Macro Lens Question!

Scraff

I just bought a Canon Digital Rebel XT with a few lenses and I would really like to buy a few Macro Lenses. I found a kit on Amazon that includes a +1, +2 and +4 Bower lens. Does anyone have any advice for me before I buy?

Thanks....Scott

Shizam

Yes,
Be aware that macro diopter lens attachments will give you a different experience then an actual macro lens. When I first got interested in macro I also figured 'why buy a real macro lens when I can just get diopters'. With the diopters your DoF is VERY VERY thin even at f22, we're talking a couple mm here which means that the only way to get what you want to take a photo of is to use a very steady tripod. Also, you have to get _very_ close to the subject as your range of focus is just a couple inches an inch or so from the front of your lens. Also focusing with these diopters is a PITA especially through the somewhat hard to manually focus rebel viewfinder, I tried doing this on my 20D with a 300mm f4 lens.

If you've already broken your piggy bank to get your current setup and would like to try out macro photography to see what flowers (with no wind) or stationary objects look like REALLY close then this is for you. If you know you're going to be serious into macro photography and want to shoot bugs, better focusing or have more then a few mm of DOF then you may want to consider a real macro lens.

ziggy53

Scraff wrote:

I just bought a Canon Digital Rebel XT with a few lenses and I would really like to buy a few Macro Lenses. I found a kit on Amazon that includes a +1, +2 and +4 Bower lens. Does anyone have any advice for me before I buy?

Thanks....Scott

Scott,

Many times those are simple single element closeup accessory lenses, and the quality is very suspect.

Better quality 2 element lenses, coupled with an appropriate host lens, can give very good quality results. Such lenses include the Canon 250D and 500D lenses.

Extension tubes are another way to increase close focus ability with a standard lens.

The arguably best quality "macro" lenses (1:1 or better) are designed for the purpose of macro photography, and offer some real advantages that the accessory lenses and extension tubes don't provide:

Longer distance from the subject to allow better positioning of an external light source. This is especially true using macro lenses from 100-200mm (or so).

Better edge definition because the lens is designed for the macro distances instead of being adapted for the task.

Generally better light transmission and effective aperture.

Generally better small aperture performance due to more aperture blades, and better shaping at small apertures.

Scraff

Sizam wrote:

Yes,
Be aware that macro diopter lens attachments will give you a different experience then an actual macro lens. When I first got interested in macro I also figured 'why buy a real macro lens when I can just get diopters'. With the diopters your DoF is VERY VERY thin even at f22, we're talking a couple mm here which means that the only way to get what you want to take a photo of is to use a very steady tripod. Also, you have to get _very_ close to the subject as your range of focus is just a couple inches an inch or so from the front of your lens. Also focusing with these diopters is a PITA especially through the somewhat hard to manually focus rebel viewfinder, I tried doing this on my 20D with a 300mm f4 lens.

If you've already broken your piggy bank to get your current setup and would like to try out macro photography to see what flowers (with no wind) or stationary objects look like REALLY close then this is for you. If you know you're going to be serious into macro photography and want to shoot bugs, better focusing or have more then a few mm of DOF then you may want to consider a real macro lens.

Thanks for the responce....can you suggest any lenses? I don't really want to spend that much becuase not all of my shooting is going to be Macro, but I would like to have decent results when I do shoot them.
Thanks...Scott

USAIR

Scraff wrote:

Thanks for the responce....can you suggest any lenses? I don't really want to spend that much becuase not all of my shooting is going to be Macro, but I would like to have decent results when I do shoot them.
Thanks...Scott

Make sure you also check out extensition tubes also.

Fred

ziggy53

Scraff wrote:

Thanks for the responce....can you suggest any lenses? I don't really want to spend that much becuase not all of my shooting is going to be Macro, but I would like to have decent results when I do shoot them.
Thanks...Scott

Really great information right here:

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

Shizam

Yea if you want decent results you're going to need to buy a dedicated macro lens which then comes down to what focal length do you want. The 150mm-180mm range is really for those who want to shoot pretty much just bugs I say because its a real PITA to shoot flowers or other stationary objects since you have to back up so much, plus they're harder to get sharp hand-held shots (not to mention pricy). The ~100mm range (90-105) seems perfect to me plus the lens can double as very nice portrait lens. The 50-60mm lenses have too short a working distance I think because if you're going to be so close you're likely to cast a shadow on the subject or it makes flash work difficult. Also, USM/HSM is very not necessary which can save you some $$. Extension rings can work better then diopters but you still run into similar problems of focal length, focusing, sharpness and shallow DOF.
These are all my feelings on the subject having owned a 50mm, 100mm, 150mm and 180mm (not all at the same time, heh) and tried diaopters and extention tubes at one time or another.

Scraff

ziggy53 wrote:

Scott,

Many times those are simple single element closeup accessory lenses, and the quality is very suspect.

Better quality 2 element lenses, coupled with an appropriate host lens, can give very good quality results. Such lenses include the Canon 250D and 500D lenses.

Extension tubes are another way to increase close focus ability with a standard lens.

The arguably best quality "macro" lenses (1:1 or better) are designed for the purpose of macro photography, and offer some real advantages that the accessory lenses and extension tubes don't provide:

Longer distance from the subject to allow better positioning of an external light source. This is especially true using macro lenses from 100-200mm (or so).

Better edge definition because the lens is designed for the macro distances instead of being adapted for the task.

Generally better light transmission and effective aperture.

