# I'm not doing something right......



## mbikersteve (Jan 15, 2014)

My fav subject is surfaces, preferably metal with rust, paint, scratches, etc.  I shoot from very close (2 to 6 inches) using the Macro setting.  My current set up:


Canon t3i

Canon EF-S 18-55 (don't cringe, kit-lens, I know)
Marumi Macro 200 (5x) diopter
Focus rail
Ring flash
The edges are never in perfect focus. Not vignetting, just not crisp like the center portion. So...

1. What should I be doing with my current setup to get better results? Ditch the diopter? Better camera? Better lighting? Switch to manual program? and,
2. If you would recommend 1 upgrade/change would it be to invest in a dedicated macro lens? Will this have a measurable impact?

Thx in advance for your help.  If this is like any other forum I have ever used and my post is WILDLY inappropriate, nubish, off-topic, or whatever....let me apologize in advance as well.


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 15, 2014)

Camera Maker: Canon
Camera Model: Canon EOS REBEL T3i
Image Date: 2013-04-07 14:01:46 +0000
Focal Length: 29mm
*Aperture: f/4.5*
Exposure Time: 0.0080 s (1/125)
ISO equiv: 100
Exposure Bias: none
Metering Mode: Matrix
Flash Fired: No (enforced)
Orientation: Normal
Color Space: sRGB
GPS Coordinate: undefined, undefined
Software: Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)



Close the aperture down to between f/8 and f/16.  You either have a lens that's soft when shooting wide-open, or a severe-enough field curvature that the corners simply aren't in focus.


----------



## pgriz (Jan 16, 2014)

I think your problem is the add-on lens.  It simply will NOT give you the flatness of field and precision of focus that a true macro lens will give you.  However, if you do end up acquiring a true macro, be aware that the depth-of-field at macros scales is very, very thin, and if you want perfect sharpness across the entire frame, you'll need to ensure that the subject is perfectly parallel to the film plane.  If the subject is at an angle, you'll get a zone of sharpness which intersects the plane of the surface, but in front of, and behind that zone, it will be very blurred.  And what Sparky said about the relatively large aperture you're using.

Edit:  I have a 90mm Tamron macro in the Canon mount.  Excellent performer.  I have a shooting buddy with a Canon 100mm macro lens (more expensive), and we see no difference in image quality between the two.  I have experimented with "macro" add-on lenses and was not impressed.  So if you are serious about macro at the 1:1 or 1:2 scales, and you care about image quality, you'd want a true macro lens.


----------



## Edsport (Jan 16, 2014)

Extension tubes is also a cheap alternative for macro without adding extra glass as opposed to your diopter...

Canon t3i extension tubes | eBay


----------



## pgriz (Jan 16, 2014)

Edsport said:


> Extension tubes is also a cheap alternative for macro without adding extra glass as opposed to your diopter...
> 
> Canon t3i extension tubes | eBay



That's true, but you have to make sure you get the tubes that have the electrical contacts to communicate the lens status to the camera, and vise versa.


----------



## sm4him (Jan 16, 2014)

You have two main problems, imo, and they've both been addressed already.

As Sparky mentions, your aperture is way too open; close it down to at least f/8 - f/11 and see what kind of difference that makes.  As an example, here's a similar shot I took, at f/11.

That diopter probably isn't doing you any favors, either.  A dedicated macro lens is great, and if you plan to do a lot of this sort of thing, it's well worth the cost. I have a Tokina 100mm macro that I absolutely love. 
I'm not familiar with the Marumi diopter, but my guess is that even a decent set of extension tubes would serve you better.

One other thing: Again, if you're going to be doing much of this sort of thing, you really should consider getting a flash and learning to use it off-camera. When you shoot at the aperture you need to get better depth of field results, you often also have to really bump up the ISO to get a good exposure. Off-camera flash will not only help with that, but it can also give a dimension and "pop" to your photos.
If you don't want to get a flash, and aren't planning on doing macro on living things, like insects, then get a good tripod instead. That way, instead of pushing your ISO too far, you can drop the shutter speed to balance the necessary aperture for a good exposure and crisp shot.


----------



## robbins.photo (Jan 16, 2014)

Gotta go with sm4him on this one, stop down your lens, get a good off camera flash or lighting setup - and one other recommendation, back up just a bit and then crop the photo to your liking in post.  That should help quite a bit for now, of course if your going to be shooting this type of photography a good macro lens would be a good investment at some point.


