Macro options.

[pippin88]

I really want to ave a play with some macro stuff, and I'm considering my options.

As I see it, I can get:

The 105mm Sigma - nice price for a nice lens. $520

Extension tubes to use with my Kit Lens, and then with later lens. But I'm not sure what sort of closeup action I can get with this combo? $??

A 50mm 1.8 and reverse it. This gives quite decent macro I understand and it sort of gives me two lenses in one and can be tacked onto a proper macro lens later to give greater than 1:1 magnification. $180 + bits to reverse. $250 - 300? Macro ability?

The Sigma 70-300 APO. This gives 1:2 macro, but obviously also gives me the whole telephot thing, which I think I might use a bit, but not hugely. $305

huynhie's AF28-200MM F/3.8-5.6 XR Aspherical (IF) Macro - AUD250.00. Only does 1:4 marco I think, and I've got a fair bit of it's focal length already covered.

Your thoughts gentlemen? As you can see money is a bit of an issue, but I am leaning towards the Sigma 105.

[Gordon]

I really want to ave a play with some macro stuff, and I'm considering my options.

...
Your thoughts gentlemen? As you can see money is a bit of an issue, but I am leaning towards the Sigma 105.

You can use a reverse adaptor on whatever lens you have already, I made up an adaptor for my 55 micro many years ago from a 52mm threaded filter, saved after the glass filter was damaged, glued to a Nikon mount removed from an old set of extension tubes. Of course its purely manual operation, but it did allow large magnifications and cost me very little.

Depending on the lens design, you may have some adjustment, or none at all. If the front lens element remains fixed relative to the filter thread and the body of the lens extends for focusing, then you have no lens adjustment, but you do have an adjustable lens hood
If lens elements move relative to the filter thread, then you will have some adjustment in magnification.

Gordon

[cyanide]

I just bought the 50mm 1.4 (and love it) and I wonder if I can reverse it the way the 50mm 1.8 is often spoken of? I assume so, but as I have never tried, wasn't really sure...?

[Gordon]

I just bought the 50mm 1.4 (and love it) and I wonder if I can reverse it the way the 50mm 1.8 is often spoken of? I assume so, but as I have never tried, wasn't really sure...?

yes you can... remember to stop down though, theres not much DOF at f/1.4!

Gordon

[cyanide]

Thanks, Gordon - if I get game enough to give it a try, I will be sure to post my undoubtably laughable results....

[Gordon]

Cyanide, you dont have to spend any money to try it out, just take a standard lens and hold it against the front of your camera. I just did that with my old 55 micro, set to f/16, 1/250 and took a photo of one of the green grocery bags sold by the supermarkets here.




As you can see it works just fine! dont be afraid to experiment

Gordon

[yeocsa]

Reverse 50mm for macro is a cheap yet effective option. But in reversing the lens, you lose AF and metering. You got to be able to handle this. Focusing is done by moving the camera forward and backward to achieve focus. DOF is even less.

.

If you are not sure you like macro but would like to try. Buy extension tube (start with Ext. tube 25) on whatever lens you have. It adds about .25 magnification. On Sigma 70 - 300 + Ext. tube 25 = almost 1:1 magnification. On 200mm + Ext. tube 25 = 1:3/4.

If you are new to macro, you will find that getting good pictures are alot harder. And if you don't like macro, you may have put down too much money for a macro lens. So Ext tube is the way to go.

regards,

Arthur

[cyanide]

Thanks for the encouragement. Macro shots are definitely something I am very interested in doing, and I will certainly give the 50mm reversed a go. I have also already bought a (secondhand) Nikkor 60mm f/2.8 D Macro lense, but am still waiting for it to arrive... hopefully next week...

Given that I (almost!) have the 60mm, what would the difference be between the shots I get with that, vs ones with the 50mm reversed? (Purely in terms of magnification/image quality, so apart from the fact that the 50mm reversed might be more difficult, given focussing and metering issues etc mentioned by yeocsa above)

Appreciate the advice, also - many thanks.

Cheers,
Rae

[Gordon]

...Given that I (almost!) have the 60mm, what would the difference be between the shots I get with that, vs ones with the 50mm reversed? (Purely in terms of magnification/image quality, so apart from the fact that the 50mm reversed might be more difficult, given focussing and metering issues etc mentioned by yeocsa above)

Appreciate the advice, also - many thanks.

Cheers,
Rae

The dedicated macro lens will give you better quality, especially noticeable on flat subjects, as its focal plane is somewhat flatter than a standard lens. It depends on the individual lens, but generally a reversed lens will give more magnification, and it will usually give better results as a reversed lens than when used at the same magnification with extension tubes.

Either way, autofocussing isnt really an issue for near 1:1 macro, I almost never use autofocus for it, preferring to put focus where I want it manually. Metering isnt really an issue with digital either, make an estimate based on experience, then look at the histogram and fine adjust from there

Gordon

[robw25]

just take a standard lens and hold it against the front of your camera... ???? you took that picture of a green bag just holding the lens reversed against the camera ....... i'm gonna have to try that ... i'm still a bit wary that your not taking the piss though, it doesnt "seem" like it would work ??

cheers rob

[Gordon]

just take a standard lens and hold it against the front of your camera... ???? you took that picture of a green bag just holding the lens reversed against the camera ....... i'm gonna have to try that ... i'm still a bit wary that your not taking the piss though, it doesnt "seem" like it would work ??

cheers rob

I kid you not, it really is that easy! just make sure you dont have light shining on the lens from the side which may leak into the camera body during the exposure, and might fog the view.
It wont work with every lens, but most standard focal length lenses should work. It wont work with my new 105 though.

