"IMHO": Getting More With Macro
Printed From: Dyxum.com
Category: Dyxum Community
Forum Name: Knowledge Base
Forum Description: Improving photo techniques & getting more from Dyxum
URL: https://www.dyxum.com/dforum/forum_posts.asp?TID=28000
Printed Date: 14 May 2025 at 09:10
Topic: "IMHO": Getting More With Macro
Posted By: Wētāpunga
Subject: "IMHO": Getting More With Macro
Date Posted: 29 February 2008 at 01:47
|
by wetapunga This is a quick outline of the main techniques of macro-photography. It is aimed chiefly at Minolta and Sony owners. It also tends to reflect my bias towards the photography of insects and spiders. In macro-photography, there are three basic issues 1. Magnification 2. Light 3. Stability A photographer has to have a solution to each of these aspects to take a good photo. We will start with magnification. Magnification is the indispensable element of macro-photography. There are several ways to achieve a high magnification. Most macro-photographers will have a dedicated macro-lens. These typically come in focal lengths between 50mm and 180mm. Macro-lenses are typically much sharper than zoom lenses with a macro function. The magnification ratio delivered by many of these lenses is 1:1. They are good for larger subjects, but deliver less detail on subjects less than 1 cm long.
Macro lenses however, are tricky to obtain on a tight budget. Fortunately there are other options. Note that only some of the approaches listed below, allow you to focus and compose the shot with the aperture wide-open. Being able to focus with the view finder at maximum brightness, will increase the odds of sharp, detailed images. First, you can try reversing a lens. Ideally this should be a lens of 50mm focal length or less, and be reasonably sharp to begin with. It is an ideal way to use second-hand manual-focus lenses, or even lenses from other manufacturers. The lens is mounted by its filter thread, to the body of the camera. Minolta Dynax camera with reversed lens  Reversing rings can be made or bought fairly cheaply. Note that there will not be any electrical contact between the lens and camera. This means your camera has to have the option to press the shutter when the camera thinks there is no lens present. Reversing Ring  Fixing the aperture will be challenging. Macro-photography is typically done at f12-f20. Older MC or MD lenses may allow manual adjustment of the f-stop. AF lenses tend not to. The solution is to mount the AF lens to the camera, select the f-stop (aperture) you want, then press the DOF preview button. While holding that down, press the lens release button and twist the lens off. It should stay in the locked aperture. Three hands or high manual dexterity helps! If your camera lacks the DOF preview button, you will have to use an older manual focus lens. Fortunately these are often available second-hand at good prices. The advantage of this technique is that it is very cheap. You can get higher magnification ratios than proper macro lenses. Did I mention it is very cheap! It has some disadvantages. It is awkward with AF lenses to lock the aperture. As the aperture is locked at a small f-stop, you don't get much light coming through the viewfinder. This hinders focus as the subject will appear dimmer than for a normal lens. The minimum focal distance is much shorter than a proper macro lens. Focus for this setup is achieved by carefully moving the camera back and forth until the subject appears focused. The focus ring won't help. A practical disadvantage is that you are more likely to spook the subject. You can't easily change the aperture for AF lenses. You are exposing the rear of the lens to the environment, and there is a small risk of damage to the rear lens-element. These are typically not coated with the same protective layers as the front-element. Second, you can try coupling two lenses together. This involves adding a second lens (typically a 50mm prime) to the first lens already on the camera. http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/forum_posts.asp?TID=27333&KW=&PID=286312#286312" rel="nofollow - Dorset Mike has a useful post on this technique The aperture on the second lens may have to be set manually or jammed (gulp) at the appropriate setting (wide open). This is also a cheap way to get a magnification effect. Note that the second lens is attached to the first lenses' filter thread, so the arrangement can be rather heavy. The arrangement is fairly cheap if you have a suitable lens, the first lens retains electrical contact with the camera (but not the second), and you can get high magnification ratios. Disadvantages are that the image is passing through a lot more lens elements so image quality can suffer if the lenses are low quality, and you have to get much closer to the subject. Also the weight of the system is awkward. Like the reversed-lens approach, focus is achieved by moving the camera back and forth until the subject is properly focused. Third, you can use bellows. I can do no better than to recommend the http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/forum_posts.asp?TID=27333&KW=&PID=285901#285901" rel="nofollow - Tpetpe's post on this and http://www.pbase.com/pganzel/bellows_for_maxxum_7d_sony_alpha_100" rel="nofollow - Pete Ganzel's homepage . Bellows are ideal for studio type shots, especially if you have stacking software to generate an image with a high DOF. Bellows are however, awkward in the field and especially for elusive subjects. Fourth, you can use extension tubes. An extension tube sits between the camera and the rear of the lens. There is no glass in the tube. It increases the distance between the sensor and the lens, increasing the magnification effect. Extension tubes can be constructed or bought. Commercial versions often retain electrical contacts, so the camera is still connected to the lens. If the tube is without electrical contacts you will have to manually set the aperture of your lens. Extension tubes are a straightforward and simple way to achieve magnification. There is no risk the image will be distorted by poor quality glass- because the tube doesn't have any! You have to get closer to the subject to focus the camera. It can be cumbersome to switch tubes in the field. You can compose and focus your shot with the aperture wide open. Fifth, you can use adapters or diopters. Diopters look like filters, are relatively cheap, and very portable. They are easy to add and remove in the field. In general however, image quality tends to suffer with diopters. Against this, you need to balance their ease of use and economy. Another advantage is you don't lose any f-stops with this technique. This means you aren't forced to shoot at a high ISO or have an aggressive lighting approach. To maintain image quality, one option is to get very high grade (achromat) diopters or adapters. Raynox for instance, makes several magnification options. Raynox adaptor with 6x diopter  Alpha camera with Raynox adapter  I've been using the Raynox option because it is quite portable to carry and generates effective pictures. It does restrict your ability to add a ringflash or light to the lens. It also produces serious vignetting with lenses with a diameter greater than 55mm. Note, all of these techniques can be used alongside a macro lens and do not have to be a replacement for it
