Rob MacKillop
Edinburgh Correspondent
I want to get Rhona a macro lens for her Canon 1100D SLR. Budget up to £150. Suggestions?
Macro lens advice, please
- Thread starter Rob MacKillop
- Start date
Beth Anthony
Well-Known Member
skip the lens for now. get her a 3 piece extension tube set. no loss of image quality, works on any lens, can be stacked for closer results. i had kenko tubes which allowed for autofocus. not sure about these, but they're pretty cheap.
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=sr_st?k...72282,k:kenko+extension+tube+canon&sort=price
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=sr_st?k...72282,k:kenko+extension+tube+canon&sort=price
Last edited:
Rob MacKillop
Edinburgh Correspondent
Food for thought. Thanks, Beth.
David Mitchell
Well-Known Member
Also check out some macro bellows, more adjustable and also cheap, some even have rise and fall etc like large format cameras to get some interesting effects 
Rob MacKillop
Edinburgh Correspondent
Will look into it, David. Many thanks.
Larry Bolch
Well-Known Member
Another really reasonable alternative is a set of close-up lenses. Like filters—and generally supplied by filter makers—they are priced much like filters. They are usually sold in sets with a +1, +2 and +4. They can be combined so a +1 and +2 equal a +3, and so on. They require no special compensation for exposure or any other considerations in use.
For exacting scientific or forensic work, they would be no match for an actual macro lens. If you were documenting a collection of rare stamps, the perfect linearity and flatness of field would be required—along with a massive copy stand and very precise lighting. For flowers and the little critters that may inhabit them, close-up lenses are excellent. Macro lenses are highly corrected for flatness of field, but that is not a consideration when doing 3-dimensional shots in nature. It does no harm, but is not required.
My Bronica ETR has a very fine 150mm lens, but it does not focus very close. With three times the negative area of a 35mm, cropping was not a problem when shooting B&W. However, for publication, chromes were the standard material so one wanted to compose in the frame. Headshots were a special problem. I had a +0.25, +0.5 and the standard 1+ from my set, so could set the close-focus distance for whatever I needed. Dozens were published in magazines, annual reports and newspapers. No client or editor ever quibbled about the sharpness and resolution. Which is to say, in the high-end world of commercial photography and photojournalism, they produced results at a quality level that was never challenged.
For exacting scientific or forensic work, they would be no match for an actual macro lens. If you were documenting a collection of rare stamps, the perfect linearity and flatness of field would be required—along with a massive copy stand and very precise lighting. For flowers and the little critters that may inhabit them, close-up lenses are excellent. Macro lenses are highly corrected for flatness of field, but that is not a consideration when doing 3-dimensional shots in nature. It does no harm, but is not required.
My Bronica ETR has a very fine 150mm lens, but it does not focus very close. With three times the negative area of a 35mm, cropping was not a problem when shooting B&W. However, for publication, chromes were the standard material so one wanted to compose in the frame. Headshots were a special problem. I had a +0.25, +0.5 and the standard 1+ from my set, so could set the close-focus distance for whatever I needed. Dozens were published in magazines, annual reports and newspapers. No client or editor ever quibbled about the sharpness and resolution. Which is to say, in the high-end world of commercial photography and photojournalism, they produced results at a quality level that was never challenged.
Rob MacKillop
Edinburgh Correspondent
Thanks, Larry. Never heard of close up lenses. I'll look into them, so to speak!
David Mitchell
Well-Known Member
I have a set of those macro lenses, they just screw onto the filter, they are quite good as you can stack them and give good magnification but found that the DoF is very very small lol.
I might have a spare set of them somewhere I will have a look for you.
Ah ha, I found the thead I posted a while back using them - had no idea what I was doing back then lol
http://www.realphotographersforum.c...aphy/6297-screw-lenses-anyone-using-them.html
I might have a spare set of them somewhere I will have a look for you.
Ah ha, I found the thead I posted a while back using them - had no idea what I was doing back then lol
http://www.realphotographersforum.c...aphy/6297-screw-lenses-anyone-using-them.html
Rob MacKillop
Edinburgh Correspondent
Interesting, David! Thanks for the link. If you do have a spare set, i could at least try them out, then return them to you.
David Mitchell
Well-Known Member
I will see what I have, I believe they are for the 52mm thread size (ie are basically additional lenses rather than filters).
Larry Bolch
Well-Known Member
An interesting variation on a close-up lens—a half close-up lens. This one is empty on top with a +2 below. It allows you to focus both on a close object, while capturing a sharp background.
Rob MacKillop
Edinburgh Correspondent
Pete Askew
Admin
A bit like half moon reading glasses Rob. Used for those sort of worm's eye view shots.
