Flash or macro?

[HiFiGuy1]

Okay, I know this might be an unorthodox question, but if you had roughly the amount of money to buy a new EF 100mm f/2.8 or a 580EX II, but not both, which would you buy?


I already have a 17-40 L and a 28-135 (which came with my 40D) so I have the 100mmfocal length covered, but I don't have macro capability. I have found myself becoming fascinated with shooting flowers lately, so the closeup perspective along with a deeply blurred background has me fired up. To be honest, I haven't been blown away by the 28-135's sharpness, and the fact that it is only f/5.6 at the long end makes it tough to get good shallow DOF. Also, light gathering has occasionally been an issue, when handheld at least.


On the other side of the coin, there's the flash. My camera already hasa built-in flash, which I haven't really used that much. Alas, the few times I've used it, I haven't been impressed with the resulting images. Is it because the built-in flash isn't good enough?I don't know. Reality is that I'm probably just not skilled enough yet at flash photography to make the shots come out like I envision them, but I suspect a better flash would give better results.


One of the things I do with my camera is use the 17-40 for interior architectural shots of finished systems for work. If I do get the flash, I need one that can trigger multiple flashes in umbrellas (eventually). That is why I am looking at the 580EX II instead of the 430EX II.Well, that and the fact that the 580EX II works directly with the camera for flash settings, etc., and apparently the 430EX II doesn't.


I look forward to the input!

[atticusdsf]

that is definitely a weird question..


i'd say go with the macro, but i only say that because you didn't mention already owning any prime portrait lenses, and the macro can make an incredible portrait lens. i've gotten some incredible people and product shots with this lens.


flash takes a lot of time to get used to, so buy that when you're ready to learn about lighting, and you'll also need to buy a diffuser (the gary fong lightsphere is my favorite:http://store.garyfonginc.com/lsu-cloud.html).

[Steve Eisenberg]

I was faced with that exact same choice. I bought the 100mm macro, and am sooo happy I did. If I need a flash I use my old 540ez on Manual. Works great for macro too (with a Lumiquest Promax Softbox). I've decided to only spend my limited funds on glass. Besides, go with fast lenses, and reduce your need for a flash. A 50mm 1.4 perhaps?

[EdN]

I've got both but I got the 580EX first. Fill in flash especially with portraits was something I never did until I got the 580EX. It's great to brighten up the shadows in faces and bring out subtle details in expressions. Having a powerful flash with bounce capabilities and a built in diffuser is great to open all sorts of creative options.


Then I got the 100 2.8 macro to zoom in on flowers and insects. No bug or flower in the garden is safe and the results from the lens is outstanding. Then I decided to shoot bugs and flowers with the 100 2.8 macro and the 580EX deflector to bring out subtle details in flowers and insects. And the combination works great together!


Best advice I can give you is to decide on what you want to do first, get the first item, and when you can afford the second item, get that too.

[znxlegion]

Wow. I am face with the exact same decision.... I am very unfamilar with Flash photography at the moment, so I am leaning towards getting the Macro lens first. I agree with the person above, what do you want to do first?





Any suggestions or advice on flash photography anyone?

[Jon Ruyle]

Obviously, it depends on your needs.


Having said that, I woud get the macro. I use my 100mm f/2.8 macro all the time, and it is on a very short list of my favorite lenses. As others have said, it doubles as a great portrait lens (a little slower than some would like for portrait, but I find f/2.8 adequite... and its very sharp)


I'm biased, though. I'm not fond of using flash. Other people get great results, I do better with natural light.


The other possibility would be to get the flash, and take flower pictures with extension tubes.

[adam]

I've been through a similar scenario, although the budget was spread over a couple of months...I ended up being able to get both a flash and a macro lens for a little over $500.


A better flash will make a world of difference once you learn how to use it. Heck, I still haven't really learned to use mine and my results are already a lot better. But I'm not convinced you need a 580EX II...first of all, the 430EX II does support E-TTL metering, which allows the camera to control the flash output. Second, if you get a 430EX II now, you can get a 580EX II later and have the 580EX II fire the 430EX II remotely once you have both. Finally, there are used 580EX Is out there for about the same price as the 430EX II...it's not quite the best of both worlds, but it's pretty nice.


Second, have you considered the EF-S 60mm macro? I just got one of these yesterday...it's crazy sharp, and 60mm is plenty long for flowers. If you're upgrading to full-frame soon, forget it, but it's another less expensive option...

[TheRoff]

I had sort of the same issue and went with the 580EX. Family and friends now expect that I will be the "guy with the camera" at events, and to meet expectations I needed a decent flash. I guess the moral is; look at all of your photographic needs before you buy.


