# Help!!! Is my lens crap, or is it my technique?



## FlightIsPossible

Well I went and bought a *EF100mm 2.8 USM Macro* lens and I had very high hopes for this product... the problem is that every picture I take is just terrible... on every level. I used to take Macro pics on my PowerShot SX120is and it totally blows these pics out of the water. Every experience I have had with my new camera(EOS 7D) has just been nothing less than awesome... until this lens. I am not sure if its my newbie crap technique, or if its just a bad lens... or maybe I have unreasonable expectations... no matter the cause I am extremely disappointed in the quality of the pics that I am taking. Can someone please shed some light on my situation, it has become somewhat frustrating. I have tried every setting imaginable and I even switched it to "auto" to see if I could get a decent pic... no luck. I have tried everything my newb brain can think of... used my tripod... tried using manual and auto focus... it just doesn't matter.

Here is a Macro shot that I took with my PowerShot SX120is... I could only dream to take a photo this crisp with my EOS 7D and this lens...(I am not saying this is a exceptional photo, but I am trying to prove a point.)







Here is the garbage I am producing with my EOS 7D with 100mm macro lens... I used dead bugs just for practice. I used a tripod for all 3 pics. This first one was focused on the grasshopper...





This one was focused on the ladybug





Spider





I took over 200 photo's and those 3 were the very best of the insect shots I got. I bought it for taking insect pics. I don't fully understand macro photography at this point, but I do know what looks good(to me)... and my 7D macro shots are garbage. The detail is so poor that if I attempt to crop/trim the pics they look even worse. 

So, is it me? Do I really suck this bad? Is it a crap lens?(it got decent reviews) Just lost at this point...

Thanks for any insight, will be greatly appreciated.


----------



## Robin Usagani

You need more light, smaller aperture, faster shutter.  Some of your shutter is way too slow for a macro shot especially with a 100mm.  Some of your shots were also shot with 2.8 which is very thin DOF for macro shot.


----------



## FlightIsPossible

Thanks... I was using a tripod tho. I assumed I could use a slower shutter speed since nothing was moving. I am a newb tho and have no clue... just trying to work of my own logic at this point


----------



## Robin Usagani

OK, if you use a tripod and the subject isnt moving then you are good.  Set your aperture to like 8 or 11 with ISO100.  Your shutter will be really slow... like a few seconds.


----------



## Bend The Light

Looks like you have Depth of Field issues...What aperture were you using? A wide open aperture is going to take your depth of field to the width of a spider's behind, or less!

The powershot is a tiny sensor and tiny lens compared to the 7D and macro lens. Depth of field is larger with that combination...in fact it's why people with compacts or superzooms can't blur the backgrounds on shots as nicely as with dSLR cameras with wide apertures. 

I think the quality in the shot where you focussed ont he ladybird is good (bright, sharp etc.) but just minimal DoF. Whe I shoot macro with my 90mm f2.8 lens,  rarely have an aperture wider than f8...and mostly go up to f11, or smaller. Light is a problem, then, but with LV it can be done better...

Hope that helps.


----------



## Bend The Light

FlightIsPossible said:


> Thanks... I was using a tripod tho. I assumed I could use a slower shutter speed since nothing was moving. I am a newb tho and have no clue... just trying to work of my own logic at this point



Yes, you can have a slower shutter if it's static...so shut down the aperture EVEN smaller (higer f number) to get more DoF. Use LiveView to see what you're doing as the viewfinder will be dim.


----------



## FlightIsPossible

I did try to take pics in different aperture. i tried about everything I could think of. And I was in direct sunlight... what kind of light is needed for macro? A spotlight directly on the subject?


----------



## FlightIsPossible

Thanks!!! i think the highest aperture I went to was 5.6 i will go try a smaller one and see if it helps. i will be back in a little while to post if it got any better. THANKS AGAIN! Like I said, I am a newb with dumb newb question lol. maybe I should read a book about the subject before trying it lol


----------



## KenC

Flash is often useful, or you end up with multi-second exposures if you're at a low ISO, e.g., 100, and f16.  Macro exposures are also longer than exposures at normal distances so the normal exposure guidelines will not work and you'll have long shutter speeds even in good light.


