Help!!! Is my lens crap, or is it my technique?

[Bend The Light]

To me, those pics still look like garbage. The detail I would expect just isn't there. And forget trying to trim the pic, the detail just gets worse.

Here's a great thread from another forum on macro setups and technique:
Macrophotography by LordV - Canon Digital Photography Forums

Lord V (Brian Valentine) is also a contact on my Flickr, so you could have a look there and make a contact with him and see his work. He does sometimes use an MPE 65 macro lens, though, which gives magnificant magnification!

Another guy to look up is Thomas Shahan...again on my Flickr as one of my contacts. He is a phenominal macro photographer and uses mainly basic, cheap, and homemade kit. He's just been published in National Geographic, too.

Above all, there is more often than not someone doing much better macro than you or me. Don't get disheartened when you see their images...note that they have been doing it a while and have perfected their craft, often with worse equipment than you.

 

[Majeed Badizadegan]

If only I had found this thread earlier, like when you first posted it....

I was going to say something along the lines of "I know this sounds stupid, but are you using any sort of timer on your shutter?"

Apparently camera shake was the culprit, which makes a lot of sense when you are shooting a tiny subject at long exposures. ZERO room for error.

Well, glad you figured it out!

Cheers

 

[Edsport]

For macro a remote shutter release is a good tool to have...
Get one for less than 10 bucks with free shipping. Canon RC-1 Remote Controller for EOS 500D 450D 400D 7D | eBay

I see one here in the list for $6.50... remote 7d | eBay

 

[FlightIsPossible]

Rotanimod, that certainly would NOT have been a stupid question lol. I was just stupid for not knowing even the basics.

I could have read any book, or any post on this forum relating to Macro and I would have found the answer. Mainly why I didn't read anything specifically about Macro photography was because I bought the lens while I was on vacation. I was trying to take close-up shots, with no tripod or flash. I just figured that macro wasn't that different than non-macro. So obviously my pics were going to be blurry. When I got home I used my tripod and they were still blurry, and thats when I feared that I may have gotten a bad lens. Now that I have read the articles that you guys provided links to, and listened to your advice and suggestions it all makes perfect sense now. Wasn't using a timed shutter or remote button. Not enough light, slow shutter... just plain poor technique all-around. The story of my life... try first, ask later.

Once again I just wanna say "thanks" for all the help, especially because it was such a basic and ridiculous question that was easily answered with the most basic of knowledge. I appreciate it.

 

[FlightIsPossible]

Thanks for the suggestions Edsport, i will certainly be picking one of those up. Does the 7D have a built in "receiver" that detects the signal from the remote, or do you have to hook something up to the camera also? Doesn't really matter, I am just curious. I did a quick search for the answer on google and all the articles were relating to "wireless flash"

 

[Edsport]

You don't need to buy a receiver for the remote...

 

[bazooka]

Macro isn't completely different from non-macro photography. You still have to stabilize the camera, control DoF, and/or pay attention to shutter speed and/or use flash to get the sharpest shots. It's just that because macro is magnified so much (similar to using a long telephoto), you have to take extra care. Using the above suggestions will go toward making ANY type of shot sharper.

 

[Destin]

Thanks... I was using a tripod tho. I assumed I could use a slower shutter speed since nothing was moving. I am a newb tho and have no clue... just trying to work of my own logic at this point

Yes, you can have a slower shutter if it's static...so shut down the aperture EVEN smaller (higer f number) to get more DoF. Use LiveView to see what you're doing as the viewfinder will be dim.

Shooting macro, you really have to have your camera STEADY to get sharp photos at long shutter speeds, and there better not be a slight breeze that moves the subject even slightly. This is why most photogs who specialize in macro photography rely so heavily on their flash rigs.. the flash gives good light AND freezes the subject.

What kind of tripod do you have? a $100 tripod isn't gonna cut it for macro. You need a rock solid professional tripod if you're trying long shutter speeds on macro. And even then you really need a remote/cable release, AND to use mirror lock up as to prevent camera shake from your hand on the camera, or from the mirror slap. Yes, the mirror moving inside the camera can shake it enough to give soft photos, especially in macro work.

 

[Buckster]

When I first got my macro lens (a Sigma 180mm), I set up a ruler on a slant going up straight away form the lens, focussed on the middle of it, and shot one exposure at each f stop. Then I looked carefully at each shot, and determined that the "sweet spot" of my lens to get the most DOF and the most sharpness with the least fuzziness was at f/22.

F/22 is now my "anchor" f stop for that lens when doing macros with it.

