What lens would you suggest for shooting small objects up close

[tatyana-sumakov]

I have been thinking about getting a lens that would take close up pictures what would you suggest

[tatyana-sumakov]

How do you know what size reverse ring to get. I have 58mm lenses

[tatyana-sumakov]

Thank you so much Waddizzle I think I'll stay away from reversing rings for now you make a grate point that's the last thing I want to do is mess up a camera body that cost 300 bucks. So you think a EF-S 60mm macro lens is the best choice.

[Waddizzle]

---

@tatyana-sumakov wrote:
Thank you so much Waddizzle I think I'll stay away from reversing rings for now you make a grate point that's the last thing I want to do is mess up a camera body that cost 300 bucks. So you think a EF-S 60mm macro lens is the best choice.

---

Yes, I would advise the EF-S 60mm, which someone has already suggested. 

Invest in a robust tripod, too.  You will want a tripod with a load capacity that is several times the maximum weight that you expect to put on it.  The same applies for the tripod.  I don't think a carbon fiber tripod is required for shooting macros.  In fact, a heavy set of legs would add stability when the camera/lens is mounted with the weight off-center and off of the vertical axis. 

Also, something to be aware of is that raising the tripod center column will only add to instability.  We would be happy to advise you on a tripod.  I have been to big box stores, and have yet to see a real tripod on the shelves.  Depending upon what sales you can find, expect to spend $150-$300 on a robust tripod/head set up.

[ezpop]

A macro lens is good of course but you probably have to invest hundreds to test it.The lens alone will be more than your $300 camera. Unless you are certain that you will shoot a lot of macro, then you may consider to buy one. 60mm macro is not the only choice. I have 100 macro which allows my to be kept a distance from the tiny subject. I have also a manual focus Nikkor macro lens adapted to my canon cameras. Both works very good.

But what is the risk of putting a $3 reverse ring adapting a kit lens, say 18 55mm to start with. I played with this a lot and I have no problem keeping my lenses and camera sensors clean.

I used close up filters and they are sharp and sometimes create artistic effect.

All devices have their pros and cons. Macro lenses are good but they are not the only choices.

[lawrence]

I agree.    As a macro photography starter with an entry level camera it may not be appropriate to invest too much on lens especially when one lens is going to cost more than the body itself.      My experence told me that once someone enter the world of macro photography, not many of them will completely withdraw themself from it afterwards.    To test yourself if you will establish long term relationship with macro, and if I were you, I might consider filter first, try them out, and then reverse rings.   Filters are merely  magnifying glasses (like our grandma is using to read newspaper). It is okay if you are not too care about the quality and magnification power (of course you can magnify by the filter then some jpg enlargement and cropping). Mind you, the bigger the magnification power of the filter, the worse on the quality of the pic.   Using reverse ring lens is more closer to real macro photography than using filters (but you have to manually control your aperture, since the camera will have lost control of the aperture mechanism of the lens once it is reversed, unless you have another special device attached to it, but that will complicate the case further and I shall not go over that here.).     If you find it interesting enough to make you go deeper, than consider a macro lens.       Cost wise, filter and reverse rings are rather low...and needless to mention about the lens.    Check youtube, you will find a lot of people post videos on macro photography using very entry level camera and a lot of self converted lens to take beautiful macro pictures.    Macro photography is not totally limited by your equipment but your interest and talent.

[TCampbell]

You don't want a reversing ring.  That's why I didn't elaborate on it.  The problem with a reversing ring is that you can't control the lens aperture because the camera electronics are no long connected to the camera body (because the lens is mounted backwards.).

Well.. that is UNLESS you buy the Novoflex Reverse Adapter EOS-RETRO.  That device looks like two rings with a wire between them.  You mount one end to your camera body (and it has the electronic contacts to mate to the body) and you mount the other end to your lens (and it has the electronics to connect to the lens) and the cable connecting the two rings allows the two parts to communicate.  You then attach the "front" of the lens to the ring on the camera body and you now have a reversed lens that can actually be controlled (camera can control aperture).

Sounds great, right?!  

The "catch" is that the thing costs $445.  At that price... you really should probably just buy the EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM because it's a much better and ultimately more versatile solution.

If trying to do this without spending too much money... get the close-up diopters or get the extension tubes.  Those solutions aren't quite as good as owning a true 1:1 scale macro lens... but they're pretty good and they cost a lot less.

[ezpop]

I agreed with Lawrence totally.

In addition, there are a lot of cheap(buy one $10-20) vinatge manual focus lenses out there for reverse ring experiment. You can, of course, control aperture ( select the aperture via the aperture ring) to achieve desire DOF. Expensive gears are not a must for beginners.

I found these links online. It is as easy as ABC.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmtRwPUeenE    (1:10 for manual lenses)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m56ANbj9YpE

Mike Brown also has a video illustarting the use of reverse ring.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVYtgJi2rLc

One may use extension tubes (the ones without electronic contacts) to add to the reverse ring to allow more magnification. The results are beyond your imagination.

[Waddizzle]

"The "catch" is that the thing costs $445.  At that price... you really should probably just buy the EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM because it's a much better and ultimately more versatile solution.

If trying to do this without spending too much money... get the close-up diopters or get the extension tubes.  Those solutions aren't quite as good as owning a true 1:1 scale macro lens... but they're pretty good and they cost a lot less."

One day  I was taking pictures of flowers, and I noticed a dark spot on one of the petals.  It was a tiny winged insect, which I am going to call a flea.  I was instantly hooked.  I wanted to take a better shot, so I could see what it was.

But, I didn't have the right lens to do the job.  I figured I wouldn't take many "macro" shots, so I purchased a set of close-up lenses for about the price of a pizza. 

That was taken from a tripod with a T5, the 18-55mm kit lens on AF, and a 4X closeup lens.  This was a pretty small rose.  It could not have been much more than 1.5 inches in diameter.  Look at the chain link fence in the background to get some idea of the scale.