Macro Advice

Necronomicon

Hey everyone,

I've become very interested in macro photography lately, but I've found it a bit frustrating. My main problem seems to be that I can't manually focus properly. It's okay when I'm shooting a subject that stays very still, because after 5 minutes of fiddling with the lens I usually come out with one or two shots I'm happy with - but when you're dealing with fidgety insects that fly from one plant to the next, it gets tricky.

The two lenses I've been using are a 50mm Canon compact-macro lens and a 70-300mm Tamron tele-macro.

This is one of the shots I'm happy enough with - though the spider's front legs aren't in focus (I can never get the whole body to focus, there's always something that comes out a little blurry).



I like this one because I caught him mid-snack (that's a little insect he's holding) but again I could only get part of him to focus.



Away from the spiders, I caught this butterfly but I just couldn't get the lens to focus on it properly before it flew away:



Also, I've mostly been using Macro mode on the camera - am I better off finding the right settings on Manual?

Comments much appreciated,

Thanks!

hbr

Necronomicon wrote: »

Also, I've mostly been using Macro mode on the camera - am I better off finding the right settings on Manual?

Comments much appreciated,

Thanks!

I think you might get better results with manual settings. I notice
that many of your macro shots are taken with a fairly wide aperture
setting. When the subject is very close to the lens, this gives an
extremely shallow depth of field. Try manual settings with a smaller
(higher f number) aperture. Shutter times will be longer so you will
need to use a tripod. You will also lose more shots due to movement
of the subject. Sometimes you will need to find the right compromise
between speed and DOF. This was taken at f/5.6 using the Canon 50mm
compact macro. I would have liked to take a few shots with a smaller
aperture to get the wings in focus, but I couldn't persuade the fly to
pose again.

oshead

Insect photography is one of the most difficult and technically demanding of macro photography. Narrow apertures are required most of the time. This lenghtens your shutter speed and thus increases the likely hood that camera blur and other movements will affect the sharpness of the image. If you want to get the whole insect in focus then you need to increase the f number. Say f 16 - 22 . This will help in that area. If you go as high as f16, then you'll probably need to use a flash. The light levels drop very low and you don't really want to compromise the image quality by using higher ISO levels.

Here's some quick tips for shooting insects.
Choose the time of day carefully. Early morning is ideal. Another is when the weather is changing. Let's say a rain storm is coming in. The air temp drops very quickly usually about 10 mins before the rain actually falls. Any insects caught out will have slower more slugish reactions than if they were basking in the sun.

Always use a flash. The duration of a flash burst is extremely quick. If you underexpose the ambient light you will in effect be using the flash duration to stop the action. Just a note, if you want to keep colourful backgrounds, underexpose the ambient light by about 2 stops.

Shoot in manual flash mode. Insects are skitty, and sometimes the preflash scares them off. Don't know how many times I caught the legs of a fly in flight in the top of my image.

Take the camera off the tripod and work handheld. I've used a bamboo stick clasped between my left hand and the camera to help steady the camera.

Try and approach the insects while they are feeding or mating. They are concentrated and are less likely to fly away.

While stalking them, your movements should be very slow and deliberate and evenly paced. Try and approach them from below. Most insects eyesight are optimized to detect movement from above. The contrast of your shadow on the sky is surely gonna scare them off.

You should remember that there is a focal plain in space, you can try to maneuver the camera to find the best spatial area for your needs.

Ware clothes that plain and dark. No bright colours or patterns.

Anyway, hope this helps. Here's a link to some of my insect shots. This will give you an idea of what you can achieve with a bit of patience and a formulaic approach.

Best of luck with it.

Necronomicon

Wow, that's tremendously helpful, thanks to both of you

xadacka

What camera do you have by the way?

I'd recommend getting a 100mm f/2.8 macro lens, you can get them from just about every camera manufacturer, and get a macro ring flash to go with it, then just go shoot and have fun!

Necronomicon

xadacka wrote: »

What camera do you have by the way?

