Insect Photography Equipment?

[vespoid]

Hello,

I recently became interested in photography, primarily to capture highly detailed pictures of insects. I have been reading tutorials on using macro lenses for photographing insects but now I'm not quite sure how to translate that information to actual equipment.

I have access to a Tamron 28-300mm macro lens (an older model, doesn't have vibration compensation) with a Canon EOS Elan 7 body.
First of all, I am thinking I would prefer to get a digital camera body... are there any that would be especially suited for macro insect photography? From my naive perspective, it seems like the lens is dramatically more important than the body... are there any parameters of the camera that I should be especially aware of for macro photography?

As for the Tamron lens, I am fairly happy with the magnification levels I can get from it but would always like more... if I had the capacity to fill the entire field of view with a single insect that would be great, but I'm not sure if those levels of magnification are practical or achievable. Anyway, I'm wondering if I should at least get extension tubes and/or other lens mods? Would it be worthwhile to consider any other lenses?

If there are any particular cameras/lenses commonly associated with insect photography I'd be interested in hearing about them.

Anyway, thanks for reading this.. any suggestions/advice will be much appreciated!

Thanks
- Mark

[Geoff F]

Several issues here, Mark, which I'm not sure about.

I am not familiar with the Canon Elan 7 body. Is that a rather elderly model or another name for something more recent?

Also, I haven't used the Tamron 28-300 although I once had a Sigma 28-300 which I regarded as a second rate doorstop!

I started getting serious about macro photography with a Canon 70-300 lens. Although these lenses are stated as 'macro' lenses that just means reasonably close not a true macro lens.

My Canon 70-300 would focus at around 3 ft when at 300 mm but adding a 25 mm extension tube reduced that to around 2 ft which was acceptable, although it still had some limitations.

A good tripod is essential and I found that I started getting much better and more consistent results when I started using flash for all shots. The camera, pop up flash is just about sufficient to start with, although you may have to remove any lens hood.

However, getting a true insect lens is expensive for something like a Sigma 150 mm or even bigger.

I use a Sigma 180 macro lens which frequently has a 1.4x converter added; and even this often lacks the really fine details which I sometimes require for definite confirmation of insect species. I would not advise using a converter on a cheaper lens, although an extension tube will work fine.

[Shadowman]

This is a good source of information.

http://www.nikonians.org/html/resour...o/macro_6.html

[rtbaum]

I also have a Tamron 28-300, although it is a good walk around lens, I do not feel it is quite up to par for closeup photos. I also use a Tamron 90 macro, which is producing much sharper results than the 28-300. The macro also will shoot at f/2.8 to f/32, giving wide range of speed. I would recommend it, as it is a blast to play with. Just a word of warning, depth of focus is very narrow.

[rpcrowe]

I also use the Tamron 90mm f/2.8 AF SP Macro lens (the issue prior to the present Tamron Di model). I bought the lens used on USA eBay quite a few years ago and paid around one hundred U.S. Dollars plus a bit more for shipping. It is an excellent macro lens and was certainly a bargain.

Although a dedicated macro lens of 90mm focal length and longer is nice for insect photography since you can achieve a longer lens to subject distance than you can with 50mm or 60mm focal lengths and this longer distance won't tend to scare away the little critters there are also several other ways to acheve macro/close up imagery...

1. Reversing a lens - there are quite inexpensive adapters which will allow you to reverse your present lens on your camera body or there are also adapters which allow you to use an additional lens on the front of your present lens. Both of these methods allow very close up photography but the exceptionally narrow depth of field and close lens to subject disance make these first methods inappropriate IMO for insect shooting...

2. Close up lenses. These are diopter lenses that you attach to the front of your lens to achieve closer focus capability. Canon has a rather good close up lens, the 500D, which is available in several sizes to fit the filter threads on the front of your lens. There are less expensive close up lens sets sold on eBay but, you get what you pay for. Using a closeup lens or lenses is probably the cheapest and easiest inexpensive way of achieving macro or closeup imagery. The quality of the imagery depends on the quality of your lenses and the aperture at which you shoot. It is never quite as good as a dedicated macro lens.

3. Extension tubes: These allow you to use virtually any lens which, with the tubes, will focus quite close. The tubes come in several sizes and you can combine two or more tubes for really close up work. They require extra exposure and their ranges are quite limited. If you eventually decide on tubes, avoid the very cheap ones which do not have focus and exposure connections between the lens and the camera.

