Hi, sorry if this has been asked before (I am semi-sure it would have been, but I am having no luck finding an answer).
I have been trying to get more magnification as I have a dedicated macro lens (Sigma 105mm) which can achieve 1:1.
I am trying to find what is the best solution to get even closer?
I have read about reversal rings and extension tubes but they always seem to be alternatives for true macro lenses and I can't find anywhere whether you can have your macro lens and reverse another lens onto that and if it would work well?
What is the best option to extend the magnification for someone with a dedicated lens but wanting more? Also how would the reversal ring work, do I attach this macro lens to the camera, with the ring on the end, and then mount a prime lens over it the wrong way?
Dedicated macro lens AND reversal ring?
Moderators: Chris S., Pau, Beatsy, rjlittlefield, ChrisR
-
rjlittlefield
- Site Admin
- Posts: 24434
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
- Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
- Contact:
kadinlucas, welcome aboard!
There are several options you might consider, depending on what else you already have in your kit. If you give us a complete list, perhaps we could make suggestions tailored to what you have.
In the meantime, take a look at these links:
Shooting with a reversed 18-55 mm Canon kit lens
FAQ: Stopping down a lens combo (and the surrounding thread)
http://orionmystery.blogspot.com/2011/0 ... macro.html
--Rik
There are several options you might consider, depending on what else you already have in your kit. If you give us a complete list, perhaps we could make suggestions tailored to what you have.
In the meantime, take a look at these links:
Shooting with a reversed 18-55 mm Canon kit lens
FAQ: Stopping down a lens combo (and the surrounding thread)
http://orionmystery.blogspot.com/2011/0 ... macro.html
--Rik
-
kadinlucas
- Posts: 8
- Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2013 10:29 pm
Hi, thanks for the reply.
Unfortunately the links are similar to the stuff I have found, they offer alternatives to using a dedicated macro lens. However I DO have a macro lens but am looking at ways of further magnifying it.
I currently have:
Nikon D5100
nikkor 18-55mm kit lens
nikkor 55-200mm zoom "kit" lens
Sigma AF 105mm f/2.8 Macro
Tripod, spare battery, shutter release remote.
My Sigma lets me get to 1:1 magnification and I have been able to take some shots that I am quite happy with. However I see some shots where the photography has gotten incredibly close to the insects, which I can not achieve. I am wondering what is the best or cheapest way to get into 3:1 to 4:1 kind of territory if possible.
I am willing to purchase a prime 35 or 50mm lens if that can work reversed onto macro (will probably get one soon anyway).
I am also looking at buying an external flash soon as I usually end up just shooting macro insects handheld as I take my camera out for a spin and often low light + hand held + shallow DOF makes it very tricky.
Cheers.
Unfortunately the links are similar to the stuff I have found, they offer alternatives to using a dedicated macro lens. However I DO have a macro lens but am looking at ways of further magnifying it.
I currently have:
Nikon D5100
nikkor 18-55mm kit lens
nikkor 55-200mm zoom "kit" lens
Sigma AF 105mm f/2.8 Macro
Tripod, spare battery, shutter release remote.
My Sigma lets me get to 1:1 magnification and I have been able to take some shots that I am quite happy with. However I see some shots where the photography has gotten incredibly close to the insects, which I can not achieve. I am wondering what is the best or cheapest way to get into 3:1 to 4:1 kind of territory if possible.
I am willing to purchase a prime 35 or 50mm lens if that can work reversed onto macro (will probably get one soon anyway).
I am also looking at buying an external flash soon as I usually end up just shooting macro insects handheld as I take my camera out for a spin and often low light + hand held + shallow DOF makes it very tricky.
Cheers.
The links you were given, cover about all of the useful territory.
There's nothing about a normal camera-mounted macro lens which makes one particularly good to work in combination with another lens. It's not a "natural progression" to put other lenses onto one to make it focus closer.
Some camera lens combinations happen to work ok, some are pretty bad. They might be good individually, at doing what they were designed to do. None are designed to be used in combinations.
If you put two so-so lenses together, you're unlikely to achieve anything wonderful.
You could try your 18-55 reversed on your 55-200. With the long one at 200 and infinity, and the short at 55, you 'll have 200/55=3.6x.
That wouldn't be expected to be as good as a dedicated bellows macro lens or a microscope objective, but you'll get pictures! At other focal lengths it'll probably vignette badly, if it doesn't already.
To go to higher magnification than 1:1 while keeping costs down, I'd suggest you might add some extension tubes to the macro lens you have, which will get you to about 1.6:1, then try a reversed 50mm enlarger lens reversed on tubes/bellows. The 50mm f/2.8 El Nikkor is a good example which works well.
You could try it reversed on your 100mm, or your 55-200.
On the tubes/bellows it works well to a magnification of "a few".
