Will a 1:1 macro get closer than this?

[burstintoflame81]

I am wanting to get into macro photography. I am thinking of selling my 85mm f1.8 to get a 1:1 macro. This pic was taken with my 85mm with a 250d closeup lens. This is a crap pic, I just was in a hurry to show an example. I have never used a 1:1 macro, would you consider this pic more of a 2:1 ? Thanks.

 

[Overread]

Take a photo of a rule at max magnification you can get with the ruler running length ways through the frame (ie along the longest side). Then count the number of mm that the image captures.
Take this number and divide the longside of the camera sensor width by that number and you get the macro ratio.

eg a 1:1 would give an answer of around 1
a 2:1 would give an answer of around 2 and so on.


is your camera fullframe or crop sensor?

 

[burstintoflame81]

My camera is crop sensor Canon T1i. That pic was taken as close as I could get while still being able to focus.

Do you think you could get a more closeup, more detailed image of a standard sized pencil using a Macro 1:1 lens? I guess that would answer my question more than knowing the actual mathematics behind it. ( Although I do appreciate the explanation of it )

 

[djacobox372]

That's about 1:1, however the image quality is pretty bad--likely due to using a closeup filter instead of extension tubes or a true macro lens.

 

[Overread]

It's rather late for me to put together a proper thread - so for now I'll give you some examples of macro shots on a coin to give you an idea.

its a 2p coin from the UK (though I know that probably just confuses a bit more for you)
At 1:1 that is true macro and what most of the current line of prime macro lenses achive at their most:

f8 at 1 times on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

2:1 - double life size

f8 at 2 times on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

3:1 - three times life size.

f8 at 3 times on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

 

[Overread]

That's about 1:1, however the image quality is pretty bad--likely due to using a closeup filter instead of extension tubes or a true macro lens.

It might be and might not be. Its a 250D which I take to be the canon diopter (correct name for a close up/macro filter) for the powershot camera series. The 500D from canon gets good ratings and the 250D should be fairly decent I would expect.
The image quality could be any number of factors including using the wrong aperture and lighting setups.

 

[RalphP13]

I don't know if this will help you, but this is a standard size pencil taken with a 1:1 macro lens (105 mm macro).
I focused as close as possible on a crop sensor (Nikon D90).

This image was resized but not cropped.

This is the same picture.
This image was not resized, just cropped.

Hope this helps.


Ralph

 

[burstintoflame81]

Thanks for all of the examples guys.

As for image quality, I clearly stated that it was a crap pic. I shot it on my desk with a little flashlight I had laying near by. I mainly was making reference to the distance. I wasn't trying to get the lighting right or get some fancy blur. I was just snapping a quick pic to get it online as quick as possible.

Also, yes it is a 250D canon diopter/closeup lense. It is the same as the 500d except I believe this has 2 elements compared to the 500D which only has one. The 250D is made for 30 to 135mm and the 500D is made for 70-300mm.

The whole reason I started this thread, is that I have people lined up on craigslist wanting my 85mm so I am trying to figure if its better to get rid of that and get like a Tokina 100mm 1:1 macro when I could have the portrait lens and also a macro using the closeup lens and have the best of both worlds.

 

[burstintoflame81]

Another question, since we are on the topic, if I kept the 85mm with closeup lens, can I attach a ring flash to that? Do ring flashes attach like a filter or do they clamp onto the end of the lens?

 

[JimmyO]

Before going for a new lens try extension tubes, they wont effect image quality like a filter will

 

[Ron Evers]

Tooth pics using extension tubes & a 55mm lens on G1. (x2 crop factor)

 

[burstintoflame81]

Wow, maybe I should pick up some extension tubes then. What length did you use on the toothpicks? I know Kenko makes a set of three for like $150. Maybe I will pick them up this week.

 

[Ron Evers]

Wow, maybe I should pick up some extension tubes then. What length did you use on the toothpicks? I know Kenko makes a set of three for like $150. Maybe I will pick them up this week.

I do not remember what combination of tubes I used for the first shot but I used all three (68mm) for the second.

Here is a fig:

 

[Dwig]

...It is the same as the 500d except I believe this has 2 elements compared to the 500D which only has one....

Incorrect. Both of the "D" lenses are dual element lenses. The single element offering is the "500". The number on Canon's closeup lenses is their focal length in mm.

250D: 250mm focal length = +4 diopters, dual element.
500D: 500mm focal length = +2 diopters, dual element.
500: 500mm focal length = +2 diopters, single element.

 

[Overread]

Before going for a new lens try extension tubes, they wont effect image quality like a filter will

Ahh but tubes do affect the image quality - the lens is being moved away from its optimal position and thus the light is not hitting the sensor in the same way. The effct is very tiny overall for most uses of tubes (or bellows) and the lack of glass means that a cheap set of tubes will give the same level of image quality as a more expensive set.*
However macro filters (correct name diopter lenses) are not all cut from the same glass - many are the ultra cheap sorts that you see on ebay and many of these do have the problem of being very cheap in production and thus poor image quality is a result. There are some on the market that are good - the canon 500D I have heard good things of and the Raynox series of macro diopters comes very highly rated
(if you don't belive me have a look at this lens test here done by JohnHallmen who does a lot of high magnification work with many different setups: My thoughts on MP-E 65mm on Flickr - Photo Sharing! where a Raynox in combination wth another lens manages to beat the canon MPE65mm macro when working at 5 times life size macro)

Another important thing to consider is that if you start working beyond 1:1 macro the effect of diffraction becomes far more noticable and often people will combine diopters, macro lenses and tubes to get into the higher magnifications and get a softer shot and thus blame the diopters. The truth is that diffraction becomes far more critical and even good old f8 ends up as a soft aperture to work with:
MPE 65mm test shot series - a set on Flickr
That test there should give you an idea of how the diffraction effect starts to affect image quality)


*however a set of Kenko AF tubes is the cheapest you want to go. Canon and Nikon tubes are way overpriced for what you get, whilst the ultra cheap tubes on the market (around $/£5) have no electrical contacts and thus you cannot control the aperture of the attached lens - a big problem as you need aperture control really for most macro work.


A Raynox DCR250 (+8 diopter) is an option I will suggest and should be cheaper than a set of extension tubes. I'm not playing down how good tubes are and for shorter focal length lenses they do work very well - however I have far and away become more of a fan of (good quality) clip on diopters because they can be attached and removed in the field with ease - whilst tubes take time to attach and remove.
The other bonus is that diopters work better with longer focal length lenses whilst tubes work better with shorter focal length lenses. That is the general rule I am now aware of, though I do not know the maths behind it. Suffice to say that a diopter might be a better longer term investment as you are more likley to use a longer (eg 100mm or more) focal length macro lens over a shorter one - especaily if you want to get into insect photography.


So you have two choices really - you can go for another macro addon that will get you more macro with your current lens and should carry through to be good fun with a macro lens that you get at a later date - or you can sell your 85mm and put the money toward a macro lens.

I would say that its not a simple choice - you have to consider that your 85mm will most likey have better and faster AF than the macro lens and that macro lenses tend to be slightly poorer at long range and a little bit more tricky to work with. This is because whilst they have an unltra fine focus for close up their long range is very rough in comparison - a tiny turn of the focus wheel will move the focus a long way and with DSLRs not as easy to focus on manually you might find it a tricky thing to learn to focus the macro lens for portrait work

However it all depends on what your needs are - macro lenses are used very well in portrait work so its certainly not an impossible area to use it in and they do work far better in macro than most other options.