Some General Macro Questions

[luckyscooter]

I've just started taking (or attempting to take) macro pictures. I have a canon macro 100mm lens. I've run into a couple of questions.

First, I've gotten mixed feedback on putting a UV filter on the lens. I've always thought using a filter was a no-brainer to protect the lens, but a few people have told me it's not ideal to use a UV filter on a macro lens. They weren't clear on why. Thoughts? After spending the bucks on the lens, I would really prefer to protect it from scratches, etc.

Second, does anyone have a good suggestion of a macro how-to book? I'm discovering that using a macro lens is very different than any of my other lenses, and I'm looking for a good reference to use while learning. I checked out a local bookstore, but it only had one book specifically on macro photography and it didn't look very helpful. Along those lines, if you have any general suggestions when it comes to exposure, focusing, etc, I'm all ears!


Thanks!

[crunch]

There are two schools of thought regarding UV filters in general. One says YAY (for protection) and the other says NAY (for image quality). I mean, do you really want to spend hundreds of dollars on quality glass and then put cheap filters in front?

The way I see it, if I'm doing any kind of general photography, I'll not use any UV filters at all, as they serve no purpose other than to degrade image quaility. However, if I'm on a windy beach with salt spray everywhere, I'm happy to use the UV filter as I don't mind wiping it clean on my t-shirt, whereas I'd prefer not to get my L lenses full of spray (at least on the glass front element).

My gut feel is, if you're clumsy then don't get a cheap plastic DSLR, get a metal body. Also, I've seen it where a dropped camera's UV filter splinters and scratches a lens (it was a 70-200 f/2.8, quite sad!!). Rather get a lens hood, it will offer similar if not better "dirty finger" protection, and unlike a UV filter, a hood is BETTER for image quality, not worse.

[wulf]

Only the same advice as aways - take a series of pictures and test it out. For example, try with and without your UV filter (on an otherwise identical set up). Can you see a difference? If the UV filter degrades the image, you have to decide if you can live with that (I've never got round to using one myself).

Likewise for learning to shoot macro. I think the main challenge is the narrow depth of field or, if you stop the aperture down to avoid that, lack of light. Set up some test subjects (probably static, indoor things with controlled lighting) and take some test shots, experimenting with the settings. A ruler is a good choice as it makes depth of field issues very obvious.

Wulf

[MonstarPink]

I'll add a question, not really macro related, but since we're talking about filters here - isn't there just a glass protector that looks like a filter but serves no other purpose than protection of the lense? Do they degrade images as well?

[crunch]

Originally Posted by MonstarPink

I'll add a question, not really macro related, but since we're talking about filters here - isn't there just a glass protector that looks like a filter but serves no other purpose than protection of the lense? Do they degrade images as well?

Yes, they do degrade quality. Think about it- the lens manufacturers spend thousands and thousands doing R&D to create the best lenses for a given price... Then you go and slap a cheap piece of glass in front. Even if it is "good quality" optical glass, it will still affect the light in some way, which means that all the R&D to minimise chromatic and spherical abberations (and other abberations) and maximise contrast and colour and sharpness is basically going to waste.

[wulf]

People often use a UV filter for protection. A decent one should have minimal effect on image quality - manufacturers spend money on researching those, too!

Wulf

[Ginger Pixie]

I only started in November, so I'm not the most experienced, but I thought I could share a couple of things that might help...

Think really carefully about composition before focusing. If you crop afterwards to get the composition spot on, the bit in focus can sometimes not be where you would want it to be. Having an idea of the exact spot that will be pin sharp and focusing on it helps - I thought I had a good shot loads of times, until realising that what had looked pin sharp through my view finder was a smidge out, leaving a photo without any area in really sharp focus, meaning more food for my recycle bin.

There is nowhere to hide with macro, the tiniest movement means no focus - so use a tripod unless you have an incredibly stable hand. Try shooting static subjects first for the same reason (I had great fun with oil and water, and water on a cd, as well as flowers - they are in my photostream if you want a peek)

Rather than spend out on a book, why not search for macro on flickr, and then examine the exif data and/or ask the photographer of the shots you like how they achieved it if the exif doesn't answer your question?

There are some amazing macro shots out there. Good luck!