Macro lens for Canon AE-1 Program

[Corey Fehr]

Pretty straight forward-
Could someone suggest a good macro lens for the Canon AE-1 Program?

I'm baffled at the prices. I see online a few zoom lenses for $30.00, then fixed macro lenses for $100 or so. What's the difference? Any tips on buying macro for film cameras?

 

[Lachlan Young]

The zooms with a 'macro' mode are not really worthwhile, the Canon primes are generally first rate.

The primes will often go to at least half life-size magnification, the zooms may call themselves 'macro' but only go to 1/3 if you are very lucky.

Any of Canon's fd mount 50/100/200 macros will be pretty damned good.

Or if you can track down a Vivitar Series 1 90mm f2.5/ Tokina 90mm f2.5 in FD mount you'll struggle to find a better lens.

 

[Corey Fehr]

Could you shoot me a few links when you have time?

I'm not familiar with lens specs to a degree where I trust myself googling/spending money.

Something like this? :Dead Link Removed

 

[MattKing]

For clarity, many people refer to lenses of a fixed focal length as "prime" lenses.
You indicated in another thread that you were interested in photographing tarantulas. I would guess that, when working with higher magnifications and subjects like that, it is important to be able to work with a moderately large subject to camera distance. It is much easier to achieve that with a longer focal length lens. A 100mm macro lens would be much easier to use in those circumstances than a 50mm macro lens.
You might consider three other alternatives:
1) so called close focus filters;
2) extension tubes; or
3) "macro" tele-extenders.
Each of these three options are used with your existing lenses and will give you at least slightly lower resolution in your results than a special purpose macro lens, but they are both flexible and relatively inexpensive.
One of the features of a true macro lens is that it will generally give good flat field performance at higher magnifications. That is generally less important for three dimensional subjects.

EDIT: here is an old listing for #3, described as a teleconverter: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/61452-REG/Vivitar_246941_2X_Macro_Teleconverter_for.html
I have one in OM mount, and it converts my 50mm f/1.4 lens into a very usable, close focusing 100mm f/2.8 lens.

 

[Corey Fehr]

Would one have to over-expose with the alternatives, or how would you compensate for the needed light?

 

[Lachlan Young]

Could you shoot me a few links when you have time?

I'm not familiar with lens specs to a degree where I trust myself googling/spending money.

Something like this? :Dead Link Removed

That's one of the options - http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/canon/fdresources/fdlenses/index.htm is a good place to start for basic info about the FD lens system.

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/canon/fdresources/fdlenses/fdmacro/100macro.htm is the page that covers the 100mm/f4 lenses

Would one have to over-expose with the alternatives, or how would you compensate for the needed light?

The 'close focus filter' or diopter will probably not alter your exposure to an appreciable degree most of the time.

All of the other options will need some degree of exposure compensation as you focus closer - most of the lenses tend to have exposure compensation values on the barrel. The AE1 will alter the exposure for the correct value, but if you're working with large format (and want to make your brain hurt), here is a page of formulae for bellows compensation calculations.

What sort of subject matter are you planning on working with?

 

[Corey Fehr]

Well, it's a class, so it's going to cover a range of topics. The macro is more just for me, though I'll use it in class. I own tarantulas, and love to photograph them and other insects.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Well, it's a class, so it's going to cover a range of topics. The macro is more just for me, though I'll use it in class. I own tarantulas, and love to photograph them and other insects.

The 100mm should be fine - though if you can find the 200mm at a non crazy price (and some quick googling suggests that's unlikely) it might be better for some of what you want to do - even 100mm lenses as they approach 1/2 life size can get pretty intrusive to your subject matter (end of lens may only be a few inches from subject) & getting lighting on aforesaid subject can become an issue - there's a whole specialist market for macro lighting kit.

Other issue you might encounter is that the microprism/ split image focus aids may lose their usefulness as you focus closer - standard ones cease functioning about f5.6 effective aperture (about 1/2 life size with a 90-100mm macro I recall) - you can't replace the focusing screen with a specialist one for slower lenses as you can with the F1 etc.

I have to admit that as soon as I have to deal with anything in the 'macro' range these days I reach for the largest possible format I have to hand (4x5 or 8x10), but most of what I have to deal with at that magnification doesn't run about...

 

[Corey Fehr]

I think I'm just going to get a 200mm and bite the bullet.

My tarantulas (<3) I can get pretty close to comfortably, but I love a good bug hunt...and they're not as happy to pose.

I'm going to check out other formats as well. Thanks for all your insight!

 

[Les Sarile]

I used a Vivitar 70-210mm F/3.5 Series 1 Macro for these closeups on Kodak 400UC. I would guess your tarantulas are much bigger then my model. This is like what I used -> Dead Link Removed

This zoom lens is a very good general purpose lens. It is convenient but is large and heavy. Of course a true macro lens is generally smaller and lighter and can zoom in much more.

 

[Corey Fehr]

This is fantastic! Is this a tarantula or true spider?

I used a Vivitar 70-210mm F/3.5 Series 1 Macro for these closeups on Kodak 400UC. I would guess your tarantulas are much bigger then my model. This is like what I used -> Dead Link Removed

This zoom lens is a very good general purpose lens. It is convenient but is large and heavy. Of course a true macro lens is generally smaller and lighter and can zoom in much more.

 

[Les Sarile]

This is fantastic! Is this a tarantula or true spider?

It's not a tarantula but it was relatively large that I didn't need the huge magnification available with a true macro lens.

 

[flavio81]

Corey,

Any Canon macro (true macro) lens will be top optical quality.

However, there is an alternative, and it is to get the bellows unit (Canon Bellows FL). This turns any good Canon lens (like the regular 50/1.8) into a macro lens. Of course, you require a tripod.

