Macro equipment

Staaan · Jan 24, 2011

Hey all..

I am brand spanking new to this forum.. and D-SLR photography.

I say new to D-SLR, because I do own a Canon Powershot 780IS, which is a tiny P&S...

What brings me to photography - My other hobby of keeping a Coral Reef Aquarium.

I am a poor college student and just like "reefing", photography and low income doesn't seem to co-exist very well.. but I am trying to make-do with what I can.

My father surprised me with quite an early birthday present (My birthday is in March) and bought me a Canon EOS Rebel T1i w/ 15-55mm EF-S IS Lens (seems to be the most common kit lens).

My favorite type of photography is macro (hence why I am posting in the macro forum; I do apologize if this is not the appropriate place for my post)

As I've been learning to take pictures with my camera, I am starting to notice that my lens is not really a "macro" lens and does not allow me to get very close-up to take pictures of my corals & fish.

I was speaking to my father and he told me back when he was younger and into photography, he used to use these extensions to achieve macro photography.

So I went on a search and found one at amazon. I would like to post the link, however the system tells me that I am required to have atleast 5+ posts in order to post a link. However the extension is called - "Fotodiox Canon EOS Macro Extension Tube Set Kit for Extreme Close-up, fits Canon EOS 1d,1ds,Mark II, III, IV, 5D, Mark II, 7D, 10D, 20D, 30D, 40D, 50D, 60D, Digital Rebel xt, xti, xs, xsi, t1i, t2i, 300D, 350D, 400D, 450D, 500D, 550D, 1000D" on Amazon.com

I read the reviews on amazon.. and I'm not entirely sure if they are reliable.

Does anyone happen to know if purchasing this extension will allow me to take some better macro shots?

Also, I was contemplating purchasing another lens (which I'm assuming should be a macro lens) after I get comfortable with my current equipment..

With my aforementioned "poorness" (lol), would there be any decent beginner macro lens or better yet "all-around" lens that could be purchased for around $150 - $200?

Another piece of a equipment I was looking to purchase was a protective filter and possibly some other interesting filters to give my photos an interesting effect. I was reading a reef keeping magazine article about macro photography and there was this type of filter that blocked a blue light (450nm wavelength light) a common light used in keeping reef aquariums to bring out coral color. Any way this filter that blocks blue light can help capture coral's luminescence in an interesting way..

Thanks for all tips, comments, advice, etc!

Overread · Jan 24, 2011

Welcome to the site and the macro section

First up I'm not sure about the tubes you found however there are generally 2 kinds of extension tube on the market;

1) Ultra cheap tubes, generally made by a "no name" manufacturer these are ultra cheap, but they lack the electrical contacts in the tubes. This means you can't control your lenses aperture, AF and your metering might suffer as well. As a result they are not recomended as an option - yes they work, but they make things a lot harder

2) Kenko Af tubes, and a few other similar priced brands - easily the most popular and these tubes do have the contact points inside. They are also far more cost effective than canon's own tubes which most consider to be vastly overpriced for what you get (I even know some who own both and think that they might even be built in the same factory).

From there we come to reef photography, something I know nothing about at all - however you might find some people in this thread:
http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/beyond-basics/231925-so-wheres-underwater-photo-thread.html
can offer you some more specific assistance (just pester the thread for some info and such I'm sure most would be only to happy to help).

As for the filters aspect, with digital I would strongly think that you might not need the specific filter you are talking about. Instead if you spend time and learn about custom white balance and shooting in RAW mode you can overcome most global colour shifts in a scene with the camera alone.

Further with filters avoid the ultra cheap - they can cause you far more problems than they will solve and most of the time thin UV filter glass is not going to give you much protection. Good for keeping out sand, salts and other light materials and allowing you to fast clean the front of the lens when in such environments - but not going to stop a stone or anything harder.

Staaan · Jan 24, 2011

Thank you for your response Overread!

I'll check out those Kenko AF tubes..

You were correct about the tubes I mentioned - they are contactless, requiring manual focus.

Your take on filters is interesting...

My main goal with having a filter was really just to have some line of protection that doesn't skew my photos in anyway. As with all my electronics.. I try to be extra careful, buying protective cases, screen protectors, etc.

Overread · Jan 24, 2011

The use of "protection filters" in the DSLR world is full of opinion - there are those who swear by them and other who won't use them at all.

