What lens do you use for close ups when you don't have a macro

[Wayne3]

Hi folks!

I've been playing around with photography for close to a year now, almost all of that has been wildlife so the couple of lenses I have bought have been longer focal length.  Ocassionally though, I see a flower or an insect I love. I haven't had bad results just using whatever lens I have on at the time. Below is a crocus taken with the kit lens (Canon 18-55 mm f5.6 ) and a bumblebee (Canon 100-400 mm also a f5.6 the only good piece of glass I have, my third lens is the Canon 55-250mm my camera is an old Canon Rebel T4i). I don't think I am ready to splurge on a macro lens yet. So, if I want to take a close up should I be using the the widest lens I have, does it matter? 

Thanks!

 

[ebiggs1]

Right!

I am just drooling over some of your shots and wishing I had taken it.   Keep'em comin'.

[Waddizzle]

---

@jrhoffman75 wrote:

You should get a set of extension tubes. 

---

I agree with John.  Getting a set of extension tubes is probably the best way to test the waters of macro photography. 

Extension tubes are not expensive.  Just do not buy the least expensive set you can find.  You want the type that allow the camera to still be able to communicate with the lens, so that you can control aperture.....and perhaps, autofocus.

The macro filters and adapters that screw on to the filter threads of a lens are not very good, because they are habitually made form low quality glass.  

[Tronhard]

Ernie did you check out the two photo links to the WWLPY? Those two images of insects taken with reversed kit lenses are amazing...

Looking at them I am suitably humbled.

[ebiggs1]

I did not. I will.  

[ebiggs1]

"The macro filters and adapters that screw on to the filter threads of a lens are not very good, ..."

Neither are extension tubes. 

[Tronhard]

Like most folks here I use macro lenses for close-up imagery, but the question from the OP was what kind of alternative setup would get them close and personal without that investment.  Well, you can't say I'm not prepared to try every option!   After the debate on extension rings I thought I would delve into my rarely-used camera gear box and see if I could get an image from them, something I had not made a serious attempt to do previously.

Just for a lark, and to add to the challenge, I took the much-maligned Canon EF 28-90 f4-5.6 USM lens (circa 1991): while not renowned for its quality of build it did get some kudos for its close-up performance (in fact it did considerably better than the 18-55). To that I added my generic extension (all plastic) tube set (13+21+31mm) but with communication and focus capability.  I attached ALL of the tubes to the lens and the whole thing to my Canon EOS M via the EF adaptor.  There was frankly a wafer thin DoF.

I put the whole assembly on a Gorillapod and went in search of action - using available light.  And then I spotted this tiny wee caterpillar, it was about the thickness of thread... This is the result:

Canon EOS M, EF 28-90mm @ 76mm + 55mm, f/10, 1/25 sec, ISO-160

The flowers are tiny and measure about 1.5cm (about 1/2") across.  The caterpiller is not really thicker than a thread - the back part was WAY out of focus.

To complete the options I might have a shot at using a reversing ring with the same lens or my 18-55 to see if I can get anything like a decent result - you can't get much cheaper than that...   No, I don't expect the fabulous result achieved by the Wildlife Photographer of the Year contributor referenced in my previous post!!  

[ebiggs1]

"...  a wafer thin DoF."

It's not whether extension tubes work or not it is just they are a PITA to use. Plus, it usually means that you are using a lens that has not been designed for macro use. I have a few extension sets myself. I don't use them because a true macro lens is so much better.

Even though sets are cheap, some very cheap, it is money that could be put towards a macro lens.

[Waddizzle]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

"...  a wafer thin DoF."

It's not whether extension tubes work or not it is just they are a PITA to use. Plus, it usually means that you are using a lens that has not been designed for macro use. I have a few extension sets myself. I don't use them because a true macro lens is so much better.

Even though sets are cheap, some very cheap, it is money that could be put towards a macro lens.

---

Extension tubs are a good way to test the waters without shelling big bucks for a true macro lens, though.

[Tronhard]

Well, as indicated, I tried out the reversing ring to see what it was like shooting a 3-D object.  Considering there is not metering and focus is severely limited I didn't expect much.

I used the same EF 28-90 USM lens as before (for consistency).  I could not use the same EOS M with adaptor this time - I guess the adaptor would not tolerate the compromises as the shutter would not release.  So, I used the same EOS 650 (T4i) that the OP was using.

I used it hand-held as there was nowhere to put a tripod on this occasion.  I shot with the LCD display to get the closest exposure setting I could.   In this image I tried to line up as many buds etc. as I could to get more in focus.  There were no caterpillers or bugs today.

Gory details:  Canon EOS 650D (T4i) EF 28-90 USM

So I can say I have experienced pretty much all of the options and these would be my preferences in decending order.

• A true macro lens
• Close focusing telephoto lenses
• A set of extension rings
• A reversing ring

The fellow I mentioned in my first post who got the amazing shots with the reversing ring on an 18-55 kit lens gets further respect from me!!!  The guy is a legend... IMHO

[ebiggs1]

"So I can say I have experienced pretty much all of the options and these would be my preferences in decending order.

• A true macro lens
• Close focusing telephoto lenses
• A set of extension rings
• A reversing ring"

I would be good with assessment.