# Canon rebel T5i for good insect macro shots?



## bugmankeith (Dec 29, 2013)

I saved up enough $ for Canon rebel T5i camera, I never had a professional camera with changeable lenses and I REALLY want to get up close and good macro shots of insects for the first time. This is about the quality I am looking for. http://www.chaozhide.com/2009/11/02/macro-insect-eyes-18-photos/

I came across this very pricy lens on Amazon, but being its my first time I dont understand what size lens in needed to get these beautiful shots. Anyone own this camera and can offer advice? This is the lens I am looking at, do you think it will do the job? http://www.amazon.com/Canon-100mm-M...=2025&creative=165953&creativeASIN=B002NEGTSI


----------



## The Snark (Dec 30, 2013)

Maybe you could tell us? The best out of the box macro camera is, supposedly, the Canon Power Shot SX50 HS. How does the Rebel compare? Better yet, buy them both and send them to me for my custom 5 year test and compare regimen. 

Quality lenses are pricey. Phenomenally so. And on that note I would offer you and everyone else reading this thread a little...

WARNING. BEWARE flawed lenses being sold at discount, near or even full retail prices! Many lenses for sale may bear a brand name but are in fact made by third party manufacturers. A lot of these manufacturers dump flawed lenses onto the market wholesale. In turn there is a huge thriving business, mostly in China, copying the original manufacturers packaging and selling these flawed lenses as originals. Both the lenses I got for my Fuji, with all the Fuji packaging and paperwork were flawed. Minor defects in the lens or lens coating. Fuji won't make it good so I'm shafted, stuck with lenses worth maybe 10 cents to the dollar.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## viper69 (Dec 30, 2013)

This is a very good macro lens for Canon DSLR cameras. Concrete and Pumilio could def offer good advice as Pumilio just bought a macro lens at the same price point.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## bugmankeith (Dec 30, 2013)

viper69 said:


> This is a very good macro lens for Canon DSLR cameras. Concrete and Pumilio could def offer good advice as Pumilio just bought a macro lens at the same price point.


I can't find pumilio to PM?


----------



## Beary Strange (Dec 30, 2013)

bugmankeith said:


> I can't find pumilio to PM?


I think he might be meaning Papilio.


----------



## viper69 (Dec 30, 2013)

Belle Fury said:


> I think he might be meaning Papilio.



Oh right! Thanks!


----------



## Beary Strange (Dec 30, 2013)

viper69 said:


> Oh right! Thanks!


Np. 

His photography is seriously amazing and hard not to notice, so I figured that's who you meant. :3


----------



## Deroplatys (Dec 31, 2013)

Ignore the fish tank shots at the top, but here's my recent photo's taken with my new DSLR. I was advised not to go for the highest great straight away so i got a 600D with a Tamron SP 90mm f/2.8 Di VC, you'll need a flash aswell dont forget.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/invertsfromhell/

I've had it for over half a year now i think, like you i was inspired by those photographers and went to upgrade, but so far im still not sure if it was worth spending over £1000 to upgrade from my old digital camera. I think that should be a good lens to use, sounds similar to mine. I found out afterwards that the same brands of camera and lens do better together. I have to manually focus mine though as the AF is shit.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## bugmankeith (Dec 31, 2013)

Deroplatys said:


> Ignore the fish tank shots at the top, but here's my recent photo's taken with my new DSLR. I was advised not to go for the highest great straight away so i got a 600D with a Tamron SP 90mm f/2.8 Di VC, you'll need a flash aswell dont forget.
> 
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/invertsfromhell/
> 
> ...


Thank you, those are great photos you took I think they are worth the price


----------



## viper69 (Dec 31, 2013)

Deroplatys said:


> I've had it for over half a year now i think, like you i was inspired by those photographers and went to upgrade, but so far im still not sure if it was worth spending over £1000 to upgrade from my old digital camera. I think that should be a good lens to use, sounds similar to mine. I found out afterwards that the same brands of camera and lens do better together. I have to manually focus mine though as the AF is shit.