You will find that one of the ingredients most macro shooters have as a part of their macro tool kit is a way to get a lot of light on their subjects, and that was the next thing I had to tackle as well. I wanted to be able to shoot at ISO 100 as much as possible, and at f/22, that means a LOT of light is necessary. I came up with a rig to use two speedlites (details are in the link). It looks like this:

So, my advice is this:

Run a series of test shots to determine your lens' sweet spot. Then work out a way to get more controlled light on your subjects. Use a remote shutter trigger if practical (I do plenty of mine handheld, so it's not practical, but still not a problem).

 

[Buckster]

Thanks... I was using a tripod tho. I assumed I could use a slower shutter speed since nothing was moving. I am a newb tho and have no clue... just trying to work of my own logic at this point

Yes, you can have a slower shutter if it's static...so shut down the aperture EVEN smaller (higer f number) to get more DoF. Use LiveView to see what you're doing as the viewfinder will be dim.

Shooting macro, you really have to have your camera STEADY to get sharp photos at long shutter speeds, and there better not be a slight breeze that moves the subject even slightly.

Hold that thought...

This is why most photogs who specialize in macro photography rely so heavily on their flash rigs.. the flash gives good light AND freezes the subject.

Which is why you don't have to have your camera STEADY to get sharp photos at long shutter speeds, and it doesn't matter if there's a breeze or if the subject moves slightly.

I do this stuff handheld all the time for bugs and whatnot. In breezes, with them moving around, etc. None of that action can affect the stopping power of a flash that freezes them at about 1/30,000th of a second. I don't even have to think about it. The only concerns I have when shooting bugs handheld out in the field is composition and focus, which I achieve with my focus in manual, and physically moving fore and back to get it where I want it.

 

[jackiex_x]

So can I ask a question please? I have been considering this lens also and wonder why are macro lenses normally sold with a larger aperture then? I thought the main reason I needed a macro lens was because my aperture will only go to 4 (ish), in that case is it true that I dont need a new lens for macro?

Excuse me if I seem stupid but im finding this awfully confusing when you're all telling the OP to use a smaller aperture.

 

[Buckster]

So can I ask a question please? I have been considering this lens also and wonder why are macro lenses normally sold with a larger aperture then? I thought the main reason I needed a macro lens was because my aperture will only go to 4 (ish), in that case is it true that I dont need a new lens for macro?

Excuse me if I seem stupid but im finding this awfully confusing when you're all telling the OP to use a smaller aperture.

Macro lenses can be used for lots of things beyond macro. As primes with longer focal lengths, they can also make good portrait lenses, for example (depending on the situation, of course). In that case, you want the ability to use a wider aperture. :thumbup:

F/4 is not going to give enough DOF for very effective macro photography, unless you do a LOT of focus stacking, which limits you to static subjects in very controlled conditions.

 

[xzoup]

Are you using auto focus or manual just out of curiosity

 

[jriepe]

So can I ask a question please? I have been considering this lens also and wonder why are macro lenses normally sold with a larger aperture then? I thought the main reason I needed a macro lens was because my aperture will only go to 4 (ish), in that case is it true that I dont need a new lens for macro?

Excuse me if I seem stupid but im finding this awfully confusing when you're all telling the OP to use a smaller aperture.

A true macro lens has the ability to shoot at the 1:1 ratio which means it will record on sensor the subject's true size. A normal lens will not do that. The question about why macro lenses are fast lenses when a very small aperture is desirable for greater DOF was confusing for me as well until the reason one day dawned on me. Most macro shots are manually focused. When manually focusing you want and need enough light for precise focusing. Since the aperture on a lens stays wide open until the shot is actually taken the faster the lens the brighter the viewfinder. This is my theory and if it is not correct I'm quite sure someone will let me know.

Jerry

 

[Buckster]

So can I ask a question please? I have been considering this lens also and wonder why are macro lenses normally sold with a larger aperture then? I thought the main reason I needed a macro lens was because my aperture will only go to 4 (ish), in that case is it true that I dont need a new lens for macro?

Excuse me if I seem stupid but im finding this awfully confusing when you're all telling the OP to use a smaller aperture.

A true macro lens has the ability to shoot at the 1:1 ratio which means it will record on sensor the subject's true size. A normal lens will not do that. The question about why macro lenses are fast lenses when a very small aperture is desirable for greater DOF was confusing for me as well until the reason one day dawned on me. Most macro shots are manually focused. When manually focusing you want and need enough light for precise focusing. Since the aperture on a lens stays wide open until the shot is actually taken the faster the lens the brighter the viewfinder. This is my theory and if it is not correct I'm quite sure someone will let me know.

Jerry

Yeah, ummm... You're not correct. You get the wide open view in your viewfinder no matter what your f stop, unless you press the DOF preview button most cameras have. It only stops it down when you press the shutter to fire it or when you press the DOF preview button.