# Suggestions for macro zoom lens



## spaced (Jan 16, 2012)

I'm wondering if anyone has any suggestions/recommendations regarding macro lenses.

I need a lens for photography of small-ish items (such as lighters / coins etc).

The Canon 100mm f2.8 macro seems really good, and I'm tempted to get it based on reviews and sample pictures - but ideally I would have prefered a zoom lens so that I don't have to keep moving the tripod back and forth to get in close or move away depending on the size of the item.

Canon don't seem to make a macro zoom lens however, so does anyone know if there are any fast zoom macro lenses made by third parties which have a comparable quality to the Canon 100mm?

Thanks in advance


----------



## TexPhoto (Jan 16, 2012)

There are no true macro zooms. A real macro lens can focus to 1:1 or closer. That is the subject can be made the same size or larger on the sensor or film in the camera. Nikon manufactured a zoom several years ago that was 70-180mm macro zoom that could focus to 1:1, but it's the only one I am aware of, and it's no longer made.

One thing about focusing as close to 1:1 is you usually have to focus manually and then more the camera or subject back and forth a a few millimeters to achieve perfect focus. a zoom would not help. 

Many consumer level zooms have a "macro" setting but these never approach focusing as close as 1:1.

As a first macro lens, I'd recommend a used sigma 50 or 105mm.


----------



## xROELOFx (Jan 16, 2012)

i'm not sure if this is helpful to you, but this is the way i usually do macrophotography:

i use the 100mm L with a tripod and slider. i use the slider to zoom in/out and/or focus. because we're shooting macro, i want to be as close to my subject as possible (especially with the 100mm). the depth of field can be really tiny, sometimes a couple of millimeters and often not more than a couple of centimeters (depends on used aperture). so by handholding the camera and lens, the tiniest movement of your arm/body sets the lens out of focus.

what i usually do is set the focusring of the lens to the closest focus as possible (i don't change that during any shoot) and then focus with the slider, moving it forward/backward. this way you can get really close to your subject. and if your subject is not moving, your focus won't change and is spot on. liveview is perfect for this. i use a wired remote to actually take the shot, so there's no movement from my hand or body when the shutter is open.

at least, this is what i found out to be the best way 
for greater magnification i use a set of extension tubes.


----------



## DJL329 (Jan 16, 2012)

xROELOFx said:


> i'm not sure if this is helpful to you, but this is the way i usually do macrophotography:
> 
> i use the 100mm L with a tripod and slider. i use the slider to zoom in/out and/or focus. because we're shooting macro, i want to be as close to my subject as possible (especially with the 100mm). the depth of field can be really tiny, sometimes a couple of millimeters and often not more than a couple of centimeters (depends on used aperture). so by handholding the camera and lens, the tiniest movement of your arm/body sets the lens out of focus.
> 
> ...



+1

Here is an example of a macro rail. For this one, you need to have an arca-type head.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/555288-REG/Kirk_LRP_1_LRP_1_Long_Rail_Quick.html


----------



## alipaulphotography (Jan 16, 2012)

You are literally going to be moving centimetres. Zoom wouldn't be necessary and you'd sacrifice the sharpness that macro lenses are known for.

100mm f/2.8 gets my vote.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 16, 2012)

spaced said:


> I need a lens for photography of small-ish items (such as lighters / coins etc).



As stated, no zoom lens is truly a macro lens. Manufacturers just say that zoom lenses with reasonably close focusing distances have macro capability as a marketing tool. 

If small product photography is important to you, I'd suggest not getting a macro lens, but a tilt-shift instead. The TS-E 90mm f/2.8 is ideal for shooting small products. The problem with a macro lens is depth of field - at macro distances, DoF gets really thin (as little as a couple of millimeters or less), so you need to use a very narrow aperture - that means you need lots of light, but also, at narrow apertures your images get soft due to diffraction (starts costing you sharpness at about f/7.1 on 18 MP APS-C or f/13 on 21 MP FF. Tilt gets you the DoF that a macro lens can't deliver even stopped down way past the point where diffraction results in a soft image. 

See this article for a nice example of how tilt works well for product shooting.


----------



## pdirestajr (Jan 16, 2012)

If you are on a budget and want to try a neat trick you can always buy an old canon 35-80 lens (any version I believe), and remove the front element to create a pretty rad macro zoom lens. You lose auto focus...but You don't need that with macro & a tripod!

