you would usually get with a smaller aperture


----------



## Do'Urden's Eyes

I shoot with out a tripod normally, however ive read up on people who set up near a popular flower (one where many insects land around) and just wait for insects to land. i have never used this technique i dont yet see the advantage of it over mobility.


----------



## Overread

oops wronge thread 

ahem - as for the advantage of waiting with a tripod - well handheld can get tiring on the arms after  while  whilst the tripod method also allows you to use things such as mirror lock-up and a remote to get much sharper - as a result of stability - results than handheld - it also allows for a slower shutter speed


----------



## Markw

Thats what I was thinking, a tripod with a remote so you wont have anything moving the camera to create camera shake.  

Mark


----------



## Do'Urden's Eyes

I was refering more to insect macro. i guess those would apply to those insects that like to laze around one spot. im gonna kick out my tripod today after work and give it a shot.


----------



## Overread

good luck - like I said morning is really the best time for this - not that you can't find a resting insect in the evening, but they tend to be a little more active (after all the heating from the day) so its a fine balance.


----------



## icassell

Sometimes monopod, sometimes tripod, usually handheld.

Non VR macro lens (Canon 100mm f2.8 macro).

Off camera flash (430EX) -- still waiting to get a chance to try my new DIY ringflash on insects ...


----------



## Markw

Ok, so my first subject will probably be a spider or bee.  Should I start with handheld with non-"VR" lens?  Im guessing higher apeture and quick shutter speed?

Mark


----------



## Overread

what lens are you specifically looking at (might warrent a new thread?) 
like I said the VR won't gain you anything in the macro world, but is a boon for regular non-macro use of the lens.
100/105mm I would consdier the best minumum for working with insects = whilst 150 and 180 being better ranges for the added working distance


----------



## Markw

I was asking in part to ask which lens to get (VR vs nonVR).  Im not too positive on that one yet.

Mark


----------



## Overread

Well budget would be a good starting point,


----------



## Markw

Lets not talk budget.  Im getting the D40 so Ill just say the best lens for the money.  Realistic.

Mark


----------



## Overread

best lens for realistic money would be the sigma 180mm f3.5 macro I would think.
Its on par in quality with the canon 180mm macro - whilst being half the price - and the canon 180mm is thier top range macro
http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/articles/sigma_180mm_macro_review.htm

After that I would say sigma 150mm f2.8 is a slightly cheaper macro lens which also has a good working distance. 

Both the 150 and 180mm sigmas will work very well with sigma teleconverters - the 1.4 with almost no loss in quality and the 2* with minimal loss (the 2* also makes the macro from a 1:1 to a 2:1 - which means a larger magification - which whilst being a real pain to work with at times - it is still a great way to get more out of the lens.)

After that there is the nikon 105mm macro with VR - which as already said, won't help with macro work at all, but is a boon for non macro usage - very tempting, but not essential for macro work.
There is also the sigma 105mm macro - this won't work with the sigma teleconverters - I am unsure if the nikon will work with them or not.
I also hear that the sigam 105 will work with tamron teleconverters


----------



## icassell

Overread said:


> best lens for realistic money would be the sigma 180mm f3.5 macro I would think.
> Its on par in quality with the canon 180mm macro - whilst being half the price - and the canon 180mm is thier top range macro
> http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/articles/sigma_180mm_macro_review.htm
> 
> After that I would say sigma 150mm f2.8 is a slightly cheaper macro lens which also has a good working distance.
> 
> Both the 150 and 180mm sigmas will work very well with sigma teleconverters - the 1.4 with almost no loss in quality and the 2* with minimal loss (the 2* also makes the macro from a 1:1 to a 2:1 - which means a larger magification - which whilst being a real pain to work with at times - it is still a great way to get more out of the lens.)
> 
> After that there is the nikon 105mm macro with VR - which as already said, won't help with macro work at all, but is a boon for non macro usage - very tempting, but not essential for macro work.
> There is also the sigma 105mm macro - this won't work with the sigma teleconverters - I am unsure if the nikon will work with them or not.
> I also hear that the sigam 105 will work with tamron teleconverters




Well, look at Daan's (danoe) macros with his Sigma 105.  I daresay those are hard to equal.  You may find that the 150-180 range is too long for you if you also want to use the lens for portraiture.  I find my Canon 100mm is a great portrait lens as well.


----------



## Markw

I am not worried about portrait pictures too much.  I will be using the macro for small bugs and flowers.

Mark


----------



## icassell

Markw said:


> I am not worried about portrait pictures too much.  I will be using the macro for small bugs and flowers.
> 
> Mark



Gotcha.  Well, I've found that 100mm works great, but can't speak for the longer ones.


----------



## Markw

Im pretty sure that this should be in a new thread, but I figured Id ask here first.  I  wanted to ask what all types of situations a macro lens would work in.  I mean is it just up-close images?

