Support
You can support this site without any cost or disadvantage at all by clicking this link to Amazon or the one on the left before buying anything – be it underpants, a cupboard, a TV, a pen, a lens or a camera. Amazon is the only shop worldwide, I’m really satisfied with to a 100%, so I have no caveats advertising them. Of course, you can also directly donate a small amount of money, e.g. the amount you would have spent for a magazine, with the button on the left.
Introduction
Macro- (or "close-up-", I'll explain the difference later) Shooting is fascinating. It is for nearly everyone. Of course it is: Macro-, or at least close-up-,shots usually show ordinary, known things from an unusual perspective. You can like the look of the compound eye of an insect or not, but it surely is fascinating. So most photographers sooner or later try shooting close-ups and most people willing to spend some money on photography even buy close-up-equipment, be it a cheap screw-in close-up-lens for the filter-thread or a real macro-lens. But likewise, all these people realize soon after, that close-up-shooting changes the things you know about photography in many ways and is affected by other things than "normal" photography, or at least by the same things to a different degree: Depth-of-field changes, lens-speed and focal length have a different relevance, image stabilisation has a different effectiveness and suddenly terms like "reproduction ratio" seem to become relevant. This was hard enough in the days of 35mm-film, but nowadays, as if this wouldn't have been enough, different digital sensor sizes have a huge effect, too and make things even more complicated. I still do always have to think about these things when choosing and using my equipment and that's why I want to explain the points seemingto be most relevant to me here.
This is not an article about how to shoot macro, I strongly suggest reading Ken Rockwells text about it, I can't explain the basics better than he does. This article is about the technical terms, their backgrounds and their interdependencies and relevance.
Lens quality
First a word about lens quality. You have different options for shooting close-ups.
Most KIT - lenses, at least for APS-C and smaller formats, have very good close-up - capabilities today, making special macro-equipment obsolete most of the times. Because these lenses are optimized for normal distances and not especially for close-ups, the quality isn't exactly as good as a "real", fixed focal length macro-lens, especially regarding distortion and CAs, but still by far good enough to make huge prints with astonishing detail-quality.
It's the same with other zooms with special macro-modes, like some old tele-zooms and even some standard-zooms. I personally own a very cheap Tamron 70-300mm with a macro-mode from 180-300mm, a very old Sigma 70-210mm with one at 210mm and I further know of an old Sigma 28-80mm and a newer Sigma 70-300mm with such a mode. In all of these cases, these are quite (or even "very") cheap lenses on which you can change a switch to "Macro" at certain positions (mostly on the long end) and can focus a lot closer than normally then - all above mentioned lenses reach a 1:2 reproduction ratio. These lenses, too, aren't especially optimized for close-ups, but nonetheless deliver an astonishing quality. Here's an example with my Tamron 70-300mm at maximum close-up:
The bottle is about 4cm or 1.56 inches long, EOS 5D Mark II. Here's a 100%-crop from the upper right border in the above image:
This surely is sharp enough, but yes, you can spot a bit of wrong colors around the hairs.
Screw-in close-up lenses for the filter thread are fine, too, maybe a bit worse than these lenses with special modes in my experience, but with the same kinds of degradation: Mainly CAs and distortion. Especially don't buy the cheapest ones, take B+W or similar brands. There also are so called "Achromats" to screw in. These are a lot better than other options and, while still not the very best possible, deliver results usually totally fine for everything, even by professional standards. When I'm travelling, I do always bring my small mFT - camera and even if I own a real Macro-lens especially for this camera (originally Canon FD), I always take my Marumi achromat instead, simply for size- and weight-reasons and am perfectly happy with it. This example is made with a cheap consumer-tele, Olympus 40-150mm 1:4-5.6, with my Marumi DHG 5x achromat screwed in (in front(!) of the UV-filter!):
Should have closed-down the aperture more...
Anotherone, same combination:
Another cheap option are distance rings, mounted between your lens and your camera. There is no degradation in image-quality, but light-loss with it (you loose lens-speed). I must admit, that I have never used these.
Some people even mount their lenses in the wrong direction: There are adapters, that have a bajonet-mount on one side and a screw-thread like a filter on the other side. You should get quite good results with it, but loose the ability to change the aperture: Useless IMO.
