Macro lens suggestions and tips? 5dii

matteusclement said:

I am currently using extension tubes with my 55mm f1.8 takumar
My depth of field is pretty shallow... It looks like poop.

I am looking at the canon 100mm. Will that be better for macro video work?
Any tips on macro video work?

Click to expand...

You do know the depth of field does not depend on the brand or quality of the lens. It depends on the magnifications and the f-stop. The 100mm lens will give you more working distance but the same DOF as the 50mm.

But with video the resolution is less so you can in effect have more depth because the low-res 1080 line sensor if more tolerant of out of focus. But this effect is small.

For more depth you need to shoot at (about) f/16. This means you need either longer exposures or more light. With still you have the ability to use a flash. With video you will need a continuous light that allows shooting at f/16 and you do not ant to "melt" you subject. LED lighting is the way to go. Find small LED video light on Amazon for under $50. Nothing will make you look better then lighting. The make LED ring lights. But experiment with light tends too. Make one with an old milk jug.

Obviously for either still or video macro work you will need a very sturdy tripod.

Video macro is very hard if the subject is moving. You would have to follow focus, not an easy job.

matteusclement said:

So what you're telling me is that I am going to get a shallow DOF no matter what?

Click to expand...

Yes lol shallow DoF is always a problem with Macro work...DoF is all about aperature, focal length, sensor size and distance...I think people forget the distance and focal length part sometimes, I mean I get pretty shallow DoF with an 85mm at 1 meter so with a 100mm at a couple of centimeters I can't imagine I could stop down enough....some people actually prefer smaller sensor cameras for macro work to try and counter this effect along with other measures.

matteusclement said:

So what you're telling me is that I am going to get a shallow DOF no matter what?

Click to expand...

Yes. It is physics. DOF is determined for the f-stop and magnification. But you CAN control the light. Use enough light so that you are shooting at f/16 or even f/32.

For stills you can make a "focus stack" This is like HDR in that you take many shoots, each at slightly different focus them combine them. It is a lot of work and I've never heard of it being done for macro video.

You could focus stack in video but it would take months of work for a couple minute video.

See here for details: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focus_stacking

ChrisA said:

Yes. It is physics. DOF is determined for the f-stop and magnification. But you CAN control the light. Use enough light so that you are shooting at f/16 or even f/32.

For stills you can make a "focus stack" This is like HDR in that you take many shoots, each at slightly different focus them combine them. It is a lot of work and I've never heard of it being done for macro video.

You could focus stack in video but it would take months of work for a couple minute video.

See here for details: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focus_stacking

Click to expand...

With Macro I don't think lighting is so much an issue as the lenses minimum aperture...even at ƒ/32 with that level of magnification its still going to be shallow, obviously MUCH more workable than ƒ/5.6 or ƒ/8 but still pretty far off of what ƒ/32 on a 50mm at normal subject distances (>3-5 meters) would produce DOF wise...I know Macro lenses and telephoto lenses generally stop down more but I haven't seen anything past ƒ/36 or ƒ/48...also at ƒ/36 diffraction sets in pretty nasty, I've only used ƒ/36 on a couple of lenses and the softening was pretty bad. Again a camera body with a smaller sensor might be worth it, cheap too. You can get closer with a small sensor and the same macro lens on a crop body too.

Focus stacking is a good idea though, I've done it and its pretty fun when you get it right.

nateo200 said:

With Macro I don't think lighting is so much an issue as the lenses minimum aperture...even at ƒ/32 with that level of magnification its still going to be shallow,....

Click to expand...

What I meant was that you need a big enough light to allow shooting at f/16 or f/32. With a reasonable ISO. Simply to get the exposure correct.

I've forgotten the formula but moving the lens out far enough to focus 1:1 magnification ration looses two stops of light. (a 4x reduction) So the effective f-stop can be f/64 You need a lot of light so shoot at f/64 and 200 ISO and still have a quick enough shutter to freeze motion. Of course you can compromise and do a longer shutter speed.

Shadows and lighting ratio are another issue but light tents and reflectors take care of that

You will need a lot of light for macro video work. With macro photography, you at least have the ability to focus stack if you have to use a very wide aperture (e.g. f/2.8). But with video, you're stuck at whatever you're recording at.

I've been messing around with the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L IS MACRO I borrowed from my friend (since I'm deciding whether or not I want to buy it again - had it and sold it).

Examples:
http://instagram.com/p/gst-pBKVUO/
http://instagram.com/p/hY0ZyiKVZ-/

I only used a cheap ~160 led bulb panel for this and I still had to bump to ISO 800 to 1600 for those at f/5.6 to f/8 (1/60 sec).

ChrisA said:

What I meant was that you need a big enough light to allow shooting at f/16 or f/32. With a reasonable ISO. Simply to get the exposure correct.

I've forgotten the formula but moving the lens out far enough to focus 1:1 magnification ration looses two stops of light. (a 4x reduction) So the effective f-stop can be f/64 You need a lot of light so shoot at f/64 and 200 ISO and still have a quick enough shutter to freeze motion. Of course you can compromise and do a longer shutter speed.

Shadows and lighting ratio are another issue but light tents and reflectors take care of that

Click to expand...

I know exactly what you meant, just adding more points...

matteusclement said:

ocabj - that was SEXY!!

What F stop were you at?
The first one with the watch face was nice and sharp but the 2nd rear shot looked soft.

As far as all this talking about f16 and f32... yucky.
The diffraction that happens that high makes things soft and dull.

I guess I will have to play around a bit as adding extra light is no problem.

But from what I am hearing, extension tubes are inferior to an actual macro lens.

Click to expand...

As indicated my in post, f/5.6 and f/8 respectively.

The 2nd rear shot may have looked soft because 1) focus point was on the balance wheel and not the rotor, and 2) that's sapphire glass covering the watch movement, so there will be some diffraction.