The other elements of taking a good photo are lighting and stability. An external flash is in my experience, almost mandatory. Once you start increasing magnification and reducing apertures, there's not a lot of light coming through the lens. The on-board camera flash is typically too weak. The nice thing about the Sony alpha cameras is they come already set up for wireless shooting. I almost always use my flash in wireless mode off-camera to get more even lighting. Also, reflectors (pieces of white card- or even a paper-towel!) can improve the distribution of light. More expensive options include getting a ring-flash (which won't work if you don't have the lens filter-ring facing outwards, e.g. you reverse your lens) or a dedicated macro-flash kit. Having some cheap LED lights from a hardware store can also be set up to reduce harsh shadows. Not everything has to cost a lot of money, if you can work out what the appropriate solution should be. Many macro-photographers will acquire a tripod. This generates a lot of stability, but may not be a good option for fast moving subjects. If you invest in a tripod, it can be invaluable to have one that can be deployed very low to the ground. These tripods are often marketed as being specialised for macro photography. Other tricks to improving stability include using the camera's mirror lockup function or a remote commander to release the shutter. For handheld shots, the SSS function is handy. Also, sometimes you may be able to rest the camera on the ground or branch adjacent to the subject. Another useful tool is the macro-rail or rack. The camera is mounted on the macro-rail, and the setup is secured to a tripod. The macro-rail provides fine adjustments along 2-3 planes to the focus point. It helps to not have too much weight attached to the lens when making these adjustments. Ultimately, the most important element to a good macro-shot is the photographer. It is your skill base that will matter the most. Macro-photography, especially when you get to magnifications >1:1 have very narrow depths-of-field (DOF). Selecting a good lighting angle, a good focus plane etc, are skills you need to develop. A crucial element to this skill is holding the camera (hence sensor) parallel to the focal plane of the subject. This will maximise the focused area of the subject. And as you develop, you need to keep thinking about, and experimenting with the methods to achieve magnification, lighting and stability.
------------- α1, α7cii- Voigtländer 15/4.5, 110/2.5 M; Zeiss Loxia- 21/2.8, 35/2, 50/2 & 85/2.4, Zeiss Batis- 85/1.8 & 135/2.8; Sony 24-105/4 & 100-400/4.5-5.6; Sigma 70/2.8 M; Sony 135/2.8 STF |
Replies:
Posted By: brettania
Date Posted: 29 February 2008 at 02:07
|
Thanks for this chthoniid.
We get a lot of newbie-type of enquiries, and this will be an excellent "primer" for them. It has been indexed under Articles (top of the left column on most pages). ------------- http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/posting-images-and-links-faqs_topic28010.html - Posting Images and Links | http://tinyurl.com/oz62mfp - Posts awaiting answers |
Posted By: dogears
Date Posted: 29 February 2008 at 02:10
 for the write-up  ------------- http://shutteredlight.blogspot.com - woof! |
Posted By: superx2won
Date Posted: 29 February 2008 at 04:41
|
Just curious,... extension tube + diopters + tripod.. With this configuration, will i get a bigger magnification and quality image? ------------- A900 + A65 + KM 7D + Maxxum 9 + S16-105 Learn repairing Minolta lens --> Join my http://www.photography-lab.com" rel="nofollow - Photography-lab.com blog for step by step guide |
Posted By: brettania
Date Posted: 29 February 2008 at 05:11
Obviously magnification will increase, but in terms of quality a lot would depend on the inherent IQ of the lens and the diopters. The use of a tripod will certainly help if you want to work at low ISOs, or use longer exposures because the subject is in dark surroundings. ------------- http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/posting-images-and-links-faqs_topic28010.html - Posting Images and Links | http://tinyurl.com/oz62mfp - Posts awaiting answers |
superx2won wrote:Posted By: Wētāpunga
Date Posted: 29 February 2008 at 05:55
|
An extension tube plus diopter setup will increase magnification. Nonetheless, as you push the limits of magnification there are two obstacles to sustaining image quality. The first is that you risk out-resolving the sensor on your camera. It may not be fine enough to record the detail you're after. The second is you will need even more light coming through the lens. If your camera has to compensate by increasing the ISO value, the noise-level of the photo will be inflated.
High magnifications of course, will inflate any camera shake so this would also have to be taken into account. ------------- α1, α7cii- Voigtländer 15/4.5, 110/2.5 M; Zeiss Loxia- 21/2.8, 35/2, 50/2 & 85/2.4, Zeiss Batis- 85/1.8 & 135/2.8; Sony 24-105/4 & 100-400/4.5-5.6; Sigma 70/2.8 M; Sony 135/2.8 STF |
Posted By: polyglot
Date Posted: 29 February 2008 at 06:38
|
thanks for the writeup, chthoniid! Do you have links to examples of stacking software for building more DOF?
Out-resolving the sensor is never a problem, you'll still always capture as much information as the sensor is capable of! The only problem with resolution is when the optical arrangement doesn't have enough. The problem is that when designing a lens, it is corrected for spherical aberration and these corrections (depending on how they're applied) work best within a certain range of focus distances. So as you increase magnification via increased extension, you are likely to encounter softness. Some lenses don't have a very good min-focus distance - sometimes this will be due to mechanical constraints, but sometimes it's just that the sharpness at high magnifications of some lens designs is poor. With a dedicated macro lens that should be corrected all the way up to 1:1, you shouldn't encounter softness until very high magnifications like 3:1 (i.e. an 8mm subject on APS). However if you put a normal lens (say a 50/1.7) on extension tubes or bellows, the magnification will go up but the image quality may be poor as the focus distance gets very very short. As a further note, extension tubes are typically more effective (in terms of magnification gained) on shorter lenses, http://focusonpictures.com/photography/extension.html - for example . ------------- C&C always welcome ex- http://www.brodie-tyrrell.org/pad/ - Pic-A-Day https://www.flickr.com/photos/24125157@N00/ - on flickr |
Posted By: Wētāpunga
Date Posted: 29 February 2008 at 07:46
I've heard about- and seen good things- with CombineZ5. It's popularity may owe something to the fact it's free  , but even so, a simple interface and fairly intelligent stacking system has much to recommend it. I really haven't done much comparisons of different software. My subjects are usally moving around a bit too much to get a good sequence.