Real Macro-lenses: Real macro-lenses are especially optimized for close-up - shooting. Despite from some special-purpose "loup-"lenses, like the Canon 65mm, they usually can still be focussed to infinity, the versatility is usually achieved by using floating elements. These always have fixed focal lengths. There roughly are three "classes" of real macro-lenses: Around 50mm, around 100mm and around 180mm. Real macro-lenses all are exceptional in every regard: Extremely sharp, with no distortion or CAs. You can buy whichever you want or can get with the focal length you want, I simply don't know a bad macro-lens. Even the very cheap 100mm Cosina macro a friend bought NEW for € 100,- is great. It doesn't matter, if the Tamron 90mm may be a tiny bit softer at f/2.8 than the Canon 100mm, these differences vanish at apertures actually used for macro (I'll explain later, why you'll never use f/2.8 for macro) and are on a completely neglible level anyway.
The terms
Repoduction ratio: This means the ratio of the size of the recorded object in relation to the size of the recording medium. The little ship-in-a-bottle above is about 4cm long, I shot it with a Canon 5D Mark II, which has a sensor 36mm or 3.6cm wide. The reproduction ratio of the cheap Tamron 70-300mm I used is 1:2. This means, that I can fill the sensor with an object 2 times larger than the sensor, 3.6cm x 2 = 7cm. So, the ship with a length of about 4cm should fill a bit more than half of the frame ... which it actually does.
To be correct, "macro" really actually means 1:1 or even bigger. But manufacturers call their normal lenses "macro" often, even if they only reach 1:2 or even bigger ratios - thats marketing, if you'd be correct, these aren't macro-lenses but simply have good close-up-capabilities.
Depth of field: The closer you get, the narrower depth-of-field gets - and that's to a much higher degree than with changing aperture. The ship-in-a-bottle above is shot at f/11 and as you can see in the 100%-crop, depth of field is still absolutely minimal. With a 300mm lens at these distances, it is simply useless to have any faster apertures, because DOF gets so small, that you don't get anything in focus at all.
Speed: Lens-speed is irrelevant for macro, see depth of field.
Focal length: Normally you (should) change the focal length, not because of being close or far away from your object or having to get more in your picture or something like that, but only to change the perspective. OK, that's not always possible, so you sometimes may use a wider lens to get your whole family on one photo in the narrow church or use a longer focal length, because you can't get closer to the tiger because of this damn fence they built in your way. But this is completely different in macro. For close-ups, "focal length" means "working distance". Butterflys are a good example for the need for working distance: They are extremely sensitive to vibrations and noise and often fly away even if you just sneaked-in to about 2m or so - you have to shoot from as far away as possible. Another reason for longer macro-lenses, despite from the distance to shy animals, is light: When you have to get too close, you'll most likely block the light getting to your object - and you need all the light you can get, because you want to close down as far as possible, see depth-of-field.
The dependencies
This is the section I really wanted to share. Macro changes things. Normally, if you are a bit serious about this hobby of ours, you probably are used to some dependencies in photography: Larger aperture means less depth-of-field, wide lenses make close objects larger in relation to the background, and so on. And when you are into photography as long as I am, you are even used to some concrete effects of certain settings: You simply know and feel, how the depth-of-field of a 50mm or 28mm - lens looks like at certain apertures and how shallow the depth-of-field of your 300mm lens at f/5.6 is, even when not looking through the finder.
With the first affordable DSLRs, this changed a bit, because there are often smaller than 35mm-film sensors used, mostly APS-C. And while technically a 50mm-lens stays a 50mm lens, regardless of if you use it on medium-format, 35mm ("fullframe"), APS-C or mFT, the smaller sensor makes you see a lot smaller field with the same lens, so that your 50mm SEEMS to be an 80mm-lens on APS-C. But as mentioned before, technically it stays a 50mm-lens, so depth-of-field is still exactly the same with it on fullframe and on APS-C-bodies, giving you the feeling of using a 80mm-lens with a much broader depth-of-field than usual. Namely, if you use a 50mm f/2.0 lens, it feels like a 80mm f/2.8 on APS-C. On medium-format, it is the other way round: Using a 50mm-lens feels like a 28mm lens here, but still with the depth-of-field of a 50mm: The 50mm f/4 aprox. feels like a 28mm f/2.0. Even more extreme it is with digital point-and-shoots. The sensors of these are usually so small, that even a 25mm-lens is a really long tele here, but with the depth-of-field of a 25mm-lens. You see: It is already getting a bit strange at this point.
And now we add the very close distances. Here we add reproduction-ratio as another term of very high relevance and the extremely shallow depth-of-field.