There is a ton of tutorials on the web.

http://www.flickr.com/groups/3580macro/

I used my old kit lens from an EOS Rebel G 35mm. All you need to do is remove the top sticker (around front of lens), then unscrew the 2-3 screws. Then the whole front piece comes out!

Oh, and this lens can be had for a few bucks.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 16, 2012)

I generally just use my 15-85mm EF-S for this type of item on my 7D. The lens focuses closely, and there is a lot of cropping ability with a 7D image.

Otherwise, for really small items, I use my 100mm L. A TS-E 90 is also good, but I can reduce the aperture enough so that I get everything in the depth of field with the 15-85. Using the 100mm L, depth of field can be a issue.

Lighting is another story. I have a light tent for those reflective objects.

I did do this coin with my 100L at f/16 with a 40D. No light tent or special lighting, I just took a snapshot to list it for sale on craigslist after the prices went crazy high.


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Jan 16, 2012)

Nice shot Mt. Spokane Photo, and I think you're wise to be selling gold at this time (as much as I complain about econ policy at the current time, it would have been extraordinary for things to completely fall through, and gold hedges were based on false assumptions about price stability of physical assets, I found - better to buy a lens and have something useful in case of a crash, than gold which could plummet in convertability in the case of a liquidity crunch).

To the OP: My personal experience with using the 135mm f/2L for macro is that if you want "zoom" you can simply use the focus ring to change the apparent subject size. If you want a wide perspective for macro, simply find your best wide lens and add extension tubes. I think that this will affect the real aperture ratio, however, making it harder to light the shot or hold it steady if working by hand without a tripod.

I have not done any tests with the TS-E 90mm versus the 135mm f/2L about maximum magnification and sharpness yet...the TS-E 90mm will give you more magnification but the 135mm f/2L gives you substantially more working distance. The smaller front element of the TS-E 90mm looks to be better for minimizing off-lens reflections, but the shorter working space at its minimum focus distance may make lighting harder.


----------



## kirispupis (Jan 17, 2012)

To answer the original poster, I believe you are misunderstanding macro lenses. You change the magnification of any macro lens by changing the focus. To focus, you move the camera back and forth. Generally as a rule you should not use AF with macro subjects because the camera has no way of knowing what magnification you desire.

In terms of which lens to use for macro there are a number of possibilities. I wrote a guest blog for a friend on the different ones I use -http://www.ronmartblog.com/2011/11/today-im-happy-to-have-blog-reader.html
 
For your needs though the Canon 100 macro sounds like the way to go.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 17, 2012)

kirispupis said:


> To answer the original poster, I believe you are misunderstanding macro lenses. You change the magnification of any macro lens by changing the focus. To focus, you move the camera back and forth.



True, within reason. But I think the OP was talking about changing framing, the example of coin vs. lighter would require reframing the shot with a fixed focal length lens (and that's the best option, of course). Focus breathing won't yield that sort of difference in framing.


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Jan 17, 2012)

If you set the 135mm f/2L and a full set of Kenko extension tubes at minimum focus distance, you get a high magnification but will need to be closer to the image. If you set the lens to "infinity," you'll maybe be a foot and a half (or whatever it is) from the subject, and get lower magnification.

For any of these lenses, "framing" really doesn't get at the issue - the issue is getting the right magnification and the right working distance. In truth, the word "magnification" is the exact same thing as "framing" in this case, except that magnification suggests what is really happening, whereas talking about "framing" allows people to think in terms of a zoom lens.

The reason for this thinking is obvious: The draw of a zoom lens is that you can better control depth of field and you don't need to walk very far to change your framing. At macro distances, depth of field will always be very limited no matter the lens (most people usually find themselves trying to increase it, not decrease), and working distances will be so small that the effect of a zoom lens of getting "closer" (magnifying) a distant subject is usually not the concern - instead you are trying to get farther away. In both these cases, it seems that a zoom lens would actually be more of a liability than the simplicity of changing your magnification only by moving the lens back and forth, and focusing.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 17, 2012)

Edwin Herdman said:


> For any of these lenses, "framing" really doesn't get at the issue - the issue is getting the right magnification and the right working distance. In truth, the word "magnification" is the exact same thing as "framing" in this case, except that magnification suggests what is really happening, whereas talking about "framing" allows people to think in terms of a zoom lens.
> 
> The reason for this thinking is obvious: The draw of a zoom lens is that you can better control depth of field and you don't need to walk very far to change your framing. At macro distances, depth of field will always be very limited no matter the lens (most people usually find themselves trying to increase it, not decrease), and working distances will be so small that the effect of a zoom lens of getting "closer" (magnifying) a distant subject is usually not the concern - instead you are trying to get farther away. In both these cases, it seems that a zoom lens would actually be more of a liability than the simplicity of changing your magnification only by moving the lens back and forth, and focusing.