----------



## Bend The Light

Sunlight is fine, generally...for example...this taken with the 90mm at f8 in the garden last summer...see the narrow DoF even at f8 in the light?




Grasshopper in my garden 4 by http://bendthelight.me.uk, on Flickr

When I was out and about, I used an old flash on a bracket, triggered by the camera. The flash was diffused with part of a plastic milk bottle. 
But often, my natural light, in the garden, shots have been better. Try to avoid REALLY bright light as hotspots can ruin a generally otherwise well shot macro...diffusion of the light is important.

Another thing I did recently was to get a cheap macro ringflash...I paid less than £20 from eBay for one...gives a nice diffuse LED light and avoids DIY diffusers!


----------



## PrestonS

I think you just need to work on  your DOF and nail your focus. See this for a depth of field calculator.

Online Depth of Field CalculatorIf your camera has it, try live view, zoom in on the LCD and manual focus or just move the camera back and forth slightly to adjust your focus. The depth of field in macro is VERY narrow which is what makes it challenging. You'll get it, just keep working at it.


----------



## bazooka

Try f/16 and adjust shutter speed and ISO to suit.  The 100mm 2.8 macro USM is a sweet sweet lens...




Netherlands Silver Quarter by Tim Herschbach, on Flickr




Sand Crab by Tim Herschbach, on Flickr




Morning Snail by Tim Herschbach, on Flickr




Backyard Bee 1 by Tim Herschbach, on Flickr




Backyard Ladybug by Tim Herschbach, on Flickr


----------



## Robin Usagani

Also, sometimes it is better not to push your lens all the way to the minimum focusing distance.  It is better to be farther just a bit.  Shooting slightly farther than the minimum focusing distance will significantly increase your DOF as well but your subject will be smaller.  You can do digital crop a little bit to compensate.


----------



## FlightIsPossible

Nice, all those pics that you guys posted are the kinds of pics I WANT to take. Very nice, that is the kind of pics that inspired me to buy the lens in the first place. 

Here are a few pics I just took using smaller apertures... i think I used 11f and 18f... can't remember. They did come out much better. Under less than ideal circumstances, would you say this is typical for this lens? So there is nothing wrong with the lens, its all me and my newb technique right? 

Thanks again for all the suggestions and insight... I wouldn't have guessed that a 16f aperture would be what you would want... but then again, I have no clue what I am doing... which is why I made this post lol. All very helpful suggestion and I certainly appreciate it!!!

Here are the pics I just took... sorry the grasshopper is a bit mutilated, he has been threw hell during my learning experience lol


----------



## FlightIsPossible

To me, those pics still look like garbage. The detail I would expect just isn't there. And forget trying to trim the pic, the detail just gets worse.


----------



## FlightIsPossible

Here are 2 pics of a penny... one was trimmed... There is just a lack of detail. I took a bunch of pics of that penny... this was the best. 
Maybe macro isn't for me and I should just stick with taking pics of sparrows... blah


----------



## bazooka

The pics are garbage because they are not well conceived or well lit.  They are test shots.  Noone ever won any awards with test shots.  However, look at the detail in the penny, that is quite sharp.  Also, there is a much deeper DoF so much of the grasshopper is still in focus along with the penny and the board they are sitting on.

Now compare that shot to my first shot of the Netherlands quarter.  Take note of light direction and how contrast everything is.  The background is a dark gray.  Taking sharp and compelling photographs take more than point your camera and selecting an appropriate aperture.

The first step you should take is getting a firm understanding of the "exposure triangle".  There are several tutorials available online.
Then start studying composition and what makes a photograph compelling.


