Macro lenses

[fannyanna]

Hi All,

I am interested in getting myself a macro lens as I enjoy taking pictures of flowers etc (using my kit lens) and think my pictures would be better if they were taken using a macro lens.

I am however completely clueless when it comes to such things and was wondering if anyone has any recommendations.

I have a Canon 400D with two zoom lenses (EF-S 18-55mm lens and EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS). I am a beginner and still take pictures using the automatic settings on my camera. As such I don't want to spend too much money on a lens (up to £250).

Many thanks

Samantha

[OsmosisStudios]

Why do you want a macro lens? Specifically. Having a macro lens wont make your images any better unless there's something specific you're looking to do.

[fannyanna]

I thought you were "supposed" to have one to take decent macro pictures. But if that’s not the case that’s quite handy – saves a good few bob.

What would be the benefit to getting a macro lens?

P.S. Thank you very much for responding to my post.

[OsmosisStudios]

The only allusion you made to macro work was "taking pictures of flowers", which I've been able to do very well with everything from a 10-24 to a 70-300. Macro will let you get closer, but it wont make your photos BETTER.

A macro lens is designed to be used at closer focusing distances (less than 12", usually). They're usually very sharp and have little/no vignetting. They're great IF YOU'RE DOING MACRO. Otherwise they're portrait lenses, and fairly slow ones at that (f/2.8 instead of f/1.4 or so).

Unless you want extreme closeups, I'd suggest learning to best use what you have. If you still want a macro lens, you're gonna have some fun looking for a good one within your budget.

[fannyanna]

Thanks very much for your help. I think I'll stick with what I have.

[inkista]

If you can frame the flowers the way you want and achieve focus, you don't need a macro lens. A macro lens is likely to be sharper than your kit lens, but as Os says, its main virtue is that it lets you get closer to your subject, and frame the way you want to.

There are three cheaper alternatives to getting closer, but all of these will restrict a lens's ability to focus to only focusing at closer distances (i.e., you lose "focus to infinity"), and the combinations may only focus at specific distances from the subject, so you can't choose your framing as freely as with a macro lens.

The first alternative is using a "diopter filter", or a magnifying glass of some kind in front of your lens. The diopter filter is essentially just a magnifying lens that screws onto the front of your lens. You do lose some image quality with the additional glass.

The second alternative is "reversing" a lens--i.e., shooting through a lens backwards. The EF 50mm f/1.8 II (well within your budget) is terrific for this. You can find a ring to reverse mount the lens directly onto the body, or DIY one out of an extra body cap and a filter ring, or just hold the lens up in front of the camera with your hand. You can also reverse onto the front of another lens using a "macro coupling ring" that screws the two lenses together face-to-face by their filter threads.

The third alternative are extension tubes. This basically just holds the lens out in front of your camera body. You can get a good set of extension tubes for much less than a macro lens, and stacking the tubes in different configurations gives you different magnifications. You don't lose any image quality, because you're not adding any light along the optical path. Again, the EF 50mm f/1.8 II is a great cheap lens for this.

The Flickr Poor Man's Macro group has a lot of examples of these techniques, individually and in combination.

[fannyanna]

Thanks for the brilliant information. I will read up on these alternative methods.