cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

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

Wayne3
Enthusiast

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!

 

crocus3.JPGbee3.JPG 

32 REPLIES 32

ebiggs1
Legend
Legend

IMHO, none of the lenses you have are worthy for what you are asking them to do.  That's why your photos look the way they do. That is probably the best you can expect with them.

 

You need a true macro lens!

EB
EOS 1DX and 1D Mk IV and less lenses then before!


@Wayne3 wrote:

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!

What camera are you using?

Bob
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania USA

Wayne3
Enthusiast
Rebel T4i

You should get a set of extension tubes. 

John Hoffman
Conway, NH

1D X Mark III, Many lenses, Pixma PRO-100, Pixma TR8620a, LR Classic


@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.  

--------------------------------------------------------
"The right mouse button is your friend."

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

 

Neither are extension tubes. 

EB
EOS 1DX and 1D Mk IV and less lenses then before!

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! Smiley Tongue  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:

 

IMG_0717b.jpg

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!!   Smiley Tongue

 


cheers, TREVOR

"All the variety, all the charm, all the beauty of life is made up of light and shadow", Leo Tolstoy;
"Skill in photography is acquired by practice and not by purchase" Percy W. Harris

"...  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.

EB
EOS 1DX and 1D Mk IV and less lenses then before!


@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.

--------------------------------------------------------
"The right mouse button is your friend."
Announcements