Just starting out

[lartamax]

I bought my first dedicated macro lens. I went for the canon 100mm f2.8 to go with my Canon 50D and for lighting I have just a speedlite 430 EX II.
While I can get decent results with larger objects eg: spiders anything small such as ants I find the min focusing distance is too great to get any real detail. Do I need to add anything to my set up eg: would an extension tube allow me to get closer to the smaller subjects. Can or should I be using my 1.4x teleconvertor MKII along with the 100mm macro. Any advice greatly appreciated.

John.

[ChrisRaper]

I would go for the extension tubes (or bellows if you can get some) because they will increase magnification at the expense of a shorter working distance but won't put any extra glass between the lens and the camera. The Canon 100mm is supposed to be a pretty excellent lens so it would be a shame to put some less-than-perfect glass in the way

[Charles Krebs]

John,

While I can get decent results with larger objects eg: spiders anything small such as ants I find the min focusing distance is too great to get any real detail.

You have a few options to choose from if you wish to use the 100mm macro for higher magnifications than 1:1.

... auto extension tubes (bellows are nice but, with one very expensive exception, they do not permit you to control the aperture of a Canon EF lens. If you go fully "manual" and use a somewhat shorter focal length lens then they are an option that should be considered).

... supplementary close-up lens mounted on front (Like one of the Raynox versions or the Canon 250D)

... an interesting "field use" combo is the 1.4X teleconvertor used together with a medium sized tube. (I don't think that the 1.4X Canon converter can be attached directly to this lens because of the protruding front elements on the telelconverter).

The best approach may well depend on your magnification expectations. Might be a good idea to get out a ruler and determine how large the field size is (left-to-right) that you would like to record. If you give us some idea of that dimension, it would be easier to make suggestions.

[lartamax]

Thanks for the answers so far.
I have checked the 100mm macro and the 1.4x needs an extension tube or similar between it and the macro lens.
Ideally I would like to be able to get detailed photos of insects as small as 1 - 1.5cm in length.

John.

[Craig Gerard]

... supplementary close-up lens mounted on front (Like one of the Raynox versions or the Canon 250D)

In a later response:

Ideally I would like to be able to get detailed photos of insects as small as 1 - 1.5cm in length.

1 - 1.5cm in length is rather big.

I'd start with either the Canon 500D or Raynox DCR-150. If more magnification is required, the Canon 250D or Raynox DCR-250 will fulfill your requirements.

With any of those diopters attached to the Canon 100/2.8 Macro, the focusing ring of the lens acts like a zoom facility and is worth exploring

Raynox DCR-250 sells for approximately $75.00, the Raynox DCR-150 sells for slightly less, both are available on eBay.
Raynox information:
http://raynox.co.jp/english/digital/d_slr/index.html

The Canon 500D and 250D Close-up lenses provide exceptional quality, though, at additional cost. I have not compared them with the Raynox Macro Conversion lenses.




Craig

[lartamax]

thanks for the advice and links I didn't know the 250D and the 500D existed

John.

[abpho]

Ideally I would like to be able to get detailed photos of insects as small as 1 - 1.5cm in length.

That is 3.6:1 to 2.4:1 magnification respectively. That will be difficult with the 100mm f/2.8 macro lens and some tubes. You would need to add 260mm and 140mm worth of tubes. At $250 for a 24mm Canon extension tube you would be better off buying the MP-E 65mm f/2.8 macro lens which can do 1:1 to 5:1. Adding a set of bellows will make the whole get up very unwieldily and no aperture control.

[rjlittlefield]

Ideally I would like to be able to get detailed photos of insects as small as 1 - 1.5cm in length.

That is 3.6:1 to 2.4:1 magnification respectively.

I don't get that. According to what I read, the 50D is an APS-sized sensor, 22.3 x 14.9 mm. So John is looking for magnifications from 1.5X to 2.2X.

On my T1i, same size sensor, my Canon 100mm f/2.8 L plus 65 mm of Kenko tubes will go up to almost 2X, measuring about 1.13 cm across the field. Image quality remains good on tubes as long as the lens is set to close focus.

(If you're thinking that's not enough extension, bear in mind that DSLR macro lenses typically shorten their focal length as you turn the focus ring. For this lens, it drops from 100 mm at infinity focus down to 65 mm at 1X, and then from there 65 mm more extension takes it to 2X.)

Adding a Raynox 250, with no tubes, gives almost exactly the same maximum magnification, 1.10 cm across the field. The maximum field width in this case is 2.8 cm, so I get continuous coverage from infinity to 2X at the cost of popping the Raynox on and off. I haven't checked out the image quality, however.

I agree that the MP-E is a superb lens in the size range that John wants, budget permitting.

--Rik

Edit: to add some more info.

[Charles Krebs]

Actually a 50D is a Canon APS-C size sensor. It is 22.3mm wide, so a magnification of 2.23X (2.2:1) would fill the frame (left to right) with 10mm.

As per Canon, the Canon 250D will allow you to get a magnification of 1.41x with their 100mm macro. That means a field size, left to right, of 15.8mm. Much better than you have now, but still a bit away from the magnification you want. The Canon 250D has a 250mm focal and thus is "+ 4 diopter".

The Raynox DCR-150 is a +4.8 diopter (not too much different from the Canon 250D)
The Raynox DCR-250 is a +8 diopter (considerably "stronger")

Based on Craig's forum message from about a year ago (on a 100mm Canon macro lens):
http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... hp?p=71586

Using the DCR-250, with the lense set at 1:1, I'm seeing 10mm in the FOV. With the lense set at infinity I am seeing 35mm in the FOV

So the Raynox DCR-250 looks like a good option to me. Without it you go from "infinity" to 1:1. With it you have from 0.63X to 2.23X. Nice overlap in range (no "gaps") and seems to cover most of your needs.

[abpho]

Oops. I used the full frame measurement of 36mm as the width.

On my T1i, same size sensor, my Canon 100mm f/2.8 L plus 65 mm of Kenko tubes will go up to almost 2X, measuring about 1.13 cm across the field. Image quality remains good on tubes as long as the lens is set to close focus.

Now that I think about it, LordV did mention that the 100mm f/2.8 macro does change it's focal length to around 70mm when focused to 1:1. Just as you mentioned in the next sentence in your reply. That's what i get for replying before I read everything.

All I was trying to get at was that to retain aperture control by going with tubes is expensive and the MP-E would be a better fit if the user was going to spend that kind of money. There are always other alternatives. Reversing, diopters, or going full manual and throwing in a set of bellows. I never had to chance to play with the Raynox. But the people that use it are happy and get some great results.

[lartamax]

Well I certainly asked the right people. Thanks everyone for the detailed replies. I had originall considered that as I have a 100mm macro and a 1.4x convertor then the addition of an extension tube may give me the extra magnification I wanted at minimal cost. You guys have given me many more options to consider many of which I knew nothing about eg: bellows, supplementry close up lenses and the canon MP-E 65mm. Obviously I am a complete beginner to macro when even the basics were new to me. I will do some background reading now then make a decision.
Thanks again for all the advice and suggestions.

John.

[abpho]

For a quick primer on macro photography read LordV's thread at photography-on-the.net. A Canon photography forum. Very good place for things not macro extreme as they are here.

Everybody starts from nothing. So no big deal. Have fun.

[lartamax]

Thanks for the link much appreciated.