What lense for EXTREME close ups?

90sShooter

90sShooter

Active member
I am very interested in extreme close up shots. I visited the local camera shop yesterday and was talking to the guy. He basically said that the 100mm is good for stuff that you just cannot get any closer too (i.e. corals in a fish tank). But Canon also makes a 60mm for about $100 less it seems. Then I can put an extension tube on with the 60mm and would essentially get 120mm.. and 2:1. Am I understanding this correctly? I am VERY new to all of this and have really only done some real quick research and that is what I came up with.

Essentially I want to take some nice macro shots of my tank (most of my nice corals are in a 24g aquapod and not more than about 8 inches from the glass (also has curved front glass that I have already learned SUCKS for photography)). But I am also REALLY interested in taking EXTREME close ups of nature (i.e. bugs, plants, stuff like that...) and I would really like to get 2:1 capabilites... Also any tips or need to knows about trying to achieve such shots (2:1 close ups, ie.. shutter speeds, lense requirements, tripod?, stuff like that...)

I know I just kinda rambled, but if you can make sense of all my jibberish, any help would be appreciated! :D
 
Do you have much experience with macro photography? There are some big factors when selecting a macro lens (setup). The first thing to know is the more you magnify the less DoF (Depth of Field) you'll have. I've use the Canon MP-E 65mm f/2.8 (which is what you'll probably looking for) and the DoF is tiny. If you take a picture of the eye of a fish then its tail will be completely blurred. This lens for example can fill an entire frame with a single grain of rice. My Sigma 90mm Macro however cannot, but it has other benefits which I think would work better in your situation because though the MP-E can get up to 5x you'll never be able to really get that close because 8" is way too far away. You'll be butted up against the glass to get full magnification. With a 90 or even 150mm macro you wont have to be so close but you'll still be able to get decent macros. Putting tubes on a macro lens will get you closer but you'll have other problems. If I were you I would rent a 100mm macro lens and give it a test run first. You'll likely find that you'll want more light rather than more lens :) 500w isn't much when you're cranking down a macro to f/11.
 
What macro lens for EXTREME closeups you ask?
Why the MP-E 65mm f/2.8 of course. 2:1? pffftttt try 5:1, and you don't need any other accessories to accomplish it! With any macro lens of course your going to want a good tripod. With this lens (and any other lens you are going to use for "EXTREME macro") you will need a VERY GOOD tripod with bells and whistles designed specifically for macro work i.e. focusing rail. You will also have to be extremly up close and personal with your subject. You would have to set up a specific QT tank like staging area specifically for taking extreme macros of corals. Maybe a 10 gallon tank or something...but your going to need a dedicated staging area I would think.

All that said, I would actually use a 180mm f/3.5 with a full set of tubes now that I think about it. You would have that much more working distance. A dedicated staging area would still probably be necessary though. the 180mm would just be that much easier to use with it I think.
 
Last edited:
Well, if you want _extreme_ closeups, the MP-E 65mm is a great lens. You can also try going with a reversed lens mounted on a bellows. You can get pretty insane with that.

To give you an idea, here are two bee portraits done with the MP-E (both handheld ;) ). The first is at 1x life size. The second at 5x.

bee1x.jpg


bee5x.jpg



Of course, if you want _really_ close, you have to attach your camera to a microscope.
 
Here are a couple of examples of what a 100mm f/2.8 macro can do
this amphipod is about 1/8" long
Picture119-4.jpg

this entire pic spans about 3/4"
Picture138.jpg
 
I do agree, though, that the MP-E is a horrible aquarium lens. You have to be within a few inches of your subject, even at 1x magnification. At 5x, you almost have to touch them. The thickness of the glass is a huge problem.
 
We had several warm late-winter days followed by this day that was quite a bit colder. The flower is a snowdrop, one of the first bulbs to bloom--often in January. The warm weather woke the insects and the cooler weather made them sluggish. It was gone when I went back to look for it 20-30 minutes later. It's a lot harder to catch bees in the summer.
 
umm fish - those pics are just awesome! that is what I am looking for! :D

I know this hobby is expensive, but I am still on a budget. What if I get the 100mm (almost half the price of the MP-E 65mm) and use extension tube for 2x? I won't have 5x, but being such an amatuer, I think 2x will keep me busy for a while... and if I decide to get more serious about "EXTREME" close ups, I can always upgrade down the road and still have a great macro for tank shots... or (seeing as has the 100mm holds it's value) I can always sell to upgrade.

Another question, can someone point me to a good extension tube? Does the extension tube quality make a difference (I know it probably does, but how?)? The guy at the camera store says the good ones have good glass and the cheap ones might now even have glass. Is this true? Thanks guys! Also, besides narrowing DOF, do extension tubes hinder performance of image quality?

Thanks again everyone!
 
The 100mm is a great lens and is useful for a lot more than the MP-E. I'd say that after the 100mm, you should try to upgrade your flash. If you're serious about macro, you need to find a way to mount your lens so that the light of the flash doesn't hit the lens and cast a shadow on your subject. They make special flashes that mount out on the end of the lens, but it's also possible to just build or buy brackets that let you mount the flash at various points around the camera.

Extension tubes don't have glass. All they do is move the lens farther away from the sensor (thus increasing the effective length of the lens). Since they are just air they don't hinder quality. You do want to find a set that'll pass electrical signals from the lens to the camera. Other than that, all they are is aluminum tubes.
 
Also, I would get an flash extension wire and maybe some cheap radio flash triggers from e-bay. Having one flash over the water and another off to one side of the subject makes for excellent photos.
 
if you're deciding between the canon 65mm or 100mm, having used both, it's an easy $100 to spend. you'll be happier with the 100 in my experience.
 
Ok cool.

I am still a little confused. I see there are extension tubes that are just aluminum rings, and come in sizes (mm). Will these only add to the lense say a 30mm tube would give me 130mm on a 100mm macro? Will this do anything to help get better than 1:1? I see this one by canon "EF 25 II" This one definitely has glass. What is the difference? Am I looking for something else, not an "extension tube"?
 
Extension tubes have no optics; they are just spacers. The EF 25 II doesn't have glass either.

Tubes work by shortening your minimum focusing difference. They don't change the focal length of the lens but since you can be closer to the subject they increase your effective magnification. Since there isn't any glass involved, brand really doesn't matter. Canon "air" isn't and better than "Kenko" air.

The Kenko set with 3 different sizes is a good choice.
 
your right, the EF 25 II doesn't look like it has glass after all... interested... am I looking for a 2x teleconverter? Where can I find a good one? what are the pros and cons of teleconverters?
 
In the setup that I described, the TC just acts like more extension tube. Tubes will get you closer. I also don't recommend the 2.0 TC. 1.4 is a better choice.
 
An extender makes the lens "see farther" by practically increasing the mm. A 2x extender will make a 100mm lens behave like a 200mm lens.

An extension tube is a different animal. A lens can only get so close to a subject before it can't focus on that subject anymore. Extension tubes allow the lens to get closer than possible without tubes.
 
ok bear with me... lol which one is gonna let me get more magnified pictures? The tubes right? cause if I understand correctly, the 2x extender will only allow me to get closer to objects I can not get any closer to (i.e. a piece of coral in a tank) and the tubes will allow me to actually put the camera closer to a an object and be able to focus where without the tubes, the camera would not be able to focus at the range (let's say 6" as opposed to 8"). And in turn, the image is magnified... right?
 
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