Is Flash a Must-Have For Macro Photography?

Question

I want to start into macro photography this year so I've chose the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM lens to start with (I still haven't bought it since I'll do it next week, which I'll be in the US), but a friend that is really into urban photography suggested said to me that a flash is a must-have for macro photography.

The problem is that I don't like to use flash (examples), so I wanted to know if it's really a must or only a matter of choice.

Asked by Nathan Campos

Answer

I am not an expert macro photographer, but from my little experience I've understood that flash is NOT a must. However, in macro photography often we have to deal will DOF too shallow and even a mili-meter movement can change your focus drastically. For this, often you'll end up using f/11 or even higher to ensure that all parts of the subject you're shooting are in focus. Keeping f/11 and still getting a moderately fast shutter speed to avoid hand shake/movement blur isn't much of a problem in bright and sunny days but can cause you trouble if theres not much light or event its a little cloudy. So, its safer to carry a flash around, preferably a ring flash for macro shooting. Thus you don't take the chance and increase your keepers whether its broad daylight or cloudy.

Answered by ShutterBug

Check more discussion of this question.

What type of flash/diffuser was used in this picture?

Question

What type of flash/diffuser was used in this picture ? I am amazed of the by level of diffused light. I am sure there is a lot of post processing but i believe the lighting is the most important aspect.

Asked by Daniel

Answer

It actually says in the description: "lighting- extern flash canon 480II+ difuzor"

I guess he either used the diffuser supplied with his speedlite or, as Matt above mentioned, a Sto-fen diffuser (these are the most popular nowadays).

Yes you are right, light in macro photography is really important. I'm surprised that he managed to achieve such excellent light diffusion with his speedlight instead of using the o-ring flash attached to the front of the lens.

Best Greg

Answered by Greg

Check more discussion of this question.

DIY Lighting for Macro Photography

Question

I am using a simple reversal ring to mess around with macro photography at my home. My question is this what is the best way to light shots for macro photography?

A Few Notes:

• I am photographing stationary objects.
• I am looking for cheap Do It Yourself Methods
• I am not looking to buy a macro flash.
• I have only the built in flash, no external flashes.

Asked by Lynda

Answer

Although it's not a DIY, the NEEWER® Macro Ring LED is considered to be cheap (around $30). I tried myself with my extension tube, not bad at all. It provides constant light which is essential if you are too close to the subject. You can mount the power supply for it in your camera's hot shoe, you can use either 4 AA batteries or plug it directly.

If you want to Do It Yourself for the sake of fun, check this but it will cost you around $20

Answered by Akram Mellice

Check more discussion of this question.

Is the Olympus EP3L a good choice for 3D Macro?

Question

I'm interested in getting an Olympus EPL3 for amateur use.

In order of importance I'd like to be able to do the following:

1. Macro 3D
2. General purpose; portraits and panoramas
3. Time-lapse

Is this a good choice of camera? What lenses would you recommend?

At a later date (a year probably) I'd like to try astro-photography, will adapters for four thirds to telescope become available at some point, or will I have to convert from 4/3rds to SLR?

thanks

Asked by earcam

Answer

If my underwater macros with the PEN2 are anything to go by, I would think that the PEN3 is as good or better for macro - with the kit lens. The picture I linked is of a 1cm large pygmy sea horse, and it is cropped. The resolution is amazing and I am sure you can easily fit two of them into the picture with a 3D lens without loosing sharpness or too much resolution. They are even selling some LED lights for macros. That should be great for on-the-go use.

In general I would say that the PEN models are very good cameras for all-round photography. You might want to take a look at the Lumix Lenses to get a bigger variety. I am very happy with the 20mm 1.7 prime lens for example.

Regarding Timelapse you might need to buy an intervalometer to control the camera. There are many models that let you shoot timelapses until the memory card is full and have tons of features. I am using this one here which does everything that I need.

Answered by uncovery

Check more discussion of this question.

How do I get adequate depth of field in macro photography?

Question

I have been messing around with some Macro Photography using the techniques (and a reversal ring) described in a blog post by @ElendilTheTall My main issue is that I am having a hard time getting the subject into focus. There are times when the center is blurred and the outside is in focus or the center in focus and the outside out of focus. What are ways to get as much of the subject in focus?

I am using a Nikon D5100, I have a 18-55mm kit lens but I find the 55-200mm lens easier to use for shooting.

