# Macro lens.  What to look for?



## Robin Usagani (Jun 10, 2011)

I'm tired of shooting a mediocre wedding ring shot and I want a macro lens.  I shoot with a 5D.  What lens shall I get?  L lens? Regular one?  Which?   I would love to start taking photos of insects too.  I know nothing about macro photography.


----------



## tyler_h (Jun 10, 2011)

Longer is better for insects as it increases your working distance. Problem is you'll have a shallower DoF. 

Either 100 is good; the L has higher resolution but the non-L is still quite good. The IS is all but useless at 1:1 from what I have heard, but the need for IS is then questionable for other circumstances if your signature is correct; 70-200 2.8L already fits the bill.

If you have the budget get the L but you'll likely be pretty happy with the non-L as well.

Best investment will be in lighting. You'll need to stop down for DoF. At the same time the effective aperture in terms of actual light is:
f-stop + f-stop * magnification
So look to invest in a macro flash set up or similar if you want to get the most out of the lens.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Jun 10, 2011)

tyler, you lost me at f-stop + f-stop * magnification.  Care to explain more?


----------



## tyler_h (Jun 10, 2011)

So you know f-stop changes the amount of light you get in.

Consider it for f/8

If you are focused to infinity you actually get approximately "f/8" worth of light. (considering a lens to have a lot magnification then)
At 1 to 1 and set to f/8 you will actually get half the light hitting the sensor for the same settings.

So, naturally, coupling that with the need to stop down a lot more for DoF in macro work you need a lot more light to maintain good shutter speed and low ISO.

Does that explain it a bit better?


----------



## Robin Usagani (Jun 10, 2011)

Wow, i need to read more about this.  I didnt know focusing changes the amount of your light.

Tyler, how about pairing the lens with an extender and teleconverter?  What combo and what do I get from it?  2:1?


----------



## mwcfarms (Jun 10, 2011)

That is a great explanation.


----------



## tyler_h (Jun 10, 2011)

That i know of no Canon macro lenses are compatible with their  teleconverters (only the white primes; 70-200's; and the TS-E series).

I haven't played around with extenders so can't say much on them. Their  magnifications: 1.19x (EF 12 II) or 1.39x (EF 25 II) so not a huge jump  there.

If you really want to get high magnifications I've heard good things  about the MP-E 65mm its a dedicated macro lens (1-5x magnification  only).





mwcfarms said:


> That is a great explanation.


 
Thanks.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Jun 10, 2011)

MP-E 65mm is wayyyyyy later down the road.  I want to use something that is usefull for weddings hahaha.


----------



## tyler_h (Jun 10, 2011)

Schwettylens said:


> MP-E 65mm is wayyyyyy later down the road.  I want to use something that is usefull for weddings hahaha.


 
Suspected as much, but if you want to get to 2:1... 

If it's mainly as part of making income from wedding shots; I'd consider how much you will use the lens for how much you should invest in it.


----------



## Hardrock (Jun 10, 2011)

Schwetty I think you should look into the Canon 100 f2.8 usm lens. Its very sharp , mine focuses very fast (at longer focus distances for headshots and waist ups) the close focus is fairly quick but 99.9% I manual focus due to I like to handhold mine at 1:1. Like tyler said its best to have longer focal lengths for insects for a couple of reasons 1. to not scare of the insect , icreased working distance 2. the back ground is usually cleaner and more of a smooth look. But for weddings I think a 150 or 180 is going to be too long and may limit you ( plus most dont focus as fast). Also to go along with what Tyler said the more magnification the more light you will need and the longer the focal length the harder it is to hand hold. Even on a sunny day with lots of light I use the 100mm at 1:1 with a 1.4tc at f11/13 iso 400/800 and shutter speeds around 1/30 to 1/200 just to give you an idea. But for rings Im sure other will chime in the important thing is the reflection and loss of detail. You may also want to look into a 50 with extension tubes or even the 135 f2. I was impressed with the 135f2 and its close focus. Hope this helps...

For strictly macro I wouldn't get the 100L over the 100 Usm but if you plan to do a lot of handheld portraits you may want to look into the L with IS. I thought about selling mine for the L but I dont feel like Im really missing the IS and I dont believe the L is much if any sharper than the USM version.


----------



## tyler_h (Jun 10, 2011)

Hardrock said:


> I was impressed with the 135f2 and its close focus.


