Close-up lenses for N

N-scalers, can I ask what you like to use for a close-up lens? I use Canon EF 18-55 and 28-90. The 28-90 is okay for close up, but I'd like to get closer-ups. I'm intereested in a macro lens but haven't heard N-scalers say much good about macro lenses. I'll appreciate hearing what you think about macro and other lenses.

Scott

 

Scott - Keep in mind that employing a macro lens for any tight shots results in a very limited depth-of-field compared say to the 28mm setting on your zoom lens. Macros are OK for roster shots, or photos where you wish to really emphasize some specific element in the scene. Generally, though, they do a rather poor job in other instances, especially when the shot is intended to include overall scenery, or layout landscapes behind the subject. Most serious model photographers shy away from using macros for most of their work.

NYW&B

 

Close-up lenses

Thank you Colonel and NYW&B. It sounds like a macro lens might be a little too restrictive to justify its expense. My interest in a macro has been getting closer up on some part of a scene, such as in this photo:



Depth of field isn't a serious problem, because I use Helicon Focus for greater DOF. But maybe this is close enough - maybe I don't need to count buttons with a macro.
Thanks!

Scott

 

Scott,

I use a 12-24mm Nikon zoom, which is pretty pricey. At 12mm and f22 it's depth of field is something like 4 inches to infinity. Otherwise I'm using Helicon too. I find myself going to longer lens lengths when I want to get up close. I do have a set of close-up lenses, but rarely use them.

I think the major attraction of macros is not just the ability to focus very closely, but their sharpness at close focus, as that's what they were designed to do.

 

Anyone use a Rebel and Canon EF lenses?

I apologize for not researching others before starting this thread - I see that Pete Nolan and others have offered lots of good advice already.

I'm reading that many of you use Nikon and other bodies, but not Canon. Does anyone use a Rebel and Canon EF lenses that give you good close-ups? I'd like to shoot an old caboose interior, but I'm not happy with my 28X90's minimum distance and zoom. On the other hand, spending $1000 on a new lens isn't an alternative.

Scott

 

Thanks, Pete. I've been putting this off, but when I had to remove a phone pole to shoot the other day, I decided to do some serous looking and talking. I'm basically happy with my 28X90, but I keep wondering if I need a macro to supplement. I enjoy doing close-ups, and - in spite of some criticism - I think the macro might help me do what I like to do.

I enjoyed your comment in another post about test shots and carrying your card to your office computer. Lori wants to know what I'm going to do about the pattern I'm wearing down the hall to our home office. I gotta be careful, or it'll be new carpet instead of a lens.

Scott

 

Scott,

I'm just not familiar with Canon lenses. The Rebel uses a slightly smaller imager than Nikon, resulting in a 1.6x factor for Canon versus a 1.5x factor for Nikon. I'm pretty sure as many people shoot Canon as shoot Nikon--or at least close, as the Nikon D70, D50 and D40 all were blockbusters in sales.

A 28mm on a Rebel is the equivalent of a 45mm lens on a full-frame SLR. You probably need something down in the 18mm (29mm equivalent) range at a minimum. The Nikon DX lenses, designed for dSLR's smaller sensors, will generally focus to a foot or less; their full-frame lenses, while fabulous, usuall will focus only to about 3 feet. It's much easier to design and manufacture a lens that has to cover less imager area. My initial guess is that it's at least 2X easier.

I haven't seen any wide angle fixed-focus lenses for the digital format from Nikon or Canon--there may be a fisheye, but those are pretty useless. I haven't been looking much, since I have the 12-24mm, which is about $1000. Canon does about a 10-20mm for about the same price.

You might look for a Canon-compatible fixed focus off-brand wide-angle lens. Or a substitute "kit lens" of about 17-50mm for Canon. There's a ready market for these on Nikons, and they can be cheap--about $50-75.

I think I can summarize by saying: the wider you can go, the happier you'll be with model railroad photography. Or other photography, for that matter. The 12-24mm has become my standard lens, unless I'm shooting people (24-85mm) or wildlife (70-300mm).

 

Pete, you certainly know cameras! Thanks for the info - it gives me something to study tomorrow. In the meantime, I just used the 28X90 to shoot my old caboose interior (posted in "Show us Your Cabeese." I'm not real unhappy with it. It certainly got up close enough to show all the flaws! Thanks, Pete.

Scott

 

Scott,

Good to hear from a fellow Southern Oregonite! The key is to get the smallest aperature you can with your equipment and have a Tripod. My Nikon D40 will go the equivilent of F22 and for most close in shots it works very well (and I model in Z for the most part). The wide angle of this lens also helps with the panoramic effect so you get what the minds eye sees in real life. I also own a battery of traditional Olympus equipment and any combination of Telephoto/macro does the trick as well. My pride and joy is my 4x5 Field Camera that allows F64 but shooting model photography with that is a bit much $$$. The key is the aperature and a steady mount. I'm not sure of the Canon products, but Nikon has a series of macro rings that attach to the base of the lens. This is considered a "poor" man's Macro and I've gotten some good results with it. I think there comes a point in N and Z Scale where if you get too close, the subject can take on a toy like appearence and really magnify detail issues we may have. The shot above of the Colonel's layout is what I consider a great use of aperature, wide angle and composition in model photography.