Asked by Lynda

Answer

That is part of the art and difficulty of macro photography. As with all lenses, only one plane is in perfect focus and everything closer and further will be blurry.

The only thing to do to maximize depth-of-field in one shot is to pick a small aperture. It is recommended to use something up to the diffraction limit of your camera which should be about F/16, otherwise the whole frame becomes blurry.

Once you have a certain depth-of-field, you should take advantage of it by placing the focus somewhere in the middle (as measured in sensor-distance) of what you want to appear sharp. The common rule of thumb is that depth-of-field is 1/3 in front and 2/3 in back of the place of focus.

The other option you have it to take multiple shots and merge them together using a technique called Focus Stacking. Each shot should be taken at the same aperture but with a different point in focus. There are specialized software to do that (just search for the term) but Exposure Fusion software also do it (because of how they work).

Answered by Itai

Check more discussion of this question.

What is the significance of the typical extension tube lengths?

Question

I've been recently looking into getting an extension tube set for some macro photograpy. I've noticed that a lot of these 3 tube sets (for Canon EOS) have the same, very specific lengths: 13mm, 21mm, and 31mm.

I've done some searching on Google as to the significance of these lengths, but have found nothing. Does anyone know why these lengths in particular seem to be so common?

Asked by ltn100

Answer

It might help if you thought of everything in Imperial units rather than metric. A normal lens for 35mm cameras is a 2-inch lens (50mm), and the tubes are (approximately) 1/2-inch (13mm), 3/4-inch (21mm) and 1 1/4-inch (31mm). That makes both magnification calculation and bellows draw (exposure compensation required for the lens extension) relatively easy to calculate, whether the tubes are used alone or in combination, when the lens is focused to its infinity mark. For instance, combining the 21mm and 31mm tubes would give you a 1:1 magnification ratio with a 2-stop exposure compensation.

The calculations are similarly simple for 24mm, 100-105mm and 200mm lenses, at least in a ballpark sense.

Remember that zoom lenses were once far from ubiquitous, and it was anomalous for a photographer to own a 35mm camera without also owning a 50mm lens. It might also help to remember that TTL metering was, once upon a time, and only if your camera actually had it, something you wouldn't really want to rely on most of the time (almost all metering was center-weighted, and rather depended on the condition of your camera's batteries or the age of the selenium cell).

These days we don't need to rely so much on external metering for most photography, and it's as likely as not that you'll be using a zoom lens as a prime, so maybe the tube lengths don't make as much immediate sense as they used to. But that's why millimeter lengths that are around rounded simple fractions (halves and quarters) of an inch are normal.

Answered by Stan Rogers

Check more discussion of this question.

For food photography with a Macro lens do I have to get a particular size of dishes?

Question

From Rfusca's comment here: Why isn't the background towel visible in this still life?

She might have used a macro lens, but this definitely isn't a macro shot. Its not nearly 1:1 unless those are the smallest glasses ever,

I am about to get a reversing ring.
If I want to get the whole two vessels in the scene, and also wish to show every detail of the food, then will the normal serving dishes do, or I have to get some "tiniest" dishes?

Or
I have understood his point wrong?

Asked by Anisha Kaul

Answer

I shoot food photos with a macro lens. However I am usually a meter or more away from the food. So I am using the lens like a portrait lens. Many food photographers would probably use a 70-200mm lens - you can get a shallow depth of field, but not like true macro, where the lens is virtually touching your subject and the depth of field is a mm or two.

If you use a reversing ring, that is completely different than a macro lens. With a macro lens you can back up from the food and frame it any way you like. But with a reversing ring, you will not be able to control focus with the lens. You will have to move the camera towards the food until it is in focus, and you will be very close. Again imagine your lens almost touching the food.

In the image you referenced, the camera was probably as much as a meter away from the subject, not a matter of a few cms. So yes, she used a macro lens, but it's not a macro shot. Reversing rings are not what you want for food. You want something between normal and moderate telephoto (50mm to 200mm). The macro lens she used is 100mm, so in the middle of that range.

Answered by MikeW

Check more discussion of this question.

Are screw-on macro lenses worth anything?