I'd recommend getting a 100mm f/2.8 macro lens, you can get them from just about every camera manufacturer, and get a macro ring flash to go with it, then just go shoot and have fun!

Thanks I'll check those out, it's the Canon 450D.

xadacka

Yeah, canon deffo make a 100 f/2.8 EF... They don't have an L version though...

oshead

xadacka wrote: »

Yeah, canon deffo make a 100 f/2.8 EF... They don't have an L version though...

Then what's this? Scotch mist?

Nforce

If I were shooting macro with Canon gear ...this is the lens I'd want

MP-E65



http://www.canon.ie/For_Home/Product_Finder/Cameras/EF_Lenses/Macro_Lenses/MP_E65mm_f2515x_Macro/

Thecageyone

Sorry to hijack, but On topic: I can't afford a true macro lens, do any of you rate 1:2 'macro' lenses? The ancient lens I bought today Vivitar 70-210 f/3.5 has this capability.

"Maximum Reproduction Ratio: about 1:2.2 in macro mode, almost as good as a real Nikkor manual focus micro lens!"

According to you-know-who.

I've only given it a test-drive on the way home from buying it, and it's a bloody fun lens to use I just wondered what true macro shooters thought of 1:2 or even 1:2.2 in this case? Should it be called close-up lens rather than macro?

I have a few bugs to process, looks like they came out beautifully, but they will still require a little cropping. I guess that is one of the main differences?

DutchGuy

While a lot of people might argue that a 1:2 is not a true macro lens as it's not lifesize it's all sort of irrelevant if you, as the photographer, are happy with the pictures you get from it.

OP - the Canon 100mm F2.8 is a very good lens (I have one) but as you already have a macro lens (albeit at 1:2 ratio one) I wouldn't bother upgrading until you've reached the limits of that lens and feel you need to extra reach and magnification. If you have loads of money to spend though you might indeed as well go the whole way and buy an MP-E65 (something I've been wanting one for a while but can't justify the expense).

As to the flash, I use an external flash (Nissin Di622) mounted on a bracket and pointing about 20cm in front of the lens and think the resulting directional light is a bit more realistic than what can be achieved with cheap ring flashes. See the newest macro pics on my flickr for results.

Necronomicon

I can't quite afford a new lens at the moment, but I've been looking into extension tubes. I've read that cheaper, generic brand ones give you the same quality picture as the more expensive brand-specific tubes because there are no optical features.

Has anyone an opinion on these, or any specific ones to look out for?

bernard0368

I have used kenko tubes for macro and they can be quite good. You need to focus manually to get the best results. I also found that in some cases you will also have to use the zoom to focus. one disadvantage is you have to get quite close to your subject.

oshead

Necronomicon wrote: »

I can't quite afford a new lens at the moment, but I've been looking into extension tubes. I've read that cheaper, generic brand ones give you the same quality picture as the more expensive brand-specific tubes because there are no optical features.

Has anyone an opinion on these, or any specific ones to look out for?

With tubes you loose the ability to focus to infinity and with the kenko ones you loose auto focus, which is no real biggie IMO. The main thing you'll notice is light loss. The further the front of the lens is from the sensor the higher the f number. If you have a flash then this is no real problem.

I've got a close up diopter (filter) that fits that lens (52mm diameter). It's the Canon 250D and is very high quality glass. Used with your Macro lens it would bring you very close to 1:1. I have it for sale on Adverts.ie at the moment if you are interested.

Thecageyone

Also consider reverse ring adapters. You can get them on ebay for as little as €5 and once you get the hang of it, you'll be flying. I'm awaiting a 52mm adapter, already have a 62mm for my Tamron zoom but i hate that lens - and today I bought a cheap lens capable of 1:2.2 and find it does as good a job as the reverse option - but I'll still enjoy the 52mm option for my nifty-fifty. Spread it about cheap as poss I say, and have fun.

here's a casual one I took using a humble tamron 75-300mm + a 62mm reverse ring adapter: