Suggestions for a macro lens for my dahlia shots
Oct 16, 2015 13:48:31 #
amfoto1
Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA
Those examples you show are nowhere near 1:1 magnification that a true macro lens is capable of doing... In fact, Dahlias are rather larger flowers, so unless you are into photographing small details within the flower itself, you would probably need no more than 1:3 or 1:4 magnification. However, most macro lenses are full 1:1 capable (and you pay extra for it).
Over the years I've used many different macro lenses, but now I use Canon cameras and for most of my macro/close-up work, a half a dozen lenses:
Canon TS-E 45mm f2.8 (Tilt Shift)
Tamron SP 60mm f2.0 (crop-sensor only)
Canon MP-E 65mm (1:1 to 5:1)
Tamron SP 90mm f2.5 (vintage manual focus & aperture)
Canon 100mm f2.8 USM (not the L/IS version)
Canon 180mm f3.5L.
I also sometimes shoot close-ups with:
Canon 24-70mm f2.8L
Canon 70-200mm f4L and f2.8L IS
Canon 300mm f4L IS.
Now, most lenses you might choose for this purpose will give excellent image quality, when used right. So it's more a matter of comparing the other performance factors and features of the lenses, to make a choice.
First, consider focal length. For general purpose I normally recommend a 90 to 105mm lens on either crop sensor (like yours) or full frame camera. For most people this is a good compromise of adequate working distance and hand holdability, useful for both outdoor shooting and for some indoor work. At 1:2 or 1:1 shorter focal lengths put you awfully close to your subject, while longer ones (150mm, 180mm, 200mm) are much more difficult to hold steady and more likely to require a tripod or at least a monopod most of the time. Longer focal lengths also often need to be stopped down to small apertures because they tend to render such shallow depth of field, which in turn forces using higher ISOs, longer shutter speeds, and/or supplemental lighting.
Now, there are times when a longer focal length is important, such as very shy subjects, or those that bite or sting and/or are poisonous! However, I honestly can't recall the last time I was bit by a Dahlia. ;)
There also are times that shorter focal lengths (35mm to 70mm) are very useful. For example, I use several shorter focal lengths for controlled, in-studio work, such as table-top shots of small products. In this case, I want to be closer to the subject so that I can reach out and rearrange the subject while looking through the camera's viewfinder. This is a huge time-saver when you have 200 small products to photograph! I suspect that this is similar to what you need to do, so you might consider shorter focal length than I'd normally recommend. Something in the 50mm to 70mm range:
DO NOT be tempted by the Canon MP-E 65mm Macro lens... it's a specialized, ultra high magnification lens that starts out where most other macro lenses leave off, at 1:1, and goes as high as 5:1 magnification on it's own. You can fill your viewfinder with a single grain of rice, with this lens. It's a neat lens... but way, way more magnification than you need and is rather difficult to work with, doesn't lend itself very much to handheld shooting and is much more likely to need supplemental lighting.
The Canon TS-E 45mm and 90mm Tilt-Shift lenses are not really macro lenses... but are quite close focusing (about 1:3, if I recall correctly) and can be used with macro extension tubes if a bit higher magnification is needed. The Tilt feature of these lenses allow additional control over the plane of focus, which can be very useful for a number of reasons. The Shift can also be helpful for certain things, though I'm not sure what they might be with something like flowers. I sometimes use it with highly reflective surfaces, to avoid a "self-portrait" of myself and the camera in the shot.
The downside to TS-E lenses is that they're manual focus only, rather large and heavy for their focal lengths, plus tend to be rather expensive. And I suspect there will be new versions of the 45mm and 90mm sometime in the not-too-distant future. (Canon revised the 24mm TS-E in 2009 and introduced a 17mm TS-E at the same time, both with improved controls... Meanwhile while the 45mm and 90mm haven't been updated since they were first introduced 24 years ago.) I use the 45mm for close-up work on a crop-sensor camera. With a full frame camera I would use the 90mm instead (but don't presently have that lens).