----------



## bazooka

Look at your shutter speed.... 1/5 of a second.  At this speed, you're going to start having issues with mirror slap and tripod and camera vibration from hitting the button.  The camera is EXTREMELY sensitive to movement at this magnification.  You MUST use a timer release or a remote.  You cannot touch the camera when taking the photo.  Try again with mirror lockup (if your camera has it) and set the timer for 10 seconds.  Make sure the tripod is on a surface that won't move if you do (like a patio deck).  Also, wind can cause major problems.  Keep trying.  The light on the last 2 will sufice to bring out the detail.


----------



## Rephargotohp

Look where your shadow is, Your light is coming frombehind your subject. You need great light ON your subject coming from a good angle. Shadows are fine but placed correctly

Also, how are you firing your camera? Remote? Timer? If it is No to either of those than that's a problem also. Pressing the shutter with your finger on a tripod still causes shake that is visible in macro


----------



## FlightIsPossible

Thanks bazooka... I guess I am just used to my powershot and how extremely simple it was to get nice shots. I will study and learn more. I was somewhat worried that the lens could be bad, and I wanted to take it back and get a new one before my time limit was up. i can fully accept that its all my fault that the pics suck and I am extremely happy to have a solution to my problem. thanks again to everyone that posted, was getting frustrating but its nice to have a light at the end of the tunnel


----------



## bazooka

My pleasure.  From what you've posted, I would say your lens is perfectly fine.  Shooting macro with a P&S is much much different than with a dslr.  Like was mentioned before, a P&S can afford to use a faster aperture because the dof on a P&S is much greater because of the sensor design.  If you were trying to shoot a macro on your p&S at 1/5, even with a tripod on a non-moving subject, it would also be less than sharp if you are not using the timed shutter release.

Will you be posting new ones with your newfound knowledge?  I'd love to see the results....


----------



## FlightIsPossible

WOOOOOOHOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I got a acceptable pic!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THANKS TO YOU GUYS!!!!! Awesome! I know its not a award winner, but it has some detail!!! SWWWWWEEEEEEETTTTTTTT. 

Thanks everyone, all your advise was extremely helpful. I will buy ya'all dinner if you ever are out near the Smokey Mts!!! I am all smiles now


----------



## FlightIsPossible

I think I was shaking the camera too much from pressing the shutter. The "time delay" seemed to help alot.


----------



## Bend The Light

Definitely better...


----------



## o hey tyler

FlightIsPossible said:


> I think I was shaking the camera too much from pressing the shutter. The "time delay" seemed to help alot.



Yeah, if you use a 2 second delay in conjunction with Mirror Lockup, you'll get stupidly sharp photos. Also what may have been detracting from sharpness was having your ISO on 1600. If your tripod is stable enough, shoot on the lowest ISO you can with a longer shutter speed to compensate.


----------



## bazooka

Hey man, nice job!


----------



## jriepe

I have seen some phenomenal images from the 7D and also from the lens you are using so you have quality equipment.  I shoot a lot of macro but I never worry about getting blurry shots from slow shutter speeds because even though my usual aperture setting is f/16 I use off camera lighting.  I shoot in manual with a shutter speed usually around 1/125 to 1/160. Off camera lighting is something you may want to consider if you plan to shoot anything with the slightest movement. 

Jerry


----------



## jake337

Your macro lens is a great lens, pretty much like every other macro lens out there.  Your technique is what is important.

Here's some 25,000+ examples with your same lens:
Flickr: Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 L IS USM Macro


----------



## FlightIsPossible

Yeah, I researched the lens before I bought it. Saw amazing photo's taken with it... then I got home and saw the garbage I was producing. It was all me, I don't know what I am doing lol. All a learning process at this point. I probably should have read more about macro photography before i attempted it, would have saved some frustration... and a dumb newb thread on the forum. All the suggestions you guys have gave have proved to be quite valuable, I am producing clearer pics in a matter a few minutes... I have spent the last 3 days taking garbage pics and blaming the lens. I just didn't realize the difference from taking macro and non-macro pics with a DSLR.


----------



## jake337

FlightIsPossible said:


> To me, those pics still look like garbage. The detail I would expect just isn't there. And forget trying to trim the pic, the detail just gets worse.