Larry

[EdN]

Here's a shot with the 100 F2.8 macro and the 580EX Flash. The camera/flash was set on manual with the diffuser extended and the head set for bounce. Settings were ISO 640, 1/200 sec, F14, 5D MkII.


/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.22.66/IMG_5F00_3405cr.jpg

[HiFiGuy1]

Wow! I am glad I raised my hand. It seems like some of the rest of the class had the same question!


I was kind of leaning towards the macro lens, too.


Here is an example of a shooting style I like, and I have some questions to follow:


http://i285.photobucket.com/albums/ll72/HiFiGuy1/IMG_0534-1.jpg


EOS 40D, EF 28-135@ 135mm, f/5.6,ISO 200 (either that or 400),1/60, handheld


In this shot, I can already tell that some of the cluster is starting to get out of focus. Is this because the aperture is already too wide at 5.6, and therefore the DOF is too compressed, for this particular shot? If so, do I need to be shooting from further away with a longer lens instead?


Can someone post orpoint me to shots using the 100mmf/2.8 so I can see the effect of shooting with this lens at different apertures? I'll also check Bryan's review again, as I am sure he has shots with it.


P.S.I don't know what I am doing wrong, butthe picture here is only the left 2/3 or so ofthe original. How do Ifix it? (Nevermind. Duh.)

[HiFiGuy1]

EdN,


That's a very interesting shot. I see you were at f/14, yet the bokeh is very diffuse. How far were you from the subject, and how far was the background behind it?

[EdN]

The closest focus distance of the 100 F2.8 is about a foot and I think that I was pretty close to that limit. The background was also about a foot or foot and a half away. The closer you shoot with a lens compresses the depth of field. So at one foot, even at F14, there is only a relative shallow depth of field at that distance. All I got in focus was the top of the buds and no more. I had to jack up the ISO to use F14.


I was out looking for frost on leaves and the snow flakes caught my eye. I'll try to find some 100 macro flower shots using the 580EX. (That was two seasons ago!)

[Dann Thombs]

I've been shooting for a year now with just a prime macro and no flash. Bump the ISO and you'll get some keepers.


A few examples:


http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3096/2614682090_938f0b0e2f.jpg ("http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3096/2614682090_938f0b0e2f.jpg)


http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3276/2615639375_e18ab8637d.jpg ("http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3276/2615639375_e18ab8637d.jpg)


http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3100/2624963120_317c46d214.jpg ("http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3100/2624963120_317c46d214.jpg)


http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3273/2624137935_c734349c93.jpg ("http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3273/2624137935_c734349c93.jpg)

[Jon Ruyle]

HiFiGuy1-


I think your picture is fine. Many people like the narrow depth of field effect.


However, if you want to get the whole thing in focus, shooting from further away with a longer lens won't help. All that matters is f/ number (and how you frame the picture). So the only thing you can do to get more dof is to stop down. It gets worse as magnification increases. Look how tiny the depth of field is on this grasshopper picture:





/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.25.93/grasshopper.JPG





It was also taken at f/5.6, and I used a 100mm macro lens (with extension tubes). If you looked at a 1-1 crop of this picture, you would see that not even the entire *eye* of the grasshopper is in sharp focus.


This is one of the tricky aspects of close-up photography: the more you magnify, the smaller your depth of field. So for closeups you have to stop way down to get your subject in focus (notice the narrow dof in EdN's picture, even though it is at f/14) . When you stop down, though, it is tough to get enough light. And you stop way down, diffraction becomes an issue. Worse, both the light and diffraction issues get worse at a given f/number as magnification increases... TTL metering be blessed!


If it was easy, it wouldn't be so much fun.


I guess :)

[HiFiGuy1]

Dann,


I REALLY like the second shot. The petals seem to melt smoothlyinto the background from being in sharp focus up front. What were your settings and positioning with this shot?

[HiFiGuy1]

HiFiGuy1-


I think your picture is fine. Many people like the narrow depth of field effect.


However, if you want to get the whole thing in focus, shooting from further away with a longer lens won't help. All that matters is f/ number (and how you frame the picture). So the only thing you can do to get more dof is to stop down. It gets worse as magnification increases. Look how tiny the depth of field is on this grasshopper picture:





/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.25.93/grasshopper.JPG





It was also taken at f/5.6, and I used a 100mm macro lens (with extension tubes). If you looked at a 1-1 crop of this picture, you would see that not even the entire *eye* of the grasshopper is in sharp focus.