Thanks for the elaboration on lens design- so basically most lenses aren't optimised for high magnifications, but macro lenses are more likely to sustain performance as the magnification climbs. I think the trick to macro-photography is often not the technical side of pushing the magnification higher and higher. It's often appreciating what will make a good shot and what you need to get it- lighting and stability issues are easy to overlook. ------------- α1, α7cii- Voigtländer 15/4.5, 110/2.5 M; Zeiss Loxia- 21/2.8, 35/2, 50/2 & 85/2.4, Zeiss Batis- 85/1.8 & 135/2.8; Sony 24-105/4 & 100-400/4.5-5.6; Sigma 70/2.8 M; Sony 135/2.8 STF |
Posted By: dogears
Date Posted: 29 February 2008 at 08:20
Next write-up: Macro Panning  ------------- http://shutteredlight.blogspot.com - woof! |
Posted By: superx2won
Date Posted: 29 February 2008 at 09:56
|
Thansk you : Chthoniid and other dyxum member. The explaination do help me to understand more on marco photography.
I am so excited to learn on Macro. Go go go : macro Panning.. ------------- A900 + A65 + KM 7D + Maxxum 9 + S16-105 Learn repairing Minolta lens --> Join my http://www.photography-lab.com" rel="nofollow - Photography-lab.com blog for step by step guide |
Posted By: dilettante
Date Posted: 29 February 2008 at 10:13
|
Excellent summary chthoniid.
I question one part:
I don't think this is the case. On board flashes are typically GN12, good enough for a portrait or to fill a small room, so lighting a spider at 30cm should be no problem. The issue is directing and diffusing the light to the subject, as the pop-up flash is not well placed for illuminating something very close to the lens. ------------- http://www.pbase.com/dilettante/" rel="nofollow - dilettante galleries @ pbase.com |
Posted By: brettania
Date Posted: 29 February 2008 at 11:41
|
Another good source of reference on the use of bellows with KM and Sony dSLRs is in Dyxum member http://www.pbase.com/pganzel/bellows_for_maxxum_7d_sony_alpha_100 - Pete Ganzel's homepages.
This perhaps could be incorporated in the OP. ------------- http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/posting-images-and-links-faqs_topic28010.html - Posting Images and Links | http://tinyurl.com/oz62mfp - Posts awaiting answers |
Posted By: Dinostrich
Date Posted: 29 February 2008 at 12:04
|
Worth bearing in mind the benefits that can accrue from using either the AngleFinder Vn or the Magnifier Vn in certain circumstances. ------------- I shot some film yesterday. I was told last night that film was dead so today I shot some more. |
Posted By: Wētāpunga
Date Posted: 29 February 2008 at 21:15
Thanks- I'm really trying to touch on the main points as a lot of these issues would merit threads of their own! Macro-photography can be a lot of fun, as often you don't have to travel far to find subjects. Also a lot of people like seeing the detail on small plants and animals they would not usually see. I tend to approach macro-photography with a great deal of enthusiasm and a little bit of science! Even so, there is a bit more to the genre than getting a good macro-lens and snapping away  .
------------- α1, α7cii- Voigtländer 15/4.5, 110/2.5 M; Zeiss Loxia- 21/2.8, 35/2, 50/2 & 85/2.4, Zeiss Batis- 85/1.8 & 135/2.8; Sony 24-105/4 & 100-400/4.5-5.6; Sigma 70/2.8 M; Sony 135/2.8 STF |
Posted By: Wētāpunga
Date Posted: 01 March 2008 at 01:09
Thanks for the response- it can be hard deciding what to leave out in such pieces. I found that taking side-by-side shots with the on-board flash vs an external, the camera would (often) double the ISO with the on-board. It may be sufficient to illuminate the subject, but it didn't seem comparable to the external in perfomance. For night-time arthropod shots (which I'll concede aren't typical!) the on-board flash was even more disappointing. I agree that the position the flash doesn't help- you have a very restrictive zone to illuminate and this is pretty frustrating. This low angle can also accentuate dark shadow areas. You've got no options to change the flash angle. So I'm a strong advocate for using an external flash for macro-photography .------------- α1, α7cii- Voigtländer 15/4.5, 110/2.5 M; Zeiss Loxia- 21/2.8, 35/2, 50/2 & 85/2.4, Zeiss Batis- 85/1.8 & 135/2.8; Sony 24-105/4 & 100-400/4.5-5.6; Sigma 70/2.8 M; Sony 135/2.8 STF |
Posted By: BackToSlr
Date Posted: 01 March 2008 at 01:46
Excellent article chthoniid. I would add some sample pictures using the recommended techniques. That would let newbies gauge for themselves, the advantages for each one of them. Ideally the same picture is shot using different techniques, but just adding existing samples will do too. Another interesting aspect would be adding the tripod choice related section. Thanks for the work. Cheers, N ------------- Sony + Minolta + NEX stuff... |
Posted By: momech
Date Posted: 01 March 2008 at 01:55
| I was surprised that you didn't mention the use of TCs, sometimes in combination with extension tubes, in the magnification discussion. I don't have a lot of experience with this kind of set up, but I know some do use it. |
Posted By: dilettante
Date Posted: 01 March 2008 at 09:38
Oh yes, no arguments from me with any of that. Using on board flash is not to be recommended for macro. But it's not the weakness of the flash that's the problem, that was my pedantic point. ------------- http://www.pbase.com/dilettante/" rel="nofollow - dilettante galleries @ pbase.com |
Posted By: Wētāpunga
Date Posted: 02 March 2008 at 08:34
Yes, fwiw I have a magnifier. It's a great tool to have when you really want to hit your chosen focus point with more precision. Sometimes it can make a shot. The angle-finder is also quite handy if you're doing shots from angles close to the ground. I did ponder discussing them in the article . But felt that keeping the opening post 'tightly themed' was better.------------- α1, α7cii- Voigtländer 15/4.5, 110/2.5 M; Zeiss Loxia- 21/2.8, 35/2, 50/2 & 85/2.4, Zeiss Batis- 85/1.8 & 135/2.8; Sony 24-105/4 & 100-400/4.5-5.6; Sigma 70/2.8 M; Sony 135/2.8 STF |
Posted By: Bob J
Date Posted: 03 March 2008 at 00:42
|
I just took possession of a 49-55mm coupling ring and was trying it out on my Sony 100/2.8 Macro - without a coupled reversed lens I can fill the frame with 22mm of a ruler - by reversing a Pentax 50/1.7 on the front of the lens I can get down to 6.5mm (well over 3:1 - not far off 4:1).