Here's a great thread from another forum on macro setups and technique:
Macrophotography by LordV - Canon Digital Photography Forums


----------



## Bend The Light

jake337 said:


> FlightIsPossible said:
> 
> 
> 
> To me, those pics still look like garbage. The detail I would expect just isn't there. And forget trying to trim the pic, the detail just gets worse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a great thread from another forum on macro setups and technique:
> Macrophotography by LordV - Canon Digital Photography Forums
Click to expand...


Lord V (Brian Valentine) is also a contact on my Flickr, so you could have a look there and make a contact with him and see his work. He does sometimes use an MPE 65 macro lens, though, which gives magnificant magnification!

Another guy to look up is Thomas Shahan...again on my Flickr as one of my contacts. He is a phenominal macro photographer and uses mainly basic, cheap, and homemade kit. He's just been published in National Geographic, too.

Above all, there is more often than not someone doing much better macro than you or me. Don't get disheartened when you see their images...note that they have been doing it a while and have perfected their craft, often with worse equipment than you.


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan

If only I had found this thread earlier, like when you first posted it....

I was going to say something along the lines of "I know this sounds stupid, but are you using any sort of timer on your shutter?" 

Apparently camera shake was the culprit, which makes a lot of sense when you are shooting a tiny subject at long exposures. ZERO room for error. 

Well, glad you figured it out! 

Cheers


----------



## Edsport

For macro a remote shutter release is a good tool to have...
Get one for less than 10 bucks with free shipping. Canon RC-1 Remote Controller for EOS 500D 450D 400D 7D | eBay

I see one here in the list for $6.50... remote 7d | eBay


----------



## FlightIsPossible

*Rotanimod*, that certainly would NOT have been a stupid question lol. I was just stupid for not knowing even the basics.

 I could have read any book, or any post on this forum relating to Macro and I would have found the answer. Mainly why I didn't read anything specifically about Macro photography was because I bought the lens while I was on vacation. I was trying to take close-up shots, with no tripod or flash. I just figured that macro wasn't that different than non-macro. So obviously my pics were going to be blurry. When I got home I used my tripod and they were still blurry, and thats when I feared that I may have gotten a bad lens. Now that I have read the articles that you guys provided links to, and listened to your advice and suggestions it all makes perfect sense now. Wasn't using a timed shutter or remote button. Not enough light, slow shutter... just plain poor technique all-around. The story of my life... try first, ask later.

Once again I just wanna say "thanks" for all the help, especially because it was such a basic and ridiculous question that was easily answered with the most basic of knowledge. I appreciate it.


----------



## FlightIsPossible

Thanks for the suggestions *Edsport*, i will certainly be picking one of those up. Does the 7D have a built in "receiver" that detects the signal from the remote, or do you have to hook something up to the camera also? Doesn't really matter, I am just curious. I did a quick search for the answer on google and all the articles were relating to "wireless flash"


----------



## Edsport

You don't need to buy a receiver for the remote...


----------



## bazooka

Macro isn't completely different from non-macro photography.  You still have to stabilize the camera, control DoF, and/or pay attention to shutter speed and/or use flash to get the sharpest shots.  It's just that because macro is magnified so much (similar to using a long telephoto), you have to take extra care.  Using the above suggestions will go toward making ANY type of shot sharper.


----------



## Destin

Bend The Light said:


> FlightIsPossible said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks... I was using a tripod tho. I assumed I could use a slower shutter speed since nothing was moving. I am a newb tho and have no clue... just trying to work of my own logic at this point
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you can have a slower shutter if it's static...so shut down the aperture EVEN smaller (higer f number) to get more DoF. Use LiveView to see what you're doing as the viewfinder will be dim.
Click to expand...



Shooting macro, you really have to have your camera STEADY to get sharp photos at long shutter speeds, and there better not be a slight breeze that moves the subject even slightly. This is why most photogs who specialize in macro photography rely so heavily on their flash rigs.. the flash gives good light AND freezes the subject. 

