Questions from a biologist about macro lenses

Joemess

Hello folks, Long time lurker here.

I am a biologist whose focus in on botany. I often find myself in the field taking numerous shots of various flowers rather than collecting voucher specimens. I am looking for advice on lenses that will aid in this. My camera is a Canon Digital rebel (soon to be upgraded to a 30D) and the lens I use most often in a Quantaray 28-200 1:3.8-5.6 Zoom lens. While I do get good shots, I think the quality can be improved with a dedicated lens. So far I have been considering something along the lines of:

Canon Normal EF-S 60mm f/2.8 USM Macro Autofocus

Now, I am not locked in on this one lens so if there are suggestions in other directions I am open to them. The name on the lens is not as important as the quality it provides. I would like to stay in the under 500 range...


It needs to be mentioned that often the composition of the photo is not nearly as important as the ability to capture details of the floral structure. (but I still like to take good pictures) I will also be the first to admit that I am somewhat lacking in core knowledge about photography. I generally put the camera in Auto and fire away. (I need to work on this but time.... well time is precious)


Thanks, Andrew

To give you an idea of the photos I take, here is a small sampling. These were all taken freehand without a tripod. This season I have invested in a quality tripod.

ziggy53

Thanks for de-lurking yourself, and welcome to Digital Grin.

I normally suggest a macro lens of between 100mm and 200mm, simply because it allows more distance between the camera and subject, which allows better positioning of light.

The Sigma 180mm, f3.5 EX is on my list, and I'm hoping this year is "the" year to acquire it.

http://www.sigma4less.com/sess/utn;jsessionid=154584a0ffc7ee8/shopdata/0040_Lenses/0020_Fixed+Focal+Length/0010_Macro/product_details.shopscript?article=0460_Sigma%2BTelephoto%2B180mm%2Bf%3D26slash%3D3B3%3D252E5%2BEX%2BAPO%2BMacro%2BDG%2BHSM%2BAutofocus%2BLens%2Bfor%2BCanon%2BEOS%2B%3D28SG180F35DCA%3D29

There is also a technique using a reversed lens on an adapter, or even a reversed lens on the front of another lens, to provide decent macro performance at relatively low cost.

You can also add an accessory close-focus lens to the front of a standard lens to provide extra magnification at the expense of reduced camera to subject distance and possible corner distortions.

Bellows and extension tubes are other common accessories in the macro world.

Finally, the Canon MP-E 65mm f/2.8 macro lens provides 1-5x magnification, which, I believe, is even more on a crop camera.

Be sure to check this thread for details:

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=25164

ziggy53

Tommyboy

Canon's EF-S 60mm f/2.5 would function as a 96mm (35mm equivalent) on your current and future camera. It will focus down to life size reproduction 1:1 without aid of an extension tube.

You might also consider Canon's EF 100mm f/2.8 macro (160mm in 35mm equivalent). It has "inner focusing" so the size of the lens does not change. It also accepts a tripod collar. I'm looking hard at this one myself. It's a 2.8 and would be compatible with a full-frame camera were you to purchase one in the future.

tooltime47

I have the Canon EF 100mm F2.8 and it is super sharp. Sigma has a 150mm F2.8 that is also highly rated. Canon has a rebate going until Jan 15. You can read many reviews here http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/ to help with your decision.

pathfinder

Any of the 70mm, 90mm, 100mm, 150mm or 180mm macro lenses from Sigma, Tamron or Canon will serve well for flowers and vegetation.

The Tamron 90mm, the Sigma 105 and 150, the Canon 100, and the Tamron and Canon 180s all have their cheering sections and should produce excellent images with proper use. Your $500 limit should not be a major problem.

I might suggest adding a EOS system flash that will shoot in ETTL mode AND a Canon OFF Camera Flash cord as a fast way to improve macro shots of plants and bugs.

Macro or not, it is still all about the lighting. For macro, getting the light off the camera is a major assett.

You can find some of my macro shots here
Lenses used include the Canon 100, the Sigma 150 and the Tamron 180.

Check on the EXIF for data for a listing of what lens was used for each shot as well as whether flash was used. Many of these were with flash.