4. If you purchase a DSLR camera, you can often use an adapter to attach a manual focus lens. If you are attaching a manual focus Canon FD lens to a Canon EOS camera, you lose infinity focus. However you can often use another brand lens on a Canon EOS camera and be able to focus from macro to infinity. I usually focus macro shots in manual focus mode so using a manual focus lens would not be a great problem. The advantage is that you can sometimes find manual focus lenses capable of macro and/or close up photography at a very inexpensivly.

Finally, there is a 100mm Phoenix f/3.5 Macro lens which is said to provide quite decent imagery down to about 1:2 ratio (1:1 with the included adapter). This lens is sold under several brand names, including Vivitar, Cosina and Pentax and usually costs around a hundred US dollars new in the USA. Suprisingly, the image quality at f/8 - f/11 is rated excellent in the Photozone test. However, the build quality is not that great!

http://www.photozone.de/pentax/368-c...00mm-f35-macro

[vespoid]

Thanks for the responses! Extra resources are always helpful, and it's great to have additional perspectives on the 28-300 Tamron lens.

So it sounds like I will look for a different lens than this 28-300. I am definitely comfortable buying a dedicated macro lens, since currently I am planning on photographing insects almost exclusively.

One thing I don't understand, though, is that when I was initially researching lenses I got the impression that the longer focal lengths the better for something like insect photography because of the capacity for magnification. So in general why would a fixed 90mm lens be a better choice than a lens with a top length of 200-300mm? (I trust the recommendations of the Tamron 90mm, I just don't understand what makes it a better choice)

How do you know whether you should use Extension tubes or not (or close up lenses, for that matter)? If you were using the Tamron 90mm Macro lens would you use extension tubes with it? Is it just a matter of doing the math based on the size of your target?

I am also now looking at DSLR cameras... would an APS-C sensor be the best for insect macro because of the inherent magnification?

Thanks again!

[rpcrowe]

When a lens is at 1:1 magnification (with the image on the sensor equal in size to the subject) it doesn't matter what the focal length of the lens is. At 1:1 magnification a 50mm Macro lens will give you the same size image as a 60mm, 90mm, 100mm, 150mm, 180mm or any other focal length lens which can produce that 1:1 magnification. What will be different amongst these focal lengths is the camera to subject distance with the longer focal lengths allowing you to be further away from your subject.

Longer subject to camera distance will tend not to frighten little creepy critters you are shooting and will facilitate lighting the subject. However, although the 150mm and 180mm allow a greater camera to subject distance, they are usually a lot more expensive to purchase and heavy to use.

IMO, a 90mm (such as the Tamron) to 100mm macro lens is probably the best compromise between weight/cost and camera to subject distance...

Some people like a 50mm or 60mm macro lens when shoting with a 1.6x crop camera but, I prefer one that is longer like my Tamron. By the way, Canon has two excellent 100mm f/2.8 macro lenses, one with image stabilization and one without. Although I can definitely see the advantages of IS in a macro lens, I have been shooting macros without IS for a long time and would not want to spend the extra money for image stabilization.

BTW: Canon has a 65mm MPE macro lens which I would recommend not getting because this lens is an expensive specialized lens which will only shoot images from 1:1 to 5:1 ratios...

[vespoid]

Richard - thanks for the explanation! When I first posted, I didn't fully understand the significance of the 1:1 magnification, but now it's making sense.

So that leads me to wondering: what if you want to go to a higher magnification, like 4:1? Is it feasible to do on a lens like the Tamron 90mm? (the extensions I've seen seem to be more in the 36mm range... I was just wondering how you get up to 270mm of extensions? Or do you have to use an actual magnifying lens at that point?)

[Shadowman]

Richard - thanks for the explanation! When I first posted, I didn't fully understand the significance of the 1:1 magnification, but now it's making sense.

So that leads me to wondering: what if you want to go to a higher magnification, like 4:1? Is it feasible to do on a lens like the Tamron 90mm? (the extensions I've seen seem to be more in the 36mm range... I was just wondering how you get up to 270mm of extensions? Or do you have to use an actual magnifying lens at that point?)

You can get 4:1 magnification with the reversed lens method Richard described in his earlier post. You simply reverse attach a 50mm lens to a 200mm lens.

