November 23, 2017, 09:12:49 PM

Author Topic: Marco Equipment for Baby shots  (Read 9635 times)

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ************
  • Posts: 21776
Re: Marco Equipment for Baby shots
« Reply #15 on: June 19, 2013, 01:42:58 PM »
Polo.
Sorry, English is not my first language... What's a polo?

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

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). 

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.
EOS 1D X, EOS M2, lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Marco Equipment for Baby shots
« Reply #15 on: June 19, 2013, 01:42:58 PM »

Kernuak

  • Posts: 1102
    • Avalon Light Photoart
Re: Marco Equipment for Baby shots
« Reply #16 on: June 19, 2013, 01:44:18 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
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.
Canon 5D MkIII, 7D, 300mm L IS f/2.8 and a few other L's

Kernuak

  • Posts: 1102
    • Avalon Light Photoart
Re: Marco Equipment for Baby shots
« Reply #17 on: June 19, 2013, 01:46:12 PM »
Polo.
Sorry, English is not my first language... What's a polo?

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

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). 

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.
I suppose that's true and it wold have been better to say no noticeable reduction.
Canon 5D MkIII, 7D, 300mm L IS f/2.8 and a few other L's

RadioPath

  • EOS Rebel 300D
  • ***
  • Posts: 54
Re: Marco Equipment for Baby shots
« Reply #18 on: June 19, 2013, 02:18:13 PM »
Polo.
Sorry, English is not my first language... What's a polo?

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


Ah! Stupid German spellchecking! :)

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). 

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

  • EOS Rebel T7i
  • ****
  • Posts: 125
Re: Marco Equipment for Baby shots
« Reply #19 on: June 19, 2013, 04:03:22 PM »
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

  • EOS Rebel 300D
  • ***
  • Posts: 54
Re: Marco Equipment for Baby shots
« Reply #20 on: June 19, 2013, 06:45:14 PM »
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.

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

  • PowerShot G7 X Mark II
  • **
  • Posts: 7
Re: Marco Equipment for Baby shots
« Reply #21 on: July 15, 2013, 11:18:28 PM »
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 :(

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Marco Equipment for Baby shots
« Reply #21 on: July 15, 2013, 11:18:28 PM »

Mt Spokane Photography

  • Canon EF 5-1500mm f/1.0L IS
  • ***********
  • Posts: 13689
Re: Marco Equipment for Baby shots
« Reply #22 on: July 15, 2013, 11:47:21 PM »
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.
 
 

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Marco Equipment for Baby shots
« Reply #22 on: July 15, 2013, 11:47:21 PM »