Macro / Flower Photography

[Nightjar]

Hi there,

I'm currently planning a commercial shoot for a flower store.

I have the feeling that vintage Lenses have absolute power when it comes
to flower photography.

Which you think are the best (macro) lenses for highly aesthetik flower photography?

The look i aim form:
- dreamy
- a little soft
- great color rendition
- creamy or interesting bokeh


Looking forward to get some tips

Thank you.

Cheers

[mo]

I have the first version Macro Takumar 4/50,which does 1:1 without an adapter.

[kds315*]

Too dreamy and too soft may take away from it, as customers still want to recognize the
freshness of flowers from experience. Are you really wanting macro i.e. >1x or do you
rather talk about close-up photography (which I guess it is what you intend to do)?

I've done a bit for a friend, so if you plug in "flower shop" in search top left (w/o quotes),
you'll find a quite a bit what I have done with different lenses....

The closest to your requirement might be the 80mm Hermagis lens I used here:
http://forum.mflenses.com/hermagis-80mm-projection-lens-does-deli-and-flower-shop-t67979,highlight,%2Bflower+%2Bshop.html

or the 1.5/85mm Cyclops (or Helios 1.5/85mm):
http://forum.mflenses.com/cyclops-f1-5-85mm-takes-a-walk-to-flower-shop-and-spanish-deli-t64179,highlight,%2Bflower+%2Bshop.html

[Roka]

I have the Vivitar 55mm f/2.8 macro. It's a true 1:1 macro. I really like it and my only complaint is that to get 1:1 I have to get VERY close to the subject. I'm guessing that for what you want to do you most likely wouldn't need that kind of magnification. But to show what it can do here's a shot I took with it last night of a flower's pistil (or is it the stamen?)

[WNG555]

Two I can think of immediately are:

1. Tokina AT-X 'Bokina' 90mm f/2.8. macro. Probably the most celebrated and desired macro.
2. Tamron SP 90mm f/2.5 52B(B) macro. If you can't find or afford the Bokina, this makes for a good substitute. I actually have this lens and it's sharp as heck! And bokeh is wonderful.

I can also recommend two 50mm f/3.5 macros...a Canon nFD 50mm f/3.5. And Olympus OM Zuiko 50mm f/3.5. Both are sharp, good color rendering, bokeh isn't bad.

I would also sample close-focusing 24mm-55mm fast primes. They will yield great images of the full flower or bouquet.
Mamiya/Sekor SX lenses are superb covering your criteria. Minolta MD Rokkor, Yashica Yashinon ML, are some of my other strong favorites with flora.

[marcusBMG]

Lighting more important than the lens IMO.

If the flower shop pics are of plants, bouquets, full blooms etc then shorter focal lengths may well be more appropriate to get all of the flower and depth of field. Sigma superwide II has been my standby in that case.

[buerokratiehasser]

How small are these flowers?
Reasonably sized you would maybe not need a macro lens at all. You could try a good small-sensor system for inbuilt DOF without stopping down to F22 (which kills about any sharpness with diffraction)

[Ramon]

The terms "soft & dreamy" and " macro lens" do not go together, all macro lenses are designed to be sharp !

Soft & dreamy can be produced in post processing with digital photography from almost any image.
With macro shots you will normally be using a very small aperture so there probably won't be much difference in bokeh between most macro lenses.

Unless you are intending to make shots of tiny individual flowers I doubt that you will need a macro lens and most lenses would focus close enough,
as someone has already said I thing getting the correct lighting will be the most important thing.

[std]

The most recent lenses may give you too clinical and sharp picture.

So maybe some of the old lenses like 2/58 Meyer Primoplan, Carl Zeiss Triotar 135/4 on bellows , and 40 ( or even and 90mm) Kilfitt Makro-Kilar. Those are nice for flowers from my humble experience.

[cooltouch]

You know what? Based on your requirements, I wouldn't necessarily recommend a macro lens. A good macro will probably be too sharp and, well, clinical, for your needs. I would recommend instead a good normal to short telephoto lens, like an 85mm or 105mm. If you shoot wide open, provide you can live with the shallow depth of field, this can also give you that "dreamy" quality you're after.

With the exception of the film shot of the camelias, all pix were taken with a Canon EOS XS (10.1mp) @ ISO 100. I used a glassless adapter for the shots with the FD 85mm f/1.2 SSC Aspherical.

I've taken lots of flower shots in recent years. Many with macro lenses and many with "regular" lenses. Here's a good example of a macro shot with critical focus accomplished. Click on the photo -- and click again if necessary, to see it at full resolution.