Question

I was browsing Amazon looking at a few items and came across this:

4-piece Close-Up Macro Lens Kit - Included are +1, +2, +4 and +10 Close- Up Lenses. High-Quality lenses are diopters for close up photography. They shorten the close focusing distance of the lens, this allows the lens to go closer to the subject and achieves a larger image scale. Lenses may be used individually or in combination for a greater effect.

from what I can tell these screw onto a lens. I do not do macro work but I might want to play around some with macro photography and the price is decent. Are these really worth anything or they junk?

Please Note: I am an amateur and just getting into DSLR World and not a professional.

Asked by Lynda

Answer

These are not 'lenses' in the sense that most photogs think of the word. They're more like a magnifying glass that you screw on the end of the lens as a filter. Generally, they're not too great, especially since better, cheap options exist.

Take a look at this question. Extension tubes are a great way to go. So is a reversal ring. Both of these preserve the original optical quality of the lens as it doesn't introduce any extra glass.

Answered by rfusca

Check more discussion of this question.

What are the biggest differences between Reversal Rings, Extension Tubes and Macro Lenses?

Question

As far as I understand all three options help you do macro photography but are their other reasons for having the three different items? I figured reversal rings and extension tubes were just for the low cost but with additional more expensive features being added to the two options it seems there may be certain situations for each type? What are their biggest differences and advantages over each other?

• Are there situations where you would have one over the other?
• Do all three options have the same "wafer thin" depth of field?
• Do they all suffer from the same light loss?
• Do any of them affect your photos more negatively than the others?
• Can I achieve the same magnification with rings and tubes that I can with proper lenses?
• Would you ever combine these options together or would there be no need for that?

I ask because I recently bought a cheap extension tube and reversal ring and I'm trying to get a better overall understanding of each. I tend to use the extension tube a lot more, because I can put it on my 70-200 and have a workable distance between subject and lens.

This photo was taken with 49mm of extension tube on the 70-200 I believe which may be greater than 1:1. Would it be sharper with a macro lens?

Larger Version on 500px

Asked by Vian Esterhuizen

Answer

Depth of Field

Reversing a lens will produce a very shallow DOF. You may also get distortion and vignetting and have difficulty focusing, as you can only focus at a very narrow range of distances. From memory extension tubes have less DOF than a macro lens, but I am not certain of that.

Light Loss

You will lose 1-2 stops of light using extension tubes. You can argue that macro lenses at 1:1 lose some light (mine reduces from f/2.8 to f/3.5). I don't know about the loss of light with reversed lenses, but it would would seem clear that the light gathering ability of the lens would be reduced when reversed, given that the aperture opening tends to be quite a bit smaller than the front of the lens.

Magnification

You can achieve 1:1 with extension tubes with say roughly 50mm of tubes and a 50mm prime lens. Reversing a lens you can get greater than 1:1.

Quality and Ease of Use

You will lose sharpness in reversing a lens or using extension tubes. You may lose metering and AF capability with a reversed lens (and some tubes), although some reversing rings and extension tubes have metering capability.

An important difference to me is that macro lenses can focus from their min distance to infinity (other two options have a narrow range of focus ability, so the camera and subject must be a certain distance apart). So once you reverse your lens or put on some extension tubes, you will be locking in a certain magnification and subject-camera distance, where a macro lens you can move closer or further away from your subject to compose the shot.

Reversing a lens, or sticking it at the end of some extension tubes, you are not using the lens for what it was originally designed and optimised for, so you wont get the same performance as a dedicated macro lens.

But both options do a good job considering the relatively low cost.

Re: your new question about using them together. Yes, you can use an extension tube or teleconverter with a macro lens to increase magnification, or to give you more working distance for the same magnification. With more working distance and the same magnification, because you are focusing at a greater distance, you should end up with more DOF as well.

Answered by MikeW

Check more discussion of this question.

Screw on Macro Lenses

Question

I was browsing Amazon looking at a few items and came across this:

4-piece Close-Up Macro Lens Kit - Included are +1, +2, +4 and +10 Close- Up Lenses. High-Quality lenses are diopters for close up photography. They shorten the close focusing distance of the lens, this allows the lens to go closer to the subject and achieves a larger image scale. Lenses may be used individually or in combination for a greater effect.

from what I can tell these screw onto a lens. I do not do macro work but I might want to play around some with macro photography and the price is decent. Are these really worth anything or they junk?

Please Note: I am an amateur and just getting into DSLR World and not a professional.