Has to be said that DoF is rather thin at that distance though, and there is not much in the way of working distance from the subject... ------------- RBJ ~ http://tinyurl.com/h7uhozk - Moderation on Dyxum |
Posted By: Wētāpunga
Date Posted: 03 March 2008 at 01:45
Thanks- I had pondered including test shots. The problem though is that I've been 'cajoled' since January to write something up , and test shots would have postponed (probably indefinitely) the piece.
Plus a lot depends on context. A bellows shot should surpass many of the other techniques in IQ but it may be impractical (or just not feasible) in many cases. Setting up a bellows in the middle of the night in NZ bush to get a spider moving around in her web, presents some logistical challenges I'm not sure could handle. Of course, some people used to use bellows for spider shots in the bush, so it's not impossible. If the technique requires getting really close to the subject, (coupled lenses, some reversed lenses), then again- irrespective of image quality- this may not be practical for the subjects. Not that I'd want to discourage people posting such test shots , just that there's a lot more to selecting a macro-method than the image quality.
Tripod choice is alo intersting- all I can say is that I'd look for something that can support a lot of weight (once you add macro racks and hang things off the end of your lens, it pressures the head-performance. Going low is good- how parralel can you get the legs to the ground. And some macro tripods have the added feature you can mount the camera on the bottom of the centre-mount rather than the top. So far I've been well served by the Cullmann 3350, but I wish it had a rotating mechanism to move the centre column up or down. It works with a release switch to pull it up or down in a less than smooth 'jerk'. Other than that- it's been pretty good. ------------- α1, α7cii- Voigtländer 15/4.5, 110/2.5 M; Zeiss Loxia- 21/2.8, 35/2, 50/2 & 85/2.4, Zeiss Batis- 85/1.8 & 135/2.8; Sony 24-105/4 & 100-400/4.5-5.6; Sigma 70/2.8 M; Sony 135/2.8 STF |
Posted By: albnok
Date Posted: 03 March 2008 at 07:16
| I can't seem to get the aperture to hold when pressing the DOF Preview button and the lens release button on my Minolta 50mm F1.4 and Sony A700. I thought this technique only applies for Canon lenses? |
Posted By: dogears
Date Posted: 03 March 2008 at 07:41
Well put :) ------------- http://shutteredlight.blogspot.com - woof! |
Posted By: Wētāpunga
Date Posted: 03 March 2008 at 08:02
Hmm, I haven't tried with the α700, but it seemed to work with the α100 when I tried it. I'll give it a try tomorrow and let you know how I get on. ------------- α1, α7cii- Voigtländer 15/4.5, 110/2.5 M; Zeiss Loxia- 21/2.8, 35/2, 50/2 & 85/2.4, Zeiss Batis- 85/1.8 & 135/2.8; Sony 24-105/4 & 100-400/4.5-5.6; Sigma 70/2.8 M; Sony 135/2.8 STF |
Posted By: Wētāpunga
Date Posted: 03 March 2008 at 08:26
I guess the reason being that adding TC's to the setup still isn't very common. Obviously the optical quality of the TC would have to be taken into account, and I'm not sure what the gain is compared say, to just getting a longer extension tube. That said, I'd be interested to learn of other people's experience with this setup . I've never attempted using a TC to increase magnification. ------------- α1, α7cii- Voigtländer 15/4.5, 110/2.5 M; Zeiss Loxia- 21/2.8, 35/2, 50/2 & 85/2.4, Zeiss Batis- 85/1.8 & 135/2.8; Sony 24-105/4 & 100-400/4.5-5.6; Sigma 70/2.8 M; Sony 135/2.8 STF |
Posted By: polyglot
Date Posted: 03 March 2008 at 23:51
|
The gain being that you don't need to get closer for that additional magnification. And if you have a long macro lens (e.g. 180mm), the extension tubes have very little effect whereas a TC will still get you 1.4x or 2x - with quality loss but perhaps no/not-much more loss than would be had by focusing closer than the lens was designed to.
Can't say it's something I've done though as 1:1 has been enough for me so far. I'll certainly be trying extension tubes first though when I do need the extra. ------------- C&C always welcome ex- http://www.brodie-tyrrell.org/pad/ - Pic-A-Day https://www.flickr.com/photos/24125157@N00/ - on flickr |
Posted By: fother
Date Posted: 04 March 2008 at 00:01
|
Yep, a 1.4 TC on a 200 macro is actually very sharp. Manual focus, but worth trying. Happy to provide examples if it's helpful |
Posted By: Wētāpunga
Date Posted: 04 March 2008 at 05:01
I reversed a beercan successfully with the α700, and the aperture could be manually fixed by pressing the DOF and lens release button at the same time. It was trickier than the α100 and took a couple of goes to get right. ------------- α1, α7cii- Voigtländer 15/4.5, 110/2.5 M; Zeiss Loxia- 21/2.8, 35/2, 50/2 & 85/2.4, Zeiss Batis- 85/1.8 & 135/2.8; Sony 24-105/4 & 100-400/4.5-5.6; Sigma 70/2.8 M; Sony 135/2.8 STF |
Posted By: albnok
Date Posted: 04 March 2008 at 05:49
|
I tried with my beercan too. No success!
