Best macro lens for detail nose surgeries images (dark cavities)

[ent63]

I have a problem in my nose surgeries pictures,need detail, I am thinking to buy a macro for my cannon Rebel EOS5, some pics are in a dark field (anatomic structures covering by the skin that I lift and can see ¨underground way¨

[Skirball]

Are you trying to take pics in the nose?  Or of the nose?  Or during surgeries?  I'm not sure how up close and personal you're trying to get.  Macro photography can get close, but it'd probably get in the way of surgery.

Regardless, you need more than a lens.  It sounds like you need a light too.  If you really want a chance at getting good, detailed, well lit photos then a macro setup with lens and ringlight would be your best bet - in the DSLR world.  I don't know, maybe some sort of scope camera is what you need.

I would recommend the Canon 100 EF macro lens.  The non-L version is plenty sharp and runs half the price (about $500).  Then I'd put a macro light on it, like a ring light:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/buy/Macro-Ringlights/ci/649/N/4168864821

Good ones aren't cheap, and cheap ones usually aren't good.  The Canon lights are terrific, if it's in the budget.

[RobertTheFat]

If by "EOS5" he means a T5 or a T5i, he could use the 60mm f/2.8 macro, which is smaller and also quite good.

[Skirball]

---

@RobertTheFat wrote:

If by "EOS5" he means a T5 or a T5i, he could use the 60mm f/2.8 macro, which is smaller and also quite good.

---

Yes, it's a good lens and might be a good call if he's working in tight spaces.  However, the extra distance between lens and subject that the 100mm allows can be extremely helpful if you're trying to get light in there... or scalples, as the case may be.

[ent63]

This are my actual pictures

[ent63]

Thats my problem I can't see clear images of the upper part of the nose,under the skin

[cale_kat]

Are you saying your camera needs a nose job? 🙂 My recommendation would be to combine your macro lens research with a look at ring lights which you will, undoubtably, find very illuminating. (Sorry, couldn't help myself.) 

Have a great weekend!

Linky..http://www.fvlighting.com/store/lighting/led/r300.html?gclid=CjwKEAjwgMieBRCB3bqB94e9lD4SJABW3sTNb-f...

[TCampbell]

I would look into 

(1) Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM

(2) Canon Macro Ring Lite MR-14EX II

The 60mm is going to allow for extremely close focusing.  Canon makes a 100mm and 180mm macro as well... but as you increase the focal length, the depth of field becomes shallower.  This can mean that your focused distance is sharp... but something just a few millimeters closer or farther is out of focus.  Macro photographers compensate by using a tripod, something called a "focus rail" and they take a lot of images ... stepping the camera forward (or backward) a few millimeters at a time... then using software which performs "focus stacking" to create an image showing a much larger focused area that could never be achieved in a single shot.

The 60mm... wont be quite so shallow on the depth of field like the 100 and 180mm.  However you will still probably want to use higher f-stops (even though it's capable of shooting at f/2.8... you'll probably be shooting up around f/16 to f/32 (no kidding).  

The "depth of field" (area of acceptable focus) using a 60mm lens focused to a subject merely 1' away is just about 1" *IF* you shoot at f/32.  

As for the macro ring flash... the Canon MR-14EX II puts the lights about as close to the lens as you can possibly get.  A flash mounted on top of the camera would probably have problems (especially at close focusing distance) as you're trying to lift and see under something and yet a hot-shoe mounted flash is so high that there's a strong possibility it can't shine light into some of the spaces you're trying to photograph.   The MR-14EX II also has a couple of LED focusing lights (small white lights which light up the space when the camera is trying to focus.)

The flash behaves as if it's two flashes... each has a half-circle shape.  You can fire both equally... or fire one stronger (or not fire on side at all).   This allows you to deliberately create some directionality to the light so that you get a bit of shadow.  It's easier to recognize depth and the 3-dimensional shape of a surface when there's some visible shadow on it.

The setup is popular with oral surgeons trying to take images inside the mouth where getting enough light inside is a normally a problem.

If you want to evalute the gear... you might consider renting it to make sure it's working for your needs before you commit to buying.    There are several companies that rent gear -- usually because someone wants a piece of gear for a single project that they're not likely to use again.  But it's also a good way to evaluate gear you're considering for purchase.

[Skirball]

---

@TCampbell wrote:

The 60mm is going to allow for extremely close focusing.  Canon makes a 100mm and 180mm macro as well... but as you increase the focal length, the depth of field becomes shallower.  

---

That's incorrect.  The DoF at 1:1 and same f-stop will be practically the same, independent of focal length.  Technically speaking the 100mm probably has a slightly larger DoF, but it's nothing that you would see in use.

[TCampbell]

---

@Skirball wrote:

---

@TCampbell wrote:

The 60mm is going to allow for extremely close focusing.  Canon makes a 100mm and 180mm macro as well... but as you increase the focal length, the depth of field becomes shallower.  

---

That's incorrect.  The DoF at 1:1 and same f-stop will be practically the same, independent of focal length.  Technically speaking the 100mm probably has a slightly larger DoF, but it's nothing that you would see in use.

---

You're right.  The 60mm will have a bigger depth of field at the same subject distance... but if you move both lenses to their closest focusing distance then they're basically the same.  BTW, the DoF is really thin... .02' at that minimum distance.  The 60mm works out to .03'.  

When I lookup the specs I get a closest focusing distance of .99' with the 100mm and .65' with the 60mm.  These would both be a 1:1 scale magnification (subject size on sensor is the same as subject size in real life.)

But then when I go lookup the true dimensional field of view for those focal lengths at those distance, the 100mm is actually just a tiny bit narrower (meaning the lenses are rounding off to report the 1:1 scale with the 100mm lens being fractionally closer than the 60mm lens... not by much.)  I have to back out the 100mm to a focusing distance of 1.09' to make it identical to the 60mm at .65    

So then... when Iook up the DOF at those closest distances, the 100mm technically has a slightly shallower DOF (but is also giving a fractionally narrower angle of view -- so that makes sense.)  At the 1.09' focusing distance, the angle of view and DoF are identical.

The question really becomes... how small are the structures being photographed, what depth of field is required, and do you want the lens that puts the camera closer to achieve that ... or farther to achieve that.