Macro - what to get?

[Martyn]

Since getting my camera and joining this forum I've found myself taking a few close up shots and wishing I could get closer. I've been studying up on gear, but thought I would seek the opinions of you good folk on here.

 

These are the options as I see them:

 

1. Dedicated macro lens such as Nikon's AF-S VR Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED.

Excellent performance, but as with any macro lens, it's over my budget.

 

2. Lens reversing adapter ring.

I already have one of these. The magnification factor with an old 50mm lens is fantastic but I loose my auto focus and exposure control. Good for static objects. Needs a tripod and some extra lighting because I need to get so close.

 

3. Close up filters.

Relatively cheap. Fiddly to swap and change when out and about. Introduces an extra optical element to the lens which may be of poor quality. Better quality is available but at a price.

 

4. Extension tubes.

Tubes are cheaply available but lack the connections to allow the lens to operate automatically. Tubes with the connections to allow auto lens functions are also available but are more expensive. Kenko seem to have a good reputation at around £150. Other makes are available from around £60 but what is the quality like? These don't add any extra optics to the lens so picture quality should be good.

 

5. Raynox DCR-250.

Much like a close up filter on steroids,these are available for around £50 and fit a range of lens diameters. They seem to have a good reputation despite the fact that they clip onto the end of the lens and add an extra optic.

 

I would love to hear your opinions, views and reviews of any of these.

 

 

 

 

[annie]

well I too would love a dedicated macro lens but it is off budget.

 

so I carry on with my trusty raynox 250. yes it does just clip on, but that also means no fiddly changing of lenses when out and about, just pop it on an off as needed. mine has teeth marks on the clip part from where I am forever holding it by my teeth instead of putting it in my pocket. I also dropped mine in a glass of coke and then had to soak it in hot water with fairy liquid to get the stickiness out of the springs...bet you could not do that with a dedicated lens..!

Edited September 24, 2013 by annie

[NannyFerret]

I agree with, Annie. I would love a dedicated macro lens, but funds won't allow.

I have tried reversing a lens, one to another and the results weren't bad, but I found it too fiddly and never id much with it like that.

I have had some good shots with an ebay screw on close up filter, and am gradually getting used to the Raynox 250.

I got some cheap extension tubes off ebay but not really used them.
I carried my Raynox around with  me on holiday along with my camera with 55-300mm lens attached. It seems to work better with that lens or my Panasonic FZ100 camera.

The Raynox is so easy to clip on and off and you don't have to keep changes lenses if you want a variety of shots while out and about.
I have a set of close-up filters including a 10+ which is pretty good.

If you go for a Raynox have a look around on Amazon etc. as I only paid £38 for mine last year. Bear in mind that the Raynox takes a bit of getting used to  and the close up filters are a little easier.

The sets are so cheap on ebay that it wouldn't break the bank to start with them and then upgrade to a Raynox, as I did.
 

[seajunky]

Hello Martyn

 

I hope you don't mind my putting in my penny worth as I have only joined today. I say this with all due respect to the above members who talk about the Raynox  250. I have both the 150 and the 250. May I suggest that if you don,t want to carry a tripod about, and a macro slider, then I would suggest going for the Raynox 150. The reason behind this thinking is that the R250 has such a narrow DOF that it is a very difficult lens to use hand held. It's not impossible to use, but my failure rate is very high with it. The R150 is just about manageable.

 

Hope this helps

 

Steve

[NannyFerret]

Three different close-ups, using different lenses and attachments

 

This is a tiny moss like plant shot with a reversed len onto another. I can't remember which ones though. I think it was a 50mm Pentagon lens reversed on o another.

Minute plant

 

Ladybird. Shot with Zoom lens with 10+ close up filter attached.

 

Fly. Shot with Sigma 70-300 zoom set to Macro.

[annie]

hello seajunky..

 

I do understand what you are saying about the depth of field, the raynox lenses do not like movement for sure, and the depth is very shallow. I never carry a tripod, they are next to useless in a field when its bug shots your after, however I went straight for the 250 knowing if I got the 150 I would regret it.

[seajunky]

I have actually got both, and on the odd occasion I have stacked the 150 with the 250 and used them together. 

[annie]

lol....that sounds like a plan........

[NannyFerret]

lol....that sounds like a plan........