Besides focal length, there are some other macro lens features to consider. One is auto focus speed. Now, for macro shooting, manual focus is often easier than auto focus. However, especially if you want to use the lens for non-macro purposes or shoot close-ups quickly on the fly, AF can be important. For several reasons, macro lenses are typically slower focusing than standard lenses. One reason is simply that the lens has to move the focusing group a long, long way to go all the way from infinity to 1:1. Also, most macro use a "long throw" focus design, which emphasizes accuracy at some cost to speed. There are a couple things that can help speed this up. One is ultrasonic focus drive: Canon USM, Sigma HSM and Tamron USD. That's faster than typical micro motor focus drive, as well as more accurate. But it's also usually only used on higher end, more expensive lenses. Another benefit of ultrasonic focus drive is that in most cases it can be manually overridden at any time, while micro motor cannot (you need to switch off AF before you can manual focus micro motor lenses). Another feature that can help speed up autofocus is a Focus Limiter. This simply restricts the focus to work within a narrower range, helping it perform better. Some lenses have a Focus Limiter, while others don't. Some Focus Limiters are simple 2-range type, while others are more sophisticated 3-range.
You'll also find image stabilization on some macro lenses: Canon IS, Tamron VC and Sigma OS (also Nikon VR, but those lenses won't fit your camera). This feature is typically found on the more expensive lenses and, frankly, is of very limited assistance at the highest magnifications. Stabilization gives more assistance at lower magnifications, which might be a bit more helpful to you since I suspect you'll rarely be using the highest mags for what you want to shoot.
Another key feature is Internal Focusing (IF). This means the lens doesn't extend when it's focused closer. Because macro lenses focus extra close, some of the non-IF type extend a great deal, as much as doubling in length at their closest focus. The longer lens occupies more of the working space between it and the subject, plus makes the camera & lens a bit less well-balanced. OTOH, IF lenses tend to be a bit larger to start out and also are usually more expensive.... and technically they change focal length a little when focused closer. For example, the Canon 100mm macro lenses both are IF and end up more like "70mm" when focused all the way to 1:1. You don't actually notice this change when shooting, though.
Finally, some lenses either come with or can optionally be fitted with a tripod mounting ring. The longer focal lengths such as 150mm and 180mm usually include the ring. Canon's two 100mm models are the only shorter lenses I'm aware of that can optionally be fitted with a tripod ring. I find this very useful, because a lot of higher magnification shooting is done with a tripod or monopod.
Taking all the above into consideration and for your purposes, I'd suggest you take a close look at:
- Canon EF 50mm f2.5 Compact Macro... It doesn't have USM, isn't IF and only goes to 1:2 on it's own, but it's one of the most affordable. For flower photography, you are unlikely to need the higher magnification or fast autofocus, though... and should have plenty of working space, as well as a controllable setup that lends itself to using a shorter focal length.
- Canon EF-S 60mm f2.8 USM Macro... is a crop-only lens, but that's fine with your crop camera. This also is a reasonably affordable lens. It's 1:1 capable, IF and has USM... so should be a top performer for you.
- Tamron SP 60mm f2 Macro/Portrait... might be more versatile for it's unusually larger aperture, that makes it better for alternate uses such as portraiture. It is also a crop-only lens, and while it's IF, it doesn't have USD. Still, because of it's micro motor focusing it's not much of a "sports/action" lens, but is more than adequate for stationary subjects and portraiture.
- Sigma no longer makes, but you might find their 50mm f2.8 or 70mm f2.8 macro lenses used. I don't believe either is an HSM lenses, haven't used them personally and don't know a lot about them, so do due diligence before buying.
- If you usually have plenty of working room, consider 90mm, 100mm or 105mm. With these lenses, at the magnifications you'll likely to need to use, you will need to back up a bit. That might be a problem if working indoors in tighter spaces.
The Tokina 100/2.8 AT-X Macro is the least expensive of those. That's a micro motor, non-IF lens... it had a 2-range focus limiter.
