Hello all,

My enthusiasm is macro photograpy, I am dying to take photos of flies, ants, fungus on the wall, crickets, I want to take the photos without sacrificing quality, crystal clear, razor sharp, I planned several things but one of my plans Medium format for sharpness is doomed because:

Medium format (MF) is expensive, MF lenses who lot of expensive, MF is heavy, bulky, harder to find parts etc.

So since I like Canon lenses I need an advice from you guys, a minimal Canon Camera and for a maximal quality lens that fits the camera, autofocus is preferred.

Also is it possible avoiding fish-eye effect when taking ant-fly pictures?

Thanks in advance for your info.

Regards.

Can BAYTAN

-- Can BAYTAN (cbaytan@yahoo.com), October 09, 2001

Answers

i think you'll do just fine with canon equipment, though i don't know why you would want autofocus for macro work. an economical setup would probably be an AE1 body with a canon fd 50mm macro lens. there will be no fish-eye effect.

one other setup that i think you might find useful would be an olympus om-2 camera with the 50/3.5 olympus macro lens and the olympus t32 flash (plus a duo-synch cord to get the flash off the camera). the advantage of this is the ttl off-the-film flash control which works at all apertures, very handy for macro work where a conventional auto flash tends to read wrong due to the close distance. this gear is available at pretty good prices; the only trick is to make sure to get the correct hot shoe for the camera to fit the t32 flash (there were a couple of different ones, the shoe is detachable from the camera). the ttl flash really makes a big difference.

rick :)=

-- Rick Oleson (rick_oleson@yahoo.com), October 09, 2001.

Or for a more modern, AF body and lens combo...

Try an EOS Elan 7(e) (EOS 30) or EOS 3 (or even a 1V if you can afford it) with a 100mm F2.8 USM macro, or, for a longer working distance (and a lot more money) a 180mm F3.5L USM macro. Also, you may wish to add an MR14EX ringflash, or MT24EX macro flash to that.

-- Isaac Sibson (isibson@hotmail.com), October 09, 2001.

Regardless of whether you go AF or manual focus, you may not be happy with the ring flash option. It tends to give rather flat lighting. Great for documentary uses, boring for any kind of artistic shot.

As long as the body you're using has TTL flash metering, you can get an off camera cord, and use a bracket to get the flash close to the lens, off to one side. You'll get some form and shadow that will give the image texture and interest.

I personally use Minolta manual focus gear for my macro work and am extremely happy. :-)

-- Don Tuleja (durocshark@photo.net), October 09, 2001.

Hi Can,

You'll need a good tripod.

Your obsession with close-up photography is clearly shared by many others of us. You've had answers from an Olympus user, a Canon user and a Minolta user. Here, now, is a response from a Nikon user.

You'll need a good tripod.

Canon kit is a good choice. As you've discovered, the glass is very good. I agree with Rick that you'll use mainly manual focus for close-up photography, but, unless the outfit is *only* for close-up work, most people would want autofocus for its versatility. I agree with Isaac that, for serious enthusiast use, you need the midrange EOS 30 (Elan 7 in the US) or better.

You'll need a good tripod.

I use the Nikon 105mm lens, and find that lenses much shorter than that give too little working distance for use in the field. I would love to have a 200mm lens as well (maybe when I'm rich and famous) for butterfly photography ... but would not want to carry that all the time -- I'd want the 105mm as well. So the EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro sounds like your best bet.

You'll need a good tripod.

If the outfit is *only* for close-up work, then a Canon FD outfit will be cheaper ('cos it's not current) and just as good. You also get the option of using the F-1 -- a magical camera -- which has interchangeable viewfinders. (Without this, you risk discovering the ultimate photograph of the Hampshire bluebell only to find that framing it requires lying face-down in the Hampshire nettles.)

You'll need a good tripod.

You speak of macro photography. To a purist, this means photographs at sizes greater than 1:1. Most "macro" lenses are more suitable for "close-up" work: true macrophotography gets you into the world of reversed lenses and bellows extensions. John Shaw's "Close-ups in Nature" is, IMHO, the best single volume on the subject.

You'll need a good tripod.

Fungi and lichen can be counted upon to stay still while you photograph them. Crickets aren't too bad; nor are butterflies if you get up at the crack of doom while they are drying out their wings in the morning sun. Some people freeze flies a little so that they stay still -- a horrid thing to do -- much better to experiment with prefocusing on a spot and setting up something to trigger the shutter when a fly goes there. For all this, you need to get rid of the last drop of camera movement. Accordingly ...