Cheers

Joe
MTL

 

Thanks, Joe. I agree on Colonel's photo. My Rebel and I are getting spooked - sounds like most of you are using Nikons.

Yes, I'm close to Medford - look out on CORP trains 4-6 tiimes a day.

Scott

 

Joe,

I think Helicon Focus software has changed that advice a bit. Helicon allows you to take "slices" of an image, changing the focus in small steps--i.e., you take about 20 slices and the computer assembles them into one sharp image.

With Helicon I usually shoot at f/8 or f/11, which are the sharpest apertures for my lenses, with less diffractive effects and distortion than at f/22. For a web image, the difference isn't very apparent, but it does become apparent in print.

Sometimes I use a slight alteration of this. I'll shoot the closest focus slices at f/22, say at 4 seconds, so the closest objects are clear, then switch to f/11 a 1 second once I get farther out.

Scott,

We just happen to have a Nikon group here. Over the years I've known many, many photographers, pro, semi-pro, and amateur. I'd guess the split was 60/40 for Nikon. It splits in different ways. I'd say it's 80/20 for Canon among wedding photographers, for example--Canon had features attractive to them before Nikon caught up. Canon pro lenses are known for being slightly sharper than the equivalent Nikkor pro lenses, although that will draw a heated debate in some circles. At the prosumer level, recent Nikon lenses have been spectacular, the 12-24mm and 18-200mmVR drawing very high praise. Nikon's in-camera image processing at this level is slightly superior than Canon's, according to the pundits, and also from what I've seen.

Among my photo friends, we often conduct an informal but informative test in my back yard, which is in the shadows of the Sandia mountains. We match lens lengths, and use identical apertures and shutter speeds. Then we lock my heavy tripod in a position and take shots of the radio towers on the summit. Then we examine them side by side at high magnification on my Apple Cinema display. The difference between two camera of equal cost is often startling. At ordinary sizes, they look very much the same, but pixel by pixel they are very different.

I do know my Nikons pretty well, but I understand optics more than the camera markets. I started as a photographer for my local paper while in college in 1966. By graduation in 1970, I soon learned there was a whole lot more money in writing and producing TV news, and later even more money doing corporate stuff.

 

Pete, isn't it wild how different things turned out from the way we were thinking back in 1970? I graduated a year before you. Had an airline job and a shot at law school. "Greetings from the President!" Oh well.

I've really enjoyed your lens/platform info the last few days - I've learned a lot. Thank you.

Scott

 

For a closer working distance, a good quality close-up lens is a lot cheaper than any macro lens. Canon makes the 250D and 500D coated doublet lenses that are compatible with many of the EF/S lenses, including the 28-90. Canon's lenses cost about $70-130 depending upon the diameter.

By the time you stop down the lens aperture to maximize depth of field, diffraction will limit image sharpness a lot more than a 500D.



All the best.

 

Ah - there's a Canon man! Pete's and others' advice has been great, but I've been hoping for a specific Canon recommendation - thank you. I like the idea of adding a close-up lens to my 28-90, and the price is certainly more reasonable. Thank you - I'll study these lenses.

Scott

 

It is indeed wild. In 1966 I had all my appointments lined up for 1. Air Force Academy 2. Annapolis 3. West Point. But my poor vision knocked me out of contention. Also knocked me out of contention for the draft. I took optics as a physics elective and loved it, even though my calculus skills were a bit sub par. Much like model trains, I don't follow the commercial market at all closely, but I do know what's going on when you bend those photons around

 

Very true for any zoom. Both Canon and Nikon wide zooms (10-20 Canon; 12-24 Nikon) are best, according to reviews, at f/8, suffer minimal diffraction at f/11, and then see a small but noticeable fall off at f/16 and f/22. That's one reason why I use Helicon software. At many focal lengths and f-stops the Nikon 12-24 simply exceeds the sensor's ability to record the sharpness. I assume it's the same with the Canon.

Double coated close-up lenses are very important to control flare in certain lighting situations. They are worth the slight additional cost.

 

I'm a Canon man, and I'm not happy.

I use a 28-135 for most of my train work with my Digital Rebel (original, 300D). Mostly out at the big end, 135mm. It takes good shots that get a lot of detail. I have tried my 70-300, but you have to work too far away which makes it harder to get a good shot. My 50mm prime takes excellent photos up close, but I can't get the tripod close enough, most of the time. I use the 18-55 kit lens sparingly, it can work, sometimes.

I've borrowed the 100-400 L lens. It works surprisingly well for close ups, but you're way far away when you take them. It's also pricy.

I've been told what I really want is a 100mm macro, or a 135mm macro, the former is half the price of the latter. I have never used either. I also know I need a better body, I'm eyeing the 5D replacement. A 100% crop can do wonders for showing detail.

 

Leo,

Will an older, manual-focus macro work on a Canon? I have an older 35-105 Nikon film semi-macro (it doesn't go all the way to 1:1) that I sometimes use with my D70. When I'm shooting close in, I usually focus manually, and can determine exposure with an auto lens that I then switch out, or with a second camera. And then I bracket. It's a little cumbersome, but I love the sharpness of that lens!

I ask because there are some superb lenses from the film days that might be available pretty cheaply.