[charzes44]

Hi Mark,

You might find these websites interesting:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/board/45

http://dalantech.deviantart.com/gallery/4122501

There are many more, just Google "macro", (without the quotation marks), and see what you come up with!

Happy browsing.

Charles

[TobyMac]

Hi Mark
I'v been shooting macro for a while, my setup is pretty simple yet I get great results, till a couple of weeks ago I was using a canon 350D but just upgraded to a Canon 7D and it is amazing. The main lens I use is the Canon 100mm USM f/2.8 and it is an amazing lens, extremely sharp and easy to focus. One very important thing you should also invest in is a very sturdy tripod, it is essential for getting those sharp photos your looking for, also if you have the cash to spare, a cable release would be a good idea. External flash is also a great thing to have but depending how and where you shoot it isn't essential. But I would definitely suggest you spend most of your money on the lens, the camera body pretty much just captures the image, although it is great to have a top of the line camera body it is just as possible to achieve amazing results with a simple beginners body as long as you have some really great glass to use it with.

[Geoff F]

Mark, most of my photography is shooting live insects (say 5 to 10 mm on average) to identification quality and I need to photograph virtually everything that I see during a walk around suitable locations.

If that is what you want, I would advise against getting any lens smaller than 150 mm. As I previously said, I normally use a 180 mm plus a 1.4x converter. This gets me to around 1 ft from the subject if I am lucky. Often, I wish for greater magnification.

Larger insects, like butterflies, dragonflies etc will be fine with a smaller lens but as the 1 ft average distance still applies, I wouldn't want to go less than 90 mm. But, as previously mentioned, larger macro lenses are expensive and heavy.

If you are happy to just get the occasional smaller insect, or photograph dead/very placid subjects then 90 mm approx will work fine because you can get closer.

Obviously, the less magnification you have the better for avoiding potential quality issues but for me it is better to risk a fraction less clarity than to have my subject fly away before I get close enough for that critical close shot at a perfect angle.

I often take my first shots around 2 ft then try to edge closer.

For me, a good tripod is essential. I like a quick release ball head because of the time saved by not having to fiddle around with a couple of alignment screws. But that situation is reversed with studio work involving dead or chilled subjects.

An external flash unit is another essential for me as it allows the use of smaller apertures, and increased depth of focus. Because a lot of my shots are through 'holes in the foliage' I prefer a straight flash unit and adjust the flash output to suit each scene. But the use of flash diffusers or macro lens lights/studio lighting may prove better under controllable conditions.

Originally, I used a cable shutter release but eventually found this was also taking a little bit extra time to use, even when taped to my tripod handle. Eventually I realised that as my shutter speed is reasonably fast, around 1/250, to overcome wind rock and subject movement I wasn't getting any noticeable improvement. In fact I was missing some quick shots while fiddling with the cable.

Once again, the situation is different for studio work.

[vespoid]

Geoff - aww.. I spent the last couple hours shopping around, and thought I was ready to make a final decision when I saw your post. It does sound like you're taking the pictures I'm aspiring to...

I was originally looking at a Canon EOS Rebel T2i, with a Canon EF 100mm lens.

So moving up to the 180mm range... is the Tamron AF 180mm f/3.6 Di ok? I would probably still get a Rebel T2i then. I also was looking at the Canon Speedlite 430EX II for an external flash, and would stick with that.. unless there is a good reason not to?

Do you have a particular tripod recommendation? Do you need to use a tripod mount ring with a 180mm lens?

Oh, and do you use a full frame or crop sensor camera for your photography?

Sorry for the question spam. Thanks for revisiting my thread!

[ktuli]

Mark,

Which 100mm lens were you looking at? The one with IS or the one without?

The Tamron 180mm is a capable lens. If your budget allows it, you may also want to consider the Sigma 150mm as it has IS... or at the same price, the Canon 100mm f/2.8L with IS.

Your other purchase items look like they should be just fine (why the T2i vs the T3i? just price?). However, I would plan on a sync cord ($15-20) and off-shoe bracket for the flash (varies) - especially if you go with the 150 or 180mm - as those long macro lenses often will throw a shadow with a shoe mounted flash.

And yes - I would use a tripod collar for a 150 or 180mm macro. I don't use one with my 100mm, but I often debate buying one.

- Bill

[vespoid]

Bill,

Whoops.. I don't know why I said T2i.. the price difference seems fairly negligible compared to the T3i. Thanks for pointing that out.

