macro \'mak-(.)ro-\ aj [macr-] 1: excessively developed : LARGE, THICK
2: of or involving large quantities 3: GROSS
Taking close-up pictures of small things is called "macro photography."
I have no idea why. Perhaps because the small things in macro
photography are generally larger than the things you are taking pictures
of when doing "micro photography". If you really want to be pedantic
then you should say you are doing "photomacrography".
What Kind of Camera
Point and shoot digital cameras can have remarkable macro
capabilities, but for best results you want a single-lens reflex
camera. These allow you to attach special-purpose macro lenses and
show you in a bright optical viewfinder what you will get on the
A typical setup might be a
Canon Digital Rebel XTi (Black) (review) with a
Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM (review). This lens is
designed for the small-sensor Canon cameras and gives a working
distance equivalent to 100mm on a full-frame camera. The lens is
specified to focus down to "1:1" or "life size". This means that the
smallest object you can photograph that will extend to the corners of
the final digital photo will be the same size as the sensor inside the
Canon Rebel camera, 15x22mm. A professional photographer might use
Canon EOS 5D (review) and a lens designed for full
Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM (review). Confusingly, this
lens is also specified to focus down to "1:1", but this time the sensor
is 24x36mm in size, the old 35mm film standard. So you can't take a photo
of something quite as small as with the cheaper equipment.
In the film world, the 35mm camera systems had comprehensive range of
macro lenses and accessories and some medium format systems, such as
the Rollei 6008 would have at least a
few lenses and extension tubes. Only the extremely patient ever did
macro photography with a 4x5 inch view camera.
Doing it all with a Normal Lens
In the good old days a 35mm single-lens reflex camera came with a 50mm
"normal" lens. These lenses were extremely light, rugged, and high
quality, so naturally the consuming public abandoned them for heavy,
fragile, low quality zooms. But that's another story... Anyway,
suppose that you are out in the woods with your Canon EOS 5D, a
full-frame camera and a 50mm normal lens, and you want to take a
picture of the tip of a pine needle. [Everything in this section
applies equally to using a 30mm prime lens, e.g.,
Sigma 30/1.4, on
a small-sensor camera such as a Canon Rebel or Nikon D-series.]
First, though, you want to take a picture of the moon. That's pretty
far away, so you feel comfortable setting the lens focusing helical to
"infinity". The "nodal point" of the optics will now be 50 millimeters
from the plane of the sensor. [Note: exposure for the moon should be
roughly f/11 and 1/ISO-setting.]
The effort of setting up your tripod is so great that you become tired
and fall asleep. When you wake up in the morning, there is a bear
standing 10 feet away. You refocus your 50mm lens to get a picture of
the grizzly. As you turn the helical from "infinity" to "10 feet",
notice that the optics are racked out away from the sensor. The nodal
point is a bit farther than 50 millimeters from the sensor plane. The lens
is casting an image circle somewhat larger than the 24x36mm sensor. Some
of the light gathered by the lens is therefore being lost but it isn't
After snapping that photo of the bear, you notice that his fangs are
glistening. These aren't going to appear very large in your last shot,
so you move up until you are about 1.5 feet from the bear. That's about
as close as the lens helical will let you focus. The nodal point
is now pretty far from the lens. Extra light is spilling off to the
edges of the frame , but still not far enough to require an exposure
correction. The bear's face is 1.5 feet high. You've oriented the
camera vertically so that the face fills the 36mm dimension. 36mm is
about 1.5 inches. So that means you are working at "1:12". The subject
is 12 times the size of the subject's image on the sensor.
You're losing some light, but also you notice that you don't have too
much depth of field. A 50mm lens focussed down to a foot from the
subject only has a depth of field of 1/16th of an inch at f/4. No
problem. You haul out a big electronic flash and stop down to f/11.
Now your depth of field is a whopping ... 1/2 inch.