For slight changes in magnification, yes. But a fixed focal length macro lens cannot change magnification 3-fold or more, as in coin vs. lighter. That's going to require moving the camera - re-framing the shot. 

RE: the 135/2 vs the TS-E 90, the 135L achieves 0.19x native and 0.41x with a 25mm extension tube; the TS-E 90 has a much closer MFD and achieves 0.29x native and 0.60x with a 25mm tube. 

RE: DoF, that's the main challenge, IMO. With a coin or other object well-represented in 2D (as Mt. Spokane's shot nicely shows), DoF isn't an issue. But with a 3D object like many small products the OP will likely want to shoot, DoF may be a limiting factor. With a macro lens or a telephoto like the 135L, that means soft images at f/22-32 or focus stacking. Or, a TS-E lens where the tilt allows control over DoF.


----------



## spaced (Jan 17, 2012)

Wow! Thank you guys for all your helpful replies - I'm genuinely impressed by the advice you've all given.



xROELOFx said:


> i use the 100mm L with a tripod and slider. i use the slider to zoom in/out and/or focus.



^^^ I didn't even know that such things existed... if I end up going with the 100mm, then I'll definitely get a slider.



neuroanatomist said:


> If small product photography is important to you, I'd suggest not getting a macro lens, but a tilt-shift instead. The TS-E 90mm f/2.8 is ideal for shooting small products. The problem with a macro lens is depth of field - at macro distances, DoF gets really thin (as little as a couple of millimeters or less), so you need to use a very narrow aperture - that means you need lots of light, but also, at narrow apertures your images get soft due to diffraction (starts costing you sharpness at about f/7.1 on 18 MP APS-C or f/13 on 21 MP FF. Tilt gets you the DoF that a macro lens can't deliver even stopped down way past the point where diffraction results in a soft image.



^^^ Thanks neuro - I've always loved what can be done with TS lenses, but could not justify getting one - however with your explanation and then seeing the examples you linked to the TS is looking like a good contender 

************************
lol... Maybe I should clarify what my uses actually are:
************************

The objects I'm photographing are items measuring between 5-10cm in length.

The camera I used in the past was a 350d with a sigma 28-70 f2.8.

The sigma has a reasonably close focusing distance and being a crop sensor, I got a bit more magnification from this setup (the long end would be equal to around 112mm I guess) - therefore I could fill the frame reasonably well.

I recently upgraded to a 5d mk2 and the 24-105mm, but I'm finding that on some of the smaller items I am unable to get in close enough to achieve the effect I want - I just need to be able to get a little bit closer than the minimum focussing distance of the 24-105.

For instance sometimes I want to photograph maybe a 2-3cm section of a item, (often at an obscure angle) using f2.8 to get a specific look, but the 24-105 just falls short.

With my previous setup (the 350d and 24-70), I could set up on the tripod, take a 30mm shot, a 50mm shot, and then zoom to 70mm and get the same shot close up (this is why I was asking if there are any macro zooms).

I don't know if thats necessarily the best way of doing things, but I found it worked well for me and I had a good workflow using this method.

I guess all I need is a lens that has a closer focussing distance, and not neccessarily a macro lens.

However having said all this, neuro's suggestion with the TS lens might actually generate better results (even without all the zooming in and out!) - so I'm definitely going to look into the TS lens a bit more.

It was mentioned that lighting might be an issue with the TS lens - I have elinchrom flash heads and softboxes at the moment, however I think I'm going to sell them and get some continuous lighting units instead - would this be enough lighting for use with the TS lens?