If you have a larger budget, it's hard to go wrong with either of the Canon 100mm Macro lenses. The L/IS is a lot more expensive, I'm quite satisfied with the non-L/IS model, and put some of the money saved into a tripod ring for it, instead. Both are IF lenses with USM autofocus. The non-L/IS has a 2-range Focus Limiter, while the L/IS has a 3-range. And, again, these are unique among macro lenses around this focal length, in that both can optionally be fitted with a tripod mounting ring.
Tamron offers two modern, excellent SP 90mm Macro models (with autofocus)... the older and less expensive version is non-IF and uses a micro motor for AF, but is very good and well-regarded. The newer and more expensive version is IF, has a Focus Limiter and uses their USD focus drive, plus has VC stabilization.
Sigma has long offered a very well-respected 105mm f2.8 Macro. The current version of this lens is full featured, IF with Focus Limiter, HSM autofocus, plus OS stabilization. There was an earlier version without OS... I'm not sure if it has HSM, is IF or has a Focus limiter.
If the prices of new macro lenses are a bit too much, consider the used market. There are literally millions of excellent macro lenses that have been sold over the years. More recent may have autofocus and some of the other features mentioned above. Older vintage macros also can work great (and many different ones can easily be adapted for use on Canon EOS/EF mount cameras like yours), but due to manual focus and manual aperture, are slower to work with and can be a bit challenging. With those, as you stop down looking for adequate depth of field, your viewfinder will dim, too, making manual focus more challenging.
Finally, you can do macro shooting using ambient light, perhaps with diffusion panels for too strong and contrasty full sun, bounce panels and flags to control fill and other lighting aspects. But you also might want to start learning about macro flash photography. That's another interesting specialization, and can particularly be helpful for handheld shooting.
Have fun shopping!
Over the years I've used many different macro lenses, but now I use Canon cameras and for most of my macro/close-up work, a half a dozen lenses:
Canon TS-E 45mm f2.8 (Tilt Shift)
Tamron SP 60mm f2.0 (crop-sensor only)
Canon MP-E 65mm (1:1 to 5:1)
Tamron SP 90mm f2.5 (vintage manual focus & aperture)
Canon 100mm f2.8 USM (not the L/IS version)
Canon 180mm f3.5L.
I also sometimes shoot close-ups with:
Canon 24-70mm f2.8L
Canon 70-200mm f4L and f2.8L IS
Canon 300mm f4L IS.
Now, most lenses you might choose for this purpose will give excellent image quality, when used right. So it's more a matter of comparing the other performance factors and features of the lenses, to make a choice.
First, consider focal length. For general purpose I normally recommend a 90 to 105mm lens on either crop sensor (like yours) or full frame camera. For most people this is a good compromise of adequate working distance and hand holdability, useful for both outdoor shooting and for some indoor work. At 1:2 or 1:1 shorter focal lengths put you awfully close to your subject, while longer ones (150mm, 180mm, 200mm) are much more difficult to hold steady and more likely to require a tripod or at least a monopod most of the time. Longer focal lengths also often need to be stopped down to small apertures because they tend to render such shallow depth of field, which in turn forces using higher ISOs, longer shutter speeds, and/or supplemental lighting.
Now, there are times when a longer focal length is important, such as very shy subjects, or those that bite or sting and/or are poisonous! However, I honestly can't recall the last time I was bit by a Dahlia. ;)
There also are times that shorter focal lengths (35mm to 70mm) are very useful. For example, I use several shorter focal lengths for controlled, in-studio work, such as table-top shots of small products. In this case, I want to be closer to the subject so that I can reach out and rearrange the subject while looking through the camera's viewfinder. This is a huge time-saver when you have 200 small products to photograph! I suspect that this is similar to what you need to do, so you might consider shorter focal length than I'd normally recommend. Something in the 50mm to 70mm range:
DO NOT be tempted by the Canon MP-E 65mm Macro lens... it's a specialized, ultra high magnification lens that starts out where most other macro lenses leave off, at 1:1, and goes as high as 5:1 magnification on it's own. You can fill your viewfinder with a single grain of rice, with this lens. It's a neat lens... but way, way more magnification than you need and is rather difficult to work with, doesn't lend itself very much to handheld shooting and is much more likely to need supplemental lighting.