Here's something of an exception. Red and white camelias. I took this shot years ago with a Canon 50mm f/3.5 macro on Kodachrome 64. I think the reason why it has a soft "look" at all is because I probably took the shot with the lens wide open at f3.5:


And here are a few I took with my Canon FD 85mm f/1.2 SSC. Most were shot with the lens wide open at f/1.2.




This last shot is a good example of the hazards of shooting wide open with a very fast lens. I spotted the insect on this rose and tried to capture it. My error was that I focused on the near antenna. The result was that only the near antenna and portions of a couple of the rose's petals were in focus.


My advice? Try shooting close to wide open with a 50mm f/1.4 and/or an 85mm f/1.8 or f/1.4 and/or a 100-105mm f/2-2.8. You might like these results better.

[Roka]

I agree with cooltouch. The macro shot I posted was of an object just a couple of mm wide. I doubt many people would buy flowers based on how the pistils look. A fast 50mm would allow you to create the dreamy look you are after.

[Lloydy]

I would stand back and use a longer lens, macro has it's place ( Mo's suggestion of the Takumar would be mine as well ) but I think the sharpness and tight framing of a macro shot would be too 'clinical'. Maybe one or two, but not the bulk of the pictures.


This is taken with a Sony A6000 and a cheap Jupiter 11A 135 / 4, it's plenty sharp enough, the bokeh is nice ( but different lenses produce different bokeh ) and personally I think the isolation of the subject is better with a longer lens. I adore my Tamron SP 52BB 90 / 2.5, and the wider aperture of that lens would again give different bokeh.

[cooltouch]

Great shot, David. Looks plenty sharp enough for me too. I clicked on it, so I could see the actual size of your upload.

[mo]

I have also used the Pancolar 2/50 and a few other 2/50s for flowers on both M4/3 and APSC sensors. The Pancolar does produce the smoothness that you may be looking for.

This was taken with the XE-1+ Pancolar and stopped down a little

[killwilly]

You most certainly do not need a macro lens for flower photography. This was taken with the complete opposite. my Sigma 150-500.

[fuzzywuzzy]

There are thousands of flower pics here shot with hundreds of lenses, I guess I'd start looking for images I liked, see what lenses they were shot with and go from there.

There's a big thread here with a lot of pics and a lot of different lenses, http://forum.mflenses.com/your-flower-photos-please-share-t17720.html

Or you could do a google image search for flower pics on this site - https://www.google.ca/search?q=mflenses.com+flowers+site:forum.mflenses.com&tbm=isch

[Basilisk]

I would suggest a good portrait lens 85-105 for nice background separation; add a short extension tube if the minimum focus distance is too much, but I agree you only really need a macro lens if you want to get inside an individual flower.

[DigiChromeEd]

Another good macro lens with a longer working distance than a 50mm or 90mm is the well regarded Vivitar 2.8/135 Close Focusing.

Although this is not an example of the kind of shot you are talking about taking, it does show what the lens is capable of.



And the lens itself:-

[cooltouch]

I have a copy of this 135 CF lens. It is spectacular.

[listera]

For both dreamy and sharp look, a fast lens is more than enough and a standard focal length can be a good starting point. First two with Zuiko 50mm f/1.4; wide open and f/ 5.6 respectively.



Pelargonium



Chrysanthemum

Or you can simply use a basic extension ring on a decent lens. This one was taken with Rokkor 35-70mm f/3.5 (Non-macro)


Rose mature
Listera Ovata

[RubberFlubber]

The Super-Multi-Coated MACRO-TAKUMAR 100mm f/4 Macro might also be of interest to you, if you can get your hands on one! It only goes to 1:2, but it's plenty sharp and has really pleasing bokeh.

Here's a flower shot I've taken with mine:

[michelb]

Just tried the new Sony FE 90mm F 2.8 Macro G

Handheld on A7R since OSS is a feature of this lens
Full image

[/url]


Crop
[img][/img]

[leemik]

I don't know if you necessarily need a macro to shoot flowers. Macro lenses are also usually very well corrected and super sharp. so it'll be hard to find one that is soft or dreamy..

[cooltouch]

Here's another rose shot I took, this time with my Canon FD 55mm f/1.2 SSC, shot wide open at f/1.2. Note the bug.

[dbuergi]

I made a lot of flower pics during the last months with several lenses and here are some examples:

Kiron 105mm 2.8:
#1

Sharp lense with good details. Bokeh looks okay but not very special.

100mm 2.8 Trioplan with extention Tube:
#2


Interesting bokeh, soft Picture but for details too soft i think.

Leica Macro Elmarit 60mm 2.8
#3


Very sharp and balanced lense which can also offer a very smooth bokeh.

For your work i would prefer the Macro Elmarit.