Mark


----------



## icassell

Markw said:


> Im pretty sure that this should be in a new thread, but I figured Id ask here first.  I  wanted to ask what all types of situations a macro lens would work in.  I mean is it just up-close images?
> 
> Mark



Well, my Canon 100mm f2.8 Macro is a beautiful macro lens.  It also is a beautiful 100mm lens -- does great short-tele work with a very nice Bokeh.


----------



## Overread

A 100mm macro lens is a simple 100mm lens in all respects - however it has extra lens elements that allow it to close focus ( in the case of proper prime macro lenses this is down to cms from the subject) which allows you to get those close up shots - there is also a level of maginification in them - most are 1:1 (lifesize on the sensor).
So you can use your macro - like others said- as a general portrate lens.
for me part of the appeal of the 150mm was not only that it has a greater working distance (you can get 1:1 focusing without being as close as with a shorter focal length lens - though we are talking cms here) but also that it can make a good general wildlife prime lens as well.


----------



## icassell

Overread said:


> A 100mm macro lens is a simple 100mm lens in all respects - however it has extra lens elements that allow it to close focus ( in the case of proper prime macro lenses this is down to cms from the subject) which allows you to get those close up shots - there is also a level of maginification in them - most are 1:1 (lifesize on the sensor).
> So you can use your macro - like others said- as a general portrate lens.
> for me part of the appeal of the 150mm was not only that it has a greater working distance (you can get 1:1 focusing without being as close as with a shorter focal length lens - though we are talking cms here) but also that it can make a good general wildlife prime lens as well.



... a related question ...

I would be concerned that you would be more subject to camera shake with the longer macro lens if you're hand holding -- isn't that the case?


----------



## Overread

well the distances for macro are really cms in reality - which is why you can still get good bugshots with the 100mm as you can with a 150 and 180mm lens - so you are not increasing distance enough (I feel) to have a noticable effect on camera shake.
One other reason though that I went for 150mm is that the longer the focal length you use - the more background blur you get for a given aperture.
That is the reason lenses like the sigam 70-300mm work well as macro flower lenses as the 300mm end blurs the backgroud very well. The only other way to get backgrounds as good is with layered shots on a tripod at different focal points using a very wide aperture. Then you stack these shots together (program or manual) to build up the photo - giving the depth of field of a larger aperture whilst retaining the background blur of a smaller aperture.


----------



## Markw

So does this mean that the 70-300 sigma will work well?

Mark


----------



## Overread

the Sigma 70-300mm macro is not pure macro - rather its a zoom lens with a close focusing element (the macro is a marketing ploy)

here: a 100% crop from an insect shot (100% crop means that it is the cropped (cut) out section from the full sized photo with no size alterations)





link to full shot: http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u275/overmind_2000/my works/random k/IMG_0058.jpg
That is about as close as you can get with the 70-300mm and that is shooting at just under 0.5m which is a very long distance - this can be a real pain to work with at times as it is a misleadingly long distance (and when you think macro you think close up). Insect wise it is good as it won't spook them, but as the next shot shows its not as close as a true macro:




link to full shot: http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u275/overmind_2000/my works/yorkshire 2/IMG_0713nosharpen.jpg
(please note that the very small depth of field (area of photo in sharpness) is very fine in this shot - this is a result of me having an f2.8 addiction that week - with a smaller aperture (thus larger f number) like f8 or f13 that depth of field would increase

there is another 100% crop and it shows a much more detailed shot of an insect. The difference is large. Further the sigma 70-300mm is a £100 budget line lens - its not he best there is - whilst the prime macro lenses start at around £300ish and are made specifically for macro work - though they can still work as normal lenses.

If it is all you can afford the sigma 70-300mm (APO edition) is a good lens to get - its got a wide variety of uses and generally lets you have a go at most things - though it can't hold up to a more specific and higher quality lens I do rate it a very good all rounder lens and also a great lens for getting your feet wet with photography


----------



## LWW

doenoe said:


> I just shoot handheld with a non-VR macro lens. I also use a Speedlite 430EX, which helps alot. The handheld thing is just something you have to do alot and then you'll get better and better in it.


Something which helps me that I seldom see mentioned is inhalee - fire shutter release - exhale.

Point your index finger straight out and watch it bob as you breathe. Now do it and hold your brath for a moment.

Other things that help is to hold your arms in against your rib cage instead of splayed out. Olant feet firmly. Lean against anything solid if available and safe.

Here's another one I seldom see mentioned ... I'm a target shooter also and although both hobbies require similar skills they are often taught differently, I have cross used many little things ... is fire the shutter only with the tip of your finger. It is normal to squeeze the shutter release using your whole hand in a squeezing motion subconsciously.

If you hold the camera with 3 fingers and a thump immobile and use only the movement of 1 finger to press the shutter release you will remove a lot of body induced movement.

LWW


----------



## LWW

Markw said:


> So does this mean that the 70-300 sigma will work well?
> 
> Mark


You can buy AF extension tubes that will make anything work as a good macro lens.

These were all taken handheld without VR:

























































LWW


----------



## Markw

I hate to br picky but does anyone have a pic of maybe a spider shot with that lens?  In general, as my first macro-ish lens, would this be a good choice?