Don't set her off, Seajunky. She is already too good with a Raynox 

[JohnP]

Before I purchased a dedicated macro lens I used both a Raynox 250 and a set of Kenko extension tubes, out of the two I preferred the extension tubes, in fact I still use them with my other lenses sometimes. My tubes are fully auto and are a set of three, I bought them over the internet from Hong Kong for about £80 from what I remember... it was several years ago. Kenko  tubes are extremely well made and they were loads cheaper than Canon tubes. As you are already know, nothing compares with a macro lens though.

[seajunky]

Here is one of my pictures taken with the Raynox 150. It's not the best, but it might give you a bit of an idea.

 

Steve

 

 

[fuzzyedges]

Tubes with the connections to allow auto lens functions are also available but are more expensive

Mostly with Macro auto is a hinderance more than a help

Quite often, hand held, rocking on your heels (or some such tooing and frowing) to get focus is required  due to the shallow dof, not really conducive with auto focus

Of the choices you list (excluding dedicated) I would be inclined to go for manual tubes but Annie has some brilliant images with the raynox as you have seen on here

 

One thing you havnt mentioned is light

In my opinion a diffused flash of some sort is essential to increase the dof by a smaller apperture setting

You can get ring flashes for around £300 or make a light source yourself for around £30 / £40 similar to one I use (even cheaper if you can improvise on a soft box diffuser and do away with wireless trigger )

Edited September 24, 2013 by fuzzyedges

[Guest DaveW]

I almost daren't admit in view of the comments above I have two macro lenses, a 60mm Micro Nikkor and the no longer made 70mm-180mm Micro Nikkor. It depends what Nikon camera you have as some can only take the modern electronic motored lenses, but if you have one with a motor in the body that can take the old "screwdriver" drive lenses there are plenty of old but superb second-hand Nikon fit macro lenses on EBAY or in camera shops. The APS-C sensored Nikon cameras can take the 35mm full frame film lenses too and they produce superb results since they more than cover the frame so only the best optically corrected centre of the lens is used.

 

Of course it depends on your budget and Nikon's own lenses can be dear, but second-hand independents are cheaper.  But make sure you get a compatible one for your cameras automation. Autofocus and Vibration Reduction do not really matter for higher magnification macro, but TTL metering is handy.

 

Generally zooms are not true macro lenses but simply conventional zooms with a close focus facility. The only true specialist macro zoom made was the 70mm-180mm Micro Nikkor, but that is now long gone as it was phased out just as I converted to digital photography, therefore can now only be found second-hand.

 

http://www.ebay.co.uk/sch/i.html?_odkw=Nikon+fit+macro+lens&_osacat=0&_from=R40&_trksid=p2045573.m570.l1311.R1.TR2.TRC0.A0.XNikon+macro+lens&_nkw=nikon+macro+lens&_sacat=0

 

Ouch, some old withdrawn lenses evidently actually appreciate in price. I just frightened myself when I found this as I only paid £700 new for mine and this is second-hand!

 

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/MINT-Nikon-Micro-Nikkor-70-180mm-F-4-5-5-6-D-AF-ED-Lens-Boxed-/221234054981?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item338293c745

 

Strange it was not a popular lens when new, but became more desirable when withdrawn!

 

If you can't afford a second-hand macro lens then extension tubes like Kenko I would go for, but I have never used a Raynox.  The cheapest way into macro of course is a set of supplementary close up lenses, so called close-up filters.

 

As Steve says, hand holding is really only feasible up to a certain magnification as after that depth of field is too small to reliably hold the lens in focus and all camera shake is magnified, so even using flash will not overcome the first of those problems, only a tripod and probably a focusing slide.

 

You may also find a Raynox second-hand on EBAY:-

 

http://www.ebay.co.uk/sch/i.html?_odkw=nikon+macro+lens&_osacat=0&_from=R40&_trksid=p2045573.m570.l1313.TR3.TRC0.A0.XRaynox&_nkw=Raynox&_sacat=0

[Paul]

I would go with tubes - they can be used on most lenses, the downside of up to 2 stops of light and an even smaller |DoF are the only negatives.

 

Paul.

[Martyn]

Wow, thank you for all the replies! All this is really helpful.

 

 I also dropped mine in a glass of coke and then had to soak it in hot water with fairy liquid to get the stickiness out of the springs...bet you could not do that with a dedicated lens..!

 

Ah yes, I've heard of these Coke-in filters!