The 50mm F1.4 is easy to see when you press both at the same time - when you dismount it, you can see the aperture lever loosen and the aperture blades close slowly. Tried different combinations and different timings. Unless you have weak springs inside your lens, the aperture blades should automatically close down when dismounted. My objective is to get a 50mm F1.4 off and keep it wide open for use in reverse (or to peek inside to look for fungus). Show us pictures of a Minolta AF lens with its aperture wide open, while dismounted! |
Posted By: Dorset Mike
Date Posted: 27 March 2008 at 12:49
|
Hi the easiest way I found was to convert a lens cap (for the body end)as shown in this Pete Ganzel http://www.pbase.com/pganzel/reverse_mount_aperture_control_maxxum_lenses - "shows you how"
Works very well for me. ------------- Cheers MIKE, 5D, A350: 50/1.7; 28-75/2.8;80-200/2.8 APO Kit; 500/8; Tam 17-50/2.8; 18-280; 70-300/4-5.6: 90/2.8; MC7 2X; Tokina 11-16/2.8: 80-400/4-5.6; Kenko 1.4X: Min A200 bridge |
Posted By: Wētāpunga
Date Posted: 09 May 2008 at 06:48
|
Some sample pictures, first up, with the 90mm tamron, a cheap $50 second-hand flash, a Minolta 50/1.4 lens, a macro coupling ring, and err, a macro focusing rail...
Here is the original photo, shot with a 90mm Tamron and α700 (and manual flash). 
The 100% crop is as follows- 
I then coupled a 50/1.4 lens to the Tamron. I jammed the aperture wide open. Here's the image. 
The 100% crop is as follows: 
Contrast the magnification to 100% crop shot above. ------------- α1, α7cii- Voigtländer 15/4.5, 110/2.5 M; Zeiss Loxia- 21/2.8, 35/2, 50/2 & 85/2.4, Zeiss Batis- 85/1.8 & 135/2.8; Sony 24-105/4 & 100-400/4.5-5.6; Sigma 70/2.8 M; Sony 135/2.8 STF |
Posted By: eccles
Date Posted: 09 May 2008 at 14:29
|
It's worth mentioning that while adding extension tubes is more effective at short focal lengths, adding a close up lens is more effective at longer focal lengths.
I have a Canon 500D +2 dioptre achromat that is very effective on a beercan. Magnification depends on the zoom setting but is about 1:1.5 maximum. This is fine for butterflies and damselflies, the quality is pretty good, and the working distance is far enough away to be able to use the onboard flash. Here's a recent example, a green hairstreak butterfly using A700, Beercan + Canon 500D. 
|
Posted By: LECHER
Date Posted: 28 May 2008 at 19:20
|
Thank you for the info. I recently acquired a Minolta Auto Bellows III for the MD series lens and have also picked up some MD lenses and an MD to A mount adapter. This works great for me. Though I have to ask a silly question. Is it better to have an adapter with or without glass? Mine has Glass (1) but seems to do the job well. Keep up the good work Admiral and will talk to you soon. ------------- |
Posted By: topazlizz
Date Posted: 28 July 2008 at 20:24
|
Having completed the macro without macro assignment whetted my appetite for macro photography. I did some with diopters, that turned out good only on a very steady tripod, but I'm the sort of person that will normally sneak around with my camera at the ready rather than patiently setting up a tripod. I then reversed a 50/1,7 MD lens and held it to my camera (as I had been dumb enough to buy a reverse ring with the wrong diameter), set the ISO and the speed, and then used my finger to regulate the aperture spring on the end of the lens. This was great for me as I got immediate feedback on the aperture setting just by seeing the amount of light coming through. I was also surprised that the pictures came out so sharp when I managed to move in just right, in spite of everything being hand-held.
There's no composition in the pictures though, beyond "oh dear oh dear, hope it doesn't fly up and sting me!" 
Now to my question: what is the difference in reversing a 50mm lens compared with, say a 135mm? Can that be done, and would it mean I could step away from the shifty creatures an inch or two, or is it the oppposite? I'm not about to start jamming AF lenses but thought that if I know how the maths work i could probably buy a manual lens or two quite cheaply for macro work. I collected insects and all sorts of little creatures when I was a child and can't seem to shake my fascination for them (though i hate wasps). Oh, and thanks for the excellent info so far! Really well explained! ------------- Liz A700, A350, KM7D and too many (?) lenses. http://www.topazlizz.smugmug.com - My Smugmug |
Posted By: topazlizz
Date Posted: 28 July 2008 at 20:29
Hmmm, is that wasp a fly?  ------------- Liz A700, A350, KM7D and too many (?) lenses. http://www.topazlizz.smugmug.com - My Smugmug |
Posted By: Wētāpunga
Date Posted: 28 July 2008 at 21:25
No, that wasp is a wasp ------------- α1, α7cii- Voigtländer 15/4.5, 110/2.5 M; Zeiss Loxia- 21/2.8, 35/2, 50/2 & 85/2.4, Zeiss Batis- 85/1.8 & 135/2.8; Sony 24-105/4 & 100-400/4.5-5.6; Sigma 70/2.8 M; Sony 135/2.8 STF |
Posted By: topazlizz
Date Posted: 28 July 2008 at 21:49
|
Oh good. That means I wasn't scared for nothing!
------------- Liz A700, A350, KM7D and too many (?) lenses. http://www.topazlizz.smugmug.com - My Smugmug |
Posted By: topazlizz
Date Posted: 31 July 2008 at 20:08
|
Would appreciate if someone could tell me if a reversed, say, 135mm is better or worse than a 50mm? Will it focus closer or further away or not at all?