The Canon TS-E 45mm and 90mm Tilt-Shift lenses are not really macro lenses... but are quite close focusing (about 1:3, if I recall correctly) and can be used with macro extension tubes if a bit higher magnification is needed. The Tilt feature of these lenses allow additional control over the plane of focus, which can be very useful for a number of reasons. The Shift can also be helpful for certain things, though I'm not sure what they might be with something like flowers. I sometimes use it with highly reflective surfaces, to avoid a "self-portrait" of myself and the camera in the shot.
The downside to TS-E lenses is that they're manual focus only, rather large and heavy for their focal lengths, plus tend to be rather expensive. And I suspect there will be new versions of the 45mm and 90mm sometime in the not-too-distant future. (Canon revised the 24mm TS-E in 2009 and introduced a 17mm TS-E at the same time, both with improved controls... Meanwhile while the 45mm and 90mm haven't been updated since they were first introduced 24 years ago.) I use the 45mm for close-up work on a crop-sensor camera. With a full frame camera I would use the 90mm instead (but don't presently have that lens).
Besides focal length, there are some other macro lens features to consider. One is auto focus speed. Now, for macro shooting, manual focus is often easier than auto focus. However, especially if you want to use the lens for non-macro purposes or shoot close-ups quickly on the fly, AF can be important. For several reasons, macro lenses are typically slower focusing than standard lenses. One reason is simply that the lens has to move the focusing group a long, long way to go all the way from infinity to 1:1. Also, most macro use a "long throw" focus design, which emphasizes accuracy at some cost to speed. There are a couple things that can help speed this up. One is ultrasonic focus drive: Canon USM, Sigma HSM and Tamron USD. That's faster than typical micro motor focus drive, as well as more accurate. But it's also usually only used on higher end, more expensive lenses. Another benefit of ultrasonic focus drive is that in most cases it can be manually overridden at any time, while micro motor cannot (you need to switch off AF before you can manual focus micro motor lenses). Another feature that can help speed up autofocus is a Focus Limiter. This simply restricts the focus to work within a narrower range, helping it perform better. Some lenses have a Focus Limiter, while others don't. Some Focus Limiters are simple 2-range type, while others are more sophisticated 3-range.
You'll also find image stabilization on some macro lenses: Canon IS, Tamron VC and Sigma OS (also Nikon VR, but those lenses won't fit your camera). This feature is typically found on the more expensive lenses and, frankly, is of very limited assistance at the highest magnifications. Stabilization gives more assistance at lower magnifications, which might be a bit more helpful to you since I suspect you'll rarely be using the highest mags for what you want to shoot.
Another key feature is Internal Focusing (IF). This means the lens doesn't extend when it's focused closer. Because macro lenses focus extra close, some of the non-IF type extend a great deal, as much as doubling in length at their closest focus. The longer lens occupies more of the working space between it and the subject, plus makes the camera & lens a bit less well-balanced. OTOH, IF lenses tend to be a bit larger to start out and also are usually more expensive.... and technically they change focal length a little when focused closer. For example, the Canon 100mm macro lenses both are IF and end up more like "70mm" when focused all the way to 1:1. You don't actually notice this change when shooting, though.
Finally, some lenses either come with or can optionally be fitted with a tripod mounting ring. The longer focal lengths such as 150mm and 180mm usually include the ring. Canon's two 100mm models are the only shorter lenses I'm aware of that can optionally be fitted with a tripod ring. I find this very useful, because a lot of higher magnification shooting is done with a tripod or monopod.
Taking all the above into consideration and for your purposes, I'd suggest you take a close look at:
- Canon EF 50mm f2.5 Compact Macro... It doesn't have USM, isn't IF and only goes to 1:2 on it's own, but it's one of the most affordable. For flower photography, you are unlikely to need the higher magnification or fast autofocus, though... and should have plenty of working space, as well as a controllable setup that lends itself to using a shorter focal length.
- Canon EF-S 60mm f2.8 USM Macro... is a crop-only lens, but that's fine with your crop camera. This also is a reasonably affordable lens. It's 1:1 capable, IF and has USM... so should be a top performer for you.