I cant think of any good reason it wouldnt work! its just a lens forming an image on the sensor. You just have to move back or closer to find the focus position, and have a steady hand!

Gordon

[robw25]

ok i'm a believer .. just tried it with my 60mm macro... now how am i going to hold the reversed 200-400 still !

cheers rob

[paull]

If you can get hold of a male to male macro coupling adapter, you'll be able to free the hand that is currently holding the reversed lens on the end of the mounted lens. It simply screws into the filter thread at the end of each of the lenses.

Generally speaking, the magnification you will get is length of mounted lens/reversed lens. With my kit at home my reversed 50mm held/taped/coupled to my 105 gives me approximately 2x magnification. Which is a fair shade better than the 1:1 for my standard macro lens.

This reversed technique is not unlike using a set of close up filters at the end of the mounted lens except the reversed lens is a couple of grades above in terms of quality - compared with regular close up filters.

The only issue with doing this is the slight bit of vignetting you will get when you stop your mounted lens down. I have been told the solution is to add some extension.

good luck

paull

[pippin88]

Macro photography is really my main interest. With the kit lens, most of my shots are of small subjects rather than landscapes.

I'm aware of some of the issues with Macro shooting - exposure times (due to aperture to actually get some DOF) and focusing etc.

Might look at getting the bits to reverse my kit lens, but the Sigma 105 is drawing me in.

[sirhc55]

Nick - my 2¢ worth. I have the Sigma 105mm macro but have had and used the 60mm Nikon micro.

They are both excellent lenses. The Nikon was produced in 1993 (60mm & 105mm), the Sigma 105mm in 2004. I chose the Sigma for two reasons: the first because it was cheaper than the Nikon, secondly and more importantly, I looked at what the 2 lenses could produce from other photographers and in my opinion the Sigma had the edge.

You can check the Sigma here:
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/105_28_ex_dg_macro

and the Nikon here:

http://www.pbase.com/cameras/nikon/200_4d_micro

[darb]

had a nikkor 60mm micro ... found it to search an awful lot, DOF TOO tight sometimes, but still a great lens

that lens i gave to my boss in exchange for some other stuff ... the only macro ive got at the moment is pseudo, that being tamron 28-300 F3.5 XR

i took this shot today with it (have a couple others at F11 which have much more DOF) ;



and all these ;

http://darb.net/photos/stuff/victripsample/

cheers

[xorl]

As you can see money is a bit of an issue, but I am leaning towards the Sigma 105.

If money is an issue you should consider getting some closeup filters. That way you can do macro cheaply and take your time to save up and decide which macro lens you want. Thats what I'm doing atm .

[pippin88]

As you can see money is a bit of an issue, but I am leaning towards the Sigma 105.

If money is an issue you should consider getting some closeup filters. That way you can do macro cheaply and take your time to save up and decide which macro lens you want. Thats what I'm doing atm .

That's an option that I thought of, but I also thought that they weren't fabulous in terms of image quality? For me, there is no real point taking the images if I'm not going to be happy with the quality.

I might look into this avenue further.

[Greg B]

Nick, the el cheapo sigma or tamron 70-300 is well worth considering. I have the Tamron, and the macro isn't bad at all. I paid about $240, got a decent tele zoom and a reasonable 1:2 macro - certainly a very valid inexpensive option.

This was taken with the tamron....
http://202.72.181.180/albums/userpics/T ... ilder2.jpg


Cheers

[sirhc55]

I agree with Greg - a prime macro is only really necessary if you are looking at 1:1. Greg and others have proven that you can get very good photos with a non-dedicated macro zoom.

[pippin88]

Looks like a Hoya +4 closeup filter would cost about $50 including shipping.

That adds .25 mag right? If so, with the kit lens, that puts me at about 5/12 magnification, a bit under 1/2.

I do really like the idea of 1:1, but it's probably prudent to try a cheaper option first.

[xorl]

Looks like a Hoya +4 closeup filter would cost about $50 including shipping.

That adds .25 mag right? If so, with the kit lens, that puts me at about 5/12 magnification, a bit under 1/2.

It depends on the lens you are using. Eg, with a 300mm lens:

Filter focal length = 1000 / 4 = 250mm
Magnification = 300 / 250 = 1.2x
That gives a 1:0.833 reproduction ratio.

I think you should be able to get a set of filters (+1, +2, +4) for around $70. If you are going to use closeup filters have a couple to choose from can be very useful. If you need extreme magnification you can stack them by putting the highest diopter filter closest to the lens.

[xorl]

..or with the kit lens:

Filter focal length = 1000 / 4 = 250mm
Magnification = 70 / 250 = 0.28x
Ratio: 1:3.57

If you want to use closeup filters with kit lens you would need a much stronger diopter.

[xerubus]

i use a sigma 28-300 macro with a nikon 6T ... never had any problems and is just shy of 1:1

cheers