MACRO for CANON 70D

[mauriciocayo]

Hello, please I have a new Canon 70D and i am a semiprofessional hobby user.

COuld you please recommend me a Macro lens to buy? Dont want the most expensive/professional one but have super ideas to create great close photos of insects and flowers.

Thanks!

[TCampbell · Accepted solution]

I don't have a "link" but I can probably explain it well enough.

If something is 1:1 scale (meaning full scale) what it really means is the size of the image as recorded on the sensor itself is the same size as the subject in real life.

To give you a real-world example, a US penny has a diameter of about 19mm.  The sensor dimensions on your 70D are about  15mm tall by 22.5mm wide.  

This means if you took a photo of a US penny at the 1:1 scale size, then the penny would just *barely* fit in the horizontal direction, but would fit in the vertical dimension (a bit of the penny would be cropped).

If the lens was only capable of 1:2 scale (half size), then the penny would would appear smaller.

There's no strict definition of "macro" but purists would generally not regard a lens as being a "true" macro lens unless it could handle 1:1 scale.  There are many general purposes telephoto zoom lenses which have macro range (a claim asserted by the marketing department).  That close-up range generally allows a maximum size of perhaps 1:4 scale (and sometimes not even that large.)

There is a whole world of close-up photography techniques and many techniques don't use a macro lens.  

Macro lenses typically tend to have particularly high detail resolving capability.  

[Skirball]

Any of the Canon macro lenses are fantastic.  It depends on your budget, and use.  The main macro lenses are the 60mm, 100mm, 100mm L, 180 mm, and the MP-E 65.  All the first 4 provide a 1:1 magnification, so they can all get you essentially the same image, it’s just a matter of how far from your subject you want to be.  In my opinion the 100mm length is a nice mid-ground focal length, but others prefer the wider 60mm, and some like the 180mm to be as far as possible from their subjects.  The 100mm L comes with image stabilization, which is nice, but the lens is considerably more expensive than the 100mm "non-L".  The L of course has better optical performance, but the quality of the non-L is so good it’s arguable whether or not you’re going to see a difference.

The MP-E 65 is a different beast entirely and capable of serious magnification (5X).  But as the saying goes: if you have to ask, you’re not ready for it.  Get one of the others first.

[TCampbell]

There's also the EF 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro -- but the catch with that lens is it's a 1/2 scale macro (not a 1/1 scale like most other macros).  To bring it to 1/1 scale, you have to add the Canon Life-Size Converter EF.

The Compact macro will be the lowest price, but by the time you add the life-size converter it ends up costing more than just buying the EF-S 60mm macro (which is an excellent lens.)

I no longer own a crop-frame body, so I ultimately gave my copy of the EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM to a niece.  But I was always extremely happy with the performance of that lens.

Keep in mind that macro photography tends to involve close focusing distances and very very narrow depth of field.  A longer focal length macro will give you a bit more wiggle room in terms of your working distance to subject (especially if the subject is camera shy and may run away while you're trying to photograph it.)  Light may be a challenge in close working distances as you may be so close that your camera may be casting a shadow on the subject.

Macro photography may involve or at least benefit from learning to do focus stacking (because of the extremely shallow depth of field that it often has.)  Also... the TINIEST body movement after the camera locked focus can completely throw your subject out of focus.  A tripod is practically mandatory equipment for macro work.

There are other ways to do close up photography... close-up diopters are one.  Extension tubes are another.  There are even those who attach a lens "backwards" onto the camera (but that usually implies loss of lens control.)  There are also macro bellows.  You tend to lose lens function control with bellows unless the bellows include electronic cables to allow the camera and lens to maintiain communication even though there's a bellows between the two (and there are companies that make such things.)

A true dedicated macro lens tends to yield the best results.

[mauriciocayo]

Thanks so much for your help'.

I am very new understanding the Macro technology.

Have some link to understand what is the 1/1 and 1/2 scales?

Why does the 50mm require a converter?

Thanks!

[TCampbell · Accepted solution]

I don't have a "link" but I can probably explain it well enough.

If something is 1:1 scale (meaning full scale) what it really means is the size of the image as recorded on the sensor itself is the same size as the subject in real life.

To give you a real-world example, a US penny has a diameter of about 19mm.  The sensor dimensions on your 70D are about  15mm tall by 22.5mm wide.  

This means if you took a photo of a US penny at the 1:1 scale size, then the penny would just *barely* fit in the horizontal direction, but would fit in the vertical dimension (a bit of the penny would be cropped).

If the lens was only capable of 1:2 scale (half size), then the penny would would appear smaller.

There's no strict definition of "macro" but purists would generally not regard a lens as being a "true" macro lens unless it could handle 1:1 scale.  There are many general purposes telephoto zoom lenses which have macro range (a claim asserted by the marketing department).  That close-up range generally allows a maximum size of perhaps 1:4 scale (and sometimes not even that large.)

There is a whole world of close-up photography techniques and many techniques don't use a macro lens.  

Macro lenses typically tend to have particularly high detail resolving capability.  

[mauriciocayo]

awesome explanation!

Which techniques come in your mind to do a very close up photo without the exactly Macro lens? But impacting quality.

[mauriciocayo]

i've read some more in internet and i almost taking my decision between 100mm f2.8USM or 60mm f2.8 USM.
What about the 100mm f2.8USM, Also the camera comes with a 18-135mm STM.
An in some months i will go for a eleobjective 55-250mm STM.
What do you fell? Wanna begin tomorrow with the macro and camera.

[mauriciocayo]

But 60mm ist quite easy to handel....

Having already a 18-135mm and then a 55-250mm, wont be better a 60mm MAcro than a 100mm? Or it does have any relationship with the Teleobjective?

Thanks again

[ScottyP · Accepted solution]

Do you want to consider the best lens for macro, or do you also want to consider what additional, non-macro use you might squeeze out of it?

I think the 100mm length would be more ideal when actually shooting macro, because you don't have to have the lens just a few inches from the subject to get 1:1 magnification like you would with a 60mm. Remember the distance from the subject they list is measured from the camera sensor, not from the front of the lens. If you account for the length of the lens, you might be surprised how close the subject must be to the front element of your lens at 60mm.

But on the other hand, you could get double use out of the 60m as a great portrait lens on your 70d too, and even as a somewhat long-ish walk-around lens, whereas 100mm on a 70d would be more of a short telephoto (160mm) when not being used for macro, so it might not be quite as useful for non-macro shooting.

[ScottyP]

Yes. What Skirball said.

The Digital Picture has a great little list of best macros, each being linked to full reviews and actual test chart samples, here: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Canon-Lenses/Canon-Macro-Lens.aspx