[maltfalc]

Many of those suffer from nasty internal reflection issues.

the super cheap manual focus ones are bad for that, the autofocus ones i've seen seem to have a better finish. a buck's worth of flat black paint or black paper or cloth and double-sided tape would fix it if you did manage to get a bad one.

[cali92rs]

On a more serious note, what ever you do, you'll need a tripod of some kind and lights. Being able to do long exposures lets you keep the ISO low and have your aperture closed up enough that you actually have some depth of field in your photos.

You don't need a tripod at all.
Plenty of folks, myself included, do 1:1 and greater macro handheld using setups similar to this:
Hand-Held Flash Macro Photography | NatureScapes.Net – The Resource for Nature Photographers

Yes it is cumbersome, but bugs don't often wait for you to set up your tripod.

[Digitalis]

bugs don't often wait for you to set up your tripod.

but when they do it is worth while having it:


Pentax K5IIs - Sigma 180mm f/3.5 APO EX with wireless AF540FGZ +1/4CTO gel filter

[cali92rs]

These were taken handheld (yes, that is dust on the sensor ):

[Homo_erectus]

You don't need a tripod at all.
Plenty of folks, myself included, do 1:1 and greater macro handheld using setups similar to this:
Hand-Held Flash Macro Photography | NatureScapes.Net – The Resource for Nature Photographers

Yes it is cumbersome, but bugs don't often wait for you to set up your tripod.

The example that the OP provided of things that he wants to do macro of was a penny. Penny's are really good at sitting still, being inanimate and all. So my mind immediately jumped to the assumption that the other things he wants to shoot macro of are similar to pennies. ie not alive. And small.

Also, having a tripod doesn't actually preclude you from shooting handheld. It does offer you a lot more opportunities to get the shot you want when you are shooting something that sits still though.

Knowing when to use a tool for the best effect, and when not to use it, is the difference between having a tool and being a tool.

My personal macro work happens to be about 60% hand held.

Hand held insect shot, I know it's not quite 1:1 so it's not real macro or something.


Tripod held, bees nest part. Much more than 1:1 so it's totally real macro, right? Oh, except for the tripod part so I guess it's not real macro after all.

[cali92rs]

The example that the OP provided of things that he wants to do macro of was a penny. Penny's are really good at sitting still, being inanimate and all. So my mind immediately jumped to the assumption that the other things he wants to shoot macro of are similar to pennies. ie not alive. And small.

Also, having a tripod doesn't actually preclude you from shooting handheld. It does offer you a lot more opportunities to get the shot you want when you are shooting something that sits still though.

Knowing when to use a tool for the best effect, and when not to use it, is the difference between having a tool and being a tool.

My personal macro work happens to be about 60% hand held.

Hand held insect shot, I know it's not quite 1:1 so it's not real macro or something.


Tripod held, bees nest part. Much more than 1:1 so it's totally real macro, right? Oh, except for the tripod part so I guess it's not real macro after all.

Ummmm....I was just commenting on your statement: "what ever you do, you'll need a tripod of some kind".
Your own quote above, you state that most of your macros are handheld. So I don't really understand what you are trying to say. I never said what was "real" macro.

[mrNewt]

Either tubes or dedicated macro lens is just fine. Sometimes I even use macro filters for the fun of it.
You get some interesting results.

What you do need is light... and sometimes lots of it.
And when you have light, tripod is not needed anyway.

My setup for macro - old photo (now I also have my own ugly but functional ring soft box that I build and it connects both flashes).