Hi all,
This is my first post on the forum, and here i come cringing on the gear i have.
No i don't come bashing nikon here, i love the dsrl, and the lens gear i have. But i miss nikon not having the MP-E 65mm f2.8 lens which goes unto 5:1 magnification.
I am really keen about getting into ultra macro photography, and having been tying around with my macro lens thats 1:1 capable, and i do take good hand held shots in the field, just that i am unable to get the eyes of the insects as such shots that people in here take. And thats what i am cringing about.
I have a Tamron 90mm f2.8 VC macro lens that goes to about 1:1 magnification.
Guys what are the options i have if i really want more magnification thats capable enough to take ultra macro shots.
Here's my setup.
DSLR : Nikon D7100
1. Tamron 90mm macro (i already brought a reverse ring and kenko extension tubes, will this give me 2:1 or is it 3:1?, anything else that can be added).
2. Nikon 10-24mm Ultrawide lens (i read lower the focal length the better it is for micro with reverse ring and extension tubes, how would 10-24mm do for this)?
3. Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VRII
4. Nikon 35mm f1.8G Prime
5. Nikon 85mm f1.8G Prime
6. Tamron 24-70mm f2.8 VC constant apertrue lens.
Please let me know whatever add'ons i can use to maximize the magnification to obtain 5:1 or more with whatever i have above, i hear people get unto 10x magnification with nikon setup.. how come?
P.S. i do have the reverse ring and Kenko DG Extension tubes as well.
Stuck with Nikon gear, need 5:1 magnification. Please guide.
Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau
-
rjlittlefield
- Site Admin
- Posts: 23625
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
- Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
- Contact:
Welcome aboard!
Do not be concerned that you'll be taken as Nikon-bashing. The lack of something like an MP-E 65 in Nikon's line is well recognized.
However, above 5X you'll be needing to use microscope objectives with any camera body, since other lenses will soften too much due to diffraction. See FAQ: How can I hook a microscope objective to my camera? for an introduction to that process. Sticking a 10X objective in front of your 70-200 set on 200 would be a typical approach. In any case be aware that at 10X your DOF will be ridiculously shallow (like 0.01 mm), so to cover most subjects you'll need to use focus stacking.
In the 1X-5X range, using what you have, reversing the Tamron seems like a good idea assuming you can control the aperture. You might also reverse that 35mm or 85mm in front of the 200. At infinity focus on the rear lens, the magnification of a combo is just rear FL divided by front FL, so if it doesn't vignette too badly the 35 in front of 200 will give you up to 5.7X . That's an if however -- vignetting is very common.
Also, be aware that especially at higher magnification it's much better to stop the front lens than the rear. See FAQ: Stopping down a lens combo for more information about that.
--Rik
Do not be concerned that you'll be taken as Nikon-bashing. The lack of something like an MP-E 65 in Nikon's line is well recognized.
However, above 5X you'll be needing to use microscope objectives with any camera body, since other lenses will soften too much due to diffraction. See FAQ: How can I hook a microscope objective to my camera? for an introduction to that process. Sticking a 10X objective in front of your 70-200 set on 200 would be a typical approach. In any case be aware that at 10X your DOF will be ridiculously shallow (like 0.01 mm), so to cover most subjects you'll need to use focus stacking.
In the 1X-5X range, using what you have, reversing the Tamron seems like a good idea assuming you can control the aperture. You might also reverse that 35mm or 85mm in front of the 200. At infinity focus on the rear lens, the magnification of a combo is just rear FL divided by front FL, so if it doesn't vignette too badly the 35 in front of 200 will give you up to 5.7X . That's an if however -- vignetting is very common.
Also, be aware that especially at higher magnification it's much better to stop the front lens than the rear. See FAQ: Stopping down a lens combo for more information about that.
--Rik
Rik, thanks for your reply. I was really looking forward to members coming in here and giving me guidance on what i could use for greater magnification rather than advising me to use whatever i have and learn.rjlittlefield wrote:Welcome aboard!
Do not be concerned that you'll be taken as Nikon-bashing. The lack of something like an MP-E 65 in Nikon's line is well recognized.
