An Intro to Macro - Equipment Basics

Following on from my stream-of-consciousness post on all things macro yesterday, I decided to try and type things up into a more sensible order. My initial intention was to make it shorter and, hopefully, easier to follow. Having got down to things, I’ve certainly failed on the first of my objectives; I’ve tackled a single area so far and ended up with more words than I had in my whole rant. Having completed this section, I’ve decided I may as well upload it in the hope it’s useful to someone. Further sections may follow as and when I have the time and inclination to put them together.

There are a number of options available to anyone wanting to try macro photography, from dedicated macro lenses to close-up filters. In this section I’ll cover the main methods and consider the pros and cons of each.

I think the info is all accurate, but I’ll be happy to be corrected if I have messed up on anything! I have tried to make this relevant to all makes and models of camera but there may be a small amount of Canon bias!

Macro Lenses:

Perhaps the most obvious option, a true macro lens provides a magnification of 1:1 (basically 1x magnification). Some zoom lenses claim to have macro capability, although this is generally at a ratio of 1:2. The most powerful macro lens readily available is the Canon MPE-65 which offers a range of magnifications from 1:1 right up to 5:1 (5x magnification). Macro lenses are available at a variety of focal lengths, starting at around 50mm and going up to around 200mm. The main difference between these is the working distance; the longer the focal length, the greater the working distance. Generally anything around the 50-60mm range is considered most suitable for product shoots – basically anything you need to get close to but isn’t going to move. For insects anything from around the 90mm mark is going to be suitable. Whilst a lenses such as the Canon 180mm or Sigma 150mm are going to give you even more working distance than something like the Tamron 90mm, Canon100mm, or Sigma 105mm, their extra weight makes them a bit more cumbersome and a bit harder to use handheld.

Pros: Probably the most versatile and easy to use option, almost all the well known models offer stunning image quality.

Cons: Pricey

Extension tubes:

These are hollow tubes that fit in behind a lens to take the glass further away from the sensor, effectively increasing the magnification. Because there's no glass in them there’s no loss of quality, but you do lose a couple of stops of light with the full set on. The other trade off is that you lose the ability to focus to infinity. Given you're using them to try and get as close as possible, that's not really too much of a problem most of the time, but there are occasions where it can be a little annoying.

You can use these in two ways. Combined with a true 1:1 macro lens (such as the Canon 100mm macro) a full set of Kenko (a popular make) tubes will give you anything up to a ratio of around 2:1 (2x magnification). You can use them with non-macro lenses as well to increase the magnification. The ratio achieved obviously depends both on the type of tubes and the lens used, but a full set of Kenko tubes combined with most lenses will achieve a ration of around 1:1 (i.e. the same as a macro lens)

When it comes to makes, there are a few options. Probably the most common are made by Kenko. They're fully automatic and cost just shy of £100 off ebay for a set of three. They have electrical contacts in them so you are still able to use auto-focus and change the aperture setting easily.

You can get ones that aren't automatic for a lot cheaper (as little as around £10) but you lose the auto-focus (really not a concern with for most macro work as you will be focussing manually anyway) and the ability to easily change aperture (this isn’t relevant for users of lenses that have manual aperture control rings). This may not sound like much of a problem, but imagine this: you’ve got your kit, complete with extension tubes set up and your (incredibly rare) subject in focus. You take the shot. It’s nice, but you need a bit more depth of field to make it stunning. With a set of automatic tubes, changing the aperture is as easy as it always is, you’re done in maybe a second or two and then you’re ready to go again. With manual extension tubes the process is a little more time consuming. You have to take out the tubes, put the lens on the camera, change the aperture setting, take the lens off without turning off the camera, put the tubes back on and then the lens. By the time you’ve done this, your subject has probably got bored and wandered off.

Both Canon and Nikon make their own brand extension tubes, but these are considerably more than the Kenko tubes but offer the same level of functionality.

Pros: (Relatively) cheap, used with a good lens offer good image quality, a good way to achieve higher magnifications with a standard macro lens.

Cons: Only as good as the lens you use them with, can cost you a couple of stops of light, you lose the ability to focus to infinity, cheaper, non-automatic tubes are very limited in the functionality.

Close-up filters:

These screw on to the end of any lens and enable it to focus closer than it otherwise would. They decrease the minimum distance that a lens requires to focus, the obvious disadvantage with this being it reduces the working distance you have. They are available in a variety of strengths to allow different levels of magnification and can be used separately or stacked, depending on the level of closeness required.

Pros: Cheap

Cons: Image quality may suffer with loss of sharpness and distortion both common problems. Small working distance and inaccurate auto-focus may also become problems.

Raynox DCR-250:

Similar in many ways to close-up filters, but different enough to warrant a separate mention, the Raynox is another popular tool in the world of budget macro. Marketed as a “super macro conversion lens”, it’s basically a magnifying glass that screws on to the end of any lens with a filter size of 52-67mm. Reviews and sample images show it to be capable of producing good quality results, although, as with all the solutions (with the obvious exception of a dedicated macro lens), a large part of the quality of the results will be down to the quality of the lens it’s attached to. Different people seem to offer different opinions of how easy it is to get to grips with, but there’s no doubt, used properly, it’s a very capable product.

Pros: Cheap, image quality is good

Cons: can lead to problems with vignetting, small DOF, working distance can be very small to achieve high magnification.

Reversed lens:

Using a reversed lens is a technique I decided against out fairly early on, so my knowledge about it is (even more) limited. There are a couple of methods of employing this technique but the most common set up is to mount a lens the wrong way round in front of a lens the right way round and attaché to your camera. The first, reversed lens magnifies the image, the second lens then brings the image to the right size to fill the frame.

Pros: Assuming you already have two lenses, it effectively costs nothing, potential for good results

Cons: Tricky to set up and fiddly to use, potential to damage a lens is very high, controlling aperture becomes very difficult, metering from the camera is likely to be inaccurate, no autofocus, possible problems with vignetting.

I think this covers at least the vast majority of the equipment that can be used in macro photography. Whilst each has it’s advantages and disadvantages, I think most people would agree that, if you have the budget, perhaps unsurprisingly a dedicated macro lens is the way to go. However, there is certainly a wide range of very capable budget options which give you the opportunity to try macro out before you make the decision on whether to spend big money on a lens.