# Marco Equipment for Baby shots



## RadioPath (Jun 18, 2013)

Hi everyone,
I'm enjoying my 6D very much, especially for taking pictures of our new born, seems to be the perfect camera for that. I have had some trouble with taking nice pictures of the hands and feet because I have trouble filling the frame with my 50 1.4. The 28-135 is doing somewhat better, but not by much. The closest I can get is still too far away. Soooo, what can I get to make it better?

1. There are extension tubes both from canon and other manufacturers. 
2. I saw a kind of filter that was basically a magnifying glass, not sure what it's called. 
3. A 100 2.8 macro (not sure wether L or non-L, yet) is on my wish list as both a portrait lens for the Ff I have now and some macro stuff I have been wanting to try out. Just wanted to get a better standard zoom first, but might be flexible if options 1 and 2 aren't good. 
4. Any other cheap or otherwise useful lens?

Which would be the most cost efficient or best way? Do options 1 and 2 offer significant IQ advantages over shooting with my 50mm and cropping (what I do now and obviously the most cost efficient...)?

Thanks!
RadioPath


----------



## mwh1964 (Jun 19, 2013)

How about the Canon 50 f/2.5 macro. Goes 1:2 for 269$ and 203 refurbished. It will get you much closer to your subject having very good sharpness indeed. Only downside it is an old lens and somewhat noisy AF. But again low cost. An alternative could be the pancake lens which would take to 30 cm for a whopping 149$.


----------



## aj1575 (Jun 19, 2013)

Hello, I had the same problem. I used close-up filters. They worked quite nice and are rather inexpensive. Another plus is, you can mount them on other lenses (I made some cool macro shots with an +4 close-up filter on the 70-200 f4; I just have to stay below 150mm, otherwise I get strong CA).
Here are the samples: http://www.flickr.com/photos/aj1575/6062525105/# http://www.flickr.com/photos/aj1575/6062526707/#

And here is one from a baby http://www.flickr.com/photos/aj1575/3078106800/#
That was shot with +2 close-up filter on a Sigma 18-125mm (no IS). The Camera is an old EOS 350D. The filters I bought were rather cheap. I like to upgrade them, but did not have time to make some research about what would be the best option.


----------



## Burrster (Jun 19, 2013)

I would go down the path of the 100mm macro. Having used the L version(but unfortunately do not own,) I would push you in that direction. It's very good at macro work, has the bonus IS( very silent and works well) and is also good at portraits. It has a very non restrictive minimum focus distance(0.3m, vs say, the canon 100mm F2, which is 0.9m) which allows for close up (but not macro) portraits. All this in my opinion makes it a versatile lens. I guess the only question is money..... if so,there is always the non L.


----------



## RadioPath (Jun 19, 2013)

Hi!



mwh1964 said:


> How about the Canon 50 f/2.5 macro. Goes 1:2 for 269$ and 203 refurbished. It will get you much closer to your subject having very good sharpness indeed. Only downside it is an old lens and somewhat noisy AF. But again low cost. An alternative could be the pancake lens which would take to 30 cm for a whopping 149$.



Not a bad idea. The 50 Macro goes for 290 € here however and would be somewhat redundant with mit my 50 1.4 for general purpose stuff. The 100 Macro non-L is 490, so might be a better idea. The pancake is a very cool lens, though and could be a useful addition anyways. The question is, how much more would I get into the frame with it at 30 cm, as opposed to the 50 1.4 with 45 cm? No idea how to calculate that, physics was soooo long ago  



aj1575 said:


> Hello, I had the same problem. I used close-up filters. They worked quite nice and are rather inexpensive. Another plus is, you can mount them on other lenses (I made some cool macro shots with an +4 close-up filter on the 70-200 f4; I just have to stay below 150mm, otherwise I get strong CA).
> Here are the samples: http://www.flickr.com/photos/aj1575/6062525105/# http://www.flickr.com/photos/aj1575/6062526707/#
> 
> And here is one from a baby http://www.flickr.com/photos/aj1575/3078106800/#
> That was shot with +2 close-up filter on a Sigma 18-125mm (no IS). The Camera is an old EOS 350D. The filters I bought were rather cheap. I like to upgrade them, but did not have time to make some research about what would be the best option.



Ah, close-up filters are what they're called! There are 58 mm sets for 20 € (is one allowed to post links here?). The canon ones are rather pricey for 90 € each. Is it that much better? Would be nice for portability also. Also: with that option, do I understand correctly, that I wouldn't have AF? How does it compare to extension tubes?

Thanks, any additional ideas welcome!
RadioPath


----------



## RadioPath (Jun 19, 2013)

Burrster said:


> I would go down the path of the 100mm macro. Having used the L version(but unfortunately do not own,) I would push you in that direction. It's very good at macro work, has the bonus IS( very silent and works well) and is also good at portraits. It has a very non restrictive minimum focus distance(0.3m, vs say, the canon 100mm F2, which is 0.9m) which allows for close up (but not macro) portraits. All this in my opinion makes it a versatile lens. I guess the only question is money..... if so,there is always the non L.