However, above 5X you'll be needing to use microscope objectives with any camera body, since other lenses will soften too much due to diffraction. See FAQ: How can I hook a microscope objective to my camera? for an introduction to that process. Sticking a 10X objective in front of your 70-200 set on 200 would be a typical approach. In any case be aware that at 10X your DOF will be ridiculously shallow (like 0.01 mm), so to cover most subjects you'll need to use focus stacking.
In the 1X-5X range, using what you have, reversing the Tamron seems like a good idea assuming you can control the aperture. You might also reverse that 35mm or 85mm in front of the 200. At infinity focus on the rear lens, the magnification of a combo is just rear FL divided by front FL, so if it doesn't vignette too badly the 35 in front of 200 will give you up to 5.7X . That's an if however -- vignetting is very common.
Also, be aware that especially at higher magnification it's much better to stop the front lens than the rear. See FAQ: Stopping down a lens combo for more information about that.
--Rik
Your suggestion about using microscope objective is a fantastic one (although i don't know much about it), i realize its an item i learnt today, and a quick google search shows fantastic results.. something i am really interested in.
I am aware of focus stacking, and plan to get the stackshot very soon, but only when i get 5:1 or above magnification. Currently i am even struggling with how i could achieve it.
On Facebook, i am a member of the extreme macro group and ultra macro group, and members in there take gorgeous closeups of insects, thus leaving me drooling for such talent. Upon asking every single one of them boasts of carrying the MP-E 65mm lens.
So you say, out of the entire line up of lens i have above, the 70-200 f2.8 VRII is the best option for me to attach the microscope objective? While i read on this subject, can i ask for another favor? could you please post a link for the best/ideal microscope objective out in the market that can go with this lens?
A quick & dirty test, single shots.
Adding a Raynox DCR-250 to the front of a Nikon 105 micro will give some magnification (maybe similar magn. when added to your 90mm, and even higher mag when added to the Tamron + ext. tubes?)
Top: 105 at 1:1 on a full frame D600; not cropped
Below: Raynox added to front of the 105; not cropped
Adding a Raynox DCR-250 to the front of a Nikon 105 micro will give some magnification (maybe similar magn. when added to your 90mm, and even higher mag when added to the Tamron + ext. tubes?)
Top: 105 at 1:1 on a full frame D600; not cropped
Below: Raynox added to front of the 105; not cropped
NU.
student of entomology
Quote – Holmes on ‘Entomology’
” I suppose you are an entomologist ? “
” Not quite so ambitious as that, sir. I should like to put my eyes on the individual entitled to that name.
No man can be truly called an entomologist,
sir; the subject is too vast for any single human intelligence to grasp.”
Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr
The Poet at the Breakfast Table.
Nikon camera, lenses and objectives
Olympus microscope and objectives
student of entomology
Quote – Holmes on ‘Entomology’
” I suppose you are an entomologist ? “
” Not quite so ambitious as that, sir. I should like to put my eyes on the individual entitled to that name.
No man can be truly called an entomologist,
sir; the subject is too vast for any single human intelligence to grasp.”
Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr
The Poet at the Breakfast Table.
Nikon camera, lenses and objectives
Olympus microscope and objectives
So i understand that the best option for me to attain high magnification is using an micoscope objective on my 70-200mm telephone lens.. as Rik posted the FAQ link above, which says the go to objective is "The Nikon CFI Plan Achromat 10X NA 0.25"
But sadly i am not able to find any of these online. Where do i buy these? I am so waiting to order these right away. Also what adapter will i need to mount the objective to my 70-200mm f2.8 VRII nikon lens?
I believe the filter thread on the 70-200 f2.8 VRII is 77mm.
So what are the adapters/rings/other accessories i will need with the Microscope objecive.
I think i found this from seoenterprise
http://www.seoenterprises.com/shop/prod ... t=0&page=1
is this the correct objective? also please guide me on the add on adapters/rings.
But sadly i am not able to find any of these online. Where do i buy these? I am so waiting to order these right away. Also what adapter will i need to mount the objective to my 70-200mm f2.8 VRII nikon lens?
I believe the filter thread on the 70-200 f2.8 VRII is 77mm.
So what are the adapters/rings/other accessories i will need with the Microscope objecive.
I think i found this from seoenterprise
http://www.seoenterprises.com/shop/prod ... t=0&page=1
is this the correct objective? also please guide me on the add on adapters/rings.
