These were taken with a 300mm lens

[JoanYoung]

Much as Doug has been doing, I have been testing out my 400D. The shops were sold out of macro lenses during the Christmas period and I have had to wait until the factories opened again before getting one, so I went and tried out the lenses I had which included a 75-300mm lens. I have never heard of anyone doing macro or close up with this focal length before, but after a few REALLY bad shots, I came up with these and was quite surprised once I saw them on the computer. They might not be as sharp as a dedicated macro lens but at full focal length, I think they turned out pretty good.
So my dilemma is this: I do not take pictures for commercial purposes, just for my own enjoyment and to post on the forums; are these with the 300mm good enough for my purposes, or should I spend the money buying a macro lens? Bearing in mind that both cameras and lenses are extremely expensive here in SA.
What do you think?

[MacroLuv]

Pretty nice Joan.
That lens has maximum magnification 0.25 (at 300 mm) so you can fill the full frame (with Canon 400D sensor size) with about 6 cm object size.

[Ken Ramos]

These look okay and again I notice some compression about here and there. I think it is a software issue though and not the camera or lenses. If your xti came with a "kit lens," as they call it, it has a macro capability at its longest mm using the closest focus distance. I do that sometimes with my EF 28-135mm Wide Angle Tele-Zoom, works pretty well for stealthy close ups of butterflies and such but not as good as a standard macro lens. As I said these look okay but could be better if you had say an auxilary close up lens attached to the 300mm maybe but keep at it, your camera is still new to you and like everything else in life, it too takes some getting used to.

[DaveW]

A professional natural history photographer I once met told me he always used the appropriate macro lens, but a lady asked him why he needed to get so close to photograph his butterfly's as she did it with a 500mm lens from a lot further away!

You can get the image size Joan but you tend to loose quality because the lens is not so well corrected for close-up work. That does not show up so much for web use because the computer screen only has the resolution of about a 2-3 megapixel camera I believe.

There is nothing wrong with using 300mm lenses though if the subject is large enough, after all Nikon's longest focal length macro lens is a 200mm one. When you get a macro lens though Joan, apart from getting to 1:1 easily, I think you will notice the difference in the quality of the image.

DaveW

[cactuspic]

Before I had a dedicated macro lens, I used a Sigma 75-300mm which gave me a magnification of 1:2 at its macro settings With a Canon 500D diopter, I got some very passable results. As Dave said, macro lenses are meant for close focusing and higher magnification. They are well corrected prime lenses with special elements and have greater capability to resolve detail.

That said, there are occasions that I still use the 300mm "macro zoom" to do macro work, such as when I need the reach or the narrow perspective.

If you like the narrower perspective, look at the 180mm macros. I love using a 180 for natural light shots because you are further awayfrom the subject and have greater flexibility without worrying about casting a shadow on the subject. Most bug shooters, who like their flash to be closer to the bug for a softer effect, shoot with a macro in the 100mm range.

Nice shots, by the way.

Irwin

[JoanYoung]

Thanks everyone for your interesting and helpful comments. I mostly want to use this camera for butterflies as I think my little P&S does very nicely when it comes to caterpillars except that I do not like the DOF. I want the whole insect sharply focused. I have thought about the 180mm macro too but need to try them all out to see which lens is going to give me the best results. Maybe it is a case of becoming more proficient with the use of both camera and lens and lots and lots more practice before I will be satisfied with the quality of pics taken with it.

[puzzledpaul]

Joan -

I have both a 75-300 and a 100-300 f5.6L

Whilst I've never really used the 75-300 (came as part of a deal with a camera and is currently on loan to someone), I used the 100-300 for about a yr before getting other glass.

My lens also provides approx 1:4 mag at shortest working distance (about 1.2m) ... but you'll need a subject that's just under 9cm wide (rather than 6) to fill the frame on your 400d (sensor is 22.2 x 14.8mm)
(I quickly checked mine - and it needs 85mm to fill the frame on a 10D (22.7mm)

Putting a full set of extension tubes (68mm) on this lens reduced the 85mm to 38.3mm ... to 'fill the frame' ... and working distance to approx 90cm

I often used this lens in this configuration and got a lot of enjoyment from this setup (only using D30 at the time) ...

With respect to your original Qs
If you're intending to mainly take pics of butterflies, in a 'setting' - then (strictly speaking) they're unlikely to be 'macro' shots because the field of view is likely to be much greater than 22mm

If *you're* happy with the results ... then what other ppl think is (almost) irrelevant, but - as ppl have already stated, a dedicated macro lens will almost certainly give you sharper images.

As you've already been bitten by the 'macro' bug (!), then I suspect you'll (want to) buy one at some time or other ... especially if you want to fill the frame with smaller details / subjects - which you won't be able to do with your 75-300, unless you add extension tubes and / or additional optics.

Using a 500mm lens for closeups (v. unlikely to be macro) is one thing ... but it's also likely to be a much more expensive (and heavier) option (for this type of work) than even a 180mm macro - let alone a 100 ... and would almost certainly be used with some sort of (substantial?) support.

One suggestion would be to buy some extension tubes -

Cheaper than a macro lens
Will effectively (more than) double the magnification you get with your 75-300
Can be used with any other lens (incl. a macro if you end up buying one) , therefore not wasted money.
No glass to further degrade the image.

You will lose some light because of the extension and you'll not be able to focus to infinity (unlike a true macro lens) ... so, if you suddenly become aware of that charging rhino (whilst photographing a nearby butterfly), you'll not be able to get that 'head-on' shot until it's within focus range ... 1.2 - 3m (maybe) :-)

As Dave said - I can see the difference between the 100-300 pics and other macro lenses I use.

Good luck

pp

[beetleman]

Another option (plus less expensive) is to use one of Canons` closeup Diopter lenses. I was using the Canon 250D closeup lens with the Powershot S1 IS I was using before the 400D and I really enjoyed the results with it . They run about $75US and you just screw them onto the front of your zoom Very nice butterflies Joan.

[rjlittlefield]

With respect to your original Qs
If you're intending to mainly take pics of butterflies, in a 'setting' - then (strictly speaking) they're unlikely to be 'macro' shots because the field of view is likely to be much greater than 22mm

Hark! Do I feel a gentle tug on my chain?

In light of previous discussions, culminating in tripping across the original definition of the term "photo-macrograph", I'm willing to give "macro" credit to any photo that shows more detail than unaided normal vision at closest focusing distance. The boundary for that is something like 12 pixels per mm on the subject, or about 66 mm subject width at the forum's 800 pixel limit. Sounds to me like this lens with tubes fits that definition just fine, assuming that it's sharp enough to actually fill those 800 pixels with detail.

It doesn't matter, of course, since this is after all the closeup forum too. But I just couldn't resist making the point again.

--Rik

[JoanYoung]

Wow, I am getting so many great options here. Thanks everyone I really appreciate the advice!!

Doug - is a diopter something like a converter?

[rjlittlefield]

is a diopter something like a converter?

Strictly speaking, a "diopter" is a unit of measurement commonly used for lenses. The strength of eyeglasses is specified in diopters. So is the strength of auxiliary lenses added in front of regular camera lenses to permit focusing closer. Because of that latter aspect, it's common practice among photographers to say "Add a couple of diopters and you can focus closer." Before you realize what's happened, "diopter" has come to mean "closeup lens", and I'm pretty sure that's how Doug was using the term.

Closeup lenses come in different designs. The Canon 250D is a sophisticated design that is corrected for chromatic aberration and is designed to give minimum distortion with long lenses. You can get cheaper closeup lenses, but chances are, you won't like them.

The effect of adding a 250D is to let you focus on a subject at 250 mm as if it were at infinity without the added lens. Anything beyond 250 mm, you won't be able to focus at all.

--Rik

[JoanYoung]

It is such a long time since I have browsed in camera shops that these gadgets are all new to me. Thanks for this useful info Rik. This diopter sounds like the answer to my caterpillar problem though. I will go and check it out this weekend. I sure am learning a lot of useful things here and appreciate all the information and everyone's kindness!!

[puzzledpaul]

<< Hark! Do I feel a gentle tug on my chain? >>

Haha … certainly not … as an admin myself, I know only too well what awesome power you have at your disposal :-)

Re use of the ‘m’ word.
Relating (amount of) subject to sensor width as a ratio is a well-used / familiar method, I’d suggest, so it was employed (here) purely for convenience… whether it’s the best / quickest / most accurate / descriptive etc way .. is another matter entirely – imo.

<< couldn't resist making the point again >>
No probs … know exactly what you mean

Joan - have no idea what the used eqt situation's like in SA ... but I picked up a (non-Canon) set of extn tubes for £30 from a local shop ...

A word of caution re tubes, tho' - ensure that they maintain (electronic) communication between the lens and camera body - contacts on both faces / ring, internally connected. Some v. cheap offerings do not have this feature ... if in doubt, ask

Pp


Maybe of passing interest ?
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/

[rjlittlefield]

Maybe of passing interest ?
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/

More than passing, I would say! Definitely a useful taxonomy.

--Rik

[DaveW]

I believe the correct term for the "macro diopter" lenses that screw into your lenses filter thread is "supplementary close up lenses". You will often also see them called "close up filters" Joan, but they are actually lenses not filters so that term is also incorrect. As Rik says diopter is a measure of their strength, not what they are. Generally speaking the more powerful they are the more distortion they produce particularly at the edges of the frame:-

http://www.alanwood.net/photography/clo ... enses.html

To return to "macro" v. general photography lenses. I understood the principle difference between the two (apart from closer focusing) was that when it is designed a conventional photographic lens is optimised for infinity focus. In theory therefore as it focuses closer it optically gets worse. Also f-stops too are calculated at infinity and the effective aperture gets smaller as the lens focus closer, but the amount is infinitesimal in a lenses normal photographic range.

A "macro" lens is usually computed for around 1 meter focus, and in theory should be the reverse of a conventional lens and optically get poorer as it focus towards infinity. As you know, as you focus in the range below that of conventional lenses the effective f-stop also quickly reduces and diverges considerably from the relative f-stop marked on the lens. In the old days of hand meters an exposure correction factor had to be applied for extension tubes or "macro" lenses, but now TTL ambient and TTL flash metering takes care of that.

Now with modern advances borrowed from zoom lenses like floating elements or groups, the makers are able to compensate more for near and infinity focusing in lenses, but it has still not completely removed the difference between "macro" and conventional photographic lenses. However "macro" lenses are also usually computed to have a flatter field than conventional lenses for copying work.

"Macro zooms" are not proper "macro" lenses, but just conventional infinity computed zooms with an extra close focusing facility provided.

If I am wrong no doubt somebody will correct my understanding of the differences between the two types of lenses?

DaveW