You can also get excellent images with extension tubes and the current lens you already own. Not quite as easy as a macro lens, but can be very effective and more inexpensive. You can also purchase + lenses that are like bifocals for a camera - they are convex lenses in varying powers that screw into the front filter thread, Canon makes two - a 250D and a 500D in 58, 72, and 77mm sizes. The quality with them is pretty good also. But like looking through bifocals, you cannot focus on far away subjects without removing them first. Macro lenses are the most convenient mode.

Welcome to dgrin, Joemess.

Jeffro

I'm contemplating a macro in the future as well, and one thing I know for sure is I will not get an EF-S lens. It only works on the 1.6 crop bodies, and I'm sure I will updrade from the 20D long before the lens would wear out, and why have the hassle of selling an EF-S if you don't have too. Just something to think about.

SCS_Photo

I'm thinking the new sigma 70mm macro would be about the right focal length for you. You might also consider picking up a cheapo macro zoom - you won't get the magnification, but sometimes primes aren't the best for framing in tight spots.

What sort of lighting setup do you have? Any flashes? You might want to get an external flash and an off-shoe cord so you can use more than just the available light. While the macro lenses are mostly f/2.8, using a flash will allow you to stop down further and get more in focus.

Being a biologist, I'll give you a quick analogy: The aperture is the pupil: f/1.0 is totally dilated, f/32 is looking-straight-into-the-sun sized pupil. f/2.8 is a bright lense in that it has a large aperture. It is also a fast lense as it allows you to have a fast shutter speed at wide apertures (low f/numbers). Shutterspeed: theres not really a good analogy, but its a simple enough concept. You need to have a shutterspeed of at least 1/focal length (mm) of your lense. Thats for normal run of the mill photography. For macrophotography, it should be double that just to be on the safe side. DOF: the sensor on your rebel is flat. The elements in your lense are parallel to that surface. Thus, any image's sharpest point will be parallel to the plane of the sensor. When your pupil (aperture) is wide open in the darkness, you tend to have to focus on a specific place to make out whats there, you have a shallower focal plane, or depth of field. The same is true for the camera when its aperture is wide open.

Now in the dark your retinas' - akin to the sensor - rods and cones become more sensitive: this is analogous to ISO (known in the old days as film speed) The higher the number, the more sensitive the sensor becomes. Why not always keep the ISO high? Because the camera has to work hard to amplify the light hitting the sensor, and as a byproduct produces noise, the digital equivalent of film grain.

Hope this helps.
Sam

BigAl

Good advice from PF, especially the bit about lighting. For macro you need to use small apertures (F10 and higher) to get decent depth of field, so a flash is a very necessary piece of equipment.

Any of the dedicated macro lenses will give you stunningly sharp images, but what you must look at is your style of picture taking. 100mm and shorter are good for handholding while 150mm and up can become rather weighty, especially if you use a flash bracket (which I consider a necessity).

Check out some of my macro images in my sig - most taken with a Sigma 105, and all with flash. You may also want to check out LordV's stuff - he is undoubtedly one of the best macro photographers around. He uses a Sigma 105, and more recently an MPE-65.

Seefutlung

Joemess-

If you're in SoCal, I have access to a few different macros for you to try. I have the 60 EF-S and I'm pretty happy with the results.
36876522-M.jpg

Most of the flower snaps found here:

http://garyayala.smugmug.com/gallery/665568

Were shot with the 60 EF-S.

To be honest most professional level lenses will deliver similar resolution and sharpness. (Image Quality from a pro level Sigma will be similar to a pro level Tokina or Tamron or Canon.)

Gary

Zanotti

I have to ask if he would really need an macro (or 1:1 image size) or just a good lens that will focus closely.

For the size items he has proposed at 50mm f1.4 would do extermely well, be lighter, smaller and give good DOF. I even think the fantistic plastic 50mm f 1.8 would do well here.

I get confused sometimes between just close up images of flowers and true marco of the type Lord V produces.

This true macro is highly specialized, both in image DOF post processing and lighting.

A more typically closely focused lens coupled with an off shoe flash will make pretty specatcular photos of objects as large a full flowers.

Any agreement?

