Archive 2008 · Don't get caught
p.1 #1Don't get caught
Don't get caught in the macro photography hype.
Macro is an interesting and challenging style of photography, which is wonderful. We are fortunate that it can be accomplished with a multitude of different shooting styles and equipment. We have here at Fred's a very high number of very very fine Macro shooters all of which bring a lot to the table , Like the Knights at the round table. We are all approachable and are willing to help. I know that many of the newer photographers here that lurk in the shadows ( newbies to the art of macro ) look at the images here and probably scratch most of the hair from your head trying to figure out how this is done.
First I will say to the beginner that you don't need any fancy equipment to do this , if anything it is a poor man's style of photography. All you need is a camera body , a reversed lens and a pop up flash if you feel it is needed.
Don't get caught up in all this hype like megapixels , stacking this on that , 42 flash unites hanging off god knows what. Can it be done this way? Yes . Is it needed? No. Is it fun to play with and use ? Yes, that's what's so good about Macro so many way's to get the same results.
Some of the members here are fortunate enough to have incomes that will support all this craziness, but for all the new people IT IS NOT NEEDED.
Edited by Tom Hicks on Aug 09, 2008 at 11:19 AM GMT
Edited on Aug 09, 2008 at 11:19 AM
Macro is an interesting and challenging style of photography, which is wonderful. We are fortunate that it can be accomplished with a multitude of different shooting styles and equipment. We have here at Fred's a very high number of very very fine Macro shooters all of which bring a lot to the table , Like the Knights at the round table. We are all approachable and are willing to help. I know that many of the newer photographers here that lurk in the shadows ( newbies to the art of macro ) look at the images here and probably scratch most of the hair from your head trying to figure out how this is done.
First I will say to the beginner that you don't need any fancy equipment to do this , if anything it is a poor man's style of photography. All you need is a camera body , a reversed lens and a pop up flash if you feel it is needed.
Don't get caught up in all this hype like megapixels , stacking this on that , 42 flash unites hanging off god knows what. Can it be done this way? Yes . Is it needed? No. Is it fun to play with and use ? Yes, that's what's so good about Macro so many way's to get the same results.
Some of the members here are fortunate enough to have incomes that will support all this craziness, but for all the new people IT IS NOT NEEDED.
Edited by Tom Hicks on Aug 09, 2008 at 11:19 AM GMT
Edited on Aug 09, 2008 at 11:19 AM
Aug 08, 2008 at 07:36 AM
p.1 #3Don't get caught
Agree, +1 on the advice
As you suggested, there are many ways to get the same shot. So I question a reversed lens. Isn't that technically more difficult to use/set up/configure than getting a basic extension tube, 500D type converter or even an inexpensive macro lens like a 60mm EF-S? IMO, all 3 of these would allow for easier automation through the camera/lens combo to start a beginner off. Basically, someone like me who would love to do some macro work but may not want to get that deep into it initially until I know if I really like it.
I love seeing the wonderful work by many here that can spend the time (and $$ as you pointed out) to truly excel with this type of photography (you included BTW).
So, I am not trying to discount any of your great advice but more to ask a question on the reversed lens and also to try to add to your comment of many ways to start in Macro by suggesting possibly more convenient (and possibly less expensive in 1 or 2 cases) ways of getting started in macro photography.
So my question is (finally) how complex is it to use a reversed lens? This, of course precludes having a lens that could be used reversed (fixed focal lenght vs zoom) which would be part of the question too.
Edited on Aug 08, 2008 at 09:38 AM
As you suggested, there are many ways to get the same shot. So I question a reversed lens. Isn't that technically more difficult to use/set up/configure than getting a basic extension tube, 500D type converter or even an inexpensive macro lens like a 60mm EF-S? IMO, all 3 of these would allow for easier automation through the camera/lens combo to start a beginner off. Basically, someone like me who would love to do some macro work but may not want to get that deep into it initially until I know if I really like it.
I love seeing the wonderful work by many here that can spend the time (and $$ as you pointed out) to truly excel with this type of photography (you included BTW).