Generally better small aperture performance due to more aperture blades, and better shaping at small apertures.

I was reading on the 250D and 500D today after I read your responce and I have some questions maybe you can help me with.
Here are the current lenses that I have:

Canon 18-55mm 1:3.5-5.6 II 58mm
Canon 28-80mm 1:3.5-5.6 II 58mm
Canon 75-300mm 1:4-5.6 III 58mm
Canon 50mm 1:1.8 II 52mm

I was going to order the Canon 500D 58mm Close Up Lens. Will this lens attach to my first 3 lenses and should it give me some decent close up results? Next question, will the 500D allow for greater distance from the subject than the 250D? Is that the major difference?

Last, I am assuming that the 58mm refers to the thread side on the end of the lens for attaching these, correct?

Thank you for your help! Scott

ziggy53

Scraff wrote:

I was reading on the 250D and 500D today after I read your responce and I have some questions maybe you can help me with.
Here are the current lenses that I have:

Canon 18-55mm 1:3.5-5.6 II 58mm
Canon 28-80mm 1:3.5-5.6 II 58mm
Canon 75-300mm 1:4-5.6 III 58mm
Canon 50mm 1:1.8 II 52mm

I was going to order the Canon 500D 58mm Close Up Lens. Will this lens attach to my first 3 lenses and should it give me some decent close up results? Next question, will the 500D allow for greater distance from the subject than the 250D? Is that the major difference?

Last, I am assuming that the 58mm refers to the thread side on the end of the lens for attaching these, correct?

Thank you for your help! Scott

Hi Scott,

Let's start with the last question first:

Yes, the 250D and 500D come in different diameters. If you intend to use them on multiple lenses, you should purchase according to the largest filter size needed, and then use reduction adapters to fit smaller lenses (smaller filter threads.)

These accessory lenses couple in two different ways, physical coupling (which includes mechanical attachment) and optical coupling.

Optical coupling is how well you can expect the accessory lens design characteristics to conform to the host lens. Typically, these lenses work better with prime lenses (fixed focal length) than zoom lenses.

Yes, you are right that the primary difference between the two lenses is the close focus distance. With the host lens set at infinity:

The 250D provides a diopter adjustment to focus at approximately 250mm/9.9"
The 500D provides a diopter adjustment to focus at approximately 500mm/19.7"

Additionally, the 250D is optimized to work best with focal lengths of 50-135mm while the 500D is optimized to work best with focal lengths of 70-300mm.

Scraff

ziggy53 wrote:

Hi Scott,

Let's start with the last question first:

Yes, the 250D and 500D come in different diameters. If you intend to use them on multiple lenses, you should purchase according to the largest filter size needed, and then use reduction adapters to fit smaller lenses (smaller filter threads.)

These accessory lenses couple in two different ways, physical coupling (which includes mechanical attachment) and optical coupling.

Optical coupling is how well you can expect the accessory lens design characteristics to conform to the host lens. Typically, these lenses work better with prime lenses (fixed focal length) than zoom lenses.

Yes, you are right that the primary difference between the two lenses is the close focus distance. With the host lens set at infinity:

The 250D provides a diopter adjustment to focus at approximately 250mm/9.9"
The 500D provides a diopter adjustment to focus at approximately 500mm/19.7"

Additionally, the 250D is optimized to work best with focal lengths of 50-135mm while the 500D is optimized to work best with focal lengths of 70-300mm.

The 9.9" and 19.7", does that refer to how far back from the subject you can go or how far back you need to be to be in focus? What is the closest you can go with each lens?

What lense would you suggest given the list of my current lenses?

One other question, did you ever try out those inexpensive Fish Eye lenses? I see them for about $35.00 and I was wondering, for that price, if I should take a shot and try one.

Thanks for the help! Scott

ziggy53

Scraff wrote:

The 9.9" and 19.7", does that refer to how far back from the subject you can go or how far back you need to be to be in focus? What is the closest you can go with each lens?

...

When fitted with a diopter, close focus accessory lens (like the Canon 250D and 500D), the furthest distance a given lens will focus is the 9.9" for the 250D and 19.7" for the 500D (approximately.)

The closest distance would have to be determined empirically and the closer you try to focus, the more likely you are to have problems with the plane of focus, i.e. the center may be sharp but the edges and corners of the image may loose sharpness rapidly. That relates to the optical coupling of the accessory lens and the host lens.

Scraff wrote:

...
What lense would you suggest given the list of my current lenses?

...

The problem I think you will encounter with all of your current lenses is that the diopter lens will provide a very shallow DOF, requiring a very small aperture to improve the situation. All the lenses you show have relatively inexpensive diaphragms, not really designed for small apertures, so diffraction will be a problem.

Ideally, I would think that a longer prime lens with as many rounded aperture blades as possible would provide demonstrably better results.

Still, the Canon EF 75-300mm, f4-f5.6 with the 500D, working in the 100mm-200mm range, should give pretty nice results at f11 or so. Understand that we are really talking "close focus" and not true "macro" because a true macro provides 1:1 magnification or better.

Scraff wrote:

...

One other question, did you ever try out those inexpensive Fish Eye lenses? I see them for about $35.00 and I was wondering, for that price, if I should take a shot and try one.

Thanks for the help! Scott

There are a lot of "Fisheye" attachment lenses on the market. I would have to know which particular lens you refer to in order to comment, but generally the lower cost "fisheye" accessory lenses are not worth the money, very blurry images.