Mark


----------



## John_Olexa

I shoot Macro hand held ,using just the built in pop-up flash wrapped in Tissue paper.
Phoenix 100mm Macro 1:1


----------



## Markw

What camera and lens were you using for those pics?

Mark


----------



## John_Olexa

Canon Rebel XT.
Phoenix 100mm Macro 1:1 ( Cheap lens)
I shoot manual because it's hard to focus.. in & out in & out LOL.
So what I do is shoot manual and move the camera back & forth till I hit focus.


----------



## icassell

John_Olexa said:


> Canon Rebel XT.
> Phoenix 100mm Macro 1:1 ( Cheap lens)
> I shoot manual because it's hard to focus.. in & out in & out LOL.
> So what I do is shoot manual and move the camera back & forth till I hit focus.



I usually use MF with my Canon 100mm f2.8 macro when I'm shooting macro too -- I find it is more reliable especially when working with very small DOF.

Your "cheap lens" does a very nice job!


----------



## Markw

Ive also read somewhere that the Tamron 75-300mm lens does well on the D40/60 and takes good macro shots.  Anyone have any ideas on this one?

Mark


----------



## John_Olexa

icassell said:


> Your "cheap lens" does a very nice job!


 
Thanks, There are a lot of throw-a-ways to! but nobody see's them :mrgreen:

I want to get the Canon 100mm f2.8 macro. I got my lens before I really knew better. Got talked into it at Tristate  :blushing: It works but......


----------



## John_Olexa

Markw said:


> Ive also read somewhere that the Tamron 75-300mm lens does well on the D40/60 and takes good macro shots. Anyone have any ideas on this one? Mark


 
Thats not a true macro lens though.. more like a closeup then true macro.


----------



## Phranquey

Took this one today during lunch. 105mm 2.8 non-VR, hand-held @ f/45 & 1/60.


----------



## icassell

Phranquey said:


> Took this one today during lunch. 105mm 2.8 non-VR, hand-held @ f/45 & 1/60.



During lunch,eh?  Now that's savory!  Yummmmy


Great shot!


----------



## Overread

darn that is good Phranque - and dragonflies tend to be very skittish so its even harder to get them still!
And at f45 (never new there was such a high number!) was this with a macro flash or in very very bright light?


----------



## Phranquey

> During lunch,eh? Now that's savory! Yummmmy


 
Ummm....maybe I should have said during lunch_time...LOL uke-rig:_




> darn that is good Phranque - and dragonflies tend to be very skittish so its even harder to get them still!
> And at f45 (never new there was such a high number!) was this with a macro flash or in very very bright light?


 
Thank you very much. The Nikon 105 will go to f/57 @ 1:1. And yes, you gotta be real slow coming up on these guys. Took me almost a half-hour to get that shot...

That was flash shot with this rig:







And taking a pose on the tripod:


----------



## Overread

Nice!
Out of interest how hard is it to get used to and use a lighting arrangement like that - surly you get some unbalance to the side with it? So far full frontal flash is all I have to shoot with


----------



## Phranquey

I always shoot macro in manual focus, so I will have it preset to the distance or ratio that I want and move myself & rig into focus. You grip the camera grip with one hand and the flash bracket grip with the other, which balances quite nicely, actually.  Gives a nice two-handed lock.  The slight out of balance part is the flash hanging out there, but it's really not as bad as it looks. 
The hard part is your breathing taking you in & out of focus, but I guess being a former competition shooter helps here...breath, breath, heartbeat....squeeze.

I do need a different diffuser, however. I use a gary fong knock-off, which works great (wrapped with foil to focus all of the light in one direction), but if you are not careful, you can have it pointed in a different direction than what you need. If you shoot at 2:1, then move in for that 1:1 on a cooperative bug, the light will be behind it unless you bring the angle of the light in first.


----------



## Kyuss

Thats what I need, is a flash. So, far I've just been shooting when the sun is high and giving me enough light to open it up but still there are situations where you need extra light. 

I haven't gotten that close to a dragonfly yet. They are very skiddish.

I would love a setup like that Phranquey, nice shots!


----------



## Markw

Any ideas on the Tamron?

Mark


----------



## icassell

Markw said:


> Any ideas on the Tamron?
> 
> Mark




The Tamron 90mm f2.8 Macro has a very strong reputation.


----------



## Markw

As being a good or bad lens?

Mark


----------



## icassell

Markw said:


> As being a good or bad lens?
> 
> Mark



 sorry... as being an excellent macro lens


----------



## Markw

No Worries.  Thanks a bunch.  Ill have to look into that one.

Mark


----------



## icassell

Markw said:


> No Worries.  Thanks a bunch.  Ill have to look into that one.
> 
> Mark



Here are some images from it:

http://www.photosig.com/go/photos/browse?id=28261


----------



## Markw

Does the D40x or the D60 come with an AF motor in the camera body?  If this is the case, I will just get one of those two so I can have a larger lens apparrel with AF motors.

Mark


----------