Can't afford a proper macro lens just yet.  ------------- Liz A700, A350, KM7D and too many (?) lenses. http://www.topazlizz.smugmug.com - My Smugmug |
Posted By: Wētāpunga
Date Posted: 31 July 2008 at 23:14
I'm not sure about this lens specifically. On the beercan, I got maximum magnification at 70mm, but have to focus further away (with lower magnification) as the FL increases. I couldn't get a satisfactory focus at 135mm. The 50mm is often the lens of choice for reversing- probably for a good reason .
Have you thought about coupling a 50mm to the 135mm? |
Posted By: albnok
Date Posted: 01 August 2008 at 04:16
|
topazlizz, in theory a 135mm would give you more working distance and lets you focus on a further away subject.
However, the 50mm is a favorite because it's small and the rear element is big, preventing vignetting. Well my 24mm reversed vignettes. Not sure about the 135mm. |
Posted By: waleskeg
Date Posted: 01 August 2008 at 05:12
|
Topazlizz, albnok is correct, I just tried a 135 MD reversed on my bellows setup which I have not yet been successful with yet and the distance with the 135 is a few feet where the others are where you are on top of the subject. A guy I have on my flickr contacts list is unreal with his stuff, he actually has a photo of his setup one or two pages in:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/7539598@N04/ - http://www.flickr.com/photos/7539598@N04/ By the way topazlizz, how's that 50mm doing I sold awhile back? Ken ------------- http://www.flickr.com/photos/kenwales - http://www.flickr.com/photos/kenwales |
Posted By: topazlizz
Date Posted: 01 August 2008 at 20:44
|
Hi Ken!
Great to see you here! Thanks, the 50mm is treated as it deserves, like a gem. It was invaluable at my youngest daughter's birthday party as I didn't have to mess things up with a flash. To be honest, I'm probably not using it as much as I could as I haven't explored all the possibilities yet, but I love it! It is not the lens I'm hand-holding reversed for macro, though, I'd hate to expose it like that. I have an MD 50mm that I picked up for a song for that. Thanks, chthoniid and albnok for your replies, it helps to know how these things work. I haven't started thinking about reversing a lens on another yet, I'd have to learn a bit more before trying that, how to couple them together for a start. Half the time I feel I'm running before I can walk anyway, so sometimes I need to put the brakes on. I think I probably need to invest in a real macro lens... ------------- Liz A700, A350, KM7D and too many (?) lenses. http://www.topazlizz.smugmug.com - My Smugmug |
Posted By: keith_h
Date Posted: 11 August 2008 at 12:25
|
Excellent resource, thank you. ------------- http://gallery.heinrich.id.au - My gallery http://gallery.heinrich.id.au/gear - A700 x2, A99, other stuff |
Posted By: alpha_in_exile
Date Posted: 14 August 2008 at 20:54
|
Here's a sample shot with a Minolta MD Rokkor 50mm/1.4 reversed on a beercan, handheld (A100, ISO 400, 1/100s at f/4, zoom FL at 75mm). The subject is the decorative pattern on the end of a stainless steel butter knife -- it's high reflectivity helped keep the shutter speed up, a darker subject would've been harder to shoot under these conditions). Converted from RAW, no sharpening or PP, just a resize.
The little flower is about 5mm in diameter. 
There was a little camera shake, I think (remember this was handheld), but it is only noticeable at 100%. Still, it looks like you could get a good, sharp image with the use of a tripod, or in better light. Two 100% crops follow. Notice how narrow the DOF is (see second crop especially). 
 ------------- -- Matt A7RM4, Min 24/2.8, Min 50/1.4, FE 24/1.4 GM, FE 50/1.2 GM, FE 135/1.8 GM, FE 70-200/2.8 GM II http://mattbarber.zenfolio.com/ - my web gallery |
Posted By: brian33
Date Posted: 19 November 2008 at 10:40
|
Very interesting topic and which has gotten my little gears spinning and thinking about macro photography. So I went to a camera store yesterday and I saw a used Sony 50mm macro lens for 300 euros.
My question is: are there any advantages to a 50mm macro lens over a 100mm macro lens other than smaller size and lower price? (Though I'm not sure the 300 euros is such a good deal even though it was in perfect condition.) |
Posted By: dilettante
Date Posted: 19 November 2008 at 15:32
50mm is considered a more 'normal' field of view, but the disadvantage is that working distance gets very small, i.e. for a given level of magnification, you'll need to be a lot closer to your subject with a 50mm lens than with 100mm. That can mean it's hard to light your subject, and if it's a live subject, you may end up scaring it off. I'd say only consider 50mm macro if you want to take studio shots of static subjects. ------------- http://www.pbase.com/dilettante/" rel="nofollow - dilettante galleries @ pbase.com |
Posted By: brian33
Date Posted: 19 November 2008 at 22:37
Thanks! The other thing is I have a minolta 50mm 1.7 which I don't like because I have a hard time shooting around the chromatic abberation and it's not a terribly sharp lens either so replacing it with the Sony macro would give me a respectable 2.8 and much sharper. But what you're telling me about the advantages of 100mm (or 135 I suppose) make a 100mm macro sound much more appealing and versatile for the macro aspect. |
Posted By: Wētāpunga
Date Posted: 19 November 2008 at 22:45
|
50mm is more common for studio and flower shots.
Something around 100mm is normally regarded as the most versatile macro lens. So it's probably the best starting point. If you like macro photography, you can branch out from there (i.e. get something shorter, get something longer etc). If you are not intended to use the macro primarily as a macro, then there are other nice 50mm options. Both the older Minolta 50/1.4 and the more recent Sony 50/1.4 could be worth a look. |
Posted By: Dorset Mike
Date Posted: 19 November 2008 at 23:35
|
THe 50mm reversed direct onto the camera should give about 1:1, a 28mm gives about 2:1 the 18-70 kit lens at 18mm gives about 4.5:1, but at only a few mm working distance
This page is a good reference even though it is aimed at Nikon users http://www.nikonlinks.com/unklbil/macro_adapter.htm#reversing - click here ------------- Cheers MIKE, 5D, A350: 50/1.7; 28-75/2.8;80-200/2.8 APO Kit; 500/8; Tam 17-50/2.8; 18-280; 70-300/4-5.6: 90/2.8; MC7 2X; Tokina 11-16/2.8: 80-400/4-5.6; Kenko 1.4X: Min A200 bridge |
Posted By: Blame
Date Posted: 28 October 2010 at 14:35
|
Optimal is to mount a reversed lens on an extension tube.
