Don't get caught

FM Forums \| Macro World \| Join Upload & Sell	Search Used
1 2 3 … 5 6 7 end

Archive 2008 · Don't get caught

Tom Hicks
Offline
Dedicated FM
Moderator
Upload & Sell: On

p.6 #1 · Don't get caught

Looks like it worked well.

Jan 13, 2010 at 04:58 AM

LostinTexas
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #2 · Don't get caught

I just joined this forum and found my way to this macro thread. I must say that you guys are impressive. I have been trying macros with mixed success since I got my D40 back in '07. Actually, I've been learning photography in general since '07..lol. I just tried the "Foil and Bowl" macro ring and I am impressed that it works as good as it does. I've really learned to use my 18-55 kit lens to it's full extent. I wanted to get your critiques on these quick macros that I just took with the homemade macro ring. All of these were taken with the 18-55 and a Quantaray +10 filter. I've got an older non-af Siggy 70-300 "macro", but it's so soft @ 300 that it's unusable...I'm thinking about getting the Nikon 55-200 VR and using my +10 with that to get more working distance. The distance on all of these is less than 4 inches.
Thanks in advance for any tips

This image is copyrighted by the owner

Jan 13, 2010 at 05:23 AM

abjam77
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #3 · Don't get caught

Here are some with my 50 1.8 and cheap ebay macro tubes:

This image is copyrighted by the owner

Jan 22, 2010 at 01:46 AM

Tom Hicks
Offline
Dedicated FM
Moderator
Upload & Sell: On

p.6 #4 · Don't get caught

Good work , welcome one and all.

Jan 29, 2010 at 11:47 PM

LostinTexas
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #5 · Don't get caught

Looks good...I just got the 70-300 VR and am wondering which diopter I should try...I'm thinking about getting one of those cheap "kits" and finding the strength I like and getting a decent version of that one.

Jan 30, 2010 at 01:34 AM

Tom Hicks
Offline
Dedicated FM
Moderator
Upload & Sell: On

p.6 #6 · Don't get caught

There are only two to consider , don't waste your money on the cheap ones . If you get the Canon 500D get it in 77mm and then get step down rings to fit you 75-300 . The 500 D is a 2x diopter the 250D is a 4x diopter it will come in in 58mm the largest . the 500D in 77mm will fit anything from the 70-200 2.8 L, 300f4 L, 4005.6L and any of the lesser lens .

http://www.shutterfreaks.com/Tips/tomhicksmacros.html

Jan 30, 2010 at 05:10 AM

LostinTexas
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #7 · Don't get caught

I decided to try something a little different instead of the diopter. I picked up a 67-52mm reversing ring and made a 52mm to nikon body reversing ring. I used the 67 to 52 to attach my 18-55mm lens to my 70-300. The results are dismal to say the least. There is some serious vignetting. I believe that this is due to the 18-55 being a DX lens. The 52mm reversing ring is amazing however. At 55 mm my results are around 0.87 Mag...nearly 1:1 with a working distance of about 2.5 inches. At 18 mm I get 3.93 mag...nearly 4:1, but with a working distance of about 1 inch. Not terrible for the cost of a body cap, 52mm UV filter and a stick of JB weld. The pics below are shrunk from 4288x2848 to 800x531.
At 18mm
This image is copyrighted by the owner

At 55mm

Feb 19, 2010 at 04:17 AM

Tom Reichner
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #8 · Don't get caught

The method suggested in this thread sounds very interesting. However, I am a complete "macro virgin", and do not know what is meant by using a "reversed lens". In fact, I've never even heard of the term before, so if someone wouldn't mind filling me in (in very, very basic layman's terms) I would appreciate it.
Also, in my attempt to understand one of the posts here, I got the impression that maybe you use a lens that is not even mounted to the camera - could this be so?
And another (probably false) impression that I got is that you shoot thru two lenses at once. Could this also possibly be true? If so, it seems like you may lose sharpness, just like you do if using a tele extender.

Feb 23, 2010 at 05:04 AM

LostinTexas
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #9 · Don't get caught

The reversed lens method is exactly what it sounds like. You use an adapter that screws into the front of the lens like a filter. The other side of the adapter attaches to the camera body. There are no automatic functions this way, but it is cheap...like $15 for the adapter. The shorter the focal length the more magnification. ie an 18mm has more magnification than a 55.
As for using a lens that is not attached, it can be done, but is VERY difficult to get a sharp image due to movement of the lens and camera. Using 2 lens is a bit like the first method, but you use a different adapter; one that screws into the front of both lens. You would normally use a longer telephoto lens attached to the camera then use an adapter to attach a normal length lens (in reverse) to the front of the telephoto. The wider the reversed lens, the greater the magnification. To do this properly, the normal length lens that is reversed would be at the smallest f-stop and focused to infinity. The telephoto attached to the camera is used to focus. I like the combination of my 70-300 VR attached to the camera with a 55mm or shorter lens reversed and attached to the front of the 70-300. The biggest issue with this combo is that the 70-300 has a 67mm front thread and the 18-55 has a 52mm which results in a bit of vignetting. Another good Nikon combo is the relatively cheap 55-200 AF-s lens with a 50 reversed on the front. Both have 52mm front threads and should have less vignetting. I hope this helps

Feb 23, 2010 at 06:25 AM

Tom Reichner
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #10 · Don't get caught

This lens reversal sounds like a great idea!