Asked by Lynda

Answer

These are not 'lenses' in the sense that most photogs think of the word. They're more like a magnifying glass that you screw on the end of the lens as a filter. Generally, they're not too great, especially since better, cheap options exist.

Take a look at this question. Extension tubes are a great way to go. So is a reversal ring. Both of these preserve the original optical quality of the lens as it doesn't introduce any extra glass.

Answered by rfusca

Check more discussion of this question.

Why is the Canon MP-E 65mm F/2.8 Macro Lens not called a zoom?

Question

The Canon MP-E 65mm works differently than my other macro lenses. Compare:

• With a standard 35mm macro, I can frame first and then adjust focus which only changes framing very slightly with.
• With the MP-E 65mm changing focus completely changes framing.

Assuming that the angle of view corresponds to a 65mm lens at 1X magnification, it seems that by 5X, the angle of view is about that of a 325mm lens! In other words, manual focusing (this lens does not autofocus at all) looks like it has the same effect as zooming on a zoom lens with the plane of focus fixed at the closest focus-distance.

So why is this not called a MP-E 65-325mm instead of simply 65mm? More importantly, what does the 65mm focal-length represent? And how can I use that to frame by shots with less guesswork?

Asked by Itai

Answer

It's called a 65mm because that's the combined focal length (light bending ability) of the lens elements. The focusing mechanism on the MPE-65 works like a set of bellows, i.e. it just moves the whole lens back and forth. You can see this as the physical length of the lens barrel changes significantly when focusing. This has the effect of changing both the minimum focus distance and the angle of view, however the focal length of the lens elements remains unchanged.

It's common for prime lenses change field of view slightly on focusing, the effect is just exaggerated with the MPE-65. Lots of rules break down when you get into macro and super-macro photography, focal length, f-stop etc. cease to matter as the formulas for things like depth of field and exposure don't give accurate answers at macro distances. You have to ignore what it says on the lens and use your judgement or trial an error to begin with.

Note it's standard practice to state the focal length of a lens when focussed at infinity (to account for minor variations as mentioned above). As the MPE-65 doesn't focus to infinity I assume they measure it for the 1x setting, so the value is not directly comparable with other lenses.

Answered by Matt Grum

Check more discussion of this question.

How Much Can Lens Magnification Be Improved Without Significantly Lowering Image Quality?

Question

Currently I own only a 1X magnification macro lens (35mm F/2.8) but I am playing with a rented Canon MP-E 65mm lens which can go to 5X. The photography at that magnification is a world apart!

The question is then how much can I increase the magnification of the 35mm Macro through extension tubes or other macro adapters without losing image quality? What would it take to get beyond 2-3X if it possible?

Asked by Itai

Answer

You should be fine stacking on a whole set of extension tubes. You will increase diffraction, however you'll also be magnifying your subject by a greater factor, possible several times more...so fine details will still stand out more than they would at a lower magnification level because the effects of diffraction remain smaller than the magnified details (up to a certain point...diffraction will grow faster than detail magnification, however long before it gets to the point where the airy disc is larger than your original details, other things will limit your ability to keep extending.) The facets of an insects eye become gigantic, and the fine details of EACH FACET could be visible with enough magnification, to the point where they span large clusters of pixels...where the airy disc of diffraction may only span a couple pixels. Extension tubes do not add any optical elements to the light path, so technically speaking, you should be able to extend and gain additional magnification without significantly affecting IQ.

For experiments sake, lets say that hypothetical insect actually is our subject. Lets say we are shooting with an 18mp APS-C camera, at 1:1 magnification. Lets say the facets of our subjects eyes span 8x8 pixel areas (very small!)

If you are shooting 35mm 1:1 @ f/5.6, and slap on a 25mm extension tube. Magnification gain is extension/focalLength, so your adding 25mm/35mm, or 0.714x more magnification. Magnification affects the effective f-stop that you are shooting at. At 1.0x magnification, you are already experiencing some of the effects, and your effective aperture is f/11. With the additional magnification, your effective f-stop is f/5.6 * (1 + 1.714), or f/15. Your subjects eye facets are now about 26x26 pixels in size, and diffraction is affecting about 4 pixel areas.