What kind of tripod do you have? a $100 tripod isn't gonna cut it for macro. You need a rock solid professional tripod if you're trying long shutter speeds on macro. And even then you really need a remote/cable release, AND to use mirror lock up as to prevent camera shake from your hand on the camera, or from the mirror slap. Yes, the mirror moving inside the camera can shake it enough to give soft photos, especially in macro work.


----------



## Buckster

When I first got my macro lens (a Sigma 180mm), I set up a ruler on a slant going up straight away form the lens, focussed on the middle of it, and shot one exposure at each f stop.  Then I looked carefully at each shot, and determined that the "sweet spot" of my lens to get the most DOF and the most sharpness with the least fuzziness was at f/22.

F/22 is now my "anchor" f stop for that lens when doing macros with it.

You will find that one of the ingredients most macro shooters have as a part of their macro tool kit is a way to get a lot of light on their subjects, and that was the next thing I had to tackle as well.  I wanted to be able to shoot at ISO 100 as much as possible, and at f/22, that means a LOT of light is necessary.  I came up with a rig to use two speedlites (details are in the link).  It looks like this:







So, my advice is this:

Run a series of test shots to determine your lens' sweet spot.  Then work out a way to get more controlled light on your subjects.  Use a remote shutter trigger if practical (I do plenty of mine handheld, so it's not practical, but still not a problem).


----------



## Buckster

Destin said:


> Bend The Light said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FlightIsPossible said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks... I was using a tripod tho. I assumed I could use a slower shutter speed since nothing was moving. I am a newb tho and have no clue... just trying to work of my own logic at this point
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you can have a slower shutter if it's static...so shut down the aperture EVEN smaller (higer f number) to get more DoF. Use LiveView to see what you're doing as the viewfinder will be dim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shooting macro, you really have to have your camera STEADY to get sharp photos at long shutter speeds, and there better not be a slight breeze that moves the subject even slightly.
Click to expand...

Hold that thought...



Destin said:


> This is why most photogs who specialize in macro photography rely so heavily on their flash rigs.. the flash gives good light AND freezes the subject.


Which is why you don't have to have your camera STEADY to get sharp photos at long shutter speeds, and it doesn't matter if there's a breeze or if the subject moves slightly.

I do this stuff handheld all the time for bugs and whatnot.  In breezes, with them moving around, etc.  None of that action can affect the stopping power of a flash that freezes them at about 1/30,000th of a second.  I don't even have to think about it.  The only concerns I have when shooting bugs handheld out in the field is composition and focus, which I achieve with my focus in manual, and physically moving fore and back to get it where I want it.


----------



## jackiex_x

So can I ask a question please? I have been considering this lens also and wonder why are macro lenses normally sold with a larger aperture then? I thought the main reason I needed a macro lens was because my aperture will only go to 4 (ish), in that case is it true that I dont need a new lens for macro?

Excuse me if I seem stupid but im finding this awfully confusing when you're all telling the OP to use a smaller aperture.


----------



## Buckster

jackiex_x said:


> So can I ask a question please? I have been considering this lens also and wonder why are macro lenses normally sold with a larger aperture then? I thought the main reason I needed a macro lens was because my aperture will only go to 4 (ish), in that case is it true that I dont need a new lens for macro?
> 
> Excuse me if I seem stupid but im finding this awfully confusing when you're all telling the OP to use a smaller aperture.


Macro lenses can be used for lots of things beyond macro.  As primes with longer focal lengths, they can also make good portrait lenses, for example (depending on the situation, of course).  In that case, you want the ability to use a wider aperture.  :thumbup:

F/4 is not going to give enough DOF for very effective macro photography, unless you do a LOT of focus stacking, which limits you to static subjects in very controlled conditions.


----------



## xzoup

Are you using auto focus or manual just out of curiosity


----------



## jriepe

jackiex_x said:


> So can I ask a question please? I have been considering this lens also and wonder why are macro lenses normally sold with a larger aperture then? I thought the main reason I needed a macro lens was because my aperture will only go to 4 (ish), in that case is it true that I dont need a new lens for macro?
> 
> Excuse me if I seem stupid but im finding this awfully confusing when you're all telling the OP to use a smaller aperture.