This is one of the tricky aspects of close-up photography: the more you magnify, the smaller your depth of field. So for closeups you have to stop way down to get your subject in focus (notice the narrow dof in EdN's picture, even though it is at f/14) . When you stop down, though, it is tough to get enough light. And you stop way down, diffraction becomes an issue. Worse, both the light and diffraction issues get worse at a given f/number as magnification increases... TTL metering be blessed!


If it was easy, it wouldn't be so much fun.


I guess :)









Jon,


Okay. I understand the DOF issue as it relates to f number, I think. I also get the depth compression with longer focal length and closer subject proximity. What I guess I don't understand is, in my flower shot, I have parts of the flower cluster already starting to be out of focus, yet the leaves and mulch, which I'd like to be a featureless blur of background color, are all too distinguishable. With my limited knowledge (I promise I'm trying to learn!), I would have thought that increasing the f number to f/8 or f/11 would have reduced the background bokeh, given the same subject distance and focal length, though it would have fixed the focus on the cluster itself. How do I achieve both goals without a longer focal length? For instance, if I had been using a 200mm, and say f/8 or f/11 to get the whole cluster in focus, with the same composition (and therefore further from the subject), wouldn't I have achieved my goal? Or would the increased distance necessary for the equal composition negate my depth compression and give me anequal bokeh diffusionto the current shot?



Does a macro's 1:1 magnification allow closer shots with a greatly increased distance compression? Is thata different way of saying what you did about the DOF being less with higher magnification? In other words, cana 100mm macro lens, opened up to 11 or 14, give both greater diffusion in the background and allow the subject to be in focus, if that is what I want to achieve? If not, it seems like I might be better off saving up for the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS that I ultimately feel destined to own. [:D] Then I could use it at or near 200mm, with f/5.6 or 8, and just get as close as possible for the compositions. Then I'd have depth compression with great diffusebackground blur behind the subject, but sharp, crisp images of the subject itself. Or are these just two different ways to achieve the same end result? Is that possible?


Also, am I being hampered by the fact that my camera isAPS-C? Is a FF sensor going to give me better results, or at least what I'm describing here as my desire for this shot?

[Don Burkett]

I woudl go with the 100mm f/2.8 macro first. [8-|]


http://www.pbase.com/dbrasco/image/96259483/original.jpg

[Jon Ruyle]

So I totally misunderstood your question.


Sounds like you understand the situation at least as well as I do :) It is true that most people feel that backgrounds are more blurry if the focal length is longer. In your case, a longer lens might have helped some. However, my guess is that the best solution is to change the angle to get a background you like better. Tiny blades of grass turn into a sea of green more easily than big leaves.


It is also true that the macro will allow more blur at a given f number if you get closer, but of course, this doesn't help you here. On the other hand, if you take true macros (1x magnification and beyond) you'll probably seldom have to worry about blurring the background. You'll have the opposite problem (as I did with the grasshopper).


FF won't help you. You get less more bakground blur with a given framing, true, but only because you have less dof. The only difference with a larger sensor is that the lens will seem shorter (which is the opposite of what you want... if anything, moving away and cropping might have helped).


BTW, I also own the 70-200 IS, and use it for medium close-ups, but I don't think I've ever used it for the reason you're describing. And I use the macro for closeups far more.

[Steve Eisenberg]

Here's a Canon XTi, 100mm f2.8 Macro. f8, 1/400, ISO 1600, on a cloudy day


Who needs a flash?


/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.24.20/IMG_5F00_5899.JPG

[Colin]

looks tastey

[Steve Eisenberg]

Just to give some perspective, a honey bee is about half as long as this guy's wing.

[HiFiGuy1]

I woudl go with the 100mm f/2.8 macro first. /emoticons/emotion-15.gif


http://www.pbase.com/dbrasco/image/96259483/original.jpg
<p style="CLEAR: both"]





Don Burkett,


WOW! That's beautiful. I want my shots to have this contrast and drama. How did you get the background so black? Is it Photoshopped, or did you hang black fabric behind the flower and get the smoothness with DOF. Also, it looks like you used a flash. Is that correct?

[HiFiGuy1]

help you. You get less more bakground blur with a given framing, true, but only because you have less dof. The only difference with a larger sensor is that the lens will seem shorter (which is the opposite of what you want... if anything, moving away and cropping might have helped).
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>



This is more, correct? I inferred that from the following part about less DOF. That is what I was thinking, too. I agree, I want the lens to seem longer, so I guess I am lucky for now to have the APS-C. I am nowl thinking that, if I had a macro lens, I could compose the shot the same, use a smaller aperture to create just slightly more DOF on the subject itself, but the exaggerateddistance compression of the macro would allow me to get the blurring in the background I want. Does that seem reasonable? The more I think about it, the more I see that I really need the EF 180mm Lmacro[:D], but that is definitely not happening, at least not today!

