Macro On APS-C


Sep 28, 2009
154
0
16
#1
hi all clubsnappers, was wondering what is the most suitable macro lens to go with APS-C camera.
A few constraint to take note,
- I need to take close-up on human face
- Need to be real close to the subject if possible

The Contestant
- SP AF60mm f/2.0 Di II MACRO 1:1
- SP AF 90mm f/2.8 Di 1:1 Macro
- EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM lens

Thank you in advance and feel free to add on the to the list and share with me your valuable pointers:)
 

Rashkae

Senior Member
Nov 28, 2005
19,105
12
0
#2
All are suitable. But we don't know if you need to cover the whole face or just take a picture of a small patch of skin. My suggestion is to borrow a 18-105 or 18-135 lens and then test 60mm, 90mm and 100mm to see which focal length will work for your requirements.
 

rhino123

Moderator
Staff member
Sep 1, 2006
5,243
15
38
NA
#3
hi all clubsnappers, was wondering what is the most suitable macro lens to go with APS-C camera.
A few constraint to take note,
- I need to take close-up on human face
- Need to be real close to the subject if possible

The Contestant
- SP AF60mm f/2.0 Di II MACRO 1:1
- SP AF 90mm f/2.8 Di 1:1 Macro
- EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM lens

Thank you in advance and feel free to add on the to the list and share with me your valuable pointers:)
My question is... why do you want to use a macro lens for close up of human face? If portraiture is what you are looking at, maybe you should look into getting a 85mm or a 135mm lens.
 

Sep 27, 2010
377
0
16
#4
R u trying to shoot a closeup shot of the human eye or something? Then I'd suggest the MP-E65 1-5x macro lens! :thumbsup:
 

Sep 28, 2009
154
0
16
#5
Thks for replying rashkae. I only need to take a small area of the face.
Rashkae said:
All are suitable. But we don't know if you need to cover the whole face or just take a picture of a small patch of skin. My suggestion is to borrow a 18-105 or 18-135 lens and then test 60mm, 90mm and 100mm to see which focal length will work for your requirements.
 

Sep 28, 2009
154
0
16
#6
rhino123 said:
My question is... why do you want to use a macro lens for close up of human face? If portraiture is what you are looking at, maybe you should look into getting a 85mm or a 135mm lens.
Thks for reply rhino123. I am currently holding on to 85mm. But it does not allow me to go as close as possible. I am trying out shots which feature close-up on human face.
 

TWmilkteaTW

Senior Member
May 30, 2011
2,251
1
0
#7
what do you mean..as close as possible.. then you already holding a 85mm. 90 and 100mm wont make much different. You might as well get a telezoom if you want as close as possible? like 200mm 300mm.. or your close as possible means sharpness?
 

SkyStrike

Moderator
Staff member
Nov 29, 2010
3,444
11
38
Somewhere
#8
what do you mean..as close as possible.. then you already holding a 85mm. 90 and 100mm wont make much different. You might as well get a telezoom if you want as close as possible? like 200mm 300mm.. or your close as possible means sharpness?
I believe TS is referring to the min focus distance when he made that statement. Macro lens allows you to focus much closer (probably ~30cm) than a "standard" lens (probably 45cm>).
 

spree86

Senior Member
Feb 3, 2009
4,774
0
0
Bishan
www.flickr.com
#9
TWmilkteaTW said:
what do you mean..as close as possible.. then you already holding a 85mm. 90 and 100mm wont make much different. You might as well get a telezoom if you want as close as possible? like 200mm 300mm.. or your close as possible means sharpness?
Closeness is not determined by focal length, consider the minimum focusing distance of the different lengths. If not why is there a need for macro lenses right?
 