Looking down, you become fascinated by some pattern's in the bear's
claws. Each one is about 1.5 inches long. You'd like to fill the
sensor's long dimension (36mm) with a claw, which means that the
subject and its image will be the same size. You want to work at
"1:1". But the folks at the lens factory skimped on the helical. You
can't rack your optics out far enough to focus at 1:1. It looks like
that pine needle tip photo is completely out of the question.
Why did Canon limit your ability to focus close? For starters, at 1:1
the lens would be so far away from the sensor that it would cast a
huge image circle. The standard 24x36mm frame would only be a tiny
fraction. So only about 1/4 of the light gathered by the lens would
reach the film, i.e., you'd have a two f-stop underexposure if you
used the same exposure setting that you'd used for the picture of the
bear when he was 10' away. A scene that required a lens setting of
f/16 at infinity would require a lens setting of about f/8 at 1:1.
All this other light would be bouncing around inside your camera and
lens, reducing contrast. Finally, a fixed stack of optical elements
can't be designed to form sharp images at so many different focussed
Your eyes don't focus so great on really small things either. Do you
try to pull your cornea a foot away from your retina? No. You stick
a magnifying glass in front of your cornea. You can do the same thing
for your normal lens. Unlike your cornea, it even has convenient
threads for attaching a magnifying glass. The magnifying glass screws
into the same place where a filter would go.
A camera store could never sell you a "magnifying glass" for $50 so
they call these things "supplementary lenses" or "close-up lenses".
Good things about close-up lenses:
they don't require any exposure corrections
you can throw a couple in your pocket in case you need them
Bad things about close-up lenses:
they aren't very high quality
though they might be good enough if you stop down to f/16 and if you can
find two-element close-up lenses (e.g., Nikon-brand) instead of the
cheapo one-element ones.
you have to take them on and off constantly if you are taking
pictures of things at different distances.
At right: a model of Sacre Coeur, captured with a Minolta 50mm lens
and single-element Minolta-brand close-up lens. Perhaps not the world's best image, but
keep in mind that the photographer was 11 years old at the time of exposure.
Macro Zoom Lenses
Macro zoom lenses are not macro lenses. They don't allow significantly
greater magnification than a 30mm or 50mm normal lens and they deliver low
What you want is a macro lens. Fortunately, it is difficult to buy a
bad macro lens. This is kind of odd in a world where 90 percent of
the lenses sold are bad. Perhaps it is because anyone in the market
for a macro lens is already fairly sophisticated and
quality-conscious. Partly it is because it is easier to make a single
focal-length lens than a zoom.
The best macro lenses are the latest autofocus mount models made by
Canon and Nikon, typically in focal lengths ranging from 50 to 200mm.
Each lens will focus continuously from infinity to 1:1. You can shoot
the moon and capture the bear claw without stopping to change lenses
or screw in filters. How do these lenses work? Do they just have a
much longer helical than the 50mm normal lens? Yes and no.
Yes a macro lens helical has much more travel than a normal lens
helical. You can watch the front element move an inch or two. However,
these helicals aren't just pushing a stack of glass back and forth like
the 50mm's helical. Inside one of the elements is moving ("floating")
so that the optical design changes to a more appropriate one for
close-up photography. Thus you get sharp images at all focussed
How do you choose a focal length? The same way you do with a
non-macro lens. If you can't get very close to your subject at a
soccer game, you don't pull out a normal lens; you bring out a 300mm
telephoto lens. If you can't get close to an insect without it
getting scared and flying away, then you want the 200mm lens and not
the 50. If you want to compress features in a woman's face, you use a
105mm lens rather than a short wide angle lens. It is the same with
macro work; longer lenses give you a flatter perspective.
At right is an image (from my Christina
page) taken with an older design Canon EF 50mm f/2.5 Macro, (buy from Amazon).