So, I am not trying to discount any of your great advice but more to ask a question on the reversed lens and also to try to add to your comment of many ways to start in Macro by suggesting possibly more convenient (and possibly less expensive in 1 or 2 cases) ways of getting started in macro photography.
So my question is (finally) how complex is it to use a reversed lens? This, of course precludes having a lens that could be used reversed (fixed focal lenght vs zoom) which would be part of the question too.
Edited on Aug 08, 2008 at 09:38 AM
Aug 08, 2008 at 09:33 AM
p.1 #4Don't get caught
With the purchase of a EOS reversing ring for under $12 assuming you shoot canon , nikon are the same . and then picking up a 50mm or 28mm manual focus lens for say 15 to 25 dollars , you may even have old lens you used for film in a drawer, this is still cheaper than buying a set of kenko tubes , a 500D diopter, or a 1.4x converter or a new 100 or macro lens .
Rev adapter
Edited on Aug 08, 2008 at 10:05 AM
Rev adapter
Edited on Aug 08, 2008 at 10:05 AM
Aug 08, 2008 at 10:04 AM
p.1 #5Don't get caught
again some more useful info on this reversing subject ....." Mash DOF preview button,while removing the lens from the camera and it will stay fixed at that f stop , rev and hold to body face , put camera in AV mode meter and take the shot "
thanks Tom I was not aware of the DOF trick to keep your f stop setting again I learn something new from the masters of macro
Doug
Aug 08, 2008 at 11:00 AM
p.1 #6Don't get caught
Tom Hicks wrote:
With the purchase of a EOS reversing ring for under $12 assuming you shoot canon , nikon are the same . and then picking up a 50mm or 28mm manual focus lens for say 15 to 25 dollars , you may even have old lens you used for film in a drawer, this is still cheaper than buying a set of kenko tubes , a 500D diopter, or a 1.4x converter or a new 100 or macro lens .
Rev adapter
Yes, but unfortunately that is not enough when using such reversed lens setup! I tried it myself and it is not done just by buying a reversed lens and a MF lens. As you know, for this setup it is necessary to use a flash bracket with a diffused flash and IMO a focusing rail or another tool to get sharp shots. When using a regular speedlite flash for this sort of photography like the 430EX and the other tools mentioned you easily hit the $500 range, not including lenses.
A regular and very feasible macro lens in the 100 mm range and Kenko tubes are probably the most less expensive setup for the beginning.
With the purchase of a EOS reversing ring for under $12 assuming you shoot canon , nikon are the same . and then picking up a 50mm or 28mm manual focus lens for say 15 to 25 dollars , you may even have old lens you used for film in a drawer, this is still cheaper than buying a set of kenko tubes , a 500D diopter, or a 1.4x converter or a new 100 or macro lens .
Rev adapter
Yes, but unfortunately that is not enough when using such reversed lens setup! I tried it myself and it is not done just by buying a reversed lens and a MF lens. As you know, for this setup it is necessary to use a flash bracket with a diffused flash and IMO a focusing rail or another tool to get sharp shots. When using a regular speedlite flash for this sort of photography like the 430EX and the other tools mentioned you easily hit the $500 range, not including lenses.
A regular and very feasible macro lens in the 100 mm range and Kenko tubes are probably the most less expensive setup for the beginning.
Aug 10, 2008 at 12:17 PM
p.1 #7Don't get caught
retrofocus wrote:
Rev adapterYes, but unfortunately that is not enough when using such reversed lens setup! I tried it myself and it is not done just by buying a reversed lens and a MF lens. As you know, for this setup it is necessary to use a flash bracket with a diffused flash and IMO a focusing rail or another tool to get sharp shots. When using a regular speedlite flash for this sort of photography like the 430EX and the other tools mentioned you easily hit the $500 range, not including lenses.
A regular and very feasible macro lens in the 100...Show more →
Retro, it is that simple and I have been instructing and posting shots of the results for over 3 years now , all you need is a rev ring a manual focus lens and natural light - your pop up if you must . I think you need to look at these pics again.