- Tamron SP 60mm f2 Macro/Portrait... might be more versatile for it's unusually larger aperture, that makes it better for alternate uses such as portraiture. It is also a crop-only lens, and while it's IF, it doesn't have USD. Still, because of it's micro motor focusing it's not much of a "sports/action" lens, but is more than adequate for stationary subjects and portraiture.
- Sigma no longer makes, but you might find their 50mm f2.8 or 70mm f2.8 macro lenses used. I don't believe either is an HSM lenses, haven't used them personally and don't know a lot about them, so do due diligence before buying.
- If you usually have plenty of working room, consider 90mm, 100mm or 105mm. With these lenses, at the magnifications you'll likely to need to use, you will need to back up a bit. That might be a problem if working indoors in tighter spaces.
The Tokina 100/2.8 AT-X Macro is the least expensive of those. That's a micro motor, non-IF lens... it had a 2-range focus limiter.
If you have a larger budget, it's hard to go wrong with either of the Canon 100mm Macro lenses. The L/IS is a lot more expensive, I'm quite satisfied with the non-L/IS model, and put some of the money saved into a tripod ring for it, instead. Both are IF lenses with USM autofocus. The non-L/IS has a 2-range Focus Limiter, while the L/IS has a 3-range. And, again, these are unique among macro lenses around this focal length, in that both can optionally be fitted with a tripod mounting ring.
Tamron offers two modern, excellent SP 90mm Macro models (with autofocus)... the older and less expensive version is non-IF and uses a micro motor for AF, but is very good and well-regarded. The newer and more expensive version is IF, has a Focus Limiter and uses their USD focus drive, plus has VC stabilization.
Sigma has long offered a very well-respected 105mm f2.8 Macro. The current version of this lens is full featured, IF with Focus Limiter, HSM autofocus, plus OS stabilization. There was an earlier version without OS... I'm not sure if it has HSM, is IF or has a Focus limiter.
If the prices of new macro lenses are a bit too much, consider the used market. There are literally millions of excellent macro lenses that have been sold over the years. More recent may have autofocus and some of the other features mentioned above. Older vintage macros also can work great (and many different ones can easily be adapted for use on Canon EOS/EF mount cameras like yours), but due to manual focus and manual aperture, are slower to work with and can be a bit challenging. With those, as you stop down looking for adequate depth of field, your viewfinder will dim, too, making manual focus more challenging.
Finally, you can do macro shooting using ambient light, perhaps with diffusion panels for too strong and contrasty full sun, bounce panels and flags to control fill and other lighting aspects. But you also might want to start learning about macro flash photography. That's another interesting specialization, and can particularly be helpful for handheld shooting.
Have fun shopping!
Oct 16, 2015 14:22:22 #
Haremmaster381 wrote:
Hello. I grow dahlias and during some of our shows we also have photography contests for the growers as part of the show. I shoot with the lens that came with my Canon Rebel but would really like to get a macro lens. Need suggestions please. Would like to stick with Canon but am open to suggestions. Here are a few of my shots with the regular lens
@Haremaster, as you have seen repeatedly by now, a macro lens might not really be what you are looking for (unless you do want to catch that aphid on a petal shot!), so that doesn't need repeating.
However, while your shots are nice, I would suggest you consider other lighting options - the harsh shadows of upper level petals on the lower petals could be mitigated with a more diffused light than sunlight (which I'm guessing you used in these images). There are various ring lights and flash accessories that diffuse the light so to make those shadows less harsh, and you might find the images more appealing that way.
Oct 16, 2015 14:36:14 #
abc1234 wrote:
Very lovely flowers and pictures. Thanks for post... (show quote)
:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
Oct 17, 2015 14:31:00 #
Thanks everyone. I have much to look over!! Focus stacking sounds like the way to go.
Oct 17, 2015 17:26:21 #
Haremmaster381 wrote:
Thanks everyone. I have much to look over!! Focus stacking sounds like the way to go.
Good for you. Keep us posted on your progress.
Mike
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.