I was only going to get one lens to start with, for budget purposes. When I was looking at 100mm I was looking at the non-IS model because of the prices. If I'm going up in price from the non-IS 100mm, I feel like I should get a longer lens. The sigma 150mm looks awesome, but the $400 (on Amazon) over the Tamron 180mm probably puts it out of my range at least until I get some solid macro experience.

Oh, and thanks for the sync cord/off-shoe bracket advice!

[Geoff F]

Geoff - aww.. I spent the last couple hours shopping around, and thought I was ready to make a final decision when I saw your post. It does sound like you're taking the pictures I'm aspiring to...

I was originally looking at a Canon EOS Rebel T2i, with a Canon EF 100mm lens.

So moving up to the 180mm range... is the Tamron AF 180mm f/3.6 Di ok? I would probably still get a Rebel T2i then. I also was looking at the Canon Speedlite 430EX II for an external flash, and would stick with that.. unless there is a good reason not to?

Do you have a particular tripod recommendation? Do you need to use a tripod mount ring with a 180mm lens?

Oh, and do you use a full frame or crop sensor camera for your photography?

Sorry for the question spam. Thanks for revisiting my thread!

Firstly, Mark, there are some examples of the sort of insects I photograph here http://www.pbase.com/crustacean/2011...esting_insects

A lot of the time I need to be able to count an insect's 'toes' in order to work out the correct ID.

I don't have any knowledge of the Tamron 180. When I was looking for a macro lens it was a choice between the Canon and Sigma. The Canon is rated as absolutely excellent but the Sigma isn't far behind and quite a bit cheaper but still expensive.

If you are just using this lens for insects I wouldn't worry about getting a stabilised lens as you will only be shooting with a tripod.

Sigma have just launched a new 180 but I don't know the price. However, this may mean that there are a few offers on the previous model, although these are specialist lenses so rarely get heavily discounted.

I got the 580 Speedlite as it has a little more height, but at an increased cost. I always shoot with the flash directly mounted to the camera because, as I previously mentioned, my angles through the foliage are often rather limited. I don't have a problem with flash shadow when using this equipment but I normally remove the lens hood to prevent it from scaring my targets.

For a tripod, I use the Manfrotto 055X with a 322RC2 head. Very strong but heavy to carry around all day, particularly with other weighty equipment. And not cheap.

For occasional use I also have a Velbon Luxi L which is much lighter and folds up small enough to fit into my backpack; but it isn't in the Manfrotto league and I find the head time consuming to adjust.

I don't know about the lens mount ring on the Tamron but is comes with the Sigma as part of the package. Definitely gives better balance.

I started off with a Canon 10D then 40D and 7D; so yes, a crop camera is better for insects, and birds.

[DanK]

Mark,

You asked about going higher than 1:1. My advice is to put that out of your mind for a while. Macro is technically demanding even at 1:1, and the closer you get, the harder it is (e.g., even smaller depth of field). Once you are comfortable at 1:1, get yourself a set of kenko extension tubes to get more magnification. The set will give you from 12 to 68mm of extension. Start with a bit and build up.

I don't entirely agree with Geoff. While more reach is better for bugs, a long, heavy lens is a real pain, particularly if you have a flash rig attached. (more on that in a minute). I do a lot of bug shots and have never used a lens longer than 100mm. I started with a 60mm, but while that is wonderful for flowers, it is really tough for bugs. I mostly use a 100mm now. You can check some of mine out at two links: http://dkoretz.smugmug.com/Bugs/butt...6947509_d26Rc6 and other bugs.

A tripod is really important for lots of macro, but I find it often does not help with bugs because if it is warm out, they move too fast for me to get set up. That is one reason I like a shorter lens--it's easier to balance by hand or with a cheap monopod.

What I find essential for bugs is a flash. This takes some doing. Most macro photographers I know do not use ring lights because they produce flat lighting. More commonly, people use a bracket to hold the flash head near the end of the lens, and they put a LOT of diffusing material over the head. Most of the rigs I have seen are DIYs. Mine is a lot like this one (http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=189001) except that my diffuser is smaller. Flash will freeze motion, lets you take shots away from glaring sunlight (which makes for washed out colors), and lets you close the lens down enough for a little more DOF. I'll post one below that I took with a 100mm lens, a 36mm extension tube, and a flash.