 

[AgX]

1) so called close focus filters;
2) extension tubes; or
3) "macro" tele-extenders.

The "close-up filters" are actually a plain converging lens in a filter ring. The most simple and economic way for close-up photography. They exist in different degrees of refraction.
(The better quality ones consist of two cemented lenses but are much more rare.)

When using extention tubes, or bellows, one may consider mounting a standard lens with its front mounted to the tube. There are special adapter for this. This most likely will yield better image quality.

Alternatively a enlarging lens could be used. These are designed for the macro range. As these lack an own means to focus a bellows, or adjustable tube is neccessary.



But seen the kind of your questions so far I strongly advise you to buy some basic textbooks on analogue photography. They are on the used market. As books on the Canon AE-1.

 

[cooltouch]

T
But seen the kind of your questions so far I strongly advise you to buy some basic textbooks on analogue photography. They are on the used market. As books on the Canon AE-1.

Books on close-up photography won't hurt either. Especially older used ones in which film cameras are discussed. I recommend any of the older stuff written by John Shaw, but I'm sure there are other notables as well. In fact, I most highly recommend this one:

https://www.amazon.com/John-Shaws-Closeups-Nature-Shaw/dp/0817440526

It was written in 1987, so you'll be reading about Shaw using his manual-focus 35mm cameras. He's mostly a Nikon shooter, but whatever he teaches won't be specific to that brand.

Also, it's worth noting that Corey has an AE-1 Program, not an AE-1. There's a sizable difference between the two, and if she wants to find books on her camera, she shouldn't be confused into thinking the AE-1 is the same. One of the big differences is the AE-1 Program has interchangeable focusing screens -- the only A-series camera that has user-interchangeable screens, if I'm not mistaken.

Anyway, I recommend strongly, Corey, that you look for a plain matte screen for your AE-1 P. The plain matte screen for the AE-1 P is the screen "C". Screen "D" is plain matte, but has horizontal and vertical lines to aid in composition. Screen "H" has scales in millimeters marked, useful for close-ups, architecture, and other forms of photography where precise measurement is required. Any of these screens work well for macro work -- you aren't distracted and annoyed by the microprism and split-screen going black on you. A good place to search for a plain matte AE-1 P screen is eBay. Probably one of the few places, these days. That's where I found a plain matte "C" screen for mine.

If, after you've installed a plain matte screen, you find you're having trouble focusing on your subject without focusing aids, then you might consider getting a Canon Magnifier S, which magnifies your image 2.5x. It has a diopter adjustment, in case you wear glasses. I just checked eBay. There are several there right now. You don't want the adapter -- or at least not by itself -- you want the magnifier, which should include the adapter. I just got used to shooting without the microprism and split circle, which you probably will too if you use a plain matte screen often enough.

 

[Fixcinater]

I'd vote for a 100mm macro and a cheap battery powered ring light for more light. For 1:1 with film, you'll have a hard time stopping insect motion or your own movements which are greatly magnified at those...um...magnifications. Starting off with a 50mm that goes to 1:2 like the Canon FD 50/3.5 would be fine for starters and let you know if you need more working distance or not. Reversing rings will get you magnification but you'll have to be very close to the subject.

A 200mm macro would give you more working room but is even worse WRT to stability/camera shake.

 

[nsurit]

A Tamton SP Adaptall 2, 90mm f2.5 would please most. The one that uses 49mm filters is the one in my kit.A set of Auto extension tubes should be a good addition to your kit. The brand of the auto tubes makes no difference. Bill Barber

 

[nsurit]

That would be Tamron.

 

[cooltouch]

And the Tamron would be an excellent choice, in terms of superior resolution and price, but she did mention she was leaning toward a 200mm. The Canon FD 200mm is a bit spendy, though. And, Corey, if you're gonna spend all that money on a Canon 200mm macro, make sure it comes with the tripod mount.

 

[Les Sarile]

You can use a bellows and make practically any lens a macro lens - at the very least an extreme closeup lens . . .

BTW, when using slow lenses - specially on bellows, viewfinders get very dark. If you have a split image focusing screen, it will blackout. Unless you have the Canon New F-1 with the split image screen that never blacks out but it will get darker. Or if your camera's screen is changeable, switch to other than a split image type.

 

[moto-uno]

^ WOW , that's the neatest wall paper I've ever seen ! Peter

 

[nsurit]

Here is another idea. Don't be fooled by the price. The Vivitar Macro focusing 2X teleconverter really does a nice job when connected to your 50mm normal lens. I have the very expensive macro and micro lenses and this is still part of my kit. An inexpensive entry. eBay# 201855631035 and others.

 

[cooltouch]

I've owned several Vivitar Macro Focusing TCs over the years and currently own three, in various mounts. It is one of the best TCs on the market, plus it's focusing is a big plus. Not just for macro work, but also for decreasing the minimum focusing distance with long telephotos that might have a distant manual focusing point.

The only comment I would make about using it with a regular 50mm lens is to be aware of the 50mm lens's limitations. This type of lens has a curved field of view, whereas macro lenses are designed to have a flat field. A flat field is better for edge to edge sharpness when copying things like pieces of paper or photographs.

 

[Corey Fehr]

Would it be fair to say that the focal length of a macro relies (in part) on what you're going to be doing?

For example, if I'm shooting reptiles and bugs, a 100-200 mm would be relevant because I'd have a greater working distance (approx 10 " on my Canon, the one suggested earlier), but what benefits would a 50 mm with a shorter working distance have?

The magnification ratio would stay the same, is that correct?

 

[Corey Fehr]

Also, thanks everyone for your responses. For some odd reason, I didn't receive alerts for this thread, so I thought all had stopped commenting.