Incidentally, I did consider extension tubes as well, but I get the feeling that I'd end up constantly removing and replacing extension tubes - or I'd have to take pictures from 2 metres away!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 17, 2012)

spaced said:


> It was mentioned that lighting might be an issue with the TS lens - I have elinchrom flash heads and softboxes at the moment, however I think I'm going to sell them and get some continuous lighting units instead - would this be enough lighting for use with the TS lens?



I think I mentioned lighting, but the issue is with a macro lens, not a TS. To get adequate DoF with a macro lens, you often need f/16 or narrower, and that means lots of light. With a TS, you can get deep DoF with a more reasonable aperture like f/5.6 or f/8. 

Strobes would be fine, or continuous, but I'd recommend a small light tent to eliminate reflections and shadows.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 17, 2012)

spaced said:


> Wow! Thank you guys for all your helpful replies - I'm genuinely impressed by the advice you've all given.
> ************************
> lol... Maybe I should clarify what my uses actually are:
> ************************
> ...



I had th same issue with my 5D and 24-70. The zoom range is pretty good, but it does not focus close enough. I selected the 7D / 15-85mm combination because it does focus a bit more closely.

Here is a example. The lighting is bad, but you can see, it can get reasonably close.


----------



## keithfullermusic (Jan 17, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> spaced said:
> 
> 
> > Wow! Thank you guys for all your helpful replies - I'm genuinely impressed by the advice you've all given.
> ...



It's close, but nowhere near macro. With a a macro you'd be able to make the full frame just a few letters.


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Jan 17, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> For slight changes in magnification, yes. But a fixed focal length macro lens cannot change magnification 3-fold or more, as in coin vs. lighter. That's going to require moving the camera - re-framing the shot.


This is just a terminology quibble, I think, so I tried to select the term I felt best clarifies what's going on. I still think that "framing" is, in this case, exactly the same as changing the magnification. Even with the MP-E 65mm, the focus and magnification are changed at the same time; there is no stable point of focus in front of the lens while magnification is changed, nor can you move focus in or out arbitrarily when changing the magnification. In my example, when I change the focus that implies moving the camera (relative to the subject - obviously it doesn't matter if you move the subject closer; whatever works best for your tripod or work setup). The MP-E is a poor lens for photography of larger products because of its relatively very high magnification and limited focus range; it is probably best to start with a less-magnifying lens like the TS-E 90mm for larger objects. If your subject is watch dials, or coins, however, it may be far enough (if those subjects are no bigger than a full frame of film, and less for APS-C).

I think that we're in agreement on this point, unless I'm mistaken. I just don't want anybody to be confused, because of me or otherwise.

You're absolutely correct that you can't change magnification three-fold (or whatever it is) with a fixed-length lens easily (ignoring the MP-E 65mm and similar macros, and tons of extension tubes) and even if you had enough extenders the image quality might start to degrade too much. However, some really good MP-E 65mm macro users must shoot at the smallest apertures to maximize DOF; in this case it doesn't really matter if the whole shot "isn't equally sharp, it's all equally blurred" (to paraphrase Bob Atkins talking about pinhole cameras), because we care about control over DOF, which naturally comes at the expense of sharpness, no matter the lens, for macros.


> RE: the 135/2 vs the TS-E 90, the 135L achieves 0.19x native and 0.41x with a 25mm extension tube; the TS-E 90 has a much closer MFD and achieves 0.29x native and 0.60x with a 25mm tube.


I am actually getting significantly more than this because the EF-S compatible set of Kenko auto extension tubes allows three extenders for 68mm of extension at essentially the same price as a single Canon 25mm tube. I see I was in error to not mention this, since lately my focus was just on getting the most magnification out of both lenses (with the full 68mm of Kenko air) which of course is not a useful comparison when talking about taking a standard picture with both lenses. The TS-E 90mm could get a bit more working length with less extension tube use, although when you consider its minimum focus distance natively is marked at 0.45 meters, significantly less than the 135mm f/2L, it's possible that it will always offer less working distance for the same magnification. Even with 68mm extension, the working distances feel pretty generous.

I haven't used the MP-E 65mm myself, though, but stopping down even with 68mm of extension on the TS-E 90mm or the 135mm f/2L offers good DOF control for subjects that fill the frame without obviously sacrificing sharpness. With 68mm extension, a single drop of water on a placemat extended 1/3 to the edges of the frame with the 90mm, so f/7.1 was almost enough to get it all sharp. In comparison, I tended to use the 135mm f/2L at its maximum (still quite short) focal length.