Tommyboy

You raise a fair point. A 50mm 1.4, or a small zoom w/ macro may serve the purpose for what he has outlined; however, as a scientist, he may eventually want to get closer still or perhaps become more specialized.

In the past I've always had a macro (without one currently) and used it quite frequently.

Zanotti wrote:

I have to ask if he would really need an macro (or 1:1 image size) or just a good lens that will focus closely.

For the size items he has proposed at 50mm f1.4 would do extermely well, be lighter, smaller and give good DOF. I even think the fantistic plastic 50mm f 1.8 would do well here.

I get confused sometimes between just close up images of flowers and true marco of the type Lord V produces.

This true macro is highly specialized, both in image DOF post processing and lighting.

A more typically closely focused lens coupled with an off shoe flash will make pretty specatcular photos of objects as large a full flowers.

Any agreement?

ziggy53

Zanotti wrote:

I have to ask if he would really need an macro (or 1:1 image size) or just a good lens that will focus closely.

For the size items he has proposed at 50mm f1.4 would do extermely well, be lighter, smaller and give good DOF. I even think the fantistic plastic 50mm f 1.8 would do well here.

I get confused sometimes between just close up images of flowers and true marco of the type Lord V produces.

This true macro is highly specialized, both in image DOF post processing and lighting.

A more typically closely focused lens coupled with an off shoe flash will make pretty specatcular photos of objects as large a full flowers.

Any agreement?

A "genuine" macro (original definition) for full-frame 35mm photography would completely fill the frame with an image of 24mm x 36mm, or a 1:1 magnification (also sometimes called 1x).

A "Marketing" macro is an image that produces a 4" x 6" "print" image which displays objects of 1:1 magnification, measured on the print.

A newer use for the term "macro" includes an "equivalency" pertaining to even smaller imagers, as in a 1.6 (or 1.5) crop camera recording an image of an object 24mm tall which just fits the vertical frame of the imager.

Obviously, you need to know the context of the term "macro" before you know which definition to apply.

"Close Focus" is even more nebulous in definition.

So what lens (or accessory etc.) is appropriate to what subject? It should be obvious that it depends greatly on the size of the subject, and the intended use of the image.

BTW, a U.S. quarter is almost exactly 24mm in diameter, so you can use a quarter as a measure of size in the frame of the camera. If the quarter fills the vertical frame, you have achieved a 1:1 magnification (or equivalent).

ziggy53

Zanotti

ziggy53 wrote:

A "genuine" macro (original definition) for full-frame 35mm photography would completely fill the frame with an image of 24mm x 36mm, or a 1:1 magnification (also sometimes called 1x).

A "Marketing" macro is an image that produces a 4" x 6" "print" image which displays objects of 1:1 magnification, measured on the print.

A newer use for the term "macro" includes an "equivalency" pertaining to even smaller imagers, as in a 1.6 (or 1.5) crop camera recording an image of an object 24mm tall which just fits the vertical frame of the imager.

Obviously, you need to know the context of the term "macro" before you know which definition to apply.

"Close Focus" is even more nebulous in definition.

So what lens (or accessory etc.) is appropriate to what subject? It should be obvious that it depends greatly on the size of the subject, and the intended use of the image.

BTW, a U.S. quarter is almost exactly 24mm in diameter, so you can use a quarter as a measure of size in the frame of the camera. If the quarter fills the vertical frame, you have achieved a 1:1 magnification (or equivalent).

ziggy53

So is that agreement or disagreement?

Joemess

Zanotti wrote:

I have to ask if he would really need an macro (or 1:1 image size) or just a good lens that will focus closely.

For the size items he has proposed at 50mm f1.4 would do extermely well, be lighter, smaller and give good DOF. I even think the fantistic plastic 50mm f 1.8 would do well here.

I get confused sometimes between just close up images of flowers and true marco of the type Lord V produces.

This true macro is highly specialized, both in image DOF post processing and lighting.

A more typically closely focused lens coupled with an off shoe flash will make pretty specatcular photos of objects as large a full flowers.

Any agreement?