This lens incorporates a floating element for high image quality, but
only goes to 1:2 without
a "life size converter" (sort of like a telextender) that you stick
between the lens and the camera. The 50 is also annoying because it
has the ancient non-USM Canon motor. So it can't do simultaneous AF
and MF like the ring-USM lenses.
Check the Canon and Nikon system pages for a current list of
all the macro lenses made by those companies for their bodies.
Sigma, Tamron, and Tokina make excellent single focal length (prime)
macro lenses. If you're using a system other than Canon or Nikon,
these may be better quality than your own manufacturer's lens. If
you're using Canon or Nikon, you might be able to save a few dollars,
at the expense, perhaps, of slightly less rugged mechanical
construction. Among the three companies, Tamron historically has
produced the best macro lenses.
If you feel like spending a lot of money then what you want is a 6x6
cm Rollei 6008 and digital back. The
Schneider 150 is probably the best macro lens available for the Rollei
(only $3425), though if you're using a digital back with less than a
60mm sensor size, the Schneider 90mm macro ($3900) might work nicely.
Rollei probably has the most intelligently designed macro system in the
At left, orchids in Hawaii with the older 120 Zeiss macro lens, Kodak
Gold 100 film (120 size naturally), tripod, f/16 and 1/15th of a
Unless you are using close-up lenses, when doing any kind of macro work,
you always have to consider the effective f-stop. Even if you are using
the SLR body's built-in meter, which will correct automatically for
light loss, you can't turn off your brain. Why not? Because the
effective aperture affects picture quality.
Taking pictures through a pinhole results in tremendous depth of field
but very low sharpness due to diffraction. This is why lenses for a
35mm film camera stop at f/22 and don't go to f/45 or f/64. Large
format camera lenses provide these smaller apertures for two reasons:
(1) the lenses are longer (f/64 on a 210mm lens is not all that small
a hole); (2) the negative won't be enlarged very much.
If you're at 1:1 and have selected f/22 on the macro lens barrel, you
need to look at the lens markings and/or the close-up exposure dial in
Professional Photoguide to learn that your effective aperture is
If you're using a handheld meter, you absolutely must use these
corrections (e.g., meter says f/22 but you're focussed down to 1:1 so
you set f/11 on the lens barrel).
[Note: Nikon bodies show you the effective aperture in the viewfinder,
a really great feature for macro use; Canon EOS cameras do not.]
A good quick and dirty lighting technique is to use a through-the-lens
(TTL) metered flash with a dedicated extension cord
(Nikon SC 29 off-camera flash cord or
Canon Off Camera Shoe Cord 2). A modern
handheld flash is extremely powerful when used a few inches from a
macro subject. That lets you stop down to f/16 and smaller for good
depth of field. You can hold the flash to one side of the subject and
have an assistant hold a white piece of paper on the other side to
serve as a reflector. If you want a softer light, you will have
enough power in the flash to use almost any kind of diffusion
material. The TTL meter in the camera will turn the flash off when
enough light has reached the sensor.
The Samoyed nose at right belongs to Alex, captured with a Canon EOS-5,
180/2.8 macro lens, and TTL-metered Canon flash. Below: a foot
recently pulled out of one of those weird sandals with all the bumps.
Nikon 8008, 60/2.8 lens, SB-24 lens with SC-17 cord
Let's combine what we've learned until now: the aquarium
Combining everything we've learned up to this point, let's look at a
case study: the aquarium. The items inside are pretty close, so you
need a macro lens. If you put a rubber lens hood on the front of the
lens, then you can mush it up against the glass and avoid reflections.
Now you need light. Well, you can just get a flash on an extension cord
and point it into the aquarium from just about anywhere.
Here are some examples from the public aquarium in Monterey, taken with
a Nikon 8008, 60mm AF macro lens (set for manual focus), SB-24 flash,
SC-17 extension cord. I wiped the glass with a handkerchief, asked my
friend to hold the flash, and pushed the lens hood up against the glass:
People often write in wondering "How did you manage to get a lawyer in that
With a depth of field of around one millimeter for precise macro work,
camera positioning and focus become critical. If you have a good
tripod and head, you'll find that you have at least 10 controls to
adjust. Each of them will move the camera. None of them will move the
camera along the axis that you care about.