Similarly, 50mm of extension would be 1.43x additional magnification (50/35), so effective f-stop is f/5.6 * (1 + 2.43), or f/19. Diffraction at that level is visible and will have a moderate impact on IQ, but not anywhere close to as bad as optical aberrations are going to be at f/2.8. It still isn't affecting the ultimate quality of your image, however...as your subject has also grown in detail. Your subject's eye facets are now about 43x43 pixels, and diffraction is affecting about 6 pixel areas.

Lets take the experiment farther...you have to stop down to f/22 to get enough DOF, and your extending by a whole 5x magnification. That gives you an effective aperture of f/22 * (1 + 5), or f/132. At this point, the effects of diffraction would span about a 150 pixel area for an 18mp APS-C sensor (which is VERY high resolution, about 116 lp/mm...line pairs/millimeter.) You might be inclined to think the effects of diffraction are now obliterating all the detail you worked so hard to get. That wouldn't necessarily be the case, though. Your at 5x magnification, almost three orders of magnitude greater than you were at 2.43x magnification before, where those fine details spanned 26x26 pixel areas. The same details should be spanning more than 250x250 pixel areas now. Diffraction has grown, and will likely blur out fine details, but is affecting about 50 pixel areas. You'll still be extracting more detail than you lose to diffraction.

To answer your fundamental question: How much can you magnify before you lose detail? The size of the airy disc will grow slightly faster than the size of the original detail at 1.0x magnification. This is due to the non-uniform nature of diffraction, and the way it will interfere with/amplify itself as its effect grow. Diffraction is also dependent on the wavelength of light...so while I have used the wavelength of yellow-green light (564nm) for my calculations so far, visible light spans the range from about 340nm violet to 790nm deep red. Deep red light will diffract more than other wavelengths, and will produce greater diffraction. You may eventually reach a limit, wherein diffraction affects IQ enough that you don't gain any further benefits. That limit is very far beyond the point where other mechanical limitations prevent you from extending any more.

In normal photography, the more you stop the aperture down, the more the effects of diffraction affect the image. Since the detail in the image is not getting larger as you stop down, the more detail you lose as airy discs grow. When it comes to macro photography, your magnifying the detail as you increase extension...and while your also increasing diffraction, the original details are always larger than the airy disc. You WILL lose some detail as you extend (you'll be bringing finer and finer detail to light, and beyond around 3x magnification, diffraction will start to affect the visibility of finer details than what you started out with at 1.0x.) Eventually the effects of diffraction will prevent you from continuing to make useful gains with additional magnification. But you can push magnification very far. In the general case, you are far more likely to run into the problem where your focal plane ends up too close or actually inside the lens before you actually run into problems with diffraction affecting IQ in a truly detrimental way.

Answered by jrista

Check more discussion of this question.

How do you take pictures of creatures which may move away when you get close to them?

Question

How do macro pros shoot animals, even flies or dragonflies since they can fly away forever at any moment? I sometimes suspect they have some trick to stun or immobilize them.

Just as an example look at these pictures
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/3852436738/composition-basics-in-macro-photography.
How is that done?

In particular this one http://2.s.img-dpreview.com/files/articles/3852436738/image_7.6_1.jpg?v=1383 is hardly made just waiting. The fly is perfectly on the center of the picture and is even sprayed with water.

Asked by Paolo

Answer

There is no magic method that makes it work. There are a combination of factors:

1. Patience. Most of the time you're not going to get a reasonable shot. Be prepared to spend a lot of time waiting. While you're doing that, watch a lot and see how your subject behaves. Once you learn what it does when, you have a better chance of approaching closer.

2. Take anything that looks like it could be good. Sometimes there are subtle things that make a shot good or useless that are not apparent when you're thinking about 20 other things and ballancing in some uncomfortable pose, lying in the muck, or being eaten by mosquitos (they actually want to get close to you). There is no point shooting obvious crap, but otherwise the more you have to chose from later, the more likely you find one good shot in the bunch.

3. Get the critters used to you. This simply takes time. See #1.

4. Don't try to get closer all at once. That is pretty much guaranteed to make anything that can run or fly away run or fly away.

5. As you do get closer, never go straight in. Most things get scared off by a large "eye" moving right at them. Head somewhere off to the subject's side, but still get slowly closer in the process.

6. As you get slowly closer, take this is better than anything else I've got so far shots. Sometimes with some good cropping they may be useful if you don't need to display them at large size or close up.