I shoot a lot of landscape photography. Tamron does make some good lenses, some as good or better than the brand name equivalent at times. The price difference can often be dramatic (Tamron less pricey), however it also depends on what one's needs are. Photographers with far greater experience than myself have shot with Tamron and the shots were incredible, ie no different than a Nikon or Canon lens. I always buy Nikon lenses because there were enough stories where Tamron didn't live up to people's expectations. However, w/that said, before I purchase I always check out the photography forums and get people's opinions, sometimes there is no clear cut winner when you ask people, and other times there is. The key is spelling out what you will use it for, and more importantly finding out what the repliers use that lens for. On top of that, it is not uncommon for a lens to be great a given range of focal lengths, but not be so good at another focal length. I have a Nikon telephoto that is pretty good up to 200mm, but 200-300mm it's performance falls off =/


----------



## The Snark (Dec 31, 2013)

viper69 said:


> I shoot a lot of landscape photography. Tamron does make some good lenses, some as good or better than the brand name equivalent at times. The price difference can often be dramatic (Tamron less pricey), however it also depends on what one's needs are. Photographers with far greater experience than myself have shot with Tamron and the shots were incredible, ie no different than a Nikon or Canon lens. I always buy Nikon lenses because there were enough stories where Tamron didn't live up to people's expectations. However, w/that said, before I purchase I always check out the photography forums and get people's opinions, sometimes there is no clear cut winner when you ask people, and other times there is. The key is spelling out what you will use it for, and more importantly finding out what the repliers use that lens for. On top of that, it is not uncommon for a lens to be great a given range of focal lengths, but not be so good at another focal length. I have a Nikon telephoto that is pretty good up to 200mm, but 200-300mm it's performance falls off =/


I read some stuff in pro photographers info a while back. When lenses get up in the top 10% or so they get critiqued in ways that the average cement head like me cannot imagine let alone see the difference. We are talking some ultra exotics as a lens containing a gas as opposed to a vacuum. Fascinating but beyond the scope of point and shoot people. And the price difference to get up to that 1% mark. One lens was $2,500 while a similar one was a mere $35,000.


----------



## viper69 (Dec 31, 2013)

The Snark said:


> I read some stuff in pro photographers info a while back. When lenses get up in the top 10% or so they get critiqued in ways that the average cement head like me cannot imagine let alone see the difference. We are talking some ultra exotics as a lens containing a gas as opposed to a vacuum. Fascinating but beyond the scope of point and shoot people. And the price difference to get up to that 1% mark. One lens was $2,500 while a similar one was a mere $35,000.


Link me to that 35k lens if you are able to. I'd like to see that.  Honestly, a lot of average people want to take pictures that they see in Nat Geo, but have little clue as to the cost involved at times for the gear. There's a direct mismatch between their wants, needs, and wallet.  All stemming from a lack of knowledge.

As digital is so popular, NOW "all of a sudden" I see people walking around with dSLR cameras, big lenses shooting pics. I'd say the majority of which remain on some hard drive never to be seen again IF they are even kept. In short, a lot of these casual photographers are buying cameras where they only use 1% of the functions. I don't care, it's their money, but it is wasteful haha. They likely have the camera set to Automatic all the time too hahaha


----------



## advan (Dec 31, 2013)

Mirza(concrete) and I use the Tokina 100mm F/2.8. Sharpest glass for you money, IMHO. Remember your depth of field is very small when shooting macro so it takes a few tricks to get more into focus without stacking multiple images together as Michael(papilio) and Mirza(concrete) do.


Some sample shots(I have better shots of arachnids )


















Good luck!

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## viper69 (Dec 31, 2013)

Oh yeah I had forgotten about Tokina. It's truly a great lens w/out doubt, and less than half the price too.

In case the OP doesn't know, here's a review of it http://www.kenrockwell.com/tokina/100mm-f28.htm

Also for the OP and others, I had this bookmarked a few years ago, many people use lens rental services.  Here's one I learned about

http://www.lensrentals.com/

It's a good idea if the buyer really wants to find out w/out buying just yet.


----------



## tarcan (Dec 31, 2013)

Hello,

Any DSLR will do the trick, if you buy the latest, you pay more for not much as far as macro goes, specially that Canon has not really improved their sensor in a few years. So basically, that particular sensor has been around on several of those rebels. Probably, you can get for the same price a 60D with same sensor and much better ergonomics and accessable manual settings vital for macro.