Flash brackets, diffuser, and focus rail are not needed for sharp images .
My work speaks for itself . https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/663112
Edited on Aug 10, 2008 at 02:50 PM
Tom Hicks wrote
With the purchase of a EOS reversing ring for under $12 assuming you shoot canon , nikon are the same . and then picking up a 50mm or 28mm manual focus lens for say 15 to 25 dollars , you may even have old lens you used for film in a drawer, this is still cheaper than buying a set of kenko tubes , a 500D diopter, or a 1.4x converter or a new 100 or macro lens .Rev adapter
A regular and very feasible macro lens in the 100...Show more →
Retro, it is that simple and I have been instructing and posting shots of the results for over 3 years now , all you need is a rev ring a manual focus lens and natural light - your pop up if you must . I think you need to look at these pics again.
Flash brackets, diffuser, and focus rail are not needed for sharp images .
My work speaks for itself . https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/663112
Edited on Aug 10, 2008 at 02:50 PM
Aug 10, 2008 at 02:28 PM
p.1 #8Don't get caught
Tom Hicks wrote:
Retro, it is that simple and I have been instructing and posting shots of the results for over 3 years now , all you need is a rev ring a manual focus lens and natural light - your pop up if you must . I think you need to look at these pics again.
Flash brackets, diffuser, and focus rail are not needed for sharp images .
My work speaks for itself . https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/663112
Yes, Tom, you are right. I double-checked in your given link and you obviously directly reversed the lens onto your camera. I have to admit that I did not try this setup yet - I always mounted a reversed lens on top of a regular telephoto lens which leads to a fairly long lens setup where a regular pop-up flash or normal light is not enough. Your proposed technique avoids some of the additional requirements I mentioned above.
Retro, it is that simple and I have been instructing and posting shots of the results for over 3 years now , all you need is a rev ring a manual focus lens and natural light - your pop up if you must . I think you need to look at these pics again.
Flash brackets, diffuser, and focus rail are not needed for sharp images .
My work speaks for itself . https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/663112
Yes, Tom, you are right. I double-checked in your given link and you obviously directly reversed the lens onto your camera. I have to admit that I did not try this setup yet - I always mounted a reversed lens on top of a regular telephoto lens which leads to a fairly long lens setup where a regular pop-up flash or normal light is not enough. Your proposed technique avoids some of the additional requirements I mentioned above.
Aug 10, 2008 at 05:43 PM
p.1 #9Don't get caught
yup what a cheap way to see things close up 
my gear: nikon d40 body (about the cheapest dslr you can get), pk13 extention and 55mm nikkor micro ($50 AU on ebay), really old 3x teleconverter ($20 on ebay and i got a 2x TC with it!), +/+ reversing ring (next to naught) and a 50mm f1.8 to reverse on the end (another $50 AU). you can just about get an aphid to fill the frame with this
my gear: nikon d40 body (about the cheapest dslr you can get), pk13 extention and 55mm nikkor micro ($50 AU on ebay), really old 3x teleconverter ($20 on ebay and i got a 2x TC with it!), +/+ reversing ring (next to naught) and a 50mm f1.8 to reverse on the end (another $50 AU). you can just about get an aphid to fill the frame with this
Aug 10, 2008 at 11:59 PM
p.1 #10Don't get caught
Tom, thank you for the helpful hints. Yes I shoot Canon BTW.
I was typing up several questions and then decide to click on the link. That answered several of my questions.
I do have a couple of questions anyway.
What about focusing? does the focus ring allow focusing or does the camera to subject distance need to be adjusted for focus?
As a general question, what is the working distance of a 'reverse 50' versus? Is it generally longer or shorter than a dedicated macro lens?
What would a reversed 50 be equivalent to with regards to the focal length of a standard macro lens? Is it essentially equivalent?
Sorry, for all the questions. If someone knows of something I can read on this and guide me to where I can search for that, it would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks
I was typing up several questions and then decide to click on the link. That answered several of my questions.
I do have a couple of questions anyway.
