Macro-wide angle Canon lens - advice please...

Hi all,
I am not a macro photographer and basically have almost no experience in macro. However, I would like to photograph a small animal (around 10 centimetres long) in its habitat. The idea is to place the camera near the animals on a tripod and control it with a remote control. I would like to get the animal big enough in the frame with the habitat and maybe other small creature that live in this habitat.
Any advice as to which Canon lens I should get and any tips regarding technique would be greatly appreciated!
Thanks,
Ofer

Hi Ofer, with a subject of 10 cm, I doubt if you need a true macro-lens. Most macro lenses are designed to have a maximum of 1:1 magnification, meaning that the subject is projected life size on the sensor. Even with a full frame sensor, your subject wouldn't fit the frame. You should also realize that the true macro lenses also have limited DOF, so if you're interested in including the environment, a macro may not be the wisest choice.
Magnification decreases with increasing distance, so your choice of lens would also depend on the desired working distance. Actually, I shoot most of my larger macro subjects, such as butteflies and dragonflies (many of which are in the 10 cm range), at 500mm. this recent post of a dragonfly was shot at 500mm and is about a 20% crop: http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...-Scarce-chaser
So if you own a good telelens for birdphotography, you should be fine.
Should you consider getting a macro lens anyway, I have good experiences with the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM. It's very fast focussing, sharp and has a great bokeh. Working distance to the subject is about 30 cm. Here's a sample image with that lens on the Canon 400D: http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...fly?highlight= but you'll find many more in the Macro forum.
Canon recently issued an L version of this lens, but I have no experience with that one.
Let's here what the others think!

Hi Ofer,

For this size range, the 2 lenses that would work well are the 180 f/3.5 macro, but perhaps even better is the 300 f/4 L IS. For example, see Greg Lasley photography:
http://www.greglasley.net
Greg does many images in the size range you mention, e.g. damselflies, with a 300 f/4. e.g.:
http://www.greglasley.net/nonBirds/sparklejewel.html

I met Greg at Bosque a few yeas back and he showed me many stunning 13x19-inch prints of dragonflies and damselflies imaged with a 300 f/4. The 300 gives great working distance and can be used for other telephoto work too.

Roger

Thanks guys. I do have a afew telephoto lenses including the Canon 24-105 f4, Canon 70-200 f2.8, Canon 300 f2.8 and Canon 600 f4.
However, I am not interested in getting the subject big in the frame and the BG blurred. I would rather get the subject a bit smaller in the frame with a lot of the BG in focus as there are other small creatures in it.

I wonder whether the Canon 24-105 f4 or the Canon 24-70 f2.8 at the 24mm range will do the trick...?

Any input is highly appreciated!
Thanks :w3

The 300mm f/2.8 should work great for the kind of work you're describing; use an extension tube for close focus if you need to. No reason to spend money on an extra lens.

Thanks Doug, using the 300 f2.8 will give me a very shallow DOF so everything in the BG will be soft to blurred. I did some experimenting and realised I will have to work with the 24mm range of my 24-70mm very close to the subject and closing the aperture to f13 or so. From about 80cm it will give me about 50cm of DOF which should be OK.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Working with the 300 f2.8 won't give me so much DOF.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Thanks, guys,<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Cheers,<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Ofer<o:p></o:p>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ofer Levy

Thanks Doug, using the 300 f2.8 will give me a very shallow DOF so everything in the BG will be soft to blurred. I did some experimenting and realised I will have to work with the 24mm range of my 24-70mm very close to the subject and closing the aperture to f13 or so. From about 80cm it will give me about 50cm of DOF which should be OK.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Working with the 300 f2.8 won't give me so much DOF.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p><o:p></o:p>

---

Ofer,
In macro, magnification and aperture are the key metrics that control depth of field, not focal length. For example, working at 1:1 magnification, a 100 mm focal lens will give the same depth of field as a 300 mm lens at the same f/ratio. You will also have the same light level so the same exposure. What will be different is the working distance.

The 300 f/2.8 does not have a very close focus distance, so you may need a lot of stacked extension tubes to get your desired magnification. Also, many lenses when working outside their design range for close focus distance have increased spherical aberration, producing soft images. I haven't tried the 300 f/2.8 with stacked extension tubes to see how far one can push it. It is worth a try if you have (or can borrow) some extension tubes.

I do have the 300 f/2.8 and a couple of extension tubes. I can try it when I get a chance. Note also adding a TC increases magnification without changing the close focus distance.