Hi,
the 100 Macro is definitely on my wish list, although alternatively I am considering a different longer portrait prime. I'm just also saving up to replace my 28-135  . Did you also use extension tubes or close-up filters? How do they compare (at the moment for non real macro stuff, just want to get those baby pics now)?
Thanks!
RadioPath


----------



## 87vr6 (Jun 19, 2013)

Polo.


----------



## Kernuak (Jun 19, 2013)

For a 50mm, extension tubes would give you more closeup potential than closeup filters and wouldn't degrade the image quality at all. Depending on the tubes you used, you may get some vignetting. For other macro shots and if you don't want to get as close to the subject, then one of the 100mm macros would give you more flexibility, as would the Tamron 90mm or the Sigma 105mm.


----------



## aj1575 (Jun 19, 2013)

RadioPath said:


> Ah, close-up filters are what they're called! There are 58 mm sets for 20 € (is one allowed to post links here?). The canon ones are rather pricey for 90 € each. Is it that much better? Would be nice for portability also. Also: with that option, do I understand correctly, that I wouldn't have AF? How does it compare to extension tubes?
> 
> Thanks, any additional ideas welcome!
> RadioPath



Im actually quite happy with the IQ of the close up lens. Though I have to say, that I do not use them so often (this is also why I do not own a macro lens). There is some loss in IQ since you add an optical element; on the 70-200 I can't go over 150mm otherwise I got rather extreme CAs, but below it works nice as you can see in my wasp pictures.
There is a very small review about the Canon 500D close up lens on the-digital-picture. I think that if a pro like him is happy with the IQ, we as amateurs shouldn't be bothered too much about it.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-500D-Close-up-Lens-Review.aspx


----------



## greger (Jun 19, 2013)

I vote for the 100mm 2.8 IS USM Canon Macro Lens. I love mine. I have a B+W clear filter on it. I have 67mm UV filters
that I could take off one of my other lenses if I wanted to do scenery with the Macro lens. I also use the Macro to take pics of flowers and am going to chase bees around the garden to see if I can get a good pic or two. I used my 70-200 with the 1.4 extender one summer and got a few good pics out of many shots that I took. I tried extension tubes in a camera store and found that there were black flakes coming from them. I would wipe them with a rag to make sure no flakes get inside the camera. I've read that the 100mm Macro makes a nice portrait lens too. You could try cropping your pics to get hands and feet to fill the size pic that you want to print. Cograts on having a baby. Good Luck on your decision.


----------



## Powder Portraits (Jun 19, 2013)

I like my EF 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro, yes it’s a little slow on the focus side but for my limited macro need it’s sharp and light. Plus it’s an inexpensive lens that CPS will service quickly with a discount, when I drop it.


----------



## Malte_P (Jun 19, 2013)

RadioPath said:


> Marco Equipment for Baby shots



 how small are the babys?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 19, 2013)

Malte_P said:


> how small are the babys?



Newborn hands aren't much bigger than a FF sensor... 



RadioPath said:


> taking nice pictures of the *hands and feet* because I have trouble filling the frame with my 50 1.4.


----------



## jebrady03 (Jun 19, 2013)

87vr6 said:


> Polo.



Damn... beat me to it.


----------



## RadioPath (Jun 19, 2013)

Hi!



87vr6 said:


> Polo.



Sorry, English is not my first language... What's a polo?



Kernuak said:


> For a 50mm, extension tubes would give you more closeup potential than closeup filters and wouldn't degrade the image quality at all. Depending on the tubes you used, you may get some vignetting. For other macro shots and if you don't want to get as close to the subject, then one of the 100mm macros would give you more flexibility, as would the Tamron 90mm or the Sigma 105mm.



Is there any real difference between different manufacturers? Would that option leave me with AF intact?

The filter looks very convenient, could also be used for some macro stuff on vacation as it wouldn't add too much bulk. 

Thanks!
RadioPath


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 19, 2013)

RadioPath said:


> 87vr6 said:
> 
> 
> > Polo.
> ...



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marco_Polo_(game)



RadioPath said:


> Is there any real difference between different manufacturers? Would that option leave me with AF intact?
> 
> The filter looks very convenient, could also be used for some macro stuff on vacation as it wouldn't add too much bulk.



Only in build quality - tubes have no optics. Personally, I went Canon tubes because my main use for them is with a heavy supertele lens. For typical macro-type uses, the Kenko tubes are a great option, and would leave AF intact (although you'll see more focus hunting with the tube in place, but that applies to Canon tubes, too).