Yes, the 100mm L is a great lens, the same I use, but you pay a lot for several things that are not that useful for macro. Pretty much any dedicated true macro lens will be of great optical quality, so if you are looking to save some money, you could look at other options. If you have the money for it, go for it, it is a great lens. The canon EF-S 60mm is insanely sharp and great macro lend as well for less than half the price. Something to consider as well, I used to own it, but sold it since it does not mount on FF camera.

You can see my picture thread if interested here

http://www.arachnoboards.com/ab/showthread.php?158890-Tarcan-s-picture-thread!/page15

Did not do much field macro this year, hopefully I will have more time in 2014!

Martin

PS: do not be confused though, most of the shots in this thread are with my MP-E 65mm, not the 100mm

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## The Snark (Jan 1, 2014)

viper69 said:


> Link me to that 35k lens if you are able to. I'd like to see that.  Honestly, a lot of average people want to take pictures that they see in Nat Geo, but have little clue as to the cost involved at times for the gear. There's a direct mismatch between their wants, needs, and wallet.  All stemming from a lack of knowledge.


I'll try and find it if she ever lets me on that computer again. In the meantime, drool on this little macro slice of heaven: 
http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/hartblei_120_4_pc_n10/

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## bugmankeith (Jan 1, 2014)

Been getting help, now it seems the Canon mpe 65mm macro looks more like what I want from a lens, it has 5x magnification, the other only was 1x and with additional Lens only 2.5x which isn't close enough for me. Only downfall is with one I want I need to get really close to my subject, but I take both motion and still photos so either way it won't be a waste.

Only question is does Canon mpe 65mm macro lens fit on the Rebel T5i, is it compatable?


----------



## viper69 (Jan 1, 2014)

bugmankeith said:


> Only question is does Canon mpe 65mm macro lens fit on the Rebel T5i, is it compatable?


You checked on their site and other photography forums and couldn't find that info?? I find that odd for Canon. Nikon lists all their compatibility w/their bodies.


----------



## tarcan (Jan 1, 2014)

Bugman, yes, the MP-E is EOS mount, so compatible with any of Canon DSLR

yesterday, I could not access the link you have provided, I checked today and indeed, for insect portraits, you need more magnification than 1:1, what a regular dedicated macro lens will provide.

however, the MP-E is not the only way to achieve greater magnifications, although the most versatile on the field in my opinion.

A full set of extension tubes on a 60mm macro will give you a maximum 3:1 magnification, 3x is quite a bit and most of the time more than enough for most shots.

Keep in mind that the MP-E is a highly specialized lens, it does not focus to infinity. It is expensive and "hard" to use for the unexperienced in macro in general. I would suggest you to start and gain experience with a regular macro lens, get a full set of tubes which are relatively cheap and see how you do.

Of course, it is up to you to decide... and again, you will gain nothing special by getting the latest entry level DSLR, you might to look for older models, which will be much cheaper and will give you as good results. I still use my trusted 50D for most of my work, that model is 5 years old now.

Keep in mind, in macro, control of lighting is 80% of your shot, so you have to look at your options in lighting as well. You will get the best results for the MP-E with the twin flash, that is an extra 800$ right there.

Good luck

Martin


----------



## bugmankeith (Jan 1, 2014)

tarcan said:


> Bugman, yes, the MP-E is EOS mount, so compatible with any of Canon DSLR
> 
> yesterday, I could not access the link you have provided, I checked today and indeed, for insect portraits, you need more magnification than 1:1, what a regular dedicated macro lens will provide.
> 
> ...


Thank You! Could you suggest a good twin flash, one I can buy on amazon? Lighting is important your right about that!


----------



## tarcan (Jan 1, 2014)

the canon twin flash MT 24 ex


----------



## bugmankeith (Jan 1, 2014)

tarcan said:


> the canon twin flash MT 24 ex


Thanks that looks like a good choice!


----------



## tarcan (Jan 1, 2014)

yes, excellent choice, remember that you will need to work out a diffuser for the light, otherwise it is too harsh.

I suggest to visit Kurt's blog, he is an outstanding photographer and gives a lot of good ideas:

http://orionmystery.blogspot.ca/2010/10/mt24ex-concave-diffuser-quick-update.html

Martin


----------



## bugmankeith (Jan 1, 2014)

Thank you!


----------