What about focusing? does the focus ring allow focusing or does the camera to subject distance need to be adjusted for focus?
As a general question, what is the working distance of a 'reverse 50' versus? Is it generally longer or shorter than a dedicated macro lens?
What would a reversed 50 be equivalent to with regards to the focal length of a standard macro lens? Is it essentially equivalent?
Sorry, for all the questions. If someone knows of something I can read on this and guide me to where I can search for that, it would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks
Aug 11, 2008 at 09:03 AM
p.1 #11Don't get caught
who me wrote:
Tom, thank you for the helpful hints. Yes I shoot Canon BTW.
I was typing up several questions and then decide to click on the link. That answered several of my questions.
I do have a couple of questions anyway.
What about focusing? does the focus ring allow focusing or does the camera to subject distance need to be adjusted for focus?
As a general question, what is the working distance of a 'reverse 50' versus? Is it generally longer or shorter than a dedicated macro lens?
What would a reversed 50 be equivalent to with regards to the focal length...Show more →
Follow this link and look at the examples I posted of the 50 mm lens , the vari depending on brand and f stop , but A 50 will give you around 1to1 , some lens more some less. working dist. or lens surface to subject is around 4 inches . you focus like an MP-E 65 by moving the camera forward or backwards. you have to set the f stop you want the shoot in AV mode and the camer will meter and give you the speed at which the shot will be taken. A 28mm rev lens will have a working distance of 1.5 inches.
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/619903/0?keyword=rev,lens,s#5473004
Tom, thank you for the helpful hints. Yes I shoot Canon BTW.
I was typing up several questions and then decide to click on the link. That answered several of my questions.
I do have a couple of questions anyway.
What about focusing? does the focus ring allow focusing or does the camera to subject distance need to be adjusted for focus?
As a general question, what is the working distance of a 'reverse 50' versus? Is it generally longer or shorter than a dedicated macro lens?
What would a reversed 50 be equivalent to with regards to the focal length...Show more →
Follow this link and look at the examples I posted of the 50 mm lens , the vari depending on brand and f stop , but A 50 will give you around 1to1 , some lens more some less. working dist. or lens surface to subject is around 4 inches . you focus like an MP-E 65 by moving the camera forward or backwards. you have to set the f stop you want the shoot in AV mode and the camer will meter and give you the speed at which the shot will be taken. A 28mm rev lens will have a working distance of 1.5 inches.
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/619903/0?keyword=rev,lens,s#5473004
Aug 11, 2008 at 04:01 PM
p.1 #12Don't get caught
Whoops had on 1600 ISO from last night, was wondering why it was a bit noisy...
Aug 11, 2008 at 06:06 PM
p.1 #13Don't get caught
In response to lighting. It doesn't have to be expensive. Here I've used a foam disposable bowl and a piece of aluminum foil along with the pop-up flash. Total cost around $0.10
http://platts-family.smugmug.com/photos/350678363_ARYkD-L.jpg
http://platts-family.smugmug.com/photos/350678385_Eq4VV-L.jpg
Nothing fancy, but it shows that You can get descent lighting with short money. Snapped this between the time I got home and 5 minutes later when the thunder shower started.
CORRECTION: Make that "Yet another !@#$% thunder shower started!"
http://platts-family.smugmug.com/photos/350672684_oQXBD-L.jpg
Mike
Edited on Aug 12, 2008 at 07:32 PM
http://platts-family.smugmug.com/photos/350678363_ARYkD-L.jpg
http://platts-family.smugmug.com/photos/350678385_Eq4VV-L.jpg
Nothing fancy, but it shows that You can get descent lighting with short money. Snapped this between the time I got home and 5 minutes later when the thunder shower started.
CORRECTION: Make that "Yet another !@#$% thunder shower started!"
http://platts-family.smugmug.com/photos/350672684_oQXBD-L.jpg
Mike
Edited on Aug 12, 2008 at 07:32 PM
Aug 12, 2008 at 06:05 PM
p.1 #14Don't get caught
Mike Scott wrote:
In response to lighting. It doesn't have to be expensive. Here I've used a foam disposable bowl and a piece of aluminum foil along with the pop-up flash. Total cost around $0.10
Nothing fancy, but it shows that You can get descent lighting with short money. Snapped this between the time I got home and 5 minutes later when the thunder shower started.