A true macro lens has the ability to shoot at the 1:1 ratio which means it will record on sensor the subject's true size.  A normal lens will not do that.  The question about why macro lenses are fast lenses when a very small aperture is desirable for greater DOF was confusing for me as well until the reason one day dawned on me.  Most macro shots are manually focused.  When manually focusing you want and need enough light for precise focusing.  Since the aperture on a lens stays wide open until the shot is actually taken the faster the lens the brighter the viewfinder.  This is my theory and if it is not correct I'm quite sure someone will let me know.

Jerry


----------



## Buckster

jriepe said:


> jackiex_x said:
> 
> 
> 
> So can I ask a question please? I have been considering this lens also and wonder why are macro lenses normally sold with a larger aperture then? I thought the main reason I needed a macro lens was because my aperture will only go to 4 (ish), in that case is it true that I dont need a new lens for macro?
> 
> Excuse me if I seem stupid but im finding this awfully confusing when you're all telling the OP to use a smaller aperture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A true macro lens has the ability to shoot at the 1:1 ratio which means it will record on sensor the subject's true size.  A normal lens will not do that.  The question about why macro lenses are fast lenses when a very small aperture is desirable for greater DOF was confusing for me as well until the reason one day dawned on me.  Most macro shots are manually focused.  When manually focusing you want and need enough light for precise focusing.  Since the aperture on a lens stays wide open until the shot is actually taken the faster the lens the brighter the viewfinder.  This is my theory and if it is not correct I'm quite sure someone will let me know.
> 
> Jerry
Click to expand...

Yeah, ummm... You're not correct.  You get the wide open view in your viewfinder no matter what your f stop, unless you press the DOF preview button most cameras have.  It only stops it down when you press the shutter to fire it or when you press the DOF preview button.


----------



## Rephargotohp

Buck, It sounds like you are both stating the same thing as far as when, the selected aperture is in place(when the shutter fires)

unless you are disputing that a lens with a larger max aperture provides for a brighter viewfinder and also makes for better auto focus. because they do

So, I'm' confused with what you are disagreeing on


----------



## Buckster

Rephargotohp said:


> Buck, It sounds like you are both stating the same thing as far as when, the selected aperture is in place(when the shutter fires)
> 
> unless you are disputing that a lens with a larger max aperture provides for a brighter viewfinder and also makes for better auto focus. because they do
> 
> So, I'm' confused with what you are disagreeing on


Your answer to why a macro lens has the ability for a larger aperture is so that the viewfinder will be brighter.  I'm disagreeing with that "reason", specifically.  It's not like they engineered a macro lens and then said, "Gee, it does macro great, but we can't see through the viewfinder.  I guess we'll have to open up the aperture to allow that."

It has the ability to use a larger aperture because a macro lens isn't _*JUST*_ for macro photography.  At it's heart, it's a prime lens, and as a prime lens of that focal length, it's useful for ANY photography a prime lens of that focal length is good for, _*INCLUDING*_ macro photography, which is what makes it special.


----------



## Rephargotohp

Well, It wasn't "MY" answer it was the other guy.

But, one of the advantages of any Lens design, not just Macro, That have a wider max aperture, is that they do allow for a brighter viewfinder. Having a Max Aperture  of 2.8 or better provides for better autofocusing on cameras because their cernter focus point is snesitive to 2.8 light rather than 5.6 and it makes for more sensitive and precise AF. So it's not the reason they design Macro or any other lens for that matter. But it has advantages and both certain can be helpful in Macro or any photography.


All I'm saying is that his reason was just as valid as yours


----------



## jackiex_x

OMG i'm so confused.  I was given money for xmas to get myself a nice Macro lens and I dunno where to start! i thought i understood it, but clearly not!


----------



## jriepe

jackiex_x said:


> OMG i'm so confused.  I was given money for xmas to get myself a nice Macro lens and I dunno where to start! i thought i understood it, but clearly not!



