Close up lenses

[miloblithe]

Does anyone have any experience with these? I can't really justify jumping the gun and buying the Canon 100mm f/2.8 Macro that I want. I think using that money to start my 6-day old daughter's college fund is a more responsible way to go. And really, the $1300 or so I've spent on camera gear in the last 8 months is probably more than my income justifies already!

But I want to take close up pictures of my daughter's little ears, and fingers, and so on. I was thinking of renting a macro lens, but that seems expensive enough that I'd rather just buy a $400 lens than pay $80 to rent it for three weeks.

I've tried using the reversed lens trick with my 50mm f/1.8, but actually that's so close that I can't even fit her whole little ear in the frame! (Not to mention the lack of metering and depth of field control.)

I was thinking of buying something like this:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/10173-REG/B_W_65076613_52_mm_Close_up_NL.html

I know it won't measure of up to a real macro lens, but I also kind of think that baby toes don't really require the sharpness that photographing insects or parts of plants, etc., do.

What do the wise think?

I guess for $20, I can't really lose though. You know. Except for $20.

 

[Westside guy]

I've heard a lot of good things about the Canon 500D close-up lens/filter (or the 250D, depending on what lenses you want to use it with). A lot of pros seem to carry it.

It's certainly on my list to buy - although in a 77mm thread.

 

[Crawn2003]

Are you talking something like Macro photography?

If so, and this is with Nikon so I don't see why not with Canon, what about extension tubes? Only thing is you have to adjust for the amount of light coming in the lens. Instead of f22 you'd have to shoot at f16 because less light is reaching the sensor due to the extension tube.

Lol, and if it isn't macro photography, forgive me. I'm running on 2 1/2 hours of sleep! I've been putting a portfolio together to send out and that's been draining me of energy....

~Crawn

 

[compuwar]

Tubes will give the same focus issue a reversed lens would. The Canon 500D is the way to go if you're going to do it by sticking a magnifier on the front of a current lens.

 

[miloblithe]

As always, more or less, you get what you pay for I guess, but $72 for the Canon 250D or 500D (I'd be using it with my 50mm lens, so I guess 250D) seems like a good bit of the way towards enough for the cost of a macro lens anyway.

It seems that the Canon lenses are actually cheaper than the other 2-element lenses.

What about this Nikon kit?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/191745-REG/Nikon_52mm_Close_up_Lens_Kit.html

 

[compuwar]

As always, more or less, you get what you pay for I guess, but $72 for the Canon 250D or 500D (I'd be using it with my 50mm lens, so I guess 250D) seems like a good bit of the way towards enough for the cost of a macro lens anyway.

It seems that the Canon lenses are actually cheaper than the other 2-element lenses.

What about this Nikon kit?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/191745-REG/Nikon_52mm_Close_up_Lens_Kit.html

Everything I've heard and read says the single-element diopters are disappointing image-quality-wise. In the diopter category, the Canons get recommended highly, and the 250D is a +4 diopter, this kit would only get you to +3 if you stacked them.

In photography, if "everyone is doing it" generally it means doing it some other way is going to cost you more money because you'll pay for the short-cut then you'll eventually get to the way "everyone is doing it."

 

[Zeke]

The Tamron 90mm macro is awesome. Very well reviewed and significantly cheaper than the Canon.

 

[compuwar]

The Tamron 90mm macro is awesome. Very well reviewed and significantly cheaper than the Canon.

The Canon 500D and 250D are close-up diopters that screw on the front of a lens, they're nowhere near the price of a Tamron 90mm.

 

[Zeke]

The Canon 500D and 250D are close-up diopters that screw on the front of a lens, they're nowhere near the price of a Tamron 90mm.

I was referring to the Canon macro he originally quoted. The close-up diopters are a pain and not worth the money IMO. The macro lens doubles as an excellent portrait lens whereas you have to remove the diopter to be able to focus on far away objects again. Plus, adding glass to the front of the lens is never going to result in better image quality than your lens started with.

Although to address the original question, you don't actually need a macro lens. None of the stuff you're taking pictures of will require 1:1. You can get away with a normal lens that claims macro (Tamron 17-50 for example) and just zoom in on the ear, finger, etc...a macro is really only necessary to get down to where the image on the sensor is the same size as the actual object.

 

[miloblithe]

$400 for the Tamron doesn't really look that appealing to me compared to $470 for the Canon, if only for the internal focusing of the Canon. Maybe if I could find one used though...

 

[Zeke]

$400 for the Tamron doesn't really look that appealing to me compared to $470 for the Canon, if only for the internal focusing of the Canon. Maybe if I could find one used though...

Yeah I get everything used. You should be able to pick up the Tamron at a good deal if you find one.

There's also a rebate on the Tamron if you decided to buy one new. Brings the price down to ~$350.

 

[miloblithe]

Where do you get your used gear? I poke around adorama, BH, KEH, and eBay, but I've never actually bought anything.

 

[Zeke]

fredmiranda.com and ebay mostly. I avoid the used retailers as they're just gonna mark it up (kinda like a used car lot).