CORRECTION: Make that "Yet another !@#$% thunder shower started!"
Mike
Love the macro light - wonderful DIY
Brian V
In response to lighting. It doesn't have to be expensive. Here I've used a foam disposable bowl and a piece of aluminum foil along with the pop-up flash. Total cost around $0.10
Nothing fancy, but it shows that You can get descent lighting with short money. Snapped this between the time I got home and 5 minutes later when the thunder shower started.
CORRECTION: Make that "Yet another !@#$% thunder shower started!"
Mike
Love the macro light
- wonderful DIYBrian V
Aug 13, 2008 at 02:37 AM
p.1 #15Don't get caught
guys I have a quick question:
when you reverse a lens (say the 50/1.8) over another lens, do you guys get a lot of vignetting?
tried this both with a kit lens 18-55 and an EF 75-300/4-5.6 both have a lot of vignetting. Am i missing something or should I just crop?
when you reverse a lens (say the 50/1.8) over another lens, do you guys get a lot of vignetting?
tried this both with a kit lens 18-55 and an EF 75-300/4-5.6 both have a lot of vignetting. Am i missing something or should I just crop?
Aug 13, 2008 at 05:07 AM
p.1 #16Don't get caught
I use the Canon plastic 50mm 1.8 and dont get any vignetting... should have a Rokkor 50mm 1.4 here today in mail, hope none there either !!!
Aug 13, 2008 at 07:07 AM
p.1 #17Don't get caught
Saint Sigma wrote:
guys I have a quick question:
when you reverse a lens (say the 50/1.8) over another lens, do you guys get a lot of vignetting?
tried this both with a kit lens 18-55 and an EF 75-300/4-5.6 both have a lot of vignetting. Am i missing something or should I just crop?
I'd guess that if the mounted lens has a front element diameter that is a lot smaller than the lens it's being mounted to, then you can expect vignetting. Since the adapter starts to cover the lens.
Mike
guys I have a quick question:
when you reverse a lens (say the 50/1.8) over another lens, do you guys get a lot of vignetting?
tried this both with a kit lens 18-55 and an EF 75-300/4-5.6 both have a lot of vignetting. Am i missing something or should I just crop?
I'd guess that if the mounted lens has a front element diameter that is a lot smaller than the lens it's being mounted to, then you can expect vignetting. Since the adapter starts to cover the lens.
Mike
Aug 13, 2008 at 07:36 AM
p.1 #18Don't get caught
hmmm interesting. I'm not using any adapters. just holding the nifty fifty in front of the EFs 18-55. maybe it's cause it's an EFs lens?
Aug 13, 2008 at 08:04 AM
p.1 #19Don't get caught
I use one of my astronomical t-rings and pressed the 50 reversed to it... I tried with some other combinations with and without zoom lenses in front and the DOF was too small for me but still had no vignetting...
I really apprecaite the DIY techniques shared... wife thinks its cute when I pull out the duct tape...
I really apprecaite the DIY techniques shared... wife thinks its cute when I pull out the duct tape...
Aug 13, 2008 at 03:28 PM
p.1 #20Don't get caught
Tom,
I wish your friendly invite/post was on the first/top page of every forum.
Some day I would love to get into macro photography and can dable a little with my 24-70 2.8L. I do have one of a praying mantis and some other sort of a bug.
I have looked a pictures here on many occasions and I too have scratched my hair off wondering about the shooting composition.
Thanks again,
~Bill~
I wish your friendly invite/post was on the first/top page of every forum.
Some day I would love to get into macro photography and can dable a little with my 24-70 2.8L. I do have one of a praying mantis and some other sort of a bug.
I have looked a pictures here on many occasions and I too have scratched my hair off wondering about the shooting composition.
Thanks again,
~Bill~
Aug 13, 2008 at 03:33 PM