7. With very mobile insects, it's often better to find their routine and wait for them to come to you. Insects don't seem to think of you as a problem if you appeared to be part of the fixed landscape when they got there. And, "there" can be quite localized from your point of view, like 5 meters away from where the insect was previously busy around a clump of flowers.

8. For insects, try to pick cooler times. You don't always have that option, but insects in general move slower when it's cooler since they are cold blooded.

9. Luck. Good technique makes the outcome more likely, just like bad technique less likely. But, in the end there is still a considerable element of chance. Sometimes, even most of the time I'd say, you get skunked. That's just the way it is. Wildlife photography isn't for everyone, especially the impatient. It also helps if you actually like to be outdoors away from crowds.

Here is a case of a rather fast flying insect:

This is Hyles lineata, commonly known as a hummingbird moth or sphynx moth. I saw this moth making the round of a small hillside of scarlet gillia flowers. It didn't mind me following it too much, but didn't stay long enough at a flower for me to set up and focus (all manual back then). Eventually I noticed a pattern it was sortof following. I set up on a flower it was going to get to and waited. Eventually it came and I got a decent shot. No, I'm not going to show you the other 20 shots that didn't work out so well. Although it was mid afternoon, the sky was overcast. I used a flash on a extension cord held by the front of the lens so it would dominate the exposure to get faster effective shutter than the cloudy light and near macro would otherwise allow.

Sometimes, actually most of the time, it doesn't work out that well:

This was one of those better than what I have so far but not really what I want shots. This is a crop from a rather larger frame. You can see the film grain even at only 600 pixels maximum dimension. I still like this shot because it shows a pepsid waspe mimic eating a moth, something the real pepsid wasps don't do. I have been back to this area in Arizona several times trying to get a better shot, but haven't even seen another pepsid wasp mimic since then. I just have to keep telling myself to feel lucky having gotten this.

Be prepared for lots of these:

You get set up, in focus, reasonably close to get good resolution, good lighting, framed, and you take the picture. Then between the time the brain says to take the picture, your finger pushes the button, and the camera actually does it, the little bugger buzzes off. Yes, they can do that in a fraction of a second.

However, keep on going. Sometimes everything comes together and you get something you actually like and are willing to show others without pretending someone else took the picture:

These Diogmites are quite active. Fortunately they aren't bugged too much by photographers as long as you don't get within some magic radius. I found this one minded me less and less as I hung out by the same manzanita bush it was perched in. I don't know, but I'm guessing this was it's inactive period and it didn't want to bother moving too much. After about 30 minutes of it slowly letting me get closer each time before flying off, I could get close enough with a 135mm lens and extension tubes to get a decent picture. If I had been more prepared and willing to spend a few hours there, I could probably have done better. Again, see point #1. As it was, I got caught in one horrendous downpour and thunderstorm before getting back to the car later.

Answered by Olin Lathrop

Check more discussion of this question.

What is the effective aperture of two stacked lenses for macro?

Question

Is there a way to calculate the aperture of two lenses stacked together for macro? In my specific case, I have 90mm f/2.8 and 18mm 1/3.5 lenses.

Asked by Paolo

Answer

If you want to precalculate the value, I imagine it's possible, but I don't know how.

If you have the two lenses and want to determine through experimentation what the effective f/stop is, that's doable.

First mount the one of the lenses. Put camera in manual mode, and take a shot of something, preferably a neutral gray card. Something that is a solid color would be best. Set the shutter speed so that you get a good exposure.

Now add the reversed lens. With the same fixed ISO, take shots of the same subject (card) and with a range of shutter speeds. Because this will now be a macro shot of a small area of your original subject, that's why I suggested a solid color. Be careful that you are not blocking your light source with the lens.

Then compare those shots and find one that matches the tones of that first shot.

The difference in shutter speeds will tell you the additional stops of light beyond f/2.8 that you've lost by adding the second lens.

So if the original shot was at 1/60, and you have a shot with the two lenses at 1/15 that roughly matches the brightness of the original, then that's two full stops (1/60 --> 1/30 --> 1/15), so your effective aperture is f/5.6 ( f/2.8 --> f/4 --> f/5.6 )

Answered by MikeW

Check more discussion of this question.