 
Max magnification is listed as 0.19x on Canon's site... certainly a great lens but that would imply its not going to be of a lot of use.
The 24-70 f/2.8 is meant to have 0.29x at 70mm...


Another consideration not noted before; cause of its L status it does come with a better accessory kit, so if you'd look to by the hood etc anyway don't forget to consider that in their price difference.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Jun 10, 2011)

Im still struggling to understand magnification factor VS. focal length etc.  so a .19x magnification is just saying that if I shoot a wedding ring, I can only fill the ring maybe like 1/5 of my frame right?  What if I put this on my 500D?  Is the magnification factor going to be multiplied by 1.6?

Hardrock, could you shoot a ring with 135L uncropped?  I want to see how close you can get and see the result.  Also post the cropped version to zoom in a bit.  I am just wondering.


----------



## tyler_h (Jun 10, 2011)

Schwettylens said:


> Im still struggling to understand magnification factor VS. focal length etc.  so a .19x magnification is just saying that if I shoot a wedding ring, I can only fill the ring maybe like 1/5 of my frame right?  What if I put this on my 500D?  Is the magnification factor going to be multiplied by 1.6?
> 
> Hardrock, could you shoot a ring with 135L uncropped?  I want to see how close you can get and see the result.  Also post the cropped version to zoom in a bit.  I am just wondering.


 
Magnification is a product of focal length and minimum focusing distance. To get decent magnification at short focal lengths you need a very short minimum focusing distance.

As for crop factor and magnification; you would still get 1:1 magnification on a crop sensor, but magnification is related to sensor size.
1:1 is just meaning an object the size of the sensor will fill the sensor. So you are still 1:1, but you have 'thrown away' information around your object so your have (for sensors with the same number of pixels) more pixels representing your actual subject. So even if you can fill the frame with a smaller object it is still 1:1.

For 0.19x magnification it should be:
36/0.19 = 189mm wide, and 
24/0.19 = 126mm tall
The APS-C sensor will get filled by a 116.8 x 77.9 mm object though.

Just checked the above physically with my camera and a ruler to make sure I did it right; they are correct.

Consider the EF 25 II extention tube for your 24-70 as well; you get get better than 1:1 apparently (canon site) so that might be an easier options for weddings instead of another lens.


----------



## Derrel (Jun 10, 2011)

Good advice above. I have the 100mm f/2.8 Canon EF USM Macro, and that's the one I think I'd suggest for wedding ring and bouquet shots, detail shots, etc. Its weight is okay. Focusing speed is normally decent. Good image quality. Fair price. For bugs, I have a 180mm macro lens.


----------



## Hardrock (Jun 10, 2011)

With the 135 you would probably need some extension tubes for a real close shot.  I used the 135 for flower shots and decorations on the reception table. I dont have any pics off hand but if you go to treyharrison.zenfolio.com and go to I believe Bryan and Megans wedding there is a shot of some mints that I though came out decent(I was second shooter and I didnt get any ring shots with the 135). Overall I was real impressed with the 135 and enjoyed the close focus. But for a true macro it would be best to have a macro lens that is capable of 1:1.  I also have the 50f1.4 and I believe its close focus is about 1foot and if your main interest is wedding rings I would rent some extension tubes and try some ring shots with that setup. It would be a cheaper alternitive. Im really not sure what the .19x means either but 1:1 simply means that if you take a picture of a penny at 1:1 it will be that exact size on 35mm film.  Im sure you have  430 or 580 flash and if so look into getting the lumiquest soft box it will help out alot.


----------



## tyler_h (Jun 10, 2011)

Magnification saying something like 0.19x;
1/0.19 = 5.26

So to state it similarly as 1:1 it is 1:5.26


----------



## Hardrock (Jun 10, 2011)

tyler_h said:


> Magnification saying something like 0.19x;
> 1/0.19 = 5.26
> 
> So to state it similarly as 1:1 it is 1:5.26


 

That makes more sense!  I was always curious how the 0.19x related to 1:1.  Thanks.


----------



## tyler_h (Jun 10, 2011)

Always a problem with any numeric things; far too many ways the represent the same thing, and a different one is picked depending on how well it will be interpreted by the consumer


----------



## jake337 (Jun 10, 2011)

For Rings and jewelry shouldn't we be suggesting some sort of tilt shift lens so that  shallow DOF may become less of a binding issue.


----------



## tyler_h (Jun 10, 2011)

jake337 said:


> For Rings and jewelry shouldn't we be suggesting some sort of tilt shift lens so that  shallow DOF may become less of a binding issue.


