Wasted money?

[Liparis]

Hi all, I have a problem getting close and, even more of a serious problem, reproducing colour. My main hobby is Orchids, breeding as well as growing and need to photograph the results. I need pretty accurate colour reproduction so that the results can be posted on appropriate forums to show the improvement, or lack of, from the breeding. I use a Canon 400D and have always been pleased with the results. I always used the standard zoom lens that came with it. To get in close for recording the markings on flowers as well as the colour I used a set of close-up filter that screw on the front and a ring flash. Results were good enough. Two photographs as an example:





I was always pleased with the results, hardly any Photoshopping, just enough to lighten shadow.
Sadly, my 2-year-old pushed my camera off my desk onto the floor landing on the front of the lens; it became useless, twisted to the side and impossible to focus. I spent what cash I had on what I thought would be a superior lens; a Canon EF 35mm - 70 mm zoom with macro. I just can't get anywhere near the same results. I've tried using flash, artificial and natural light and can't get colour reproduction, also I'm disapointed with how close, or should I say lack of closeness with this lens as seen in the following picture:



All the detail is lost, the colour is muddy, the edges of petals and sepals are greyish instead of green. The same flower from last year with my old set-up shows the detail lost with the present lens:



I'm not a great photographer, I just need to be able to show some accuracy in colour and shape of the flowers.
This years flowers I've tried using photoshop to improve the colour and detail but it only makes it worse.
Am I doing something wrong with this lens? am I missing something out? Should I put this lens in my bottom drawer and go replace it with the same zoom lens that came with the camera and go back to my close-up filters (I know, they aren't filters)?
Any help would be appreciated.
Bill.

[sk66]

I don't think it's a good comparison....You definitely need to get closer. Many lenses have a slight color cast to them but it's not a "flaw", just their characteristic. Easily adjustable in post.

[Liparis]

I'm not sure I understand why it's not a good comparrison. The 2010 shot of the Phalaenopsis is taken at the macro setting, I can't get closer, the 2009 shot was taken with a lens that doesn't have a macro setting, nor did I have the macro "filter" on for it, yet the detail, ie the concentric markings around the centre are lost in macro, no amount of post adjusting will bring that back. The colour is wrong and won't adjust in PS either. I've got hundreds of different pictures of different flowers and everyone is wrong with the second lens. The colours are so appalling you really are hard pushed to say it's a colour cast of the lens. Some colours have changed completely.
Thanks for your help anyway, perhaps I'll stick the lens i the bottom drawer and save up for a better one.
Bill.

[sk66]

You should be able to get within a couple of feet and zoomed to 70mm (150mm affective) your "macro" pic should be MUCH tighter....
Unlike some other "macro" lenses there is no "macro range"...it will close focus (1.6ft) at all zoom lengths.
I assume you bought the lens used and maybe it has issues...take it to get looked at. (visual inspection for mold etc)
Before buying another lens, I would do some tests....I wonder if something else with the body might have gotten messed up when it was dropped..

[Liparis]

Thanks, I'll get both checked out. The picture was taken at the closest point with the lens and manually focussed.
I'll have the camera checked out just to make sure although images seem OK with my 80 mm - 200 mm.
Yes, It was a used one, I can't see any mould, dust etc inside, looks perfectly clean, that was the first thing I checked when I bought it.
Thanks again.
Bill.

[Liparis]

P.S. I maybe should add that regular photographs such as Landscapes or portraits of the kids etc don't have the same issue. Perhaps it's only an issue on macro.
Bill.

[daft_biker]

My suggestion would be ditch the zooms and get a 50mm - ideally a macro but a f/1.8 will do. This should improve qualty considerably even if using small apertures.

Next up I'd be considering a tripod if you don't already have one. A focus rail might be handy too, especialy with the close up "filters" on.

Further down the line if you want to go closer extension tubes may be of interest.

[CharlieJ]

Originally Posted by Liparis

Thanks, I'll get both checked out. The picture was taken at the closest point with the lens and manually focussed.
I'll have the camera checked out just to make sure although images seem OK with my 80 mm - 200 mm.
Yes, It was a used one, I can't see any mould, dust etc inside, looks perfectly clean, that was the first thing I checked when I bought it.
Thanks again.
Bill.

Bill,
Have you tried the 80-200mm zoomed to 200mm... on a tripod? The DoF will be longer, but you can use a dark background to make the flowers stand out. While this isn't as good as a new macro lens, your posts suggest you're on a budget - and purchasing a new lens may not be in that budget.
One more question... Were the screw-on macro "filters" broken when your camera was dropped? If not, will they fit your new lens? If not, you might look for a filter adapter (say 52mm-58mm).
I hope these suggestions help!

[i speak in math]

Originally Posted by CharlieJ

Have you tried the 80-200mm zoomed to 200mm... on a tripod? The DoF will be longer, ...

At 200mm and the same distance to subject, your depth of field will be much smaller than at 80mm. That is, the amount of stuff in focus will be less at 200mm.

[daft_biker]

Originally Posted by i speak in math

At 200mm and the same distance to subject, your depth of field will be much smaller than at 80mm. That is, the amount of stuff in focus will be less at 200mm.

Only if you calculate DoF for prints, and probably small prints at that. I don't find changing focal length from 80mm to 200mm does anything useful to the DoF. It'll narrow the AoV but at the same magnification and at the same aperture the DoF will be the same, at a critical level at least.

I find it's best just to use aperture and magnification to calculate DoF for anything approaching macro whether I'm using a 50mm or a 180mm or anything in between.

Depends how you calculate DoF....lets say I got a figure of 1.1mm using just magnification and aperture I might get a figure of 2.2mm if I included focal length and print size in the calculation by using a larger circle of confusion. I'd usually use the lower number so shots hold up to close inspection (i.e. 100% viewing onscreen) but it would depend on what I was using the shots for.

It's a complex topic but moving from 80 to 200mm certainly will not make the DoF "much smaller".