Sep 28, 2009
154
0
16
#10
Spree86 & skystrike thks for the reply. Ur post is a Spot on for my doubt:) so how do I go about countering it.
SkyStrike said:
I believe TS is referring to the min focus distance when he made that statement. Macro lens allows you to focus much closer (probably ~30cm) than a "standard" lens (probably 45cm>).
 

spree86

Senior Member
Feb 3, 2009
4,774
0
0
Bishan
www.flickr.com
#11
jiaxuan90 said:
Spree86 & skystrike thks for the reply. Ur post is a Spot on for my doubt:) so how do I go about countering it.
If you are going that close as you mentioned "a small area of the face". Then you would need a macro lens. You can consider a 60mm or a 90/100mm lens depending on your preference and budget
 

Last edited:

rhino123

Moderator
Staff member
Sep 1, 2006
5,243
15
38
NA
#12
Thks for reply rhino123. I am currently holding on to 85mm. But it does not allow me to go as close as possible. I am trying out shots which feature close-up on human face.
Hmm... a 100mm f2.8L lens would be great in this case, the HIS would do wonder and was pretty sharp. Of course Tamron 90mm lens is also fabulous. Like what others say, it would very much depend on your own preference and also budget... please also looked into the following factors,

1) Handling
2) Focusing speed
3) Image Stabilizer
4) Weigh

Hope it helps.
 

SkyStrike

Moderator
Staff member
Nov 29, 2010
3,444
11
38
Somewhere
#13
Spree86 & skystrike thks for the reply. Ur post is a Spot on for my doubt:) so how do I go about countering it.
Personally, I'm using a Raynox 250 on my zoom lens (18-55 and 55-250), it will allow me to focus at aprox 12cm...(to be exact, only at ~12cm, cannot focus closer or further than it 11cm or 13cm, there is an formula for it, can't rem ATM).

Additional note: Your only issue as with other macro shoots is your DOF will be much thinner every step you go nearer to your subject. With this "issue", you have to use a much smaller aperture which may require a use of flash (or external flash to prevent casting of shadows) to use a faster shutter speed.
 

Cowseye

Senior Member
Mar 7, 2010
3,786
0
0
Singapore
www.ttlo-cowseye.com
#14
Regardless of which true macro lens, with the exception of Canon's MP-E 65mm, gives you a maximum magnification of 1:1. Which means they will look the same if you focus at the minimum focusing distance. The only practical difference betw. the lens is how short is the minimum focusing distance. Which is the reason why insect macro shooter wants a longer focal range with a higher min focusing distances for 1:1 in case the insect got scared away, and also why accessory product shoot can do well with, for example, the new Nikon 40mm micro lens, which has a very short min focusing distance, while the subject will not move (or attempt to move).

On top of the above, some Tamron and Sigma lenses has imprinted the word MACRO in their lens, they are not true macro lens. As compare to other similar focal range lens, they have slightly shorter min focusing distance, which though it allows greater magnification, but it's not enough to achieve 1:1. Look for the term 1:1 when you are buying a macro lens and you will not go wrong.
 

ortega

Moderator
Staff member
Nov 2, 2004
23,694
10
38
Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
#15
do note the different angle of view that different focal length gives you

what you need to look at is

1. angle of view you want
2. maximum reproduction ratio
3. also note crop factor will increase maximum reproduction ratio
 

Sep 28, 2009
154
0
16
#17
thks will have to look into my budget before getting any...
If you are going that close as you mentioned "a small area of the face". Then you would need a macro lens. You can consider a 60mm or a 90/100mm lens depending on your preference and budget
 

Sep 28, 2009
154
0
16
#18
thks for replying nemesis32, extension tube?? not too sure what is that, mind explaining to me
If it's just a focusing distance issue, you can get extension tube to work with your 85mm...
 

Sep 28, 2009
154
0
16
#19
thks for replying rhino123, definitely will take factor 2 and 3 into account.
Hmm... a 100mm f2.8L lens would be great in this case, the HIS would do wonder and was pretty sharp. Of course Tamron 90mm lens is also fabulous. Like what others say, it would very much depend on your own preference and also budget... please also looked into the following factors,

1) Handling
2) Focusing speed
3) Image Stabilizer
4) Weigh

Hope it helps.
 

Sep 28, 2009
154
0
16
#20
thks for replying skystrike, if r u using raynox 250, did u notice that the picture is not that sharp...
Personally, I'm using a Raynox 250 on my zoom lens (18-55 and 55-250), it will allow me to focus at aprox 12cm...(to be exact, only at ~12cm, cannot focus closer or further than it 11cm or 13cm, there is an formula for it, can't rem ATM).

Additional note: Your only issue as with other macro shoots is your DOF will be much thinner every step you go nearer to your subject. With this "issue", you have to use a much smaller aperture which may require a use of flash (or external flash to prevent casting of shadows) to use a faster shutter speed.
 

Top Bottom