Close-up vs Macro?

[jefathome]

I'm waiting on a new DSLR (have only had POS P&S's before), and I have a question about lenses.

First off, I guess I should define what kind of pictures I'd like to take. In my mind, there are two types of shots that are very similar... Macro shots and close-ups.

To me, these are macros:

And these are close-up:

(Thank you to "thepenalty" and river3847 for some examples from recent threads to illustrate my point)


I don't need to take "Macro" shots, but I would like to take close-ups.
To do so, can I just use something like the Canon 500D 58mm Close up Lens (which is only about $80), also known as a "Diopter", on top of the kit lens, or do I really need one of these expensive "Macro" lenses?

If it matters, the camera I bought is a Canon T2i...

 

[hammmerhead]

You bought a great camera. The two top photos arent really close enough to be macro shots IMO. You dont need a macro lens to get great close ups, they just need to be very sharp and then you can crop the phot to get a closer zoom on the subject. I am pining over a 100mm macro right now, just dont have the $850 to drop on it.

Here are some pictures that were taken with a Canon 10-22mm wide angle and then cropped really hard.

Cropped version

Cropped version

 

[kayl]

You bought a great camera. The two top photos arent really close enough to be macro shots IMO. You dont need a macro lens to get great close ups, they just need to be very sharp and then you can crop the phot to get a closer zoom on the subject. I am pining over a 100mm macro right now, just dont have the $850 to drop on it.

Buy the EF 100 f2.8 USM macro used for about $400. The IS is pretty much worthless when it comes to macro photos anyways; you'll be using a tripod or monopod...

Edit: and to answer the OP's question - a macro is technically defined as a shot in which the subject is displayed on the sensor at a size equal to or greater than life size. This results in a print (or digital photo) that shows the subject at greater detail that you could see with the naked eye.

 

[jefathome]

Hamnmerhead,

So I see you used a wide angle lens on these? Could I do the same (or similar) with the standard 18-55mm stock lens?
Is it easier to get the close-ups with a Diopter/close up lens? That way I can get my minimum focal distance down to maybe 12in?

 

[hammmerhead]

Buy the EF 100 f2.8 USM macro used for about $400. The IS is pretty much worthless when it comes to macro photos anyways; you'll be using a tripod or monopod...

Edit: and to answer the OP's question - a macro is technically defined as a shot in which the subject is displayed on the sensor at a size equal to or greater than life size. This results in a print (or digital photo) that shows the subject at greater detail that you could see with the naked eye.

I really dont like dragging around a mono or tripod. Most of the stuff I shoot will fly away or crawl off before I get set up. If I was going to break out the tubes my tripod would be a must. I guess Im just gonna save a little more for the Hybrid IS and weather sealing... oh yeah and the red ring

 

[hammmerhead]

Hamnmerhead,

So I see you used a wide angle lens on these? Could I do the same (or similar) with the standard 18-55mm stock lens?
Is it easier to get the close-ups with a Diopter/close up lens? That way I can get my minimum focal distance down to maybe 12in?

Yes you can, but a lot of times anything you add to your lens like a diopter will hurt the image quality, but possibly not enough to make it unsuable. I would try getting really sharp photos with your 18-55 and croping them. Like Kayl said, for totally stationary subjects a tripod will always deliver the cleanest shot and for reef tank shots you really cant do without one. I would use a macro more for hiking and grabbing insects, flowers and things like that.

 

[jefathome]

Well luckily I do already have a tripod.

I see that there are a lot of different "kinds" of the close-up lenses. Some are cheap plastic and you get 2-3 in a pack (for $20 or so).

I was looking at the higher quality ones that go for about $80.

Here is a quick desc:
This is a double-element achromatic (color-corrected) lens made by Canon and recommended for lenses in the range of 50-135mm focal length. It is very sharp and clear with no color fringing.

 

[hammmerhead]

Well luckily I do already have a tripod.

I see that there are a lot of different "kinds" of the close-up lenses. Some are cheap plastic and you get 2-3 in a pack (for $20 or so).

I was looking at the higher quality ones that go for about $80.

Here is a quick desc:
This is a double-element achromatic (color-corrected) lens made by Canon and recommended for lenses in the range of 50-135mm focal length. It is very sharp and clear with no color fringing.

If you go that route buy from Adorama or B&H, so if you dont like the results you can send it back for credit on another item or lens.

 

["Umm fish?"]

The IS is not really necessary for hand-held macro photos IMO so long as you can get good exposure times. Neither of my macro lenses have IS and I do okay. What I find necessary is supplemental lighting. It doesn't have to be particularly powerful--since your subject will be very close anyway--but it needs to be positioned so you can take advantage of it.

 

[TheHun]

A close-up lens (or diopter) enables the camera to focus closer than it normally can. This means that the image will appear larger in the frame because you can get closer to it. In other words, close-ups allow you to magnify the image. A diopter is, in fact, a magnifying glass.

I did get some nice shots with Tiffen Close-Up lens, you can see here;

http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1806882