Let's first have a look at this, the reproduction-ratio and the size of the medium. Of course, as any other technical characteristic of a lens, repro-ratio stays the same, regardless of the medium used. But like focal length, it "feels" different on different media: A 1:1 lens produces a picture, exactly the same size as the object itself, on the medium. On a "fullframe"-sensor or 35mm-film this means, that you get an object exaclty 36mm wide to completely and exactly fill the whole picture. This is always the same. If you use the exact same lens (if possible) on an mFT - body, you still can fill the whole frame with an object exactly the size of the sensor, as well as you can on medium format, with the same lens ...... despite the fact, that the mFT - sensor is only 17mm wide, while the medium-format film is 56mm wide and so would be the object filling the frame. So, what happens with changing the medium, is, that the repro-ratio stays the same, but it feels like it would change. Because on mFT with the same lens you can fill the whole frame with an object only 17mm wide, it feels like a lens with two times the reproduction-ratio - and the other way round on medium format. This is the first reason, why smaller sensors in fact are a benefit for macro-work! On the other hand, having a 1:1 macro for medium format isn't all that great: Filling the frame with a 56mm wide object isn't that spectacular.
The other point is depth-of-field: Depth-of-field is always the same with the same lens and aperture, regardless of the medium. But because the 50mm-lens feels like an 80mm on APS-C, it SEEMS to have a larger DOF than usual here. This is the same in macro. Because a reproduction-ratio of 1:1.6 on APS-C (or 1:2 on mFT) "feels" or better looks like 1:1 on "fullformat" and depth-of-field gets a lot shallower with getting closer, it feels like having a lot more DOF on smaller sensors, or in fact you HAVE a lot more DOF when filling the frame with the same object with the same field of view and aperture, because you need a much shorter focal length to do it.
Speaking about focal length: Because smaller media (sensors) makes the same focal length "feel" or "appear" longer, when you want to have the same object in the same size on the picture taken, you can fill the frame with the same focal length while keeping a lot more distance between your object and lens because of the narrower field, which is great, too, remember the butterflies. This as well is the other way round with medium format. Accordingly, you need much less focal length to get the same results on smaller sensors, increasing depth-of-field.
Tele-converters: Afraid of tele-converters degrading image-quality? Don't worry, you will use your lens at apertures, where this is irrelevant. Afraid of loosing lens-speed? *LOL* You'll stop down, believe me. I always use tele-converters for macro. The nice side-effect ist, that the reproduction ratio is raised by the conversion-ratio of it: A 50mm 1:2 lens with a 2x converter makes a 100mm 1:1 lens!
Aperture: One of the main problems with macro-shooting is light. This is a side-effect of the very shallow depth-of-field and the need for long lenses due to the often sensitive objects: You usually, at least in nature as opposed to a studio, want the longest lens possible for macro-work, in order to get as much distance between you and your object as possible. But with the depth-of-field getting thinner and thinner the closer you focus AND the longer the lens gets, you really need to stop down as far as possible. A 180mm macro at f/2.8 at MFD of 0.46m, giving an 1:1 repro-ratio, produces a depth-of-field of 0.7mm (seven tenth of a millimeter) or 0.03 inches! But stopping down makes the exposure-times needed longer, of course, making it harder and harder to hold your long tele still enough to not blurr you pictures due to camera-shake. Adding to that, the smaller the animals get, the more fascinating they may be for macro-work, but the faster they move. You simply can't watch the wings of a fly move! A devil's circle and the only thing that helps are flashes (e.g. special macro-ring-flashes), which sadly are limitied to the maximum sync-speed of your camera, mostly 1/200 sec, and... right: Smaller sensors! These make the lenses needed shorter and the apertures needed larger.
Image stabilisation: Is useless for macro. In the last years, more and more image stabilized macro-lenses appear from all manufacturers. This may be useful in general, as most macro-lenses also are really good tele-primes, but for real close-ups, stabilization WOULD be great, but doesn't work. This is mainly because, as explained above, things change significantly when focussing really close. The movement due to camera-shake, while still having the same frequency, gets a lot higher amplitude, as a small movement of the lens suddenly gets a huge effect, when 1mm suddenly means a tenth of the frame! And most important: At very close distances, another dimension becomes relevant: The movement back and forth! Because DOF is that small and the angle of view changes so significantly at these distances and with objects this small, every even so minimal movement has such massive impact on pictures, that pure shake isn't the main problem with movement. But IS can only compensate for simple shake, while it leaves you with all the other movements uncorrected. And even more important: The things you can and have to do against these other factors, like using a tripod or resting the camera somewhere or reducing shutter-speed, do also work against the problems of camera shake, making IS useless.
AF(-speed): For the exact same reasons, your pure inability to hold the camera still, especially with long lenses, makes AF useless for macro-work, regardless of it's speed. When you lock AF and simply breath in after it has locked, you change the distance by a milimeter or so, leading to a completely different focus-point, because of the shallow DOF (remember the 0.7mm of the 180mm). In macro, you always focus manually and move the camera/lens to adjust the exact point of correct focus, be it on a tripod or by hand.