Personally, if I were you, I would start with a modest lens, probably in the 100mm range, and get some experience to see whether macro is as appealing to you up close (pun intended) as it seems in the abstract. Then invest if it is. I started with a used compact 50 that I bought used for $150, then moved from that to an EF-S 60, and then eventually to the 100.

Re IS: except for the 100mm L macro, no IS available is of much use at macro distances because it corrects for angular rotation. The hybrid IS on the 100mm L also corrects for motion parallel to the sensor and gets 1.5 or 2 stops at minimum focusing distance. I have one and love it, but I would not recommend that anyone invest that much money until they have enough experience to know that they really want to persist with macro.

I hope this helps. It really is confusing at first.

[Quixxxie2000]

http://dkoretz.smugmug.com/Bugs/butt...6947509_d26Rc6 and other bugs. [/IMG]

Wow Dan I loved your pictures. Please can you tell me whether you used extension rings when you captured the butterflies? I have a 100mm macro dedicated lens. Have also aksess to butterflies. But my pictures are no where close to the clearness of your shots. What settings you used? Thanks

[Quixxxie2000]

Mark,

You asked about going higher than 1:1. My advice is to put that out of your mind for a while. Macro is technically demanding even at 1:1, and the closer you get, the harder it is (e.g., even smaller depth of field). Once you are comfortable at 1:1, get yourself a set of kenko extension tubes to get more magnification. The set will give you from 12 to 68mm of extension. Start with a bit and build up.

I don't entirely agree with Geoff. While more reach is better for bugs, a long, heavy lens is a real pain, particularly if you have a flash rig attached. (more on that in a minute). I do a lot of bug shots and have never used a lens longer than 100mm. I started with a 60mm, but while that is wonderful for flowers, it is really tough for bugs. I mostly use a 100mm now. You can check some of mine out at two links: http://dkoretz.smugmug.com/Bugs/butt...6947509_d26Rc6 and other bugs.

A tripod is really important for lots of macro, but I find it often does not help with bugs because if it is warm out, they move too fast for me to get set up. That is one reason I like a shorter lens--it's easier to balance by hand or with a cheap monopod.

What I find essential for bugs is a flash. This takes some doing. Most macro photographers I know do not use ring lights because they produce flat lighting. More commonly, people use a bracket to hold the flash head near the end of the lens, and they put a LOT of diffusing material over the head. Most of the rigs I have seen are DIYs. Mine is a lot like this one (http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=189001) except that my diffuser is smaller. Flash will freeze motion, lets you take shots away from glaring sunlight (which makes for washed out colors), and lets you close the lens down enough for a little more DOF. I'll post one below that I took with a 100mm lens, a 36mm extension tube, and a flash.

Personally, if I were you, I would start with a modest lens, probably in the 100mm range, and get some experience to see whether macro is as appealing to you up close (pun intended) as it seems in the abstract. Then invest if it is. I started with a used compact 50 that I bought used for $150, then moved from that to an EF-S 60, and then eventually to the 100.

Re IS: except for the 100mm L macro, no IS available is of much use at macro distances because it corrects for angular rotation. The hybrid IS on the 100mm L also corrects for motion parallel to the sensor and gets 1.5 or 2 stops at minimum focusing distance. I have one and love it, but I would not recommend that anyone invest that much money until they have enough experience to know that they really want to persist with macro.

I hope this helps. It really is confusing at first.

Dan, What is the bracket called, the one which attach to your camera body for the flash..

[jcuknz]

While my first thought was you should get a Canon APS-C body to directly use the Tamron on second thoughts you should consider an Olympus Pen camera which with a cheap adaptor tube would enable you to use the Tamron. But really the solution is probably a long zoom 'bridge' camera or 'superzoom' where you add a close-up lens to overcome the inability of the lens to focus close at full zoom. My experience is with a Panasonic FZ x12 zoom camera where a 2 dioptre CU lens enabled me to fill the sensor with a 38mm across subject, a 4 dioptre would be a 19mm subject. before I had the Panasonic cameras I used a Nikon 5700 which could focus quite close in a macro setting half way up the zoom range. Beware of cameras which say they can focus to very close distances because it is usually only at their wide-angle setting when they do not have a very tight angle of view. Better is to overcome the inability of a long lens to focus close with the CU lens and use the narrow angle of view of the x12 or x24 zoom to achieve the tight framing.
The framing for these two shots of a carpet beetle were similar but I cropped for the second. Camera 5Mp.