# New to Macro



## lizard837 (Jul 29, 2012)

Hi guys,
I'm fairly new to macro photography and I was just looking for some CC on these images I took this afternoon.






Thanks


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 29, 2012)

Macro is usually considered anything at 1:1 magification or greater... and it looks like you used a 50mm lens for this. I am assuming it was not a 50mm Macro lens... but just a standard 50mm. These are not Macro. Some lenses have a Macro designation, that is mostly just marketing.. as they will have some close focusing ability. But they are not true macro lenses.

These were shot at F2.8 and F4... most macro is shot at F16 or greater to maximize Depth of Field (which is minimal when using true macro lenses at maximum magnifications). There was not enough DOF (even with your 50mm) to get your main subjects sharp. The rose is soft, and the grass and dew shot is very soft! The third shot is relatively sharp on the one flower you were focused on, and it is an ok shot.. but it is not macro.  I am not going to go into composition

I hope you understand what I am trying to get across, and I am not trying to be rude either. Just give you some information that may be helpful to you. If you are really interested in Macro.. please feel free to ask any questions you have, and we will do our best to answer them! (There are quite a few excellent macro shooters on TPF!)


----------



## lizard837 (Jul 30, 2012)

I understand what you're saying.  Thanks for clearing up what exactly macro photography is, as I mentioned I'm fairly new.  Aside from what was mentioned in your post are there any other recommendations you would make for someone who is interested in getting into macro photography?

Thanks for the help


----------



## 480sparky (Jul 30, 2012)

lizard837 said:


> ......are there any other recommendations you would make for someone who is interested in getting into macro photography?..........



Learn about depth of field.  
Buy a tripod if you don't have one.
Buy a remote release if you don't have one.
Post your wish-list budget.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 30, 2012)

lizard837 said:


> I understand what you're saying.  Thanks for clearing up what exactly macro photography is, as I mentioned I'm fairly new.  Aside from what was mentioned in your post are there any other recommendations you would make for someone who is interested in getting into macro photography?
> 
> Thanks for the help



Patience! Lots of patience! lol!  You can pick up a good used macro lens for around $350-450... and that and dedication is all you need. The Tripod and remote release Sparky mentions are very nice to have always! A good flash is useful, But that can come later, after you advance a bit.

A good supply of bugs, and some pretty flowers are handy to have too!


----------



## amolitor (Jul 30, 2012)

What kind of photographs do you want to make?

Flowers? Bugs? Bugs' noses?

Macro is one of those areas that can turn into a complete maze of gear and technique, depending on how close you want to go and what kind of subjects you want to shoot. Most people, it turns out, don't really want to shoot salt crystals and bugs' noses, thankfully for their budgets. If you just want flowers and maybe some pretty pictures of their innards you won't need to to hardcore. A reasonable macro lens and a tripod ought to do you. You can use the self-timer instead of a remote release, if you want to save a few bucks, but just squashing the button with the finger is probably not going to make you happy.

If you want to do salt crystals and bugs' noses, then we're in the land of focusing rails and ring flashes and extension tubes and sticking lenses on to the camera backwards with special adapters, and now it's suddenly a budget crisis, but a grand old time for a gearhead to play with mechanical bits and pieces. That's a whole 'nother article, and probably a book from the library, really.


----------



## Imanolete (Aug 6, 2012)

I'm also new to macro, and keen to buy an specific lens. i already got a tripod and remote shutter, but only a superzoom and a cheap but fast 35/1.8 prime.

What focal is best (for DX, I own a D5100) for nature shots of flowers and insects (I'm not sure I am any subtle at all when moving, flowers won't care but bugs...)?

I'd like to use the lens also for portraits, but I'm not sure if it is a good idea.
Example: from your experience, is it wiser to go for

A) Either Nikkor or Sigma 105, both 2.8 and stabilised (in case of handhold macro shots, is it worth it the &euro;800 price tag?)
B) Either Tamron 90 or Tokina 100 + a &euro;200 prime 50/1.8, totalling even less than first
    (is it better 85/1.8 for portrais, although &euro;400 and maybe too close to the macro lens focal?)
C) Just 85/3.5 Micro, cheapest choice and with VR, but I have some doubts:
     3.5 and maybe too long (127 eqv.) for portraits and slightly short for bugs macro?
     Or good enough for both, given I'm no expert photographer (although enthusiastic)


----------



## bunadski (Aug 7, 2012)

Hi!

Cheapest way to go is to use a reverse ring with your kit lens (18-55mm), google "reverse ring macro". I have a couple of posts here of my macro shots using the reverse ring (only macro gear i have) with the onboard flash and a DIY flash diffuser made from a styrofoam plate.


----------



## tushjain (Aug 7, 2012)

I use extension tubes. They aren't too expensive and will get you started. Pick a prime lens to go with it... zooms become tricky with the focus and zoom becoming mixed up


----------