High ISO performance: After all I've said, high ISO performance seems to be really important in order to get faster shutter speeds. But this is kind of a circular reference. You get the best high ISO performance with big sensors, while these deliver shallower depth-of-field, requiring smaller apertures, resulting in slower shutter speeds, needing even higher ISOs an so on. These effects balance out in favor to smaller sensors in my experience - point-and-shoots have poor ISO - performance, but f/2 often delivers enough DOF here, so that you don't need higher ISOs...
Verdict
So, what does all this mean?
In a studio or for reproduction, a 50mm macro-lens for "fullframe" or any 1:1 lens for medium-format may be useful. But in nature, you want as much focal length as possible.
Do always pick the smallest possible sensor for macro! Many point-and-shoot-cameras have astonishing macro-modes today, but these aren't really corrected macro-lenses, but modes like on the zooms mentioned above. Adding to that, you normally have extremely short working distances with it. Their usually comparitively bad high ISO - performance isn't a problem, because you don't need it due to the less small apertures needed, but lens quality and working distance are the main issues. I suggest using an APS-C camera at the very max., better an mFT - camera or such.
Lens performance is irrelevant, especially if you pick a real macro lens. On the one hand, real macro lenses are all great and the differences completely irrelevant. On the other hand, you'll usually work at apertures, where either every lens is great (e.g. f/11) or diffraction is the limiting factor to quality anyway. In fact, many macro-shots are made at f/16 or f/22 or even f/32, while diffraction limits quality at least roughly from f/11 on with "fullframe", f/8 with APS-C and f/5.6 with mFT.
AF and IS are irrelevant, if can can get a fully manual macro-lens, it is perfectly fine, you won't miss anything, ever.
If you don't want to spend a lot of money or want to save weight, think about a screw-in lens, but take an achromat then and use it with a tele lens. These start at around € 50,- new (Marumi DHG). Another alternative is a cheap tele-zoom with a special macro-mode. These aren't as good as real fixed macro-lenses, but good, anyway. I have paid € 65,- for my Tamron 70-300mm. AND I have bought it, despite the fact that I already own a 50mm, 90mm and 180mm macro and an achromat, just to have the longest possible macro-lens: A 300mm 1:2 macro!
When using smaller than "fullframe" sensors, it isn't all that important to have a real 1:1 macro, because on APS-C you get the same sized object on your picture with a 1:1.6 ratio, while on mFT even 1:2 is enough to look the same.
A word about supporting this site
I don’t run this site to earn money. I have a real job to earn my living with, a completely normal job. Since everything I write about here I have bought myself, for myself and with my own money from normal shops or ebay-sellers to actually use it, how much and what I am able to write about , depends on the amount of money that I can save and invest in equipment with good conscience. I share all this, because I want to, not to sell it. But when you find this helpful, maybe even as helpful as buying a magazine or book, of course you can support me, if you want. Your benefit is, that you help me being able to afford things to write about here.
You can use the “Donate” – button on the left to directly send a small amount of money (or a big amount, if you insist). You don’t need a paypal account to do so, every method is possible. If you decide to donate 99 cents, I’m thankful for it, because 10 people being as kind as you, make one new filter tested! The default currency is US $, but it works well with € or nearly any other currency, too.
But even more simple and without any cost or other disadvantage at all it is, to simply use this link to Amazon (or the one on the left) before buying anything there. For you it’s exactly the same as going there directly by typing the web-adress in your browser, you just klick this link first! It doesn’t matter, what you buy or where in the world you buy it, be it underpants, a pen, a cupboard, a lens or a Leica M9, be it in Germany, the USA, the UK or Australia: Amazon’s servers simply realize, that you came there through the link on my page and I get a small percentage of anything you buy FROM THEM. There’s absolutely no cost or other disadvantage for you, Amazon simply pays for my “advertisement” through this. I originally didn’t want to ever do any advertising personally. But then I decided to break this rule for Amazon. I’m a completely satisfied customer and buy everything from them. It’s the only shop in the world I would personally and on my private basis really rate a complete 100% in every regard. They have perfect service, even do call you back, answer emails with real, personal writing, extremely fast delivery even on Christmas-day, always perfect and completely new items, are never considerably more expensive than the very cheapest internet-sellers, have an extremely fast refund-system without being picky or having ever displeased me in any way and sell every good I have ever wanted to buy. They work on a completely different level than any retailer I have ever tried, and deliver it directly to me, without robbing me time and money to drive to the city or mall. I wouldn’t advertise them, if I wasn’t convinced, that it is OK to do so.