| Do you really need a Macro lens for Macro photography? |
|
|
|
| Written by Cyrus Khamak | |
| Saturday, 23 June 2007 | |
|
I guess it all depends on how much you'd like to get into the Macro world, what your interests are and how you define macro photography in general. For me, Macro photography starts with 1:1 magnification and anything far less than that and I would call it a close up.
As you know, with a true macro lens, you probably already have the capability of 1:1 Magnification and beyond but I'm not sure how easily one can get to !:! magnification with, let's say, a 180MM prime, if ever at all. Even if you do get to that level of magnification, I doubt if you can maintain the image quality and the detail you would like to have to do a larger print. A very good zoom lens or a 180MM 2.8 + tubes, macro adapters, diopters, etc, would be a good set up for larger subjects such as butterflies and what have you but maybe not for smaller insects. A dedicated Macro lens differ from a normal lens in a variety of ways. Macro lenses have an extended focusing mount that enables them to focus from infinity to a magnification of ×0.5 or ×1.0 or beyond by turning their focusing ring. They could have the flattest field and are optimized for good corrections over a wide range of magnifications. They are also much more immune to field curvature and other aberrations, specially for higher magnifications and particularly when used with more and more extension tubes. Now, how much of a difference you would see in the images produced by a dedicated macro lens compared to images you get from a prime or a zoom plus gadgets, of course, depends on the prime , your expectation and the amount of tubes and gadgets used. If you are on a budget and would like to use your "good", long lens, then it would be fine. But if you like to capture full frame Macro images, specially above and beyond 1:1 and specially with a converter + stacks of tubes, you DO NEED a dedicated Macro lens.. Having said all that, I think it's very worthy to consider what our friend, Mr. Rafik Kamel has been able to capture with his 70-300 VR lens plus a Macro adapter. You may see more of his Macro work HERE, if you would like to do so. insect 
lens 
macro 
magnification 
Trackback(0)
Comments (3)
  written by davdub, June 25, 2007
It seems that many photographers use extension tubes these days, I see very few using bellows. I wouldn't think cost would be the issue, is it flexibility of use? With the 'Pro' photographer, bellows still seems to be the choice however, just nostalgia? Thoughts...
 written by cyrus, June 26, 2007
Dave,
You are right and thanks for your thoughts. I personally have no use for bellows based on what you have mentioned, flexibility and I can't take it with me out on the field. It is however, a good system for dead insects or stationary objects. written by Robert Seber, June 28, 2007
I have a set of bellows. While it is OK for stationary subjects it is slow to use, bulky and I lose automatic stop-down (so need a very bright light). Not very good for photographing insects!
The main advantage of macro lenses over tubes I find is the range of magnifications they are capable of without having to take anything on or off. Tubes and close-up filters involve a lot of juggling. Interestingly though a zoom lens can be used to obtain a range of magnifications with a tube by zooming in and out. Write comment
|
|
| Last Updated ( Thursday, 05 July 2007 ) |
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
| Next > |
|---|