That's why people buy macro focusing rails, e.g.,
Adorama Macro Focusing Rail, (buy from Amazon). These are little rack and
pinions capable of moving the entire camera/lens assembly forward and
back. You use the tripod to roughly position the camera/lens and then
the macro rail to do fine positioning.
The photos below are snapshots from the garden of the
Getty Center. They were taken with a fancy
Canon EF 180mm f3.5L Macro USM (review), but without a tripod.
It was thus impossible to focus precisely or stop
down enough to get sufficient depth of field. The results are rather
(Flower interior at above left was captured with a traditional EOS film
body; the jelly bean image at above right was taken with a D30 digital body (party like it's 2001).)
Beyond 1:1 with Nikon, et al
If you don't have a Canon EOS system and the special 1-5X lens, going beyond 1:1 requires more than buying a lens and turning
the focus ring.
First, you can get a bellows (flexible accordion) and/or some extension
tubes. These will let you push the lens farther away from the camera
body. Extension tubes are rigid and tough; they only let you separate
your body and lens in fixed increments. Bellows are delicate but they
let you continuously control the lens distance from the body. How much
magnification this extra extension will get you depends on the focal
length of the lens. If you have a 1000mm lens that already needs its
nodal point 1000mm from the sensor plane to focus at infinity, then a 50mm
extension tube isn't going to be worth much. However, if you have a
50mm lens, then that same 50mm extension will take you all the way to
Second, you probably want a "reversing ring" for your lenses so that you
can turn the back element of the lens toward your subject. Why? Think
about the normal way you use a lens. You are taking a picture of the
Statue of Liberty. The Statue of Liberty is larger than 24x36mm. So
you point the front element of the lens at the statue and the back
element at the (smaller) sensor. Your lens is designed to work like this,
taking the large and compressing it into the small. However, if you are
working at 10:1, where the tip of a pine needle is going to take up a
big portion of the frame, you want the lens to take the small and expand
it into the large. So you want to just flip the lens around.
Third, once you've reversed the lens, you probably want some way to
retain the automatic diaphragm. You want the aperture to remain fully
open until just before your exposure and then close down to the
selected shooting aperture. Rollei medium-format cameras have an
all-electric interface between camera and lens, so this is done with
clean and reliable electric contacts. Canon EOS would work the same
way except that, after more than 15 years, Canon hasn't bothered to
manufacture a bellows for the EOS system. An independent company,
Novoflex, does make a bellows for Canon EOS, but for most people the
Canon MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5X Macro (review) is a better choice.
mechanically stopped-down diaphragms for backward compatibility so they
give you a strange dual cable release contraption.
At left are a couple of Ant Robots built at the MIT AI Lab by James McLurkin. Photographed
with Canon EOS-5 and Canon 50/2.8 macro lens (lit by off-camera 430 EZ
flash). This lens only goes to 1:2.
At right is a detail of the ant claws, which was taken with the
Raynox Micro-Explorer, (buy from Amazon). The Raynox is a set of
close-up lenses, 6X, 12X, and 24X. These images are the result of
mounting the 6X lens on a Canon 35-350L zoom lens.
Here is the original ant claw picture. You can see that vignetting
was severe at f/16. Fortunately, this was apparent in the viewfinder
with the depth-of-field preview button pressed, so the composition was made
with an eye toward eventual cropping. Vignetting is the principal drawback of
the MicroExplorer and it is apparently worse at small apertures.
A couple more example MicroExplorer shots (at left is an Ant robot
detail; at right is a quarter on a $20 bill, full frame at f/8 (I
think)). Note that vignetting is not as severe as it was at f/16