December 20, 2014, 07:51:41 PM

Author Topic: Marco Equipment for Baby shots  (Read 4407 times)

RadioPath

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 54
    • View Profile
Marco Equipment for Baby shots
« on: June 18, 2013, 04:11:03 PM »
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

canon rumors FORUM

Marco Equipment for Baby shots
« on: June 18, 2013, 04:11:03 PM »

mwh1964

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 207
  • 5D3
    • View Profile
Re: Marco Equipment for Baby shots
« Reply #1 on: June 18, 2013, 11:55:25 PM »
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$.
5D3 | 16-35L IS | 24-70L II | 24-105L | 70-200L II | 70-300L | 15 fisheye | 35 IS | 40 STM | 50 f1.4 | 100L | B&W Kaesemann | 2 x 600 EX-RT | ST-E3-RT | MR14-EX | EOS M + 22 STM + 90 EX | Manfrotto | Billingham | Lowepro | Think Tank

aj1575

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 175
    • View Profile
Re: Marco Equipment for Baby shots
« Reply #2 on: June 19, 2013, 02:37:49 AM »
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

  • SX60 HS
  • **
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
Re: Marco Equipment for Baby shots
« Reply #3 on: June 19, 2013, 03:39:13 AM »
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

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 54
    • View Profile
Re: Marco Equipment for Baby shots
« Reply #4 on: June 19, 2013, 03:42:34 AM »
Hi!

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 :)

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

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 54
    • View Profile
Re: Marco Equipment for Baby shots
« Reply #5 on: June 19, 2013, 03:45:50 AM »
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

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 112
    • View Profile
Re: Marco Equipment for Baby shots
« Reply #6 on: June 19, 2013, 03:50:39 AM »
Polo.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Marco Equipment for Baby shots
« Reply #6 on: June 19, 2013, 03:50:39 AM »

Kernuak

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1108
    • View Profile
    • Avalon Light Photoart
Re: Marco Equipment for Baby shots
« Reply #7 on: June 19, 2013, 03:52:36 AM »
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.
Canon 5D MkIII, 7D, 300mm L IS f/2.8 and a few other L's

aj1575

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 175
    • View Profile
Re: Marco Equipment for Baby shots
« Reply #8 on: June 19, 2013, 04:08:47 AM »
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

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 148
  • 7D
    • View Profile
Re: Marco Equipment for Baby shots
« Reply #9 on: June 19, 2013, 04:16:13 AM »
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.
Canon 7D | EFS 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM - EF 50mm f/1.8 Mark l - EF 100mm f/2.8 IS USM Macro - EF 70-200mm   f/4 L IS USM- EF 100-400    f4.5-5.6 IS USM - 1.4 ll and 2X ll Extenders

Powder Portraits

  • Power Shot G7X
  • **
  • Posts: 25
    • View Profile
    • viewmyimages
Re: Marco Equipment for Baby shots
« Reply #10 on: June 19, 2013, 11:52:53 AM »
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

  • Guest
Re: Marco Equipment for Baby shots
« Reply #11 on: June 19, 2013, 12:36:47 PM »
Marco Equipment for Baby shots

 :o how small are the babys?

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ************
  • Posts: 15227
    • View Profile
Re: Marco Equipment for Baby shots
« Reply #12 on: June 19, 2013, 12:40:10 PM »
:o how small are the babys?

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

taking nice pictures of the hands and feet because I have trouble filling the frame with my 50 1.4.
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Marco Equipment for Baby shots
« Reply #12 on: June 19, 2013, 12:40:10 PM »

jebrady03

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 265
    • View Profile
Re: Marco Equipment for Baby shots
« Reply #13 on: June 19, 2013, 12:52:12 PM »

RadioPath

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 54
    • View Profile
Re: Marco Equipment for Baby shots
« Reply #14 on: June 19, 2013, 01:31:06 PM »
Hi!

Polo.

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

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

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Marco Equipment for Baby shots
« Reply #14 on: June 19, 2013, 01:31:06 PM »