All said, of these two lenses the TS-E 90mm is a much more flexible option for product photos: More maximum magnification is available and tilt allows more control. That said, I think it's easy to overestimate how much use it is. Unless your subject fills the frame, you will essentially be rotating DOF through the focal point, especially when wide open, and it doesn't rotate all that much, especially on a crop camera. However, I am not ready to count out the 135mm f/2L, especially for wildlife macro (or near-macro).

I can't be of much help on the subject of lighting because I don't know if the short working distances are too short to light properly, and it's not a central issue for me when I use ambient light and no flash. A ring flash may not be possible on the 135mm f/2L due to its larger size, and with less extension than needed for magnifying individual drops of water it may still be possible to adequately light subjects for the TS-E 90mm with lights slightly to the side.



> RE: DoF, that's the main challenge, IMO. With a coin or other object well-represented in 2D (as Mt. Spokane's shot nicely shows), DoF isn't an issue. But with a 3D object like many small products the OP will likely want to shoot, DoF may be a limiting factor. With a macro lens or a telephoto like the 135L, that means soft images at f/22-32 or focus stacking. Or, a TS-E lens where the tilt allows control over DoF.


That's worth reinforcing. Can't disagree with that.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 17, 2012)

Edwin Herdman said:


> I think that we're in agreement on this point, unless I'm mistaken. I just don't want anybody to be confused, because of me or otherwise.



+1 

Honestly, I smelled terminology trouble from the get-go..."macro zoom lens" indeed.


----------



## spaced (Jan 17, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Honestly, I smelled terminology trouble from the get-go..."macro zoom lens" indeed.



...yeah yeah!

On a different note, does anyone know where in London I can try out a TS-E 90mm lens to see what it is like / how it works etc?


----------



## iaind (Jan 17, 2012)

On a different note, does anyone know where in London I can try out a TS-E 90mm lens to see what it is like / how it works etc?
[/quote]

Check to see which dealers also rent. Calumet in Glasgow will let you try a rental lens on your own body so Drummond St will probably do the same.


----------



## sawsedge (Jan 17, 2012)

The 100mm macro is a great lens. So +1 if you need a true macro. 

Other ways to get close, that might work for you (and are cheaper than a macro) include extension tubes and closeup lenses. I have the Canon 500D closeup lens (an unfortunate name given the Rebel series), which is a high-quality dual-element lens that screws onto the front of your existing lens like a filter. It isn't as good as a true macro, but I've gotten very good results from it and it can turn a zoom into a pretty versatile close-focusing system. I find the closeup lens somewhat easier to use with a zoom vs extension tubes which will require a radical refocus when you zoom. I carry the 500D when space is tight and I can't carry the macro.

And, don't worry about lack of zooming and having to move the tripod. I've found over time that I have a good idea of the distance I need and get the tripod in the ballpark pretty easily. It'll come with practice. 

I suspect most people with Arca-Swiss style heads have their clamps set where they can slide the camera left or right... I did something a little different. I don't like the clamp poking me in the face, or under the lens... I turned my clamp to the side. I use a generic square plate, I think the Kirk PZ-31. I can slide my camera forward and back a bit. I don't have the range of a true focus rail, but it works for me. I've thought about getting a slightly longer generic lens plate for more range. 

I also bought a cheap lens collar for my 100mm on e-bay. About $10 USD. It works, but I won't call it fantastic. It makes verticals much easier without having to adjust the tripod as much. The downside is I have to disconnect the lens from the body to install/remove it.


----------



## archangelrichard (Jan 17, 2012)

Wrong idea error

a macro lens that can move back and forth is a bellows. All macro really is is the ability to move the lens closer; close enough to get 1 to 1 (the image is as big as the original item). A bellows can make ANY lens a macro lens - although you can get more distance between you and the item with a longer lens (100 - 200mm) - distance for more lighting options

A single closer focusing Macro lens may be neater but involves more pieces of glass and more compromises to work properly; a Zoom would involve way too many pieces of glass and too many compromises to be as useful as you want

You can do macro with a reversing ring, diopters, etension tubes, bellows, or a macro lens and each way has price / performance trade offs so you need to look at budget vs performance. A macro zoom just would fail on both accounts; too pricey, too low performance


----------

