Epiphany - so I can't take Marco shots on DSLR w/out a macro lense

[andylawcc]

i occasionally take macro shots and keep on failing with my Oly 410. I thought its my camera fault and largely ignored it, since my little Fujitsu F50 serves as a convenient alternative so I never look into it again. I knew the existance of Marco lenses but seemed silly to me to fork over 300 or so dollar just to take marco shots.
Then i stumble upon a Tamron marco on my friend's Canon 400D and boy it was fun to play around with. I was taking pictures that I never could on my Oly with "regular" lense.

but my major gripe is, now I need ANOTHER lense just for a function I've taken for granted in a P&S?
So in a photographer's bag there would be a 1) wide (ie. 15-50), a zoom (ie. 50-200), a walk around (ie. 15-200), and perhaps a 50mm prime. Would you jam another Macro lense into your bag for all occasion? or you pretty much only bring it out when you know you gonna need it?

 

[Aharami]

I was taking pictures that I never could on my Oly with "regular" lense.

explain

 

[ivan2]

believe it or not you can take "normal" pictures with macro lenses, so you can have macro macro macro in the bag instead =P

 

[twistedlogic]

Actually "macro photography" is when your subject is captured on your image sensor at life size or bigger with a 1:1 ratio (or bigger ratio).

With such small sensors of P&S, its rather just "Close-up Photography" and not true macro.

But yeah for best results, you really need a Macro lens. They are able to focus at much closer distances than non-macro lenses.

However, you can buy macro filters and extension tubes that allow you to take macro shots with normal lenses, but IQ will not be as good.

 

[ghostman]

extension tubes, close up filters, reverse mounted lens... they can all be used to take macro photos without buying another lens. I used to reverse-mount an old Nikon 50mm prime to my Canon lens. I then switched to ProOptic extension tubes. I find both kinda frustrating at times, but perhaps that's just the nature of macro photography.

 

[virtuamike]

Originally posted by: twistedlogic
However, you can buy macro filters and extension tubes that allow you to take macro shots with normal lenses, but IQ will not be as good.

Extension tubes don't have optics. How is IQ not as good?

 

[twistedlogic]

Originally posted by: virtuamike

Originally posted by: twistedlogic
However, you can buy macro filters and extension tubes that allow you to take macro shots with normal lenses, but IQ will not be as good.

Extension tubes don't have optics. How is IQ not as good?

I'm sorry your right, that was a bad choice of words.

Extension tubes work well on fixed focal length lenses and the best magnification results are obtained with using shorter focal lengths.

ETs can work poorly or not at all with many of the zoom lenses.

 

[rivan]

Originally posted by: andylawcc
i occasionally take macro shots and keep on failing with my Oly 410. I thought its my camera fault and largely ignored it, since my little Fujitsu F50 serves as a convenient alternative so I never look into it again. I knew the existance of Marco lenses but seemed silly to me to fork over 300 or so dollar just to take marco shots.
Then i stumble upon a Tamron marco on my friend's Canon 400D and boy it was fun to play around with. I was taking pictures that I never could on my Oly with "regular" lense.

but my major gripe is, now I need ANOTHER lense just for a function I've taken for granted in a P&S?
So in a photographer's bag there would be a 1) wide (ie. 15-50), a zoom (ie. 50-200), a walk around (ie. 15-200), and perhaps a 50mm prime. Would you jam another Macro lense into your bag for all occasion? or you pretty much only bring it out when you know you gonna need it?

I keep my macro in my bag, but only because there's room. If I needed the room, it'd be the first to go, even though it's the sharpest lens I have. I'm not as well equipped as I'd like to be; I have a 28-135 and a 75-300, plus a 100mm macro; the macro is excellent at it's length, I've just been too spoiled by zooms to turn back. I also stick with zooms for catching the kids - much easier.

On whether or not you NEED a macro... well, that's up to you. If you're frustrated by focal distances that aren't as short as you'd like, or shoot really tiny stuff, well... maybe you do. That's really part of the bargain, though, when you buy an SLR.

Originally posted by: twistedlogic
Actually "macro photography" is when your subject is captured on your image sensor at life size or bigger with a 1:1 ratio (or bigger ratio).

With such small sensors of P&S, its rather just "Close-up Photography" and not true macro.

But yeah for best results, you really need a Macro lens. They are able to focus at much closer distances than non-macro lenses.

However, you can buy macro filters and extension tubes that allow you to take macro shots with normal lenses, but IQ will not be as good.

I'd argue that with sensor pixel densities skyrocketing, that definition is less relevant than it used to be, and getting less relevant with every new sensor Canon and Nikon put out. The definition is still useful in describing total lens magnification, but as time goes on, it means less and less as sensor densities climb.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: virtuamike

Originally posted by: twistedlogic
However, you can buy macro filters and extension tubes that allow you to take macro shots with normal lenses, but IQ will not be as good.