As example. If you want a 5X magnification you set the focus so that it would give 1/5 magnification, and mount it so the distance from lens to sensor is the same as it would be from lens to subject if normally mounted. The working distance used like this is always going to be the normal distance from back of lens to sensor. Something around 3cm? This way the lens is always operating as designed. Sort of. It is going to give maximum IQ possible for the lens. Used this way the minimum magnification becomes the 1/x where x was was the lens's maximum magnification used normally. Reversing is best for when you want greater than 1X magnification. If you don't start with some sort of macro lens then perhaps a lot greater. A 50mm macro might be a good starting point. |
Posted By: keith_h
Date Posted: 03 July 2011 at 03:03
|
Adding a link with more useful information. http://beingmark.com/macro-illustrated/" rel="nofollow - Macro Link ------------- http://gallery.heinrich.id.au - My gallery http://gallery.heinrich.id.au/gear - A700 x2, A99, other stuff |
Posted By: Bob J
Date Posted: 18 October 2012 at 18:08
|
Bumping this (very useful) thread, as it has lots of useful info about shooting macro.. ------------- RBJ ~ http://tinyurl.com/h7uhozk - Moderation on Dyxum |
Posted By: Gary C
Date Posted: 27 July 2013 at 04:21
|
I thank the author of this article for writing it. I recently saw, and purchased a Minolta bellows set, along with a MD-MA adapter ring, and included a Vivitar 200mm f/3.5 lens. Need to stand back four [bad word filtered] ' feet from the subject, but it does work. I'm going to be looking to replace the 200mm with a 35 or 50mm Minolta MD lens. Also, I'm looking at getting a set of tube rings, since I can't get my KM 7D to attach to the bellows. There's a spot on the camera that interferes and gets in the way. I think if I put one ring in there, I should be able to move the camera back far enough to get it on. My A58 doesn't have any problems getting on, though. But, I don't have the ADP-MAA flash adapter yet, so I can't program my 3600HS for off camera use with the A58. I think this will be fun, although I was told I've opened a Pandora's box. We'll see. Gary ------------- Minolta 7D, Sony A58, Several Lenses and Growing |
Posted By: Wētāpunga
Date Posted: 27 July 2013 at 05:53
Thanks- I'm glad you found it useful :) ------------- α1, α7cii- Voigtländer 15/4.5, 110/2.5 M; Zeiss Loxia- 21/2.8, 35/2, 50/2 & 85/2.4, Zeiss Batis- 85/1.8 & 135/2.8; Sony 24-105/4 & 100-400/4.5-5.6; Sigma 70/2.8 M; Sony 135/2.8 STF |
Posted By: balacau
Date Posted: 27 July 2013 at 09:02
|
This thread is certainly making for some very interesting reading and should (hopefully) get me motivated to take more macro pictures as I have been neglecting the subject somewhat. Curiously enough, I was looking up any information I could find on the Sony angle finder last night and was wondering if this bit of kit is actually compatible with my a57? That being said, the a580 is often my choice for macro shots anyway so would it work on either of those? Best regards Gavin ------------- Understanding is a 3-edged sword. Your side, their side and the truth. |
Posted By: AutumnRose
Date Posted: 27 July 2013 at 15:06
|
The angle finder is compatible with both cameras. If you type in FDA-A1AM on Sony's site under support, you'll find compatibility charts for accessories. ------------- Kathi A900, A77, A37, A700, A580, NEX6, 800si, Maxxum 5 and a few lenses |
Posted By: james2441139
Date Posted: 17 September 2013 at 17:46
|
I do have a Mino 50mm 2.8 macro. Wish to get closer to 2:1 magnification now. What do you guys suggest? Extension tubes, close-up lens (like Raynox DCr-250), or a combo of these? FYI, I am interested primarily in static subject macro. Also, speaking of tubes, I read somewhere that they work best with FL 50mm or less. How is that can anybody explain? Thanks a lot. |
Posted By: Wētāpunga
Date Posted: 17 September 2013 at 22:11
|
Hi- if lighting is not an issue, then extension tubes are often ideal. As they don't have any 'glass' of their own, image quality is barely compromised. It's easier to attach macro flashes to them also, as the thread is preserved. If you're going to use a close-up lens then the Raynox ones are excellent. Failing that, you'd want to get a high quality achromat diopter. The challenge with the Raynox is that its universal 'adapter' gets in the way of attaching macro flashes to the end of the lens. (I got around this by rigging up my own adapter that would). ------------- α1, α7cii- Voigtländer 15/4.5, 110/2.5 M; Zeiss Loxia- 21/2.8, 35/2, 50/2 & 85/2.4, Zeiss Batis- 85/1.8 & 135/2.8; Sony 24-105/4 & 100-400/4.5-5.6; Sigma 70/2.8 M; Sony 135/2.8 STF |
Posted By: james2441139
Date Posted: 17 September 2013 at 23:05
|
Doing some calculations, I found that for a 50mm lens with a full set of 68mm tubes, I can get about 1.5:1 magnification. If I combine the 50mm macro plus the tubes with a Raynox and use twin flash, how do you think that'll work out? How is the setup for pics like this? http://ursispaltenstein.ch/blog/images/uploads_img/waterdrop_macros_2.jpg and http://us.123rf.com/400wm/400/400/trancedrumer/trancedrumer1103/trancedrumer110300009/9141258-water-drop-splashing-macro-with-waves.jpg |
Posted By: kurja
Date Posted: 20 September 2013 at 11:40
| If you have a "full set" of extension tubes on the rear of a 50mm lens, working distance is already minimal, adding a raynox 250 wouldn't really work. Do you have all these items so you could just try? If not, let me know and I'll try it. Anyway, those close-up filters like the raynox one are more useful on longer lenses, think 200mm. |
Posted By: james2441139
Date Posted: 20 September 2013 at 21:49
I have a Mino 50mm/2.8 macro that I wanted to use on my A900 with possibly extension tubes and/or the Raynox. I do not have the tubes or the Raynox. If you have these, can you please try and share your thoughts on the pros and cons? Thanks. |