----------



## apaflo (Jan 16, 2014)

mbikersteve said:


> Canon t3i
> Canon EF-S 18-55 (don't cringe, kit-lens, I know)
> Marumi Macro 200 (5x) diopter
> Focus rail
> ...



The 5x diopter is a good achromat, though you don't need it.  A focus rail is great, and a ring flash is open to question.

The camera really isn't important at all.  However there 1) is no zoom that will not cause what you are seeing at the edges, 2) nor is there a non-macro fixed focal length lens that will be good enough, and 3) you need a longer focal length than 55mm.


What you really want to do is find a useful macro lens designed to have a flat field.  At greater than about 1:2 magnification autofocus is not really useful and that focusing rail really comes into its own!  The longer the focal length the greater "working distance"  you'll have.  That is distance from the front of the lens to the subject, and it is significant if you use a non ring flash and don't want the shadow of the camera or lens to be on the subject. With a ring flash working distance isn't as significant.  But the real point of a macro lens is close focus with sharply focused edges and a flat field.   It is true that stopping down as much as possible helps, but it takes more light and at about an effective f/11 the image starts suffering from blur due to diffraction.

Note that older manual focus macro lenses are just as sharp as modern lenses.  And 90mm to 105mm seems to be a sweet spot, as virtually every inexpensive macro lens in that range ever made seems to be very good.  Lenses made by  Tamron are good examples. 

And while your diopter lens is a good one, it probably won't be needed for any lens that has a flat field.  Certainly any lens in the 100mm range won't need a +5 diopter to focus close enough (diopters work better on longer focal length lenses, while extension tubes work best with shorter focal lengths)..

The ring flash may or may not be useful, depending on what you want.  It will provide very flat lighting.  That is, for example, great for stamps and bad for coins.  If you want to show the texture of  the surface, get an off camera flash.  If you want to minimize the texture and only show the colors and shades, stick with a ring flash.


----------



## mbikersteve (Jan 16, 2014)

Wow, gals/guys, great stuff!  Thanks for the quick, non-judgmental help.  Hopefully I will gain enough knowledge that I can pass along help someday.  One thing I do not fully understand is your comments on "_close it down to at least f/8 - f/11" _ Is it that simple?  Just switch from "Macro" to "Aperture Control" and adjust?  It seems that this implies that the Macro Scene setting does little else than manage aperture and not a very good job at that.  Thanks again for the thread.  Very helpful.


----------



## sm4him (Jan 16, 2014)

Can you not adjust the aperture while using the Macro setting? I'm not familiar with that camera, and honestly, I've never used the built-in "Macro" setting on my camera, assuming it has one.

If you can't adjust the aperture while in the Macro setting, then you're stuck with what the camera wants to use, and it sounds like that is just going to, by default, result in a very shallow depth of field.

Honestly, for the sort of picture you've posted above--abstract sort of photos of paint, rust or other texture/color kind of stuff--I don't think you necessarily NEED the Macro part as much as you need the depth of field. So yeah, I'd switch out of Macro and use manual or Aperture Control to get the aperture setting you want. Play around with it--take the EXACT same photo at f/6.3, f/8, f/11 and even f/16. That will start to give you a feel for the impact it makes on your depth of field.

If you want to do some true macro stuff, forget about the camera's "macro" setting and get yourself a decent set of extension tubes. There is QUITE a learning curve to figuring out how to use them, but stick with it and you'll get much better results than the auto-Macro mode will give you.
Unless you want to go whole hog and get a dedicated macro lens&#8230;I have one, and highly recommend it, but ONLY if you are really going to do a lot of macro work.


----------



## mbikersteve (Jan 22, 2014)

Hey anyone.  In case you pop back on here... I did get some good guidance from you all. Tried several different settings this weekend. Found that the Macro setting is inferior to almost any manual. I liked the results of F14 better than F8. AP even made my 5X diopter pics turn out better. I have to say that my fav result was using a reversing ring I bought a couple of years ago (but never could get to work). The magnification is crazy. Draw back is that focusing and keeping the plane of the lens and subject in perfect parallel is SOOOO touchy and critical that it does not feel like a solution I would try in the field. 

Still appears that I need to invest in a true macro. Thanks again.


----------