 
The TS-E 90 f/2.8 has a decent max magnification; 0.29, but that is still 1:3.45. It would be improved with a teleconverter but this would make an expensive option to still not give very high magnification.


----------



## Overread (Jun 10, 2011)

Good advice has already been given but I'll add a few points:

1) Tiltshift - its a good option, but very pricey for a good one, plus you need to add either teleconverters and/or extension tubes to get the magnification factor up. For wedding rings they are pretty big and won't be too hard, for insects you'd need more magnification gain. The other problem is that you then have 2 things to learn - close focusing and tiltshift balance.
I'd personally go for a regular macro - then consider exotics later on such as tiltshift/MPE etc..

2) Extension tubes - avoid canons offerings, they are way way way overpriced for what you get. Modern Kenko extension tubes are just as good (several people I know who own both can't tell them apart build quality wise at all - and one wondered if the canon are just rebranded kenko!)

3) Focal length wise I'd second the 100mm macro option. Sigma and Tokina make 105mm macros which are solid in build and image quality - Tamron makes their 90mm whilst Canon have their 100mm and 100mm L. In general you won't tell them apart image quality wise (you can in studio tests compare them, but the differences are very minor and subject to copy variation). Secondly the AF speed of all is going to be slower than regular lenses, but the canons tend to be the faster over (the L is probably the fastest AF you can get currently for a canon macro lens).

4) IS - canons 100mm L is a hybrid IS so it has more effect at 1:1 distances than the Nikon VR macro model and I've read some very good reports on its overall performance - it won't change the game totally, but its certainly something to consider - esp (as said) for use of the lens outside of just macro work. 

5) As far as I can tell focal length has pretty much no effective change on the depth of field at the 1:1 distance - if there is a difference then chances are you'd only see it between a super short (35mm) and a super long (180mm + 2*TC) lenses and even then it would be marginal - differences within the more common 60-180mm are so tiny (if present) that its not worth worrying about. What will change is background rendering - the longer focal length options will render with more background blurring than the shorter lenses.


----------



## Derrel (Jun 10, 2011)

Overread said:


> 5) As far as I can tell focal length has pretty much no effective change on the depth of field at the 1:1 distance - if there is a difference then chances are you'd only see it between a super short (35mm) and a super long (180mm + 2*TC) lenses and even then it would be marginal - differences within the more common 60-180mm are so tiny (if present) that its not worth worrying about. What will change is background rendering - the longer focal length options will render with more background blurring than the shorter lenses.



Yeah, it is a very strange,strange fact, but at 1:1 magnification, and at a little bit lower magnification, focal length seems to have basically, no discernable effect of depth of field in real-world tests. It seems that **magnification** is the determining factor. I once did a test using a 60mm, 90mm,and 180mm macro lens, and photographed a small (miniature sized) Rolleiflex digital camera, and the images from the 60,the 90,and the 180 all appeared to have basically, the same depth of field.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Jun 10, 2011)

+1

Kenko extension tubes will macro shoot a ring splendidly.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Jun 10, 2011)

Kenko extension with what kind of lens?


----------



## Overread (Jun 10, 2011)

Your 50mm f1.4 would work well with a set of tubes - that or the 24-70mm would give you more than enough when paired with a set of Kenko AF extension tubes. Chances are you would not even need all the tube length either, since rings are quite big and most ring shots at weddings are more closeups rather than pure macro.

On the ring front the above combos would work well and with good lighting control give you some great shots. For insect work a 50mm + 65mm of extension tubes (ie a full kenko set) easily gives you just over 1:1 magnification - however its working distance is very small and, whilst not impossible, it does make insect work far more of a challenge to get used to - it can also make lighting control that bit harder as well. 

If you were just after the ring shots then the tubes would be my advice - but as you want to get into insects and macro in general, if you have the money and the inspiration/desire then I'd go for the macro lens


----------



## dallasimagery (Jun 10, 2011)

Overread said:


> 1) Tiltshift - its a good option, but very pricey for a good one,



I don't like the effects TS lenses give - they often make photos look quite odd.