It seems as if there are no drawbacks, other than not being able to AF or use AI servo. And maybe some dust issues that arise whenever lenses or adapters are mounted & unmounted.

Does anyone know what the best adapter is? If so, could you post a link to a site where such an adapter could be purchased?

Thanks!

Feb 24, 2010 at 04:16 PM

LostinTexas
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #11 · Don't get caught

Admittedly, there are some drawbacks to the reversed lens method...it's not as convenient as a macro lens, and if you use a lens without an aperture ring like my AF-S 18-55, then there is some rigging to do, but it is not bad to use. I made my lens to body ring by using epoxy to connect a body cap with a large hole cut in the center, and a protective filter with the threads pointing out. It is not bad for free, but I will probably purchase one like this

I can show pick of my home made one if anyone wants a visual.

Feb 24, 2010 at 04:26 PM

Tom Reichner
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #12 · Don't get caught

LostinTexas wrote: It is not bad for free, but I will probably purchase one like this
Darn - doesn't look like there's one for recent Canon bodies. Can't understand why - I'm sure if the ones offered sell, then a model for recent Canon bodies would certainly sell.

Feb 25, 2010 at 02:19 AM

LostinTexas
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #13 · Don't get caught

I'm not up on Canon stuff, but would this do?

Feb 25, 2010 at 03:30 AM

Bifurcator
Online
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.6 #14 · Don't get caught

For about the cost of a deluxe pizza over the reversal adaptor you can get a closeup filter from Kenko. See page 3 of this thread.

Then your lens will work as it should. AF, AE, etc., all work.

Apr 11, 2010 at 09:26 PM

LostinTexas
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #15 · Don't get caught

The close-up filters are pretty good...I have a Quantaray +10 for my 18-55mm kit lens that is pretty awesome. However, finding a good quality filter is a crap shoot. I have a set of +1, +2, +4, +10 for my 70-300 Nikon from opteka that are marginal at best. However, I bought them to see which diopter strength worked best for me before buying an expensive one. Also, none of my close up diopters can come close to my 18-55 on a reversing ring. It is a little more trouble to use, but the results of a reversed lens are pretty impressive.

Apr 12, 2010 at 05:00 AM

Bifurcator
Online
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.6 #16 · Don't get caught

Why is it a crap-shoot? Any Kenko filter with the letters "AC" on the barrel will totally ROCK! and they're very inexpensive too! $15 ~ $25 used, $30 ~ $50 new. The #10 is a bit extreme though and unless you're photographing a flea's butt is mostly only useful for creating image stacks in a controlled environment. The DOF for a #10 on a 100mm lens set to f/8 is about two or three millimeters.

I find a #4 on a 100mm ~ 200mm lens to be the most useful myself:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/675134/2#6316240
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/675134/2#6355286

That gives you a nice working distance and as you can see a very manageable DOF range too! The one's from Kenko will produce about the same or better IQ than a reversed lens. And, while I dunno every lens, usually reversing a lens means almost no working distance. Typically less than 1cm.

Lighting is very difficult at anything less than about 6 centimeters. The #10 closeup filter has a maximum WD of 10 cm. Oh, so nice! A #4 has a max WD of 25cm (on any and every lens!). At ten or twenty centimeters lighting is oh so easy, and oh so beautiful. And repeating myself, all the functions of whatever lens you attach it to , continue to work properly. AF, AE, etc. all just work. \(^.^)/ Yay for things that work!

Apr 14, 2010 at 04:06 PM

LostinTexas
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #17 · Don't get caught

I will have to give the Kenko's a try, because my Opteka'a are pretty poor over all.

Apr 19, 2010 at 01:06 PM

ryanpfleger
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.6 #18 · Don't get caught

Tom Hicks wrote:
42 flash unites hanging off god knows what

Where can I buy that? I didn't see it on the Really Right Stuff macro page.

Apr 21, 2010 at 12:13 AM

Headshot_Harry
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #19 · Don't get caught

Hi, is there a rough guide to what ISO to begin with when starting out as a beginner with macro? Or is it simply take what you need when you need it?

Apr 21, 2010 at 02:37 PM

LostinTexas
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #20 · Don't get caught

I would go with the lowest ISO you can since macro images are so detailed and tend to show a lot of grain. I usually shoot at 400 or less.

Apr 21, 2010 at 03:23 PM

1 2 3 … 5 6 7 end
FM Forums \| Macro World \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 … 5 6 7 end