Are there any techniques to aid/improve reverse macro photography

Question

I recently started playing with reverse macro with my canon 50mm f1.8. A couple things I noticed immediately is:

• Shallow depth of field
• No control over aperture
• difficult to shoot handheld

I believe these are the common problems with this type of shooting

Are there any techniques that I can use to improve/help with Reverse Macro shooting besides buying a Macro lens as they are kind of expensive.

Here is what I've tried so far

ps. I have read Are there macro focusing techniques for handheld shots? but focusing isn't really a problem.

Asked by fluf

Answer

I've faced similar problems and also was able to overcome a few of them. A few techniques that has proved to be efficient for me are:

• Focus changes even if you move a millimeter. I tried so hard to keep my body as stiff as possible but that did NOT work. So, I just let it go. I start by looking at the blur image through the viewfinder, slowly move forward and start shooting as soon as the image looks clearer, keep shooting and moving all the way upto the point the image becomes blurry again. Do NOT move using your whole body/waist, instead try inhaling and exhaling slowly.
• I always shoot in continuous mode which enables me to increase the chance of getting a better focused shot.
• IS wont work, nor will aperture control. So, you'll need to set the aperture before detaching the lens. I usually use higher than normal ISO to be able to use a higher shutter speed, thus remove any chance of shake blur.
• Not sure if you're using a reverse mount ring, if not, get one asap. It helps a lot and you can concentrate on things other than keeping your lens safe from falling.
• DOF stacking is another technique you can apply. Its true I wasn't able to plan and execute DOF stacking yet, but if you take a lot of pictures of the same subject, chances are you'll find a couple or two which you can use to stack and gain greater DOF.
• Use of external flash is also very helpful and let you use smaller aperture as well as higher shutter speed while keeping the ISO low. Generally you'd like to use a diffuser along with it. Use this link to get an idea about how to make your own DIY lighting setup for better macro shooting.

Answered by ShutterBug

Check more discussion of this question.

Why does my camera show “f00” when using extension tubes for shooting close ups?

Question

As a beginner in close up photography, I am using extension tubes with my Canon 550D and standard 18-55mm lens. I noticed that when I use this, the f-stop meter in the camera does not work and always shows f00. I am using the Fotodiox extension tubes that I bought from Amazon. Is this normal or am I connecting these extension tubes wrong?

Asked by kabir

Answer

These extension tubes do NOT have any electrical contacts to send lens information to your camera, therefore, the camera assumes there is no lens attached and shows f00. These extension tubes just increase the distance between your camera sensor and the lens which enables you to focus closer and achieve greater magnification. Needless to say, you lose any control over your lens while using these extension tubes the same way you do in reverse-lens macro technique.

However, there are some extension tubes available which has electrical contacts and allow you to communicate with your lens while being used i.e change aperture, auto-focus but they are way more expensive.

Ideally, you should set the aperture prior to detaching the lens off the body (by pressing and holding the DOF preview button while taking the lens off) and mount the extension tubes in between. Lack of AF shouldn't bother you much as the DOF is too shallow, you'd have to focus manually in most of the case.

Answered by ShutterBug

Check more discussion of this question.

Can a fast prime lens simulate a macro lens for food photography?

Question

I read in this thread that macro lenses are considered good for food photography.

AFAIK, macro lenses are also used to photograph insects. The lens makes them look giant, and shows up all their details. But that level of detail is not needed in food photography.

If I use a prime lens of 1.4F, and focus manually on the closest food part, will it simulate the macro lens?

Besides focus is there anything else which makes a macro lens more preferable for food photography?

Asked by Anisha Kaul

Answer

The most important property that separates a macro lens from others is its maximum magnification. While there are many food items for which you don't need much magnification, such as anything that fills a whole plate, it will become relevant when you want to concentrate on some detail or have a smaller item (such as a cookie or truffle).

Also, since macro lenses are usually in the moderate telephoto range, you will benefit from their narrow angle of view, which helps to keep unrelated objects out of your picture (there always seems to lot of stuff around where food is).

Typically, you won't be using very wide aperture, since you are shooting from a close distance and want to keep depth of field above minimum.

For example, let's take this shot:

It was taken with Sigma 28mm f/1.8 Macro lens. Despite its fancy markings, it's actually not a very macro lens, providing maximum magnification of 1:2.9. I shot at minimum focusing distance, and still wished I could get a little closer. The crop factor of sensor narrowed the angle down to 42mm equivalent, but I still had to aim carefully so that people and chairs on the background would not be distracting.

