Lens for Macro Flora (Page 3): You are doing well with what you have....a maceo lens is very shallow and harder to get a photo in focus by handholding (at least for me). So i use a 200...

frankraney Loc: Clovis, Ca.

PolkadotDaisy wrote:

Aloha, I've been looking into getting a lens for Macro photos. I'm still pretty new to all of this and researching had become a little overwhelming. So I thought I'd ask for personal experience/preference. I do a lot of Macro Flora. Flowers, leaves, and almost anything on a plant. What lens would you recommend? These were all taken with my Canon 80D with the 18-135 mm kit lens. I want to be able to get up close and personal with the flowers.

You are doing well with what you have....a maceo lens is very shallow and harder to get a photo in focus by handholding (at least for me). So i use a 200 or 300 mm lens. You might get some ideas in the macro section here.

In-lightened Loc: Kansas City

PolkadotDaisy wrote:

Thank you. We have similar flowers in Hawaii. I don't generally use flash. The ones I posted were all natural light. I've been looking into alternatives to the flash on top the camera, though. Thanks for the suggestions.

You might look into LED lights. Compact, rechargeable and cheap.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

PolkadotDaisy wrote:

Aloha, I've been looking into getting a lens for Macro photos. I'm still pretty new to all of this and researching had become a little overwhelming. So I thought I'd ask for personal experience/preference. I do a lot of Macro Flora. Flowers, leaves, and almost anything on a plant. What lens would you recommend? These were all taken with my Canon 80D with the 18-135 mm kit lens. I want to be able to get up close and personal with the flowers.

Optically, all "macro" lenses are pretty equal. The older/less expensive ones only go to 1:2 magnification. The longer ones (150mm and up) generally come with a tripod collar - a definite advantage IMO. Only the shorter Canon 100mm has the collar option.

As Mentioned, IF (internal focus) macros can give you slightly larger close-focus distance - these include the Canon, the Nikon and the older Tokina. AFAIK, only 2 macros have stabilization - Canon and Tamron's latest - which may or may not be beneficial for YOU.

A GOOD zoom (70-200) with extension tube or Canon 500D close up lens can also work very well if you are not going to 1:1mag.

..

Jakebrake Loc: Broomfield, Colorado

frankraney wrote:

You are doing well with what you have....a maceo lens is very shallow and harder to get a photo in focus by handholding (at least for me). So i use a 200 or 300 mm lens. You might get some ideas in the macro section here.

I as well had problems 'hand holding' my 90mm Tamron non-stabilized macro lens in achieving tack sharp images until a lady friend from my camera club let me use her Sigma 105mm OS HSM lens on a club outing. The difference was phenomenal between the non-stabilized and stabilized lenses when I hand held. Consequently, I sold my Tamron and purchased a stabilized lens and my results have improved significantly.

Gampa

I’d suggest a Canon EF 100L 2.8 Macro IS.
Have and use it on my 80D ... with stunning results.

sippyjug104 Loc: Missouri

I'll pass along some advice that Mark recommended to me which was to carry a stick with you (he uses a wooden dowel rod) to help support your camera. It made a huge difference for me and I found it to be quite handy in a variety of other ways while walking through the fields. If you are right handed, hold the stick in your left hand. Slide your hand up or down the stick to align your camera and you can rest your lens against your hand or arm in a way that works best for you. It also helps an old fella like me get back up again when I have to kneel or squat to take a shot.

sippyjug104 Loc: Missouri

I'll pass along some advice that Mark recommended to me which was to carry a stick with you (he uses a wooden dowel rod) to help support your camera. It made a huge difference for me and I found it to be quite handy in a variety of other ways while walking through the fields. If you are right handed, hold the stick in your left hand. Slide your hand up or down the stick to align your camera and you can rest your lens against your hand or arm in a way that works best for you. It also helps an old fella like me get back up again when I have to kneel or squat to take a shot.

Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga

It's all in the technique... I use an older manual focus macro from the 1980's and I have no issues getting sharp images. It's noted in the manuals that come with the lenses that both AF and stabilization become less effective the closer you get to life size.....

Jakebrake wrote:

I as well had problems 'hand holding' my 90mm Tamron non-stabilized macro lens in achieving tack sharp images until a lady friend from my camera club let me use her Sigma 105mm OS HSM lens on a club outing. The difference was phenomenal between the non-stabilized and stabilized lenses when I hand held. Consequently, I sold my Tamron and purchased a stabilized lens and my results have improved significantly.

Jakebrake Loc: Broomfield, Colorado

Screamin Scott wrote:

It's all in the technique... I use an older manual focus macro from the 1980's and I have no issues getting sharp images. It's noted in the manuals that come with the lenses that both AF and stabilization become less effective the closer you get to life size.....

This being a hobby for me, and by no means a pro macro photographer, as I am an amateur in all aspects of photography, all I was trying to convey to the OP was my experience regarding the two lenses, IS vs Non-IS. Sorry......

Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga

I'm far from a pro myself...

Jakebrake wrote:

This being a hobby for me, and by no means a pro macro photographer, as I am an amateur in all aspects of photography, all I was trying to convey to the OP was my experience regarding the two lenses, IS vs Non-IS. Sorry......

Jakebrake Loc: Broomfield, Colorado

Screamin Scott wrote:

I'm far from a pro myself...

After looking at your stellar macro images on your flicker site, I'm not too sure about that Scott.

Me thinks you have forgot more about photography than I will ever know!

tonal Loc: Greece

I have the 35mm F2.8 IS STM macro lens from Canon (the one with the ring light on the front).
I mainly use it for closeups or macro and as a general lens handheld but I usually shoot only static objects for macro/closeup.

Its advantages:
Can use it handheld
Doubles as a standard lens
Has IS (not that it matters when you are too close)
Has built in LED lights in front so you can get away with no external flash. It works well even for a close up in the dark but it is far from bright (like a normal flash would be).
Light and compact. It is a little bigger and heavier than the 50mm F1.8

Its disadvantages:
You need to get VERY close to your subject to get 1:1 magnification (not good for insects or other living creatures than might get afraid or sting when you try to get that close).
The ring lights would be mirrored in a reflective surface and you can see them on your subject.

If you are not dedicated to real macro it could be a good choice, otherwise you should consider a longer focal length

latebloomer Loc: Topeka, KS

kpmac wrote:

Consider a Tokina 100mm. No image stabilization, but otherwise a great lens at an affordable price. IS is not very useful for macro, anyway.

A LOT of people have been very happy with the
Tokina 100 macro.

Don't forget to consider used lenses at BH, KEH, and Adorama.

frankraney Loc: Clovis, Ca.

Jakebrake wrote:

I as well had problems 'hand holding' my 90mm Tamron non-stabilized macro lens in achieving tack sharp images until a lady friend from my camera club let me use her Sigma 105mm OS HSM lens on a club outing. The difference was phenomenal between the non-stabilized and stabilized lenses when I hand held. Consequently, I sold my Tamron and purchased a stabilized lens and my results have improved significantly.

I just got a tamron 70-300 with macro, no IS. I can get sharp images sometimes, but they all look like they are on canvas at 100%. Am doing some testing to figure it out.... not low light for sure.

Jakebrake Loc: Broomfield, Colorado

frankraney wrote:

I just got a tamron 70-300 with macro, no IS. I can get sharp images sometimes, but they all look like they are on canvas at 100%. Am doing some testing to figure it out.... not low light for sure.

I have the 'old age' shakes, so every lens I own is IS, OS or VC. I simply couldn't live without stabilization.