[geodar]

for around £100 (santa is on the way) i would opt for a 70-300mm sigma lens with macro setting (although not true macro, more of a close up lens).

the  2 pictures were taken with a canon fit lens at around 10-15 feet away.

the larger image was brought forward in software.

also on the plus side you get a zoom lens as well.

hope this helps.

geoff

Edited September 24, 2013 by geodar

[Martyn]

Mostly with Macro auto is a hinderance more than a help

Quite often, hand held, rocking on your heels (or some such tooing and frowing) to get focus is required  due to the shallow dof, not really conducive with auto focus

Of the choices you list (excluding dedicated) I would be inclined to go for manual tubes but Annie has some brilliant images with the raynox as you have seen on here

 

The only problem I see with manual tubes is the inability of the lens to stop down automatically since I use the G series lens from Nikon, there is no manual aperture ring!

[fuzzyedges]

Always a down side with  Nikon

Now canon is perminant auto with perminant manual bliss

[Martyn]

One thing you havnt mentioned is light

In my opinion a diffused flash of some sort is essential to increase the dof by a smaller apperture setting

You can get ring flashes for around £300 or make a light source yourself for around £30 / £40 similar to one I use (even cheaper if you can improvise on a soft box diffuser and do away with wireless trigger )

 Thanks Bugs, I haven't forgotten about the light problem, I intend to discus this in another thread at a later date. As you can see from the number of replies already, optics on their own create enough discussion to fill a thread

[Martyn]

This is a tiny moss like plant shot with a reversed len onto another. I can't remember which ones though. I think it was a 50mm Pentagon lens reversed on o another.

Minute plant

 

I've never heard of a lens reversed onto another lens, must give that a try sometime!

[ChrisLumix]

I've never heard of a lens reversed onto another lens, must give that a try sometime!

 

I don't suppose there is any way in the world I could use that principle to reverse my ancient Auto Rokkor 58mm f1.4 lens onto my Lumix FZ superzoom....?

[NannyFerret]

I've never heard of a lens reversed onto another lens, must give that a try sometime!

As you can see, there is some vignetting which I haven't cropped out.

This one is the first time that I had tried it.

As there are no Auto settings to be used on the reversed lens, you have to mess about with the settings until you get it right.

Edited September 24, 2013 by NannyFerret

[Guest DaveW]

Basically Martyn you are using the reversed lens on another as a high quality multi-element supplementary close up lens, or filter as it would often be called if it were a single element close up lens:-

 

http://ara133photography.com/coupling-your-lenses-another-great-way-to-take-macro-shots/

 

http://digital-photography-school.com/reverse-lens-macro-close-up-photography-lesson-3

 

You can usually get various size coupling rings off EBAY.

[NannyFerret]

I don't suppose there is any way in the world I could use that principle to reverse my ancient Auto Rokkor 58mm f1.4 lens onto my Lumix FZ superzoom....?

Yes, you can buy the lens to lens revering ring from ebay. just get the different thread sizes right.

I have done it with my Panasonic FZ100.

I can't guarantee  the quality, but for a couple of £s it's worth it for something different to experiment with,

Edited September 24, 2013 by NannyFerret

[Guest DaveW]

Why do we reverse lenses for better quality high magnification macro work rather than use them normal way around, leaving aside any magnification gains through non-symmetrical designs?  Simply because conventional lenses are optically optimised to have their rear element closer to the sensor or film that the front element is from the subject. At 1:1 or life size on the sensor with extension behind the lens, either through extension tubes or a macro lenses own focussing travel, theoretically the distance to the sensor is virtually identical to the distance to the subject.

 

To get even higher magnifications the distance to the subject with extension or floating elements becomes less than to the sensor/film, so the optical performance of most lenses optimised for infinity to 1:1 usually improves if the lens is reversed to restore the relationship of the optimised distance to both front and rear elements. 

 

Obviously you still get an image over 1:1 if you don't reverse a lens, but it is more likely to be better quality if you do, though you may not notice any difference in real world use at up to 2:1 (2X) or even slightly greater magnification.

 

http://savazzi.freehostia.com/photography/macro_lenses.htm

 

One cheap way of getting a high quality macro lens with the aid of a few coupling rings is to use an enlarger lens now that film is dead (waits for the howls from those still using it!) if you have one lying around or can obtain one cheap off EBAY:-

 

Edited September 25, 2013 by DaveW