[Jon Ruyle]

I meant more, of course. :) Sorry...


I'm not sure you need the 180mm... the 100mm macro is great. And if you want to do macros beyond 1x, the 100mm might even work better, since extension tubes should have a greater effect on the shorter focal length. And for more moderate closeups (butterflies, flowers, etc) I find that the 70-200 IS with extension tubes works well (I like IS for this). Of course if I could afford the 180mm, I might feel differently about it :)


I'm not sure what you mean by exaggerated distance compression of the macro. If you compose the shot the same, you don't get any different distance compression than you do with any other 100mm lens.

[HiFiGuy1]

Okay, so the magnification advantage aspect of being a macro doesn't affect the distance compression? I wasn't sure, since the magnification was higher with the macro lens. I didn't know how that affected things other than the ability to get physically closer to a subject. I guess I am more confused than ever now why I even want a macro at all. I thought I got it, but as this unfolds I am understanding that apparently, macro or not, a 100mm lens will pull in the same shot at 1.5 ft (sensor to subject)that a 200mm lens can do from 3 ft. So can anyone help me clearly understand why I want a macro at all? Otherwise, the 70-200 f/2.8 IS is starting to look more attractive, even though that means I'll have to save for a while.

[Jon Ruyle]

The macro lets you focus closer, thus gaining greater magnification. With the 100mm macro at minimum focusing distance (about 200mm), your field is the size of your image sensor. Typical lenses don't allow you to get anywhere near that much magnification. The 70-200 f/2.8 IS can't focus closer than about 1400mm.


If you don't want to focus closer than typical lenses do, there is no reason at all to get the macro. The idea is to get pictures of tiny things, not to get more background blur.


It is true that when you magnify you get very diffuse background blur and narrow dof. But if you take a picture- framed the same- with two different 100mm lenses, one macro and one not, there is no difference.

[Don Burkett]

Don Burkett,


WOW! That's beautiful. I want my shots to have this contrast and drama. How did you get the background so black? Is it Photoshopped, or did you hang black fabric behind the flower and get the smoothness with DOF. Also, it looks like you used a flash. Is that correct?
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





Thank you for the compliment and I do believe I had a black backdrop on this one. A friend of mine and I have access to a greenhouse that specializes in orchids. When they're not busy we will set up a backdrop but no special lighting. However, if you have a reasonably dark background (shadows) and a nice white centerpiece, as this does, to spot focus on, you can underexpose the background which often results in near black and curve adjustments can finish the job. You can also get it with a flash. I don't often use flash though as I haven't developed a good technique with it yet.

[ShutterbugJohan]

I faced the same question last year; currently I have both the 100 Macro and 580EX II. I've never regretted buying the the 100/2.8 Macro first. It is great for both macro and low light situations such as weddings. This photo was taken with the 100/2.8 using available light.


http://naturesbeststudents.blogspot.com/2009/02/need-for-speed.html


http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_HB6BMbeUpXE/SMFldQSmqwI/AAAAAAAAAHA/pYS4AvYXab4/s400/Img_3478.jpg

[EdN]

Here are some assorted bug and flower shots taken with the 100 F2.8 macro and 580EX flash last summer and fall.


The spider was shot at F/8, 1/250s, ISO 500, 5D


/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.22.66/IMG_5F00_1709cr.jpg


F/8, 1/100s, ISO 400, 5D


/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.22.66/IMG_5F00_1984r.jpg


F/8, 1/200s, ISO 100, 5D


/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.22.66/IMG_5F00_2210r.jpg


F/8, 1/80s, ISO 200, 5D


/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.22.66/IMG_5F00_2245r.jpg


F/14, 1/125s, ISO 400, 5D


/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.22.66/IMG_5F00_2357r.jpg


F/14, 1/100s, ISO 400, 5D


/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.22.66/IMG_5F00_2369r.jpg


F/7.1, 1/160 s, ISO 400, 5D


/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.22.66/IMG_5F00_2458r.jpg


F/7.1, 1/125s, ISO 400, 5D


/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.22.66/IMG_5F00_2895r.jpg


F/8, 1/160s, ISO 400, 5D


/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.22.66/IMG_5F00_3495r.jpg

[Colin]

second pic, way dig it!