You'll need a good tripod.

Dr Owl

-- John Owlett (owl@postmaster.co.uk), October 09, 2001.

For serious macro, I would avoid Canon system entirely, they don't even have a bellows for precise macro, rather they have a 1x-5x lens as a substitude (you can fit the bellows to any lens you want). Also you can't reverse your other lenses on Canon mount for high magnifications (since they are electrically stopped down), which is a good way of achieving high magnifications if you are familiar. Nikon has the best arsenal of equipment for macro, like the excellent 60mm, 105mm, 200mm lenses together with unique and exceptional pieces like 70-180 zoom macro and 85mm tilt-shift macro. Also Canon's 50mm macro lens doesn't go down to 1:1 but the Nikon 60mm does, which is the cheapest focal length.

-- Manfred (m_sadlowski@hotmail.com), October 10, 2001.

________________________________________________________________

Hello all again, This is the owner of the question, thank you for sharing your priceless experiences with me, after I got replies from you I bid a 100mm FD macro with life size adapter on ebay, I went to bed with coupla necessary copies of popular photography magazine, after a while later I am struck by the idea why I am getting an abondened system with which requires whole lot of chemical process and which I won't be in control in all the time, since I have no intention to set a darkroom and/or Lab?. I get up the bed I and dropped my bid because I had already decided to go Digital because:

With digital imaging there will be no film choice

No film or chemical expiration dates

No pay for the films and sometimes stuck with the lousy films in rural areas

No poisoning the earth by chemicals (When I was young I use to dump my old bath material on garden and I saw the effects of B/W chemicals on plants!

Even no film fading!! I know this is the photography nightmare, but that happens in color films in 20-30 years (I didn't see no effect on my B/W negatives, or my hearth just dont wan't to see they are fading I dunno, are there any reports about that too?)

With digital you just take pictures and download to your computer then big real tricks come! You are in complete control, you can play with any color maps on any area of the image, then you print as you wish, magnify, reduce, most importantly create composition without hassling, arguing with the Lab guys.

Than keep them almost forever (well actually 100 years) as long as your CD goes, or keep them on the net

Publicize them on the flight, no scanning, no printing whatsoever, it takes just an enough web space

I definitely think I am not in the position to teach you something or making digital propaganda to you guys but thats what I think, I am also a newbie from the scratch to digital imaging please correct me whenever if I am wrong (I just have Sony PC100 camcorder for digital, yet.).

So, with going Digital some problems and questions arise since this is less know area to me, I believe some answers of these questions not appeared on the photography books, literature yet:

1-I love Canon lenses (Nikon has a great gear, greatest in SLR area but my personal opinion about Nikon lenses is they are too saturated for colors, having hard time to give you intertones of the color, Canos lenses more pastel and more natural in *my taste* ), I learned from you Canon EF lenses are compatible with digital Canons, that was the good news for yesternight, so I don't have to give up for Canon lenses for Digital-Macro Photography), so I can go with EF lenses but are they really/totally compatible with digital photography? (What I mean here is I saw some ads on pop. photo magazine the lenses are created just for digital photography, thats why I am asking this question

2-Can we reverse telephoto lenses on EF lenses too?

3-Is that true that there is no bellow for EF lenses? just one extension tube?

4-Here is a Con for digital imaging is there any printer you know of which creates non-fading pictures? I own a Canon 8200 inkjet for photography, but it's print outs fades very quickly, strongly disappointing, I think we should go with dy-sub printers but which one? Or just which printer? ( I think I should ask this to digital forum)

5-If the digital resolution is not up to satisfactory limits please let me know! Just say Digital do not give you satisfactory crystal clear results! please if so! (Argh! I don't wanna hear that.)

5.5-Can I ask more questions without bothering you when they came to my mind

Regards to all of you, and thanks again.

___________________________________________________________________

-- Can BAYTAN (cbaytan@yahoo.com), October 10, 2001.

>Nikon lenses is they are too saturated....., Canos lenses more pastel and more natural<

I don't think this is (at least significantly) true, sounds like an urban legend. I can not identify a slide from a Nikon or Canon lens. This has more to do with the film selection, you have to avoid Velvia and E100VS if your liking is not vivid colors.

