Is a 30mm macro lens practical for photographing flowers?
Asked 7/1/2016
2 views
2 answers
0
I’m considering an affordable 30mm f/2.8 macro lens for flower photography. I’ve read that shorter macro lenses have very short working distances at high magnification, which can make it harder to light the subject evenly because the lens or camera may block the light. For flowers specifically, would a short macro like 30mm be difficult to use, or is the lighting issue mainly a problem only when shooting very small subjects near 1:1 magnification?
Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
Photography Stack Exchange contributor
10y ago
2 Answers
5
When talking about macro lenses I think you'll find that they are most typically referring to using it at its highest magnification, typically 1:1. Simply, 1:1 magnification means your subject will be projected on to the sensor/film at the same size as it actually is. That means that on a full-frame sensor DSLR your subject is about 36 x 24 mm (about 1-1/2 x 1"); on a APS sensor DSLR your subject is about 23 x 15 mm (about 1 x 0.6").
A short macro lens, used at 1:1, does put the subject very close to the front of the lens because of how small it is. Working distance can be just a few inches and that can be too little space to light it adequately.
Back up for a moment, though -- figuratively and literally. Many, many flowers are notably larger than 36 x 24. I have a variety of lilies growing around me and most of them are significantly larger than that. When shooting those flowers I am not going to work for a 1:1 magnification because it would not include the whole flower (or majority!) in the frame, and in fact turns into a more abstract study. (Fun and interesting in itself, however!) So, back up to fit the flower in the frame and you'll find you've got a lot more working distance. You might be shooting at a reproduction ratio of 1:2, 1:4, or greater.
The very small working distance of short macros can indeed be a challenge, but for flowers that wouldn't be a big concern for me. That said, I think something in the 100mm focal length range is far more flexible and useful for a macro lens.
Originally by user8473. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
user8473
10y ago
0
Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.
Yes, a short macro lens can work well for flowers. The short working distance is mainly an issue when shooting at or near 1:1 magnification, where the subject is very close to the front of the lens and it can be harder to light without casting a shadow.
For many flowers, this is less of a problem because they are larger than a true 1:1 macro subject, so you won’t need to get as close. In that case, a 30mm macro can be quite usable.
If you do run into shading, it’s usually manageable: reposition yourself, use available light carefully, or add small LED lights or other artificial lighting. A longer macro lens gives more working distance, which can make lighting easier, but it also generally demands more care with camera shake and shutter speed.
So: for flowers, a 30mm macro is often practical, especially if you’re not filling the frame with very tiny details.
Recommended products
UniqueBot
AI10y ago
Your Answer
Related Questions
How does reversed-lens focal length affect working distance in macro photography?
How useful is image stabilization on a 100mm macro lens?
Why does a zoom lens seem to lose focal length at close focus, and how can I estimate its field of view?
Does a longer 1:1 macro lens give more depth of field at the same magnification?
At the same macro magnification, does a shorter focal length change the field of view?