Great answers guys, you have given me a lot to chew on and think about. To answer the above reply directly, I have considered the lens size you mentioned, but want to go macro as I do on occasion find myself in a position that a dedicated macro would be an asset. (such as a unique insect, a distinct floral characteristic, etc...) I have been able to take "fairly" good shots up till now but would like this added arrow in my quiver so to speak.


One thing I may need to mention about how my field work goes, lights are often out of the question as we are loaded down with gear / books / specimens in presses and for the most part large flashes and such would be in the way or apt to be damaged. However, I think I may be on the lookout for something that may work if the need arises. So, that means I am pretty much reliant on the sun if outside. When I am in my greenhouse taking shots of orchids, a light would be a possibility.


Like I mentioned, you guys have really helped me greatly and I think I have a bit of reading to do before I make a purchase....



Waiting on spring,
Andrew

GraphyFotoz

I'm quite happy with my Sigma EX DG f2.8 105mm Macro.
I hear it's a nice Portrait lens when needed also!

BigAl

Joemess wrote:

One thing I may need to mention about how my field work goes, lights are often out of the question as we are loaded down with gear / books / specimens in presses and for the most part large flashes and such would be in the way or apt to be damaged. However, I think I may be on the lookout for something that may work if the need arises. So, that means I am pretty much reliant on the sun if outside. When I am in my greenhouse taking shots of orchids, a light would be a possibility.

You may want to check out this thread on POTN:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=142566

It shows what some really serious macro photogs use for macro work, and one thing that comes through strongly is that all rely on flash to get decent DoF. If you want pics that show good biological detail, you're going to have to include a flash as part of your equipment.

DoctorIt

Hey Andrew, welcome to the club

One thing no one has considered for you is size. You mention you're working in the field, and most of your subjects are plants. Since most plants are fairly cooperative subjects, you don't need a nice long and easy working distance, you can get right in close without scaring it away.

I'd go with one of the shorter macro lenses, less to lug around, every bit as good.

mikeb380

DoctorIt wrote:

Hey Andrew, welcome to the club

One thing no one has considered for you is size. You mention you're working in the field, and most of your subjects are plants. Since most plants are fairly cooperative subjects, you don't need a nice long and easy working distance, you can get right in close without scaring it away.

I'd go with one of the shorter macro lenses, less to lug around, every bit as good.

Andrew, I won't pretend to be an expert in the field of macro work but I have done many plants/flowers. The lens I use is a sigma zoom 28-80mm f3.5-5.6 II macro and I've captured a lot of flowers with it. I have yet to need a flash outdoors and have been as close as 9" from the subject. My depth of field (DOF) ranges from non-existant to a whole day lily almost perpendicular to the lens plane. I have a macro I shot of a bee on a lily and blew it up to the point that the bee is about 10 times life size and I can count every hair on it's body and every vein in it's wings. I was about a foot from the bee when I shot it and the whole flower is in focus. I don't think you need flash unless you are going out on very overcast days or late evening. If you do go for a flash, I'd go with a ring light which fits around the lens and isn't bulky to carry about with you. You could even leave it on the lens when not being used or shove it in a jacket pocket.

I think I have the bee macro on my web site listed below as well as some other plants both near and far, almost all shot with the Sigma. Oh, yeah, I paid $50.00 for it new on ebay and that included shipping. I liked it so well I got another for my daughter and that is her only lens. I think both the lens and ring light would fit in your budget and leave some over for filters, etc. I'm not a gear head and don't believe it has to be expensive to be good. I try to get the least expensive which will do the job I need. I've bought a bunch of Russian 35mm and 2 1/4 lenses which I use on the 300D with adapters. An 80mm lens for a 6x6 camera will yield a 180mm used on your digital and cost ( new ) anout $50.00.

Well, I don't want to write another book here. Good luck to you and Happy New Year to all.

cheers
Michael

http://www.gallerie-fotographique.org/
Look in Botanica section of gallery

Red Bull

^Keep in mind that the Sigma lens you have is not a true 1:1 macro lens. I've used those types of lenses before, and then I got my 100mm macro. From what I've shot so far, a flash really is a necessity to get a good amount of the subject in focus. I've tried using 2.8, and it gets a very small amount in focus. Heck, even at f/8 it's hard to get enough in focus. True macro lenses are not like the cheap zoom ones.