So, in conclusion - the most important factors are focal length (giving narrow angle of view) and magnification (which is obtained thanks to relatively close minimum focusing distance at that focal length). Sure, you can do food photography with non-macro lenses, but you'll have to work harder to find a suitable angle and composition. In post-processing, you can simulate both of these properties (at cost of resolution) by cropping.

Answered by Imre

Check more discussion of this question.

Why does the max aperture change when use Nikon 60mm AF-D Micro on D90 camera?

Question

I have found that my Nikon 60mm Micro AF-D changes aperture from 2.8 to 3.2 when used with a D90. I have tried both A and M mode. Is it by design? Why?

I intend to buy Nikon 50mm 1.4 AF-D, but it also has a switch on the lens and it will lock the maximum aperture at 2.0 (my guess) instead 2.8. So should I buy it or not, or would it be better to buy the newer 50mm 1.4 AF-S version?

Asked by Ngan Pham

Answer

I think you must have noticed something slightly different. The max aperture is a function of the lens and should be unaffected by camera.

The Nikon 60mm Micro AF-D will change its maximum aperture as a function of the focus distance. As it focuses closer, the reported max aperture drops. By life size 1:1, its down to f/5.

There is apparently a button on the 50mm AF-D that will lock it to its minimum aperture. This is a property of manual aperture lenses. Modern cameras control the aperture automatically from the camera body. Setting this switch locks it at the minimum aperture so that the camera can automatically control it. Since your camera has an in-body focus motor, you're able to use the AF-D or AF-S, you just need to decide if there's a difference for the price that you care about. They'll both take great pictures, the AF-S will just focus faster and quieter mainly.

Answered by rfusca

Check more discussion of this question.

How important is auto focus and aperture control in a macro setup?

Question

I'm thinking of starting some amateur macro photography, and I'm not sure I want to go with macro lenses, due to their price.

I currently have the following lenses:

• Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II
• Canon EF 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM

And I was thinking of buying either:

• Macro Extension Tube
• Reverse Adapter

My questions are:

1. What is the difference between the tube and the reverse-ring if I want to use one of my lenses for macro?
2. How important is auto-focus in macro-photography?
3. How important is the ability to change the aperture macro-photography?

Answer

The answer to your first question is answered here. Both are good low-cost ways to get started in macro photography.

Autofocus is not very effective as you near 1:1 magnification. Most AF systems will struggle to find focus, you have such a narrow DOF anyway that holding focus is very hard. With anything that is not moving, you are far better to set up a tripod and use live view to focus, if you have it. Or manually focus, then move the camera to and fro to get the subject in focus.

If you have a macro lens, you may not use it at 1:1 as often as you think, in which case AF can be very handy. I use it when shooting bees - it's very hit and miss, but for me slightly more successful than manual focus.

If you use extension tubes or reversal ring, you will be forced to be a certain range of distance from your subject (you can no longer focus over a wide range of distances), so AF is not really useful at all.

Aperture is important. You have a very narrow DOF, so you will often want to stop down in order to get as much DOF as possible. Or if you are shooting hand-held you may need a wide open aperture to avoid blur. If you reverse a lens, or have manual extension tubes and aren't able to control aperture, it's not a killer blow, but it isn't ideal.

Check more discussion of this question.

What are the best techniques for photographing butterflies in a glasshouse?

Question

I will be going to a glasshouse where there will be butterflies as part of a special exhibition / attraction.

What are the best techniques for taking good shots, assuming that using a tripod might be difficult? I will be using a 100mm macro lens.

Answer

I would definitely bring a monopod. Where a tripod might be difficult to use given space constraints, time constraints, or regulations of the exhibit, a monopod should give you a considerable amount of stability while still being very mobile.

If you are inside of the glasshouse (green house), you should be free to use flash. I would either use a macro flash, or find a way to move your flash off camera, close to the subject, with a small diffuser. That should help increase lighting, which even in a green house is likely to be dimmer than you would really need. You won't need a large light...but a small diffused flash should be perfect for butterflies.

If you are going to be shooting through glass, you'll want to make sure you shoot at an angle that hides reflections. It can be possible to use a flash through glass, especially if it is off camera, but you run the risk of increasing glare and obscuring your subject with reflections. You'll want a fast aperture and higher ISO if there is limited light.

Check more discussion of this question.