Good combination for macro?

[kalniel]

My parents are looking to get a DSLR to shoot insects/flowers for use on magazine covers. While they have been tempted by some of the newer kits, I wondered if something like a Nikon D40 + the newly motorized Tamron 90mm macro Di lens might be a better bet for not much higher outlay.

The lens seems to get rave reviews, and the limited resolution of the D40 isn't a problem, and infact might help with low light shooting.

Any thoughts or other suggestions would be welcome

[Saracen]

The Tamron does indeed have a good reputation, but be aware, getting really good macro shots is not as easy as slapping a macro lens on a camera and going 'click'. It can be VERY challenging to get really good macro shots, because you're going to have a couple of fairly serious challenges, namely, lighting and depth of field.

If you want true macro (i.e. 1:1 or higher) then your lens is going to be a few inches from your subject. That means you block out a good part of available light. So if you want to do macro by available light, you're going to need careful positioning both of yourself and your subject, and to give a lot of thought as to location (like directly in a window). But then you'll probably end up with strongly backlit shots (and there's nothing wrong with that, but for variety, you may want a dark background on some shots). And, of course, that presumes you'll be working from home and not out and about.

If you don't use natural light, then you're either into studio flash or, perhaps a better option, continuous lighting like the Bowens TriLite (though there are cheaper options), and the space to set it up. But that isn't much help for out and about either. And if you want a versatile and fully portable system, you may need a macro flash, so will be looking at about £300 for a ring flash (which a lot of people don't like because it has a bit 'flat' quality to it), or a twin-flash, which is a LOT more versatile and a more controllable and flattering light, but about £500 - £600 just for the flash. Those prices are for Canon and Nikon, and there are cheaper options (and more expensive options), but I think you get what you pay for.

And, of course, with a macro, you're so close to the subject that if you use a large aperture to throw background out of focus, you'll be talking about a very small depth of field. Focus is critical, and you moving slightly can result in focussing on the wrong part of the subject. So, for consistent results, you're talking about tripod mounting if you possibly can.

As for that camera and lens, it depends how much macro you want. That's okay for up to 1:1, but if you want more than that, you're going to need extra kit, ranging from extension tubes, etc, up to bellows and/or a lens like Canon's MPE-65 (which is both quite expensive and a REAL challenge to use). If you've just out for the sort of semi-abstract colour-wash macro that you can get from flowers, then that lens should be okay. If you want to show a nice picture of a spider on a flower, then you're okay. If you want to count the facets of the eyes of the fly the spider is eating, it won't really be enough.

You can ease some of the lighting issues, and to a degree, the depth of field issues, by using longer focal length macro, like a 150mm or 180mm. You'll be further away at maximum magnification that you will with a 90mm, but then, for a good lens, you also bump your price quite a bit. Canon's 180mm jumps to about £1000, compared to about £380 for the (excellent) 100mm f2.8.

You say this is for "magazine" covers. A lot, IMHO, depends on what you mean by that. A flyer for a plant company would be one thing, but the standards you'll have to hit to get on the cover of the RHS magazine or Nature will be very different.

The kit your talking about there should certainly facilitate some pretty decent results, but getting really good results is going to be more about technique, expertise, experience and creativity. Macro is an east to field to get "wow" comments from people that have never looked at much macro before, simply because they see the world from a perspective that they normally wouldn't, but getting really good macro shots is a challenging field.

[kalniel]

Thanks for the reply.

Don't worry, no-one is expecting any kind of skill improvement as a result of kit - they are already capable of taking good macro shots and have a lot of film SLR experience.

The magazine isn't quite RHS or Nature, but it is a national publication. The quality of cover shots does vary but I think they were hoping to increase the choice. Bee on flower would be the usual kind of shot - eye facets would be nice but that type of shot is less commonly used so it's not worth spending a lot extra just for that capability.

I guess I'm asking if going for the cheap body and medium lens is a better use of budget than buying just a better camera kit just as the canon 450D and putting up with the kit lens - if they do macro that is? And whether there are any major drawbacks to the D40 for this specific use that I haven't thought of.

[Saracen]

I've not seen a kit lens of any manufacturer with what I would call "macro". Of course, it depends on your definition of the term, and some (most) manufacturers refer to lenses as being macro when, in my terms, they aren't.

To me, it need to be at least 1:1 magnification to be macro, and while many lenses have "macro" written on them, it usually means what I would call close-up, i.e. 1:5 maybe up as far as 1:2. So the answer to your question will depend on whether you mean macro in the sense that I (and most common definitions) mean it, or whether you mean what manufacturer's trying to add to a lens' feature list mean?

As for the D40, I can't say much more about it than I already have, by virtue of not having used or tested one, and even of being a Canon user. It wouldn't be my choice, but others are better qualified to comment on precise suitability or otherwise.

[Flibb]

Theres some good info in the nikonians macro sections (forums + website) on macro lenses, one big issue to be aware of is the working distance of various lenses. Hopefully this link will work
http://www.nikonians.org/forums/dcbo..._id=4276&page=
if it does it details various info on a variety of lenses. I am currently looking at getting the sigma 150mm f2.8 macro, the extra reach wil be useful to prevent spooking beasties, and also helps with sorting out light.

[Bobster]

http://lordv.smugmug.com/ << Brian is an amazing Macro photographer and has a great gallery of photos, he's very open to questions about macro photography as well

[Clunk]

If you go Canon, I can recommend the EF-S 60mm - In fact, not only is it a great macro lens, it is also a really nice, sharp general purpose lens too.

[this_is_gav]

if it does it details various info on a variety of lenses. I am currently looking at getting the sigma 150mm f2.8 macro, the extra reach wil be useful to prevent spooking beasties, and also helps with sorting out light.

It's an excellent lens, though not cheap (depending on what you define as cheap, and use of course). I tend to use it at motor racing events and things if I can get away with a relatively long prime.

I had been looking towards the 105mm F2.8, but was pointed in the direction of the 150mm on another forum.