Extension tubes don't have optics. How is IQ not as good?

the lens was only designed to be x sharp, and now you're magnifying the middle portion beyond it's capabilities, so now it is somewhere less than x sharp, although it probably has better corner to corner consistency.

 

[Koharski]

I read somewhere that using a high end lens with extension tubes has an extremely low impact on image quality while using extension tubes with a low end lens will drastically reduce the image quality. I'm not sure how true this is, but I assume they are going off the assumption that a "low end" lens is going to have more optical flaws that only come out when you enlarge the image via tubes.

 

[troytime]

Originally posted by: rivan

Originally posted by: andylawcc
i occasionally take macro shots and keep on failing with my Oly 410. I thought its my camera fault and largely ignored it, since my little Fujitsu F50 serves as a convenient alternative so I never look into it again. I knew the existance of Marco lenses but seemed silly to me to fork over 300 or so dollar just to take marco shots.
Then i stumble upon a Tamron marco on my friend's Canon 400D and boy it was fun to play around with. I was taking pictures that I never could on my Oly with "regular" lense.

but my major gripe is, now I need ANOTHER lense just for a function I've taken for granted in a P&S?
So in a photographer's bag there would be a 1) wide (ie. 15-50), a zoom (ie. 50-200), a walk around (ie. 15-200), and perhaps a 50mm prime. Would you jam another Macro lense into your bag for all occasion? or you pretty much only bring it out when you know you gonna need it?

I keep my macro in my bag, but only because there's room. If I needed the room, it'd be the first to go, even though it's the sharpest lens I have. I'm not as well equipped as I'd like to be; I have a 28-135 and a 75-300, plus a 100mm macro; the macro is excellent at it's length, I've just been too spoiled by zooms to turn back. I also stick with zooms for catching the kids - much easier.

On whether or not you NEED a macro... well, that's up to you. If you're frustrated by focal distances that aren't as short as you'd like, or shoot really tiny stuff, well... maybe you do. That's really part of the bargain, though, when you buy an SLR.

Originally posted by: twistedlogic
Actually "macro photography" is when your subject is captured on your image sensor at life size or bigger with a 1:1 ratio (or bigger ratio).

With such small sensors of P&S, its rather just "Close-up Photography" and not true macro.

But yeah for best results, you really need a Macro lens. They are able to focus at much closer distances than non-macro lenses.

However, you can buy macro filters and extension tubes that allow you to take macro shots with normal lenses, but IQ will not be as good.

I'd argue that with sensor pixel densities skyrocketing, that definition is less relevant than it used to be, and getting less relevant with every new sensor Canon and Nikon put out. The definition is still useful in describing total lens magnification, but as time goes on, it means less and less as sensor densities climb.

i don't see how sensor density has any affect on the definition of macro.
1:1 - size of subject is same size on the sensor
sensor density just means there's more 'pixels' being captured by the sensor, right?

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: virtuamike

Originally posted by: twistedlogic
However, you can buy macro filters and extension tubes that allow you to take macro shots with normal lenses, but IQ will not be as good.

Extension tubes don't have optics. How is IQ not as good?

the lens was only designed to be x sharp, and now you're magnifying the middle portion beyond it's capabilities, so now it is somewhere less than x sharp, although it probably has better corner to corner consistency.

The lens itself isn't becoming more or less sharp... it's not like you're going in there and changing the hard optics. The projected image resolution is what's changing. At Y distance the projected image resolution is X. At Y+ distance the projected image resolution is less than X because it is being projected over a larger area, although this resolution is possibly still greater than the resolution of the sensor itself.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny

Originally posted by: ElFenix

the lens was only designed to be x sharp, and now you're magnifying the middle portion beyond it's capabilities, so now it is somewhere less than x sharp, although it probably has better corner to corner consistency.

The lens itself isn't becoming more or less sharp... it's not like you're going in there and changing the hard optics. The projected image resolution is what's changing. At Y distance the projected image resolution is X. At Y+ distance the projected image resolution is less than X because it is being projected over a larger area, although this resolution is possibly still greater than the resolution of the sensor itself.

that's what i thought i was saying

 

[tfinch2]

You can get one of the best budget macro lenses (35mm f/3.5) for the Olympus for less than $200.

http://www.pbase.com/travisfinch/image/60130283
http://www.pbase.com/travisfinch/image/58214170
http://www.pbase.com/travisfinch/image/58826915
http://www.pbase.com/travisfinch/image/58826850

 

[andylawcc]

Originally posted by: tfinch2
You can get one of the best budget macro lenses (35mm f/3.5) for the Olympus for less than $200.

yes, but, I don't know would it justify the even-relative low cost of a marco lense since I don't use it THAT often. and even when I do need such function, my little P&S be suffice to a certain degree. I really don't want to lug around another lense just-in-case for those just-in-case-I-need-a-macro moments...

my pancake lense has been dusting inside the camera since I got it. and one day, I just think I might use it.