macro tips?

[skyline315]

i have a nikon n80. my two lenses are a nikon 50mm f/1.8D and a nikon 28-100 3.5/5.6G.

im looking to experiment with macro photography, but can't afford a true macro lens just yet. what converters, etc. would you recommend me trying?

right now i was looking at the cheapo macro lens adapter option.

what would you recommend. as specific as you can be would be great. thanks!

[Outdoorsman]

i have a nikon n80. my two lenses are a nikon 50mm f/1.8D and a nikon 28-100 3.5/5.6G.

im looking to experiment with macro photography, but can't afford a true macro lens just yet. what converters, etc. would you recommend me trying?

right now i was looking at the cheapo macro lens adapter option.

what would you recommend. as specific as you can be would be great. thanks!

I just entered the macro arena myself. I picked up the Sigma 70-300 4/5.6 APO Macro Super for $209 at B&H. It get in as close as 1:2, which is half life size on film. If I want to get really close for some reason and I don't care too much about high quality, I strap on my crummy 2X teleconverter, which gives me 1:1, life size, but only in a "faked" kind of way. I wouldn't consider it true life size unless the lens itself was doing the work.
Macro is hard. When you get that close, depth of field is so narrow you have to use very small apertures. This in turn usually means slow shutter speeds, so control of subject movement is critical. Try using either a teleconverter on your 28-100, which only gives you 200mm. Or check out extension tubes. They sometimes come in sets of two or three, so find a decent deal. They basically do the same thing as a teleconverter, only they're supposed to be better for the image degredation as well as the light loss you get with the TC. I don't use extension tubes, so I'm only repeating what I've read/heard.
The bad news may begin here. Your zoom lens is probably not designed for macro use, so the close focsuing distance is not going to small enough for macro. The lens was designed for subjects a little farther away, so you probably have good luck with portraits and sports and nature. As for my Sigma, it is pretty worthless for small things that are far away, like a hawk soaring far above in the sky. Subjects must be close or fill the frame for best resolution.
So you might consider a cheap macro or at least a used one. Extension tubes and teleconverters will also help you get closer, but also don't rule out the easiest way to do macro: close-up attachments. These are sets of filter-like lenses that attach to the front of your lens right where the filter does. They magnify the image greatly, can be stacked for higher magnifications, and are usually fairly affordable. Hope this helps. And here's a recent photo shot with my Sigma, at 1:2 magnification. Good luck!

[skyline315]

I just entered the macro arena myself. I picked up the Sigma 70-300 4/5.6 APO Macro Super for $209 at B&H. It get in as close as 1:2, which is half life size on film. If I want to get really close for some reason and I don't care too much about high quality, I strap on my crummy 2X teleconverter, which gives me 1:1, life size, but only in a "faked" kind of way. I wouldn't consider it true life size unless the lens itself was doing the work.
Macro is hard. When you get that close, depth of field is so narrow you have to use very small apertures. This in turn usually means slow shutter speeds, so control of subject movement is critical. Try using either a teleconverter on your 28-100, which only gives you 200mm. Or check out extension tubes. They sometimes come in sets of two or three, so find a decent deal. They basically do the same thing as a teleconverter, only they're supposed to be better for the image degredation as well as the light loss you get with the TC. I don't use extension tubes, so I'm only repeating what I've read/heard.
The bad news may begin here. Your zoom lens is probably not designed for macro use, so the close focsuing distance is not going to small enough for macro. The lens was designed for subjects a little farther away, so you probably have good luck with portraits and sports and nature. As for my Sigma, it is pretty worthless for small things that are far away, like a hawk soaring far above in the sky. Subjects must be close or fill the frame for best resolution.
So you might consider a cheap macro or at least a used one. Extension tubes and teleconverters will also help you get closer, but also don't rule out the easiest way to do macro: close-up attachments. These are sets of filter-like lenses that attach to the front of your lens right where the filter does. They magnify the image greatly, can be stacked for higher magnifications, and are usually fairly affordable. Hope this helps. And here's a recent photo shot with my Sigma, at 1:2 magnification. Good luck!

yeah, the close-up attachments are what i was leaning towards since i don't have the money to spring for a real macro lens at the moment...thanks for the reply

[Jeff82]

Your best bet is to try a set of close-up adaptors at this point. Hoya HMCs are good, and would run about $80 for a set. Down the road, if you really get into it, you can buy a Nikkor 60mm 2.8 micro lens and a 2x telconverter. This is what I use for insect macro photography, and the max
sync-speed of my N-80s match up well with this focal length. The 105 Nikkor micro is also really good.

--Jeff

[skyline315]

how much do those lenses cost?

[skyline315]

one more question, im sorry. i think im going to go the close-up adapter route for now.

which lens would it be better to buy them for? my 50mm or zoom lens. the specific details of each are in my first post.

thanks

[Jeff82]

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

[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