macro tips?

[skyline315]

The 60mm Nikkor 2.8 costs about $350, and a 2x teleconverter to go with it runs another $200. This will give you a 2:1 magnification with no additional accessories. I use the 60mm lens as much for general shooting as I do for macros, so you could sell your 50mm lens. The 105mm sells for about $575, and also excels when used with a 2x teleconverter. Both are great lenses. I use the 60mm and teleconverter for insect photography with great results.

If you go with close-up diopters, you could try them on either lens. You possibly could get better results with the 50mm. You'll find that even high quality diopters give really unpredicable results. Some with work really well on one lens and poorly on another. So, it's hard to say whether they will work well on your 50mm or your zoom.

Another option to try would be to get a set of extension tubes for your 50mm lens, and later get a teleconverter to go with it. A 50mm extension tube would get you a 1:1 magnfication ratio, which is what you would get with any true macro lens. A set of three extension tubes with exposure coupling would run around $130. Tokina makes good ones. This might be a better option --in terms of quality and magnification-- for the 50mm lens. I think the highest magnification you can get with a typical set of diopters is about 0.3:1 with a 50mm lens. By comparison, for insect macros I typically shoot at between 1:1 and 2:1 or sometime higher. Extension tubes would let you get within that range.

If you'd prefer to use your G lens, the highest magnification you could get with a typical set of diopters would be 0.67:1.

Yet another option would be to get a set of lens couplers that would let you reverse your 50mm lens and mount it on your 28-100 G lens. This might cost you $50, and would give you a magnification of 2:1 when fully zoomed out. Your reversed 50mm lens would work like a very high quality diopter. I've seen this done fairly often with excellent results. It looks a little strange, but works well. I've done it with my 180 2.8 and 60mm 2.8 to get to 3:1, but its far easier to achieve this effect by other means for me.

This is probably more confusing than enlightening. If you need sub-macro magnification, it would be easiest to go with diopters. If I wanted to work my way into serious macro photography, I probably develop the 50mm lens; first with extension tubes, then by adding a teleconverter to get more working distance.

--Jeff

thanks SO much for your help. im going to go with a set of extension tubes for my 50mm as soon as I get the money for it

looking at b&h i see the kenco set for around 150. good/bad deal?

[Jeff82]

It's probably a good deal. I remember them being about $130, but haven't checked prices lately. I'd definately go with the Kenko tubes though, and you'll want the whole set.

What your doing is building a macro lens. Lenses like the 60mm macro have the extension built into them with a floating element. What you're doing is manually adding that extension. All three Kenko rings will give you a magnification of about 1.3 to 1, more than the 60mm macro has by itself. At about 1 to 1 your focusing distance will be about 2.75 inches. At some point you'll probably want more magnification and/or more working distance. At that time, you'll want to add a 2x teleconverter to the mix. This will give you up to 2.6 to 1 magnification, or double your working distance. 2.6 to one is pretty much the practical max for most field work. I only work up to about 3 to 1.

Good luck,

--Jeff

[Sean Dempsey]

Dude, if you're going macro for that kind of money with regular lenses and tubes, just get either the Sigma 105 Macro for 300, or the Tamron 90 Macro for like 380. Both do a 1:1 ratio, and don't need any attachments.

I personally use the Sigma 105 Macro and love it.

[skyline315]

if i had 300 or 380 dollars to spend at the moment, i certainly would ;)

[Sean Dempsey]

If you have 150 to spend on extension tubes... just save for a real macro lens.


Or, you can spend 150 now, then 300 later. Why not just spend the 300?

[Jeff82]

True, macro lenses are the easiest way to go. That's why I use them. But learning to use extension tubes, teleconverters and diopters isn't really a waste of time or money, even if one eventually buys a macro lens.

Macro lenses only get you to 1:1. If you want higher magnifications you still need to use these accessories. Learning the optics of macro photography with a standard lens isn't a bad way to learn macro photography.

--Jeff