Both tubes and close-up lenses cause a reduction in IQ, the degree of that impact varies with the lens and the quality of the close-up fliter. A good filter (like the Canon 250D/500D) on a good lens produces results that are practically hard to distinguish from a dedicated macro lens (I compared the 100L to the 70-200/2.8L IS II with the 500D). 



Kernuak said:


> For a 50mm, extension tubes ... wouldn't degrade the image quality at all.



For a 50mm lens, tubes are a better bet, IMO. It's not strictly true to say there's no optical degradation. By forcing the lens to focus outside of it's intended range, you are compromising the optics a bit, and the additional magnification accentuates the native flaws of the lens, too.


----------



## Kernuak (Jun 19, 2013)

RadioPath said:


> Hi!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


In terms of IQ, there is no difference between manufacturers of extension tubes, as there is no glass to degrade the image. However, there is a difference in build quality and not all will maintain AF (although the main options do). A set of Kenko tubes are the best value and maintain AF, although the Canon ones are better built. One thing you do need to watch (moreso with heavier lenses), is that the Kenko tubes are easier to accidentally detach, as the buttons are proud on the tubes, making them easy to push when holding the lens.


----------



## Kernuak (Jun 19, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> RadioPath said:
> 
> 
> > 87vr6 said:
> ...


I suppose that's true and it wold have been better to say no noticeable reduction.


----------



## RadioPath (Jun 19, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> RadioPath said:
> 
> 
> > 87vr6 said:
> ...



Ah! Stupid German spellchecking! 



neuroanatomist said:


> RadioPath said:
> 
> 
> > Is there any real difference between different manufacturers? Would that option leave me with AF intact?
> ...



Sounds good. Which filter would I need (third party ones seem to go by +1, +2, etc., Canon 250D or 500D). Alternatively: how many mm close-up filter? I should better be using it with my 50 1.4 over the 28-135, since it's sharper, right? Or would the longer focal range help more?

Sorry for the noob questions, but this is such a good forum! Thanks a bunch
RadioPath


----------



## nvsravank (Jun 19, 2013)

My baby is currently three weeks old and all I have been doing during my lucid moments is take pictures. I can tell you that the close up lens options are not a good idea. Newborn skin is the not the perfect skin and they have a lot of blotches etc. With any kind of CA, the blotches become much harder to clear up and clean up. I realized that newborns don't look like the babies in enfamil and huggies ads. So post production is a lot harder if you dont get the skin tones correct in camera. This means both proper exposure and good equipment.

Also with photos of faces of babies, showing the eyelids very sharp adds quite a bit to the impact i think. I feel that most of the photo is soft because their features are soft. The only sharp thing on the baby are their eyelids (and their nails!). You want them real sharp and clear to give the most impact to the picture.

All of it means you need the sharpest lens with the least amount of distortions/CA. To me this is the 100 Macro L or the 135 mm lens.

I have been taking photos and the photos from the 135 mm are usable straight out of the camera with no post. I mean no post. No color rendition changes needed, no smoothening the distracting background needed, no unrealistic sharpening of the eyes to make them stand out. 

I have been really happy with both the 100mm macro L and the 135.


----------



## RadioPath (Jun 19, 2013)

nvsravank said:


> My baby is currently three weeks old and all I have been doing during my lucid moments is take pictures. I can tell you that the close up lens options are not a good idea. Newborn skin is the not the perfect skin and they have a lot of blotches etc. With any kind of CA, the blotches become much harder to clear up and clean up. I realized that newborns don't look like the babies in enfamil and huggies ads. So post production is a lot harder if you dont get the skin tones correct in camera. This means both proper exposure and good equipment.
> 
> Also with photos of faces of babies, showing the eyelids very sharp adds quite a bit to the impact i think. I feel that most of the photo is soft because their features are soft. The only sharp thing on the baby are their eyelids (and their nails!). You want them real sharp and clear to give the most impact to the picture.
> 
> ...



I hear your point about non clear skin, my first one had it really badly, hopefully 2nd one will be less affected. I would LOVE to have the 100L Macro, it is definitely on my wish list. I don't think it is on my can-currently-afford-list  Let's see what my tax return brings... 
I always make sure the eyes are nicely in focus. Since I use low apertures b/c of the low light the skin gets smoothed out tiny bit anyway. Would just like to have some very nice hand and feet photos, although the 6D brought considerable improvement over the 400D already.


----------



## xylus (Jul 16, 2013)

In my case, I used my EF-S 60mm Macro with MT-24Ex macro flash.....gave me some good results. But its not for FF sensor


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 16, 2013)

Although I love my 100mmL because I use it hand held, this is one area where third party lenses are less expensive and excellent. If you want to keep the cost down, consider one of the many fine third party macro's.

The advantage of a longer focal length macro is the working distance. A 50mm Macro on FF must be very close to get 1:1 magnification. 100mm, or more gives a reasonable working distance.


----------

