What lense for EXTREME close ups?

:D Sorry, I am VERY new to this ;)

ok so macro 100mm with a set of extension tubes? That should hold me over for a while right?

Also, is there a formula for approximating what magnification I am getting? Say if I put a 33mm tube on the 100mm, am I getting 1.33x or is it more complicated than that?
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14109426#post14109426 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by 90sShooter
:D Sorry, I am VERY new to this ;)

ok so macro 100mm with a set of extension tubes? That should hold me over for a while right?

Also, is there a formula for approximating what magnification I am getting? Say if I put a 33mm tube on the 100mm, am I getting 1.33x or is it more complicated than that?
Click to expand...

If I were you I wouldn't bother with the tubes until I had gotten familiar with the 100mm macro and what it could do for you. The 100 is going to be challenging enough before you add a tube that messes with DoF, focus area and range of focus - it also will lower quality of the photo. I think you're going to be satisfied with the 100mm all by itself.
 
You may be right... I can always get the tubes later on down the line when I get comfortable with the 100mm... I guess I really can't go wrong with the 100mm? I should just order it already... :D
 
Tubes won't lower the quality of the photo. There's no glass in there to affect anything. They will, however, lower the amount of light that gets to the sensor.
 
is that an issue with the 100mm as is? My buddy had the 100mm and didn't like it cause he said it was too dark... he said he had to keep the shutter open a long time to get the light in... ? I am not sure how much experience he has but is the 100mm relatively easy to get good pics with (given you use a tripod...)?
 
The 100 is a f/2.8 which is a pretty fast lens. Perhaps your friend doesn't know what he's doing. :D
 
I have the Canon 100mm f2.8 macro lens and it lets in lots of light. Buy it. You're going to love it.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14110586#post14110586 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by 90sShooter
is that an issue with the 100mm as is? My buddy had the 100mm and didn't like it cause he said it was too dark... he said he had to keep the shutter open a long time to get the light in... ? I am not sure how much experience he has but is the 100mm relatively easy to get good pics with (given you use a tripod...)?
Click to expand...
I agree with the others, that is a fairly silly statement.
 
I know I will... :D I have a perma-grin for the time being :D

I think I am going to go sign up for some classes at the local camera shop... I want to KNOW what I am doing ;)
 
Cool thanks again for all your help guys! Titusville your the man! :thumbsup:

I am sure you will be seeing me around these parts in the near future...

Just curious, what do you think of this pic I took? Any suggestions? critique?

It was taken with Actinis ONLY and was taken with a 55-250mm telephoto from about 4 ft... lol I know, a cheating macro shot :D ... No post processing except cropped in PS. O yeah and my tripod was a shoebox ontop of my bed :D lol (need to order one of those too... lol any suggestions?)

IMG_0779-2.jpg
 
Well your shutter speed was only 1/8. With a 1.6x crop factor @ 250mm you should of had at least 1/400 *hand holding*. This basically means your innovative shoe box worked very well for you. Nice thinking! The colors look true to what I would expect under actinis so good job there. The DOF with an aperture of f/5.6 @ 250mm @ ~4ft. almost covered the entire frag. It looks like the very back started to blur out a little bit which isn't any big deal. If you don't want this effect, just 1/3 or 1/2 of a stop less aperture would have probably fixed it i.e. f/6 or f/7.1. You can see where the upper left head moved a little, creating a gost effect. Again it isn't necessarily a bad thing, I think it adds some character, just an observation. All around I'd say it looks good!

When you get the 100, the shoebox on your bed isn't going to cut it and you will need to get a real tripod. I use the Manfrotto 055XPROB with 488RC2 ball head. The heaviest lens I've attempted to mount on it was a 300mm f/2.8 (which is a pretty heavy). It did an alright job. It does a fantastic job with smaller lenses i.e. my 24-70 (aka "the brick"), and it does well with my 70-200 f/2.8 IS which is fairly heavy in its own right. If I was to buy the 300 f/2.8 I would buy a larger tripod for it. I will probably own a 500 f/4 or maybe even a 600 f/4 someday, for which I will definitely buy a better tripod (or at least head). The 600mm is a solid 13 lbs though. The tripod above would handle a 100mm macro or a 55-250 with no issues at all.
 
Last edited:
Cool thanks! That is good to know that I am atleast on the right track... Shutter speed vs. focal distance is something I definitely need to pay more attention to. That is what I am hoping to learn from some hands on classes. Thanks for you input! That really does help ALOT!

I will take your advice on the tripod...

Thanks again!
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14110586#post14110586 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by 90sShooter
is that an issue with the 100mm as is? My buddy had the 100mm and didn't like it cause he said it was too dark... he said he had to keep the shutter open a long time to get the light in... ? I am not sure how much experience he has but is the 100mm relatively easy to get good pics with (given you use a tripod...)?
Click to expand...

:) What your buddy may have been referring to though is with macro you often have to have a fairly small aperture to increase your DOF (and stopping down decreases the amount of light reaching the sensor). At f/2.8, the 100mm macro at its minimum focusing distance to give you full 1:1 macro will have a DOF (depth of field - the "depth" of the in focus part of your picture) about as thick as a heavy piece of paper. So you'll often be working at f/11-16, which if you're relying on natural light - can result in some pretty slow shutter speeds.

This; however, is true of ALL macro lenses.
 
What your buddy may have been referring to though is with macro you often have to have a fairly small aperture to increase your DOF (and stopping down decreases the amount of light reaching the sensor). At f/2.8, the 100mm macro at its minimum focusing distance to give you full 1:1 macro will have a DOF (depth of field - the "depth" of the in focus part of your picture) about as thick as a heavy piece of paper. So you'll often be working at f/11-16, which if you're relying on natural light - can result in some pretty slow shutter speeds.

This; however, is true of ALL macro lenses.
Click to expand...

Very good advice, which is why you should start planning on upgrading your flash someday soon.

Congratulations on ordering the lens! The 100mm is a great lens and I think you'll have a lot of fun with it. In fact, remember that it's not just for macro work. I hardly took it off the camera the first year I had it.
 
That makes sense.... I think that is what he may have been talking about...

Thanks Umm Fish, I was gonn ask if the lense was good for other types of shots... What other types of shot will this lense excel at?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
New tank causing bad sharpness in photos
Replies
12
Views
973
Misled
Misled
A
Algae Issues and Nitrate Issues
Replies
8
Views
1K
SantaMonica
S
S
Duncan issue
Replies
8
Views
1K
Spectorman
S
F
new cichlid tank set up advice
Replies
9
Views
1K
Reefing102
Reefing102
C
Lighting Ai Prime photperiod
Replies
1
Views
454
shred5
shred5
Back
Top