-
rjlittlefield
- Site Admin
- Posts: 23625
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
- Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
- Contact:
Yes, that is the correct objective and we have good reports on SEO Enterprises as a source.MANswers wrote:I think i found this from seoenterprise
http://www.seoenterprises.com/shop/prod ... t=0&page=1
is this the correct objective? also please guide me on the add on adapters/rings.
The mounting thread on that objective is 25 mm, so the usual adapter chain is 25 mm to 52 mm, then 52 mm to fit your lens, for example 77 mm to 52 mm step down.
--Rik
I have ordered the mic/objective. and hope to receive it early next week.
I have another question to ask. I've joined a group on Facebook where members take extreme macro closeups using Raynox lenses, few members in there stack up multiple lenses such as MSN-202 and DCR-250, and attain high magnification without vinetteing and with crystal clear sharpness and details.
I was also told by a member that Raynox 505 should give me 12x magnification, which is going to be better than the 10x CFI nikon m/objective.
Is this true? What are the pro's and con's of using raynox compared to cfi 10x objectives?
I have another question to ask. I've joined a group on Facebook where members take extreme macro closeups using Raynox lenses, few members in there stack up multiple lenses such as MSN-202 and DCR-250, and attain high magnification without vinetteing and with crystal clear sharpness and details.
I was also told by a member that Raynox 505 should give me 12x magnification, which is going to be better than the 10x CFI nikon m/objective.
Is this true? What are the pro's and con's of using raynox compared to cfi 10x objectives?
-
rjlittlefield
- Site Admin
- Posts: 23625
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
- Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
- Contact:
No. Unfortunately these various families of lenses are specified in different ways that make it easy to fall into the trap of doing apples-and-oranges comparisons.MANswers wrote:I was also told by a member that Raynox 505 should give me 12x magnification, which is going to be better than the 10x CFI nikon m/objective.
Is this true?
First let me show you where that person's numbers might be coming from, and then I'll try to put everything on common ground.
Quoting from the Raynox MSN-505 description at B&H Photo:
For our mutual convenience, I've bold-faced a couple of critical numbers. First, there's that "12X". I'm not sure what the standard of comparison is for that. Maybe it's versus what the camera will do without the 505? Anyway, on the Specifications tab, B&H reproduces that vague description, listing "Magnification: 12x Macro".With the Raynox MSN-505 Super Macro/Close-Up Lens attached to a compatible Olympus digital camera, you'll be able to take photos of intricate tiny objects as small as 3.5mm x 2.6mm, and get a frame-filling enlarged close-up image from the distance of 18mm to the object at the cameras maximum telephoto position. That is equivalent to a 12x magnification! Simply "Snap On" the MSN-505 Super Macro Lens onto the required (not included) RT5245C7 Tube Adapter by using the included UAC3500 universal mount and your Olympus digital camera will be able to take macro images with minimum distortion at the maximum telephoto position (compatible with Olympus C-740UZ, C-745UZ, C-750UZ, C-755UZ, C-760UZ, C-765UZ, and C-770UZ cameras).
Fortunately, Raynox is a bit more forthcoming about what the lens actually is. At http://www.raynox.co.jp/english/video/hdrfx7/#msn505, it states "Magnification: 32-Diopter". This specification is unambiguous -- the lens has focal length 1000/32 ~= 31 mm focal length.
I don't happen to have an MSN 505, but I do have the slightly lower power MSN 202. Regarding that lens, http://www.raynox.co.jp/english/video/hdrfx7/#msn202 says "Magnification: 25-Diopter", 40 mm focal length.
For comparison, Nikon's microscope objectives have magnification specified for use with a 200 mm tube lens. That means 4X = 50 mm, 10X = 20 mm.
So now we can do that "common framework" I mentioned. Here's the summary:
Nikon CFI 4X NA 0.10, focal length 50 mm, 4X on 200 mm tube lens
Raynox MSN-202, 25 diopters = focal length 40 mm, 5X on 200 mm tube lens
Raynox MSN-505, 32 diopters ~= focal length 31 mm, 6.4X on 200 mm tube lens
Nikon CFI 10X NA 0.25, focal length 20 mm, 10X on 200 mm tube lens
It should be clear from this summary that the MSN-202 and MSN-505 lie between the 4X and 10X objectives in terms of magnification.
The same story is told by field size. 10X on APS-C would be roughly 2.3mm x 1.6mm, where B&H quotes 3.5mm x 2.6mm for their "12X" with the MSN-505.
In terms of image quality, it's hard to tell. As I said, I don't have a Raynox MSN-505 to test against. I do have an MSN-202, and I've tested it against the objectives in my setup, and I never use it any more.
However, the MSN-202 and MSN-505 do seem to play very nicely with "bridge" cameras, as advertised by B&H, so if somebody has either that type of camera or other optics that behave similarly, then the MSN-202 and MSN-505 could well be excellent choices.
--Rik
Rik, thanks so so much for a very detailed response. macro is a world in itself.
Happy to be here.
So can i ask two more thing here, is it a good idea to stack 2 msn-505's to attain higher magnification. Also, earlier i had brought a set of Kenko extension tubes, not very happy with it, as it cuts down light and details. I was planning to return it.. Will at any point in time i would require an extension tube either with the nikon 10x mic/objectives or raynox's?
Happy to be here.
So can i ask two more thing here, is it a good idea to stack 2 msn-505's to attain higher magnification. Also, earlier i had brought a set of Kenko extension tubes, not very happy with it, as it cuts down light and details. I was planning to return it.. Will at any point in time i would require an extension tube either with the nikon 10x mic/objectives or raynox's?
-
rjlittlefield
- Site Admin
- Posts: 23625
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
- Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
- Contact:
Stacking closeup lenses usually doesn't work very well. You do get an enlarged image, but 1) often it's not enlarged as much as you'd expect (due to the inevitable distance between lenses) and 2) when you look close there are usually lots of aberrations leading to softness especially away from center. It's better to get the extra magnification by using a single lens that's designed to do the job.
I'm assuming that your Kenko tubes are the automatic ones, like THESE. Since you've tried them and don't like them, I don't see any compelling reason to keep them. The objectives and Raynox lenses are designed to be used with rear lenses that are focused at or near infinity, which means without tubes. You can get some extra magnification by adding tubes also, but again it's not the best approach.
--Rik
I'm assuming that your Kenko tubes are the automatic ones, like THESE. Since you've tried them and don't like them, I don't see any compelling reason to keep them. The objectives and Raynox lenses are designed to be used with rear lenses that are focused at or near infinity, which means without tubes. You can get some extra magnification by adding tubes also, but again it's not the best approach.
--Rik
Rik, promise i will let this thread die after this last post.. just need one more feedback on "The Nikon CFI Plan Achromat 10X NA 0.25" mic/obj, is it true that in order to get proper sharpness i would have to take atleast 100+ photos and stack them, using stackshot, can i get away with 50+ photo's using the manual method? my concern is buying the stackshot right away, i dont want to get it right now, as i am still in the learning curve, and first need to learn ultra macro properly. after a few months i plan to get the stackshot, not now.
will the mic/objective be hard for me to use right away without automated stacking? or can i get away with manual foucs stacking methods. i have already ordered the velbon super mag focus rail for now.
Or should i stick with raynox as i begin my journey into ultra macro? or instead wasting money on that i should get the mic/objective.?
will the mic/objective be hard for me to use right away without automated stacking? or can i get away with manual foucs stacking methods. i have already ordered the velbon super mag focus rail for now.
Or should i stick with raynox as i begin my journey into ultra macro? or instead wasting money on that i should get the mic/objective.?
You don't need automatic anything. Preparing your specimen and lighting will take a lot longer than pressing a shutter release a couple of hundred times. Play some music to get into a routine!
If you want to tweak the exposure and do another run, it does get boring though. You're more likely to do it if it's automated, so you may get better results due to that aspect.
10x requires smaller focus increments than a Velbon Mag Slider can manage comfortably though. 5x is probably about it.
I use an old 'scope base - about $60. Something like an Olympus CH2 is pretty cheap, often under $100 for a whole instrument.
I'd recommend you try first with around 4-5x. Everything gets harder as you go for more magnification.
Try your 35 reversed onto your 90 or 200. Leave the long lens focused at infinity.
You'll have to wedge the 35's aperture peg with some card or something because it's a G lens, but that's not really a problem.
A Raynox wouldn't be wasted, they're handy to have, and can easily be sold on if you want to do that.
If you want to tweak the exposure and do another run, it does get boring though. You're more likely to do it if it's automated, so you may get better results due to that aspect.
10x requires smaller focus increments than a Velbon Mag Slider can manage comfortably though. 5x is probably about it.
I use an old 'scope base - about $60. Something like an Olympus CH2 is pretty cheap, often under $100 for a whole instrument.
I'd recommend you try first with around 4-5x. Everything gets harder as you go for more magnification.
Try your 35 reversed onto your 90 or 200. Leave the long lens focused at infinity.
You'll have to wedge the 35's aperture peg with some card or something because it's a G lens, but that's not really a problem.
A Raynox wouldn't be wasted, they're handy to have, and can easily be sold on if you want to do that.
-
rjlittlefield
- Site Admin
- Posts: 23625
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
- Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
- Contact:
I agree with everything that ChrisR says.
Taking your questions as written:
You definitely do not need a StackShot to work at 10X. Re-purposing a microscope base (for example as HERE) will get you more precision than the StackShot, at lower cost. The drawback is only convenience, partly in the lack of automation and partly in how hard it is to use anything except a vertical configuration.
--Rik
Edit: correct "except a horizontal configuration" to be "except a vertical configuration"
Taking your questions as written:
It all depends on the total depth of your subject. To retain that objective's sharpness, you need to stack at definitely no more than 0.010 mm per step, at which size 50 frames means 0.5 mm, 100 frames means 1.0 mm, and so on.on "The Nikon CFI Plan Achromat 10X NA 0.25" mic/obj, is it true that in order to get proper sharpness i would have to take atleast 100+ photos and stack them, using stackshot, can i get away with 50+ photo's using the manual method?
You definitely do not need a StackShot to work at 10X. Re-purposing a microscope base (for example as HERE) will get you more precision than the StackShot, at lower cost. The drawback is only convenience, partly in the lack of automation and partly in how hard it is to use anything except a vertical configuration.
From where you are now, just adding a Raynox strikes me as a very reasonable intermediate step. It's a big jump from working at 1X to working with a 10X NA 0.25 microscope objective.Or should i stick with raynox as i begin my journey into ultra macro?
--Rik
Edit: correct "except a horizontal configuration" to be "except a vertical configuration"
Last edited by rjlittlefield on Mon Aug 11, 2014 10:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
Chris and Rik,
Thanks so much for your replies.
I have ordered Raynox lens, and a few adapters, will try to stack a few combinations and post back results. I am sure CA will be a slight of an issue as i am using a crop sensor dslr (d7100), i am sure its going to be still better, but lets see if this can be removed in post processing in LR (i shoot raw).
I am based in Illinois, is there anyone around you guys know.. who can help me create this base, cutting off the microscope base and all the rest of the things.. I'll all be happy to pay to anyone who can help with this. asking this, cos i will move to a mic/objective in few months, and get a stackshot as well, then i will need the base that chris mentioned, that can move at very small increments.
Thanks so much for your replies.
I have ordered Raynox lens, and a few adapters, will try to stack a few combinations and post back results. I am sure CA will be a slight of an issue as i am using a crop sensor dslr (d7100), i am sure its going to be still better, but lets see if this can be removed in post processing in LR (i shoot raw).
I am based in Illinois, is there anyone around you guys know.. who can help me create this base, cutting off the microscope base and all the rest of the things.. I'll all be happy to pay to anyone who can help with this. asking this, cos i will move to a mic/objective in few months, and get a stackshot as well, then i will need the base that chris mentioned, that can move at very small increments.
Hi Rik, Chris..
I was looking at this micro focus rail, "Hejnar PHOTO Linear Motion Micrometer Macro / Micro Rail"
http://www.scvphotoideas.com/2012/07/ne ... otion.html
The description says that it has an extra fine graduation of 0.01mm.
I was thinking to add this to the vertical rail position for holding the specimen to bring it to the lens position for focusing.
What are your thoughts on this product?
I was looking at this micro focus rail, "Hejnar PHOTO Linear Motion Micrometer Macro / Micro Rail"
http://www.scvphotoideas.com/2012/07/ne ... otion.html
The description says that it has an extra fine graduation of 0.01mm.
I was thinking to add this to the vertical rail position for holding the specimen to bring it to the lens position for focusing.
What are your thoughts on this product?