In general the shop assistants selling you a filter are mostly doing it for the high price markup (DSLRs and lenses don't have that large a price mark up compared to accessories). Furthermore back in the yea old days of film you had to use a UV filter on most lenses for most types of film because it was not UV protected - however with more modern Digital (and even film) setups the lenses and even the camera sensor itself has protective UV coatings - so its not until you get to high levels of UV that you actually need the filter (at high altitudes). I mention UV because they are the most common filter used for protection.

Personally I think each person will work out if they need the filter or not - they have to decide how much protection they need (remember it won't save a lens from a fall, stone or hard impact - and with the filter glass so thin it will break and then you've got that sharp glass fallingback and scratching your lenses front element anyway).
However I hold that if/when you use a filter you want to use a good quality multicoated filter from the likes of Hoya, B&W - there is no point buying good optics and then putting poor quality glass infront of it all the time.

Staaan · Jan 24, 2011

I found this lens. Seems to be reasonably priced (in my definition of reasonably) $145.

Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 DG Macro Telephoto Zoom Lens for Canon SLR Cameras

Could anyone recommend a lens or give me their thoughts on this one?

Overread · Jan 24, 2011

For its price point the sigma is a good lens, its the one I started with and it offers quite a lot for the person on a more restricted budget. However I would encourage you (if you decide to go for this lens) to get a copy of the APO edition of this lens. It's newer and the APO coatings make a noticeable difference to the lenses overall sharpness - especailly at the longer 200mm-300mm end of the scale.

The next thing you need to understand is the meaning of the word "macro" itself. Generally speaking true macro is defined as when the lens reflects an image onto the sensor which is the same size as the subject is in real life. So a 5mm object would be reflected as a 5mm image on the camera sensor itself.
Now almost all the prime (single focal length) lenses on the market that have macro in the name are true macro lenses - ie they can achive the true level of magnification. Exceptions include the canon 50mm macro which needs a separate lifesize adaptor to become a true macro lens.

However many zoom lenses also have macro in the title as a marketing move to denote a closer than average focusing setup and to make the lens sound like it is offering far more. Typically these lenses get to around half life size, however some are even weaker still.

To put this into a real world context for you this is roughly a 1:2 macro shot (or 0.5:1 - ie half life size) that the sigma 70-300mm macro would get:

(actually taken on the same sigma lens)

And this is what a true macro lens would get at 1:1 (a sigma as well to show that sigma do make proper macro lenses

)

So if flowers are your thing or flower sized subjects the sigma is a great option; if however you want to get closer still its best to save longer for a true macro lens. Tubes will also get your kit lens to the same true macro magnification - though you will be a lot closer to the subject than with a macro lens

EDIT - as for cheap true macro lenses - Canon EFS 60mm macro is probably going to be about the cheapest you can get. The tamron 90mm is also very popular as a budget macro lens which also gives you more focal length, which means more distance between yourself and the subject, which means less chance of spooking when its an insect. The 90mm is typically the shortest recommended macro lens for beginners, however that is not to say shorter lenses cannot work; they can its just going to be a little harder to get used to it.

Otherwise you can consider some second hand older generation macro gear, however I'm not well versed in these options so I'll leave that field open to others to make suggestions.

Staaan · Jan 24, 2011

I like the 1:1 picture MUCH better! hahaha.

This is great.. thank you again for the info!

In my case... I'll be standing as close as possible to my aquarium (and my friends' aquariums) so I think I'll go the tube route for now.. and save for a true macro lens with a 1:1 ratio.

However for future reference.. which lenses would you recommend that don't completely break the bank? I would say absolute maximum (in my case unfortunately hahaha) $400?

Of course the cheaper the better haha.

Staaan · Jan 24, 2011

*Oh and what is a good price on a Kenko or say Zeikos extension tube?

Some that I've looked up so far seem quite pricey $100+ range.

As compared to the Fotodiox extension tube I found on amazon.com for only $16, however it is does not have autofocus functionality.

Overread · Jan 24, 2011

I'm not good on the US market prices (I'm UK based) - however the Fotodiox extension tube wont' have any contects so it means no auto focus (macro is mostly done manually so not too bad), no aperture control (that is the critical part) and your metering might be a bit iffy as well without camera communication.

In short it gets you the magnification, but you lose aperture control which means you've lost your depth of field control and that becomes a major problem for macro work.