Getting greater than 1:1 macro lens magnification

[Hoppity]

I use a canon 7d and I'm about to purchase a Tamron 90mm 2.8f macro lens. I did look at the 180mm 3.5f macro from Tamron but it didn't seem to get good reviews compared to the 90mm.

I would really like to have greater magnification than 1:1 to see detail in insect eyes - would this 90mm lens do that for me if I used a converter or extension tubes? I know so little about these extras for a lens and would value your opinion.

[triops]

Investigate reversing rings, they can produce quite spectacular results.

[pressld2]

The lens on it's own has a reproduction ratio of 1:1 so adding either a teleconverter or extension rings (or both!) will get you better than 1:1.

As a Canon user, you also have the option of the MPE-65 lens which will give you a maximum reproduction ratio of 5:1 but at a cost of £500 more than the Tamron.

Dave P.

[Geoff F]

If you are photographing nervous insects in the wild, Hoppity, don't get overly concerned about supposed size ratios.

The overriding consideration is the fly/run away distance. For which I reckon somewhere around 12 ins is a good average.

So there is little point in getting a lens which gives you a good sized image at 3 ins if you can't get that close.

But for studio work, on dead specimens or totally static subjects a smallish lens can work well.

I use a Sigma 180 mm macro lens which works well, but often I still add a 1.4x converter to obtain greater magnification. Does Sigma still produce this lens? The Canon 180 gets excellent reviews but, at that price, so it should.

On the downside, besides price, a 180 lens is heavy and sometimes a bit cumbersome in tight surroundings. Definitely a tripod only lens.

The Sigma 150 mm lens gets good reports and is a handy size.

The MPE 65 lens can produce excellent results but is really more of a specialist studio lens than for field use.

So, basically, selecting the optimum size depends on exactly what you will be photographing.

An extension tube has virtually no magnification in itself but will get you closer to your subject, and therefore produce a larger shot. But it will not help if you scare away the subject before you have edged closer.

They work particularly well with zoom lenses which have a minimum focusing distance around 3 ft. I can successfully use a 25 mm tube with my 70-200 L lens, when I don't have a proper macro lens with me.

Converters increase the magnification so can work well on suitable lenses. But they require a little extra light and can reduce the image quality slightly, particularly when used on cheaper lenses. A 1.4x converter usually works best as there are likely to be greater problems with the x2 version; but a x2 can produce satisfactory work under ideal conditions.

The Canon converters only fit selected Canon lenses but there are third party alternatives which can be used with other lenses, but check before purchase.

And one other thing to consider about macro photography is that with modern cameras you have a lot more pixels than you actually need for normal use. So most shots will allow for a considerable amount of cropping and still print well.

[WhiskyBottle]

Geoff has covered most things.

I used to use a Tamron SP90 with the matching 2x convertor on a film camera. Results were good and you don't seem to get the quality loss with macro that you do with long lenses. Get increased problems with movement and depth of field though.

I currently use a Sigme 105 on a DX sensor camera and find little need to use a convertor now, but if needed the Kenco Pro300 x2 fits this lens (the sigma one doesn't).

For high magnification on the cheap try a reversing ring and a fast standard or wide lens. An old manual focus lens should do fine such a a 50mm 1.8. You'll be working very close and will need to stop down to get any dept of field. You'll also need to move the camera to focus so some sort of rails or a dovetail tripod mount would help (by which time the subject will have migrated south). You'll also need good light.

If I was starting from scratch now I would get the Sigma 150 which give 1:1 out of the box, takes a convertor when needed to give 2x, and still has a good working distance. It also has a tripod mount I believe, which is a big advantage as the camera can be rotated without loosing the composition. This last factor alone is almost enough to make me switch lenses.

[Hoppity]

Originally Posted by triops

Investigate reversing rings, they can produce quite spectacular results.

I'm certainly going to consider this

[Hoppity]

Originally Posted by pressld2

The lens on it's own has a reproduction ratio of 1:1 so adding either a teleconverter or extension rings (or both!) will get you better than 1:1.

As a Canon user, you also have the option of the MPE-65 lens which will give you a maximum reproduction ratio of 5:1 but at a cost of £500 more than the Tamron.

Dave P.

Thanks Dave - I think I'll pass on that specialist lens for now though I'm going to have a read at its specs as I've never heard of it before.

[Hoppity]

Originally Posted by Geoff F

And one other thing to consider about macro photography is that with modern cameras you have a lot more pixels than you actually need for normal use. So most shots will allow for a considerable amount of cropping and still print well.

Geoff thankyou so much and cropping is something I have done in the past.

[Hoppity]

Originally Posted by WhiskyBottle

If I was starting from scratch now I would get the Sigma 150 which give 1:1 out of the box, takes a convertor when needed to give 2x, and still has a good working distance. It also has a tripod mount I believe, which is a big advantage as the camera can be rotated without loosing the composition. This last factor alone is almost enough to make me switch lenses.

Whisky Bottle - see that avatar of yours I want to take macros like that!

I must admit that the sharpness and the bokeh in the tamron was encouraging me to go for that lens along with the good reviews. I've never even considered the 150mm sigma before and I see that both you and Geoff have given it the thumbs up. I'll also have to check up on a few reviews of that lens now aswell.

If anyone has any macro's taken with this lens with/or without a convertor I would appreciate a link so that I could check them out.


Many thanks

[Jim Ford]

Originally Posted by Hoppity

If anyone has any macro's taken with this lens with/or without a convertor I would appreciate a link so that I could check them out.

Here you go (view them at full-size):





This one's with a 1.4x converter:







There's others in my Gallery, but the above should be enough to give you an idea.

Jim