Roger

Adding a TC and extension tube(s) to any of the lenses you mention will give you both magnification and shortened minumum focus difference. DOF can be a big problem with the longer lenses, particularly in a static setup where the lens is stationary. I love working with long lenes for macro, but it sounds to me like you may not have enough room for your static setup.

A huge advantage of the tele lenses, when you have room enough, is the nice, generous working distances. I love my 500/f4 with TC and ETs for dragon flies, bees and hummers, as well as flora, but the 70-200mm isn't all that bad either with the same TC and ETs, plus I can add diopiter lenses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Stephens

Adding a TC ..... to any of the lenses you mention will give you both magnification and shortened minumum focus difference.

---

David
Adding a TC does not change minimum focus distance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Stephens

DOF can be a big problem with the longer lenses,

---

For a given magnification, depth of field is the same, regardless of focal length. For example at 1:1 magnification on 50mm, 100mm, 300mm, 500mm etc all have the same DOF.

We normally think of the depth of field changing because we normally think of iimaging distant subjects so the magnification is changing between lenses. But in macro, when you adjust distance to achieve a given magnification, then focal length does not affect depth of field.

Roger

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roger Clark

David
Adding a TC does not change minimum focus distance.

---

Why would you misquote me? :2

I said "TC and ET".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Stephens

Why would you misquote me? :2

I said "TC and ET".

---

David,
I interpreted your post as implying the TC will influence minimum focus distance.
Sorry.

Roger

Here are some approximate numbers with 300 f/2.8, 300, f/4, extension tubes, and TCs with a 1D IV (27.9 mm long sensor). The following numbers for field of view at minimum focus distance and magnification are approximate being done quickly hand held. In all tests, adding an extension tube made AF overshoot and I was never able to achieve focus with autofocus with TC+extension tube (ET) combinations.

300 f4 close focus = 1.5 meters
300 f/2.8 close focus = 2.5 meters

At closest focus distance, the field of view with the 1DIV (long dimension) and magnification are:

(order is always lens, ETs, TCs, camera)

300 f/4 no TC no ET: 12 cm, 0.23x
300 f/4 +1.4x TC: 9 cm, 0.31x
300 f/4 + 2x TC: 6 cm, 0.46x
300 f/4 +25mm ET + 2x TC: 3.7 mm, 0.75x
300 f/4 +12 +25 +25mm ETs +2x TC: 2.5mm, 1.1x

300 f/2.8 no ET,TC: 20cm, 0.14x
300 f/2.8 + 2x TC: 10 cm, 0.28x
300 f/2.8 +12mm +25mm ETs +2x TC: 4.7 cm, 0.59x
300 f/2.8 +12 +25 +25mm ETs + 2x TC: 3.5 mm 1.1x

I did not evaluate image quality in any of the above situations. Note too that puttiing ETs between the TC and camera will increase the magnification of the TC (I did not test that).

So, if you only want 10 cm, then either lens will do fine with just 1.4 and 2x TCs. If you want to get to around 1:1, especially with AF, then the 180 mm macro would be better in my opinion.

Roger

Thanks guys for all the excellent comments!<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
I have done some experiments and I realise I will definitely need a wide angle lens - something around the 24mm. My next questions are:<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
1. Would I be safe with the Canon 24-105 f4 and Canon 24-70 f2.8 or should I buy a prime lens when it comes to IQ in the 24mm range from a distance of about 80cm.<o:p></o:p>
2. How much can I close the aperture before I start to encounter problems? I've heard something about f13 as max...?<o:p></o:p>

Hi Ofer - I think I know what you are asking about, you want a wider angle of view for a macro shot. The Canon G and S series compacts are pretty good at that. I also use a Sigma 1:1 50mm macro lens.

Here's a small treefrog (Northern Gray Treefrog) in habitat, taken with my Canon PowerShot S90. Handheld, manual exposure w/ on-camera flash.

- Dave

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5229/...295b243026.jpg

Something like these?

Canon's 28-105 f/4.5-5.6 lens. 28mm @ f/14. Distance was about .6m on a 1.6x crop body. They were handheld with out stretched arm so excuse the leveling :) I didn't mess with any of the processing either, just straight proofs from Breezebrowser. Size of these including full tail is about 25-30cm so the body is close to the size subject you're looking at using.

Thanks guys!!
Chris, this is exactly what I have in mind! I understand I have to use a wide angle lens. I hope my Canon 24-70 f2.8 and/or my Canon 24-105 f4 would do the trick on the Mark IV and 7D.

Thanks again,
Ofer