Posted By: kurja
Date Posted: 23 September 2013 at 21:10
Sure. In my opinion, the raynox is worthless if used with a 50mm lens, it really needs a longer lens to go with. I like using tubes; they seem like the easy, affordable solution. It's a plus for them that they don't really affect your image quality as there are no extra lenses, they're just empty tubes. Downside is that you lose a lot of light and focusing can be very difficult if your subject isn't well lit (even with a 1.4 lens). I just snapped a few pictures to illustrate the differences. All handheld et cetera, do not look for image quality. First one, is with both, tubes and the raynox, on a 50/2.8. Distance between subject and lens is minimal, it was actually touching the raynox's filter threads, distance to lens at the center was probably <5mm. Second one, only with extension tubes on the same lens. You'll see that the magnification isn't so much different, which is a bit of a surprise maybe. Working distance improved to something like 3cm between subject and lens. It's worth a mention here, that with extension tubes you could use a normal 50 instead of a macro - you do get a little closer with a macro 50, but not as much as one might assume. Third pic in the first link is with a 300mm and the Raynox. Magnification still in the same general ballpark, but working distance is vastly improved, I'd guess to about 12cm. Handholding and focusing is... tricky, to say the least. Fourth picture in the first link was taken with a 50mm macro without tubes or any other extra bits (just to show the diffference in magnification). The second link is to a (cropped) picture I took with a non-macro 50 and extensions, and a picture with telephoto lens and raynox. My only telephoto lens is a sigma 70-300 4-5.6 1:2 macro which is an abysmal lens, so if I want detail I go for the 50, but if I need the working distance I get the 300 and raynox. I suspect you could get very good detail with raynox if you had a decent telephoto lens. All pics taken on aps bodies. If you want me to try some other setup, just let me know! https://plus.google.com/photos/100318876908742179238/albums/5926905083344271153?authkey=CLyC-omllNrtSg - https://plus.google.com/photos/100318876908742179238/albums/5926905083344271153?authkey=CLyC-omllNrtSg https://plus.google.com/photos/100318876908742179238/albums/5793711568415921841?authkey=CNX2svObxMDQHQ - https://plus.google.com/photos/100318876908742179238/albums/5793711568415921841?authkey=CNX2svObxMDQHQ edit - almost forgot, added a picture with 50mm and the raynox 250 without any extension rings. |
Posted By: brettania
Date Posted: 25 September 2013 at 02:39
|
@ kurja -- made those two links live, Suggest you read "Posting images and links" in my signature. ------------- http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/posting-images-and-links-faqs_topic28010.html - Posting Images and Links | http://tinyurl.com/oz62mfp - Posts awaiting answers |
Posted By: james2441139
Date Posted: 25 September 2013 at 05:31
| Tried this setup myself with 50/2.8 and a full set of tubes. Its literally almost touching the tip of the lens. I guess ex. tubes are good for macros with 100mm or more focal lengths, even though the magnification is not much? |
Posted By: Lagrimon
Date Posted: 25 September 2013 at 06:04
|
Magnification with tubes: M=[(MlxF)+E]/F Where: M= Magnification Ml= magnification of the lens alone F= lens focal length (mm) E= total extension tubes (mm) A single 25mm tube on The Sigma 10-20 would make the subject to be inside the lens to be focused. Don't try to use tubes longer than the lens you use. ------------- Macroine addicted, not natural to english language. |
Posted By: kurja
Date Posted: 25 September 2013 at 09:38
hmm to each his own I guess, regardless of what you do with extensions, diopters or the like, you're always trading between magnification and working distance. To increase distance without giving up magnification, use longer lenses. |
Posted By: thornburg
Date Posted: 25 September 2013 at 14:15
This can't always be true. I've used a bellows with a 50mm lens and extended the bellows well past 50mm and still had focus distance approximately 1cm in front of the front element. ------------- Sony a3000, a6000, a57, a99 - Sony E 16-50, 28/2 | Vivitar 13, 85 | Minolta 24, 28-105, 35-105, 50/1.7, 75-300 | Tokina 28-70/2.6-2.8 | Sigma 70/2.8 Macro | Tamron 70-200/2.8 | Celestron 1000/11 |
Posted By: Bob Maddison
Date Posted: 25 September 2013 at 16:57
|
All of the optics calculations of magnification and extension tubes break down when you are using a zoom lens. This can be considered, simplistically, to be like a telescope with an "eyepiece" and an "objective" lens with avariable element in between. The "eyepiece" being nearest the sensor, the effect of extension tubes is determined by its optical characteristics NOT by the combination. Thus with most zoom lenses, a short extension will have a big effect on near focus distance and hence magnification. Thus although extension tubes (and bellows) will work with a zoom lens, their effect will be very difficult to predict. However, with a prime lens using normal extension focusing the effects are much more predictable. But a macro lens using internal focusing will act more like a zoom in this respect. The 10 - 20 mm lens mentioned earlier is very long wrt. the shortest focal length and this will severely reduce the magnification obtainable with the subject still in front of the lens You can test these effect simply by detaching the lens from the camera and holding it a few millimeters in front of the flange. Even disengaging the bayonet is often enough to demonstrate the effect. Crude, but it could save you the expense of extension tubes that might not work as you think. |