Overread said:


> 4) IS - canons 100mm L is a hybrid IS so it has more effect at 1:1 distances than the Nikon VR macro model and I've read some very good reports on its overall performance - it won't change the game totally, but its certainly something to consider



Do you seriously just find the 100mm "very good"? It's probably the best lense I've ever used, period, and the sharpest. Even Tony Hoffer calls it "the sharpest lense ever". I would second the 100mm, and even third it  It's simply... amazing. It's my favorite lense, and I've had plenty


----------



## Derrel (Jun 10, 2011)

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM L IS macro (Full Format) - Review / Test Report - Analysis


At f/2.8 and f/4, the Canon 100mm-L macro has only good to very good resolution at the borders and extreme edges of the frame, and the same sub-par performance extends to f/4, and even f/5.6. Only once stopped down to f/11 does the Canon 100mm-L even out across the frame. This lens is characterized by high central resolution, but much lower edge and extreme edge resolution.


Sigma AF 150mm f/2.8 EX DG HSM APO Macro (FX) - Review / Test Report - Analysis
At f/2.8 the Sigma 150mm macro turns in an exceptionally good, even performance across the frame, resolving 3459,3332,and 3216 LW/PH at center/border/extreme respectively. Compare that to the Canon 100mm-L at 3391,2782,2735 center/border/extreme. The Sigma is resolving just ever so slightly fewer line widths per picture height at the extreme EDGE of the frame at f/2.8 than the Canon can muster in the very center of the field at the same f/stop. That's what a lens designer calls "getting your A$$ kicked."


At the critical f/stops of f/8 and f/11, the Sigma 150mm is kicking the Canon's proverbial ASS, all across the frame, by over 500 LW/PH at each part of the frame. At f/2.8, f/4, f/5.6, f/8, and f/11, the Sigma is performing BETTER across the entire frame than the Canon is. At f/2.8 and f/4 the Canon has MARKEDLY poorer resolving power at the border and extreme edge of the frame, and the same poor performance holds true at f/5.6, and at f/8 the extreme edge of the frame is only marginally bettwr than the borders, and still far,far weaker than the center resolution.


If somebody claims the Canon 100mm-L macro is "one of the sharpest lenses" he's ever used....well...he certainly hasn't used the Sigma 150mm macro, which is a markedly higher-resolving, lower-distortion, and lower vignetting lens than the Canon 100mm-L macro. And the Sigma is more-cosnistent across its entire range of f/stops, is markedly better at f/2.8, f/4, f/5.6, and f/8, and is well...simply a much,much better performing lens than the Canon 100mm L macro.


----------



## Overread (Jun 10, 2011)

Eh the 150mm is ok  - I'm fairly sure my Sigma70mm macro is a bit sharper at the f13 end and my Canon MPE65mm is mostly unbeatable (except with its angular aperture blades  ). I've not really put the Tokina 35mm macro into a side by side test, but in general its performance is on par (as in I've not noticed it lacking in my shots).
http://www.flickr.com/photos/24534478@N04/sets/72157623359678512/
My little test - no fancy charts though - just big pictures of coins 


The lesson to take home here is that in the macro world there really are no bad performers from the true macro prime lenses, no matter which company you go with they are all pretty much excellent optics and after editing and presentation on a medium (prints/digital display) many of the small differences are mostly not even noticeable. 
I'm not against tests, I like to know how stuff performs at a purely technical level, but I also try to temper that with real world context. As such I rate them all pretty much on par optically - the bigger differences are in handholding and operation as well as features offered - those are the big differences you'll notice in the field when shooting.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Jun 10, 2011)

dallasimagery said:


> Do you seriously just find the 100mm "very good"? It's probably the best lense I've ever used, period, and the sharpest. Even Tony Hoffer calls it "*the sharpest lense ever*". I would second the 100mm, and even third it  It's simply... amazing. It's my favorite lense, and I've had plenty



I highly doubt Tony would say "lense" instead of "lens"    just kidding...  i had to do it because you quoted him  LOL.


----------



## jake337 (Jun 13, 2011)

Derrel said:


> Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM L IS macro (Full Format) - Review / Test Report - Analysis
> 
> 
> At f/2.8 and f/4, the Canon 100mm-L macro has only good to very good resolution at the borders and extreme edges of the frame, and the same sub-par performance extends to f/4, and even f/5.6. Only once stopped down to f/11 does the Canon 100mm-L even out across the frame. This lens is characterized by high central resolution, but much lower edge and extreme edge resolution.
> ...




No comparisons available on Full frame for this lens but the Tokina 100mm f2.8 atx pro d macro scored better than the sigma 150mm  across the board on resolution(aps-c).  These were on a 8mp canon.


These are just numbers though... I would like to see a nikon FX comparison.


----------