I have not heard a bellows or reversing system for EOS, but I am not a Canon guy, may be others can tell. Although not simple thing, I can imagine it is probable. For Nikon there is a good used market of 'medical lenses' too (120mm and 200mm, with built in flash) which are excellent gems. Also 3 party (Tamron, Sigma etc) macro lenses are praised for good optical quality.

-- Umit Dincel (umyth@mailcity.com), October 10, 2001.

one last note, regarding your question af whether digital can provide adequate resolution. only you can determine that. it is safe to say that today's digital cannot equal 35mm film in this regard, but that doesn't mean it will be inadequate for your purposes.

iso 200 color print film has been estimated at 13.2 megapixels on a 35mm frame; you can compare this value to the specs of the digital camera of your choice. of course, it takes a pretty good lens to take advantage of all 13 megapixels, and probably a pretty good print too.

rick :)=

-- Rick Oleson (rick_oleson@yahoo.com), October 10, 2001.

Ok...this is quite an interesting thread. :-).

One of the reasons I suggested the 100mm F2.8 USM is that it does focus to 1:1 (the 50mm doesn't without the Life-size converter), and also that with the USM and the focus limiter set, it makes a fine normal 100mm lens as well. USM may also make AF in macro work a realistic proposition, and this lens doesn't change physical length during focusing.

Just to quickly defend the 50mm F2.5 macro, it is an excellent lens. Best of the Canon 50mm lenses optically.

Bellows...well, yes, there are bellows for EOS in fact. The same bellows that were used by the FD system, using the FD-EOS Macro converter. I think it may be true that these items have now stopped production, in favour of the MP-E65mm lens.

-- Isaac Sibson (isibson@hotmail.com), October 10, 2001.

Hmm, but can you use EOS lenses on FD bellows? I wonder how do you stop them down, cause they need electrical contacts for this as you know.

-- Umit Dincel (umyth@mailcity.com), October 11, 2001.

You don't. The lens that goes on the end of the bellows is the same very small diameter manual lens which was used in the FD system. As for whether normal FD lenses can be mounted also, I do not know.

Basically, what happens is this: You mount the FD-EOS Macro converter (which acts as an extension tube), and then mount the old FD bellows system onto this. From the converter tube onwards, everything is as was with the FD system. Same lenses, accessories, etc, etc. I do not know if Canon still make the converter tube, but in the light of the MP-E65 lens, it seems unlikely.

However, it does seem to me that this is really not what is required by Can, as he lists the things he wishes to take photos of, and my feeling is that a regular 1:1 macro lens will be just fine.

-- Isaac Sibson (isibson@hotmail.com), October 11, 2001.

The EF lenses are fully compatible with the D30 and the 1D, if we're allowed to extrapolate from Canon's current policy regarding lens/body compatibility. 3rd party lenses are a different story.

Can, for information on a reverse adapter, a bellows for EF lenses that transmits all electronic information, and more, click here and then on 'Macro Accessories'.

-- Oliver Schrinner (piraya@hispavista.com), October 11, 2001.

In case you haven't noticed, using a modern AF camera for macro work with bellows and such is a real pain in the you-know-what.

I suggest you pick up a copy of John Shaw's book "Closeups in Nature". It has some great suggestions for getting good closeups without spending an arm and a leg.

My favorite suggestion for your situation will be lens stacking. You can get a great EOS lens (like a 200mm prime), a stacking ring available from your local shop or B&H with filter thread sizes to match your 200mm and an inexpensive manual focus (or one of your EOS lenses) 50mm lens. You will get a 4x enlargement using that combo. Mix and match to get the enlargement you want.

Another option that makes sense is to get an inexpensive manual focus rig such as a Minolta SRT or x700, or Pentax K1000, with bellows and such just for macro work. But you'll have to scan the images, instead of working straight in digital. Up to you.

My personal rig is a Minolta x570, Bellows III, 100 f4 bellows lens (sometimes using my 50 1.7 instead), or my 100 f3.5 macro lens when I'm chasing bugs and such. Both options give me amazingly sharp images.

-- Don Tuleja (durocshark@photo.net), October 11, 2001.

I am also interested in doing macro shots. The camera I will most probably end up with is the Olympus 3040Z with CLA-1 Lens adapter with the B-Macro lens.

This will be my first digital camera (actually my first camera). It has to be a P & S so others can use it too. I need some manual setting capabilities so the C3040Z seem to be a good compromise.

I do not expect printing larger than 8 x 10's so 3MP should be enough.

-- CMT (mj30@hotmail.com), April 25, 2002.