It's really not that confusing.  I see you shoot Canon and the Canon 100mm macro is an exceptional lens.  If you don't want to spend that much money look into the Tokina 100mm or maybe the Tamron 90mm.  The Sigma 105mm is also an exceptional lens.  If you need something with more focal length check out the Sigma 150mm or Tamron 180mm.  Three things affect DOF:  Focal length of lens, aperture setting and distance from subject.  Since with macro you will at times be mere inches from your subject you will need a very small aperture for greater DOF.  I use from f/16 to f/20.  The larger the maximum aperture is on a lens the more light that will reach the viewfinder during focusing.  The aperture on the lens will be wide open while you are looking through the viewfinder manually focusing but will close down to the desired f stop setting during the shot.  Hope that clears things up for you.

Jerry


----------



## FlightIsPossible

I just wanted to come back and say that I have been getting much clearer images since I have been practicing a bit using the techniques suggested. I don't have a external flash yet, so I have been using the onboard flash and it has been helping also. I am going to go pick up a flash in the next couple weeks after researching them a little better.

Not the best pic, but at least it has some sharpness too it.


----------



## jake337

Buckster said:


> Rephargotohp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Buck, It sounds like you are both stating the same thing as far as when, the selected aperture is in place(when the shutter fires)
> 
> unless you are disputing that a lens with a larger max aperture provides for a brighter viewfinder and also makes for better auto focus. because they do
> 
> So, I'm' confused with what you are disagreeing on
> 
> 
> 
> Your answer to why a macro lens has the ability for a larger aperture is so that the viewfinder will be brighter. I'm disagreeing with that "reason", specifically. It's not like they engineered a macro lens and then said, "Gee, it does macro great, but we can't see through the viewfinder. I guess we'll have to open up the aperture to allow that."
> 
> It has the ability to use a larger aperture because a macro lens isn't _*JUST*_ for macro photography. At it's heart, it's a prime lens, and as a prime lens of that focal length, it's useful for ANY photography a prime lens of that focal length is good for, _*INCLUDING*_ macro photography, which is what makes it special.
Click to expand...


Yup, it's the lens ability to focus close, that is what makes it a macro.  You can use any good prime lens and reverse it, add extension tubes, or both.  You can even reverse a prime lens and mount it to another prime lens form added magnification.  It's just more convenient to have a lens that does it on its own.


----------



## jriepe

Flight, I do believe you have the hang of it now.  The image of the stinkbug is sharp.  Your aperture of f/16, ISO200 and 1/160 shutter speed is typical of the settings I use for most of my shots.  Now you know that neither your camera nor lens are crap.  Congrats.

Jerry


----------



## Bend The Light

jriepe said:


> Flight, I do believe you have the hang of it now.  The image of the stinkbug is sharp.  Your aperture of f/16, ISO200 and 1/160 shutter speed is typical of the settings I use for most of my shots.  Now you know that neither your camera nor lens are crap.  Congrats.
> 
> Jerry



Agreed. Well done!


----------



## bazooka

*tear*
"That's mah boy!"



FlightIsPossible said:


> I just wanted to come back and say that I have been getting much clearer images since I have been practicing a bit using the techniques suggested. I don't have a external flash yet, so I have been using the onboard flash and it has been helping also. I am going to go pick up a flash in the next couple weeks after researching them a little better.
> 
> Not the best pic, but at least it has some sharpness too it.


----------



## FlightIsPossible

Thanks everyone! Here are two more I just took, I was testing different aperture settings... this Stink Bug great, he just stands there and lets me take pics... much more cooperative than the cockroach I attempted.


----------



## FlightIsPossible

jriepe said:


> Flight, I do believe you have the hang of it now.  The image of the stinkbug is sharp.  Your aperture of f/16, ISO200 and 1/160 shutter speed is typical of the settings I use for most of my shots.  Now you know that neither your camera nor lens are crap.  Congrats.
> 
> Jerry



Lmao, yeah... its certainly wasn't that the equipment it crap... was completely me and my technique. Live and learn


----------