You may well find that the wafer-thin depth of field you get at increasing magnifications is a bigger hurdle to cross, by stacking, than getting the optics better.
There's nothing about a normal camera-mounted macro lens which makes one particularly good to work in combination with another lens. It's not a "natural progression" to put other lenses onto one to make it focus closer.
Some camera lens combinations happen to work ok, some are pretty bad. They might be good individually, at doing what they were designed to do. None are designed to be used in combinations.
If you put two so-so lenses together, you're unlikely to achieve anything wonderful.
You could try your 18-55 reversed on your 55-200. With the long one at 200 and infinity, and the short at 55, you 'll have 200/55=3.6x.
That wouldn't be expected to be as good as a dedicated bellows macro lens or a microscope objective, but you'll get pictures! At other focal lengths it'll probably vignette badly, if it doesn't already.
To go to higher magnification than 1:1 while keeping costs down, I'd suggest you might add some extension tubes to the macro lens you have, which will get you to about 1.6:1, then try a reversed 50mm enlarger lens reversed on tubes/bellows. The 50mm f/2.8 El Nikkor is a good example which works well.
You could try it reversed on your 100mm, or your 55-200.
On the tubes/bellows it works well to a magnification of "a few".
You may well find that the wafer-thin depth of field you get at increasing magnifications is a bigger hurdle to cross, by stacking, than getting the optics better.
-
rjlittlefield
- Site Admin
- Posts: 24434
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
- Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
- Contact:
kadinlucas, thank you for clarifying what you have and what you want.
Let me recap what I think I'm hearing.
You want to work in the range of 3:1 or 4:1 in the field. You have a couple of kit lenses covering 18-200mm that do not focus very close. You also have a 105 macro that goes to 1:1 at the turn of its focus ring. You currently do not have any other optics or optical adapters such as extension tubes or reversing rings.
It also seems clear that you want to use that macro lens in your 3:1 setup. In that case, here are some things to think about...
When you stick one lens in front of another, the magnification you get starts at the ratio of the focal lengths, rear:front, when the rear lens is focused at infinity. As you focus the rear lens closer, the magnification typically increases. That increase is seldom as much as you'd expect, and in some cases magnification can actually decrease as you turn the focus ring to "closer".
So, in order to get 3:1 with your macro lens, one approach is to stick a 35mm focal length auxiliary lens in front of it. The auxiliary lens could be a prime 35, in which case the configuration would be as you described: macro lens on camera, then a reversing ring, then the reversed prime, with step rings as needed to fit the various threads.
I cannot predict what image quality you will get with this approach. It depends on details of the lenses. It also depends on how you stop down the combo, which is why I linked to FAQ: Stopping down a lens combo in my earlier reply.
Alternatively, and probably better, you could use a high power closeup lens specifically designed for this sort of use. The Raynox MSN-202 (HERE) has sharp optics and comes with a spring-loaded adapter that makes mounting quick and easy. Focal length of the MSN-202 is 40 mm (25 diopters), so when added to the 105 you'll be getting 105:40=2.6:1 when the 105 is at infinity focus, with higher magnification as you focus closer. The MSN-202 will also clip onto the front of your 55-200 zoom, in which configuration it will give 5:1 at full zoom and infinity focus, proportionally less at lower zoom settings though it will probably start vignetting at some point.
Note that reversing a 50 mm in front of your 105 mm will not reach the magnification range you want. Reversing a 50 in front of your 55-200 will give 4X at full zoom, proportionally less at lower zooms.
You mentioned extension tubes in your first post. Extension tubes are not a good way to reach high magnifications with long lenses. Whatever the focal length of the lens, the added magnification is just extension divided by FL. At its 1:1 setting, your 105 mm macro probably has an actual focal length around 70 mm. So to reach 3:1, (adding 2X magnification) you would need an additional 2*70 = 140 mm of extension. That would be two full sets of extension tubes -- awkward and expensive.
I see in another thread that you've been pointed to http://beingmark.com/macro-illustrated/. That's an excellent reference. Keep in mind that Mark's camera "has the equivalent of a 400 mm internally zooming lens" on which he mounts auxiliary lenses. The impact of that long lens is that he can reach high magnifications at greater working distance than you'll be able to. The MSN-202 has a working distance of 32 mm (or shorter). A reversed prime will be similar.
DOF issues are the same with all cameras and all optics, when shooting the same subjects. With your D5100, 3:1 means that your subject size will be about 8 mm wide. Shooting at effective f/22, your DOF will be roughly 0.1 mm. If you can stop down farther, you'll get more DOF but at the cost of more diffraction blur. Be prepared for considerable frustration when working at this magnification in the field.
I hope this helps.
--Rik
Let me recap what I think I'm hearing.
You want to work in the range of 3:1 or 4:1 in the field. You have a couple of kit lenses covering 18-200mm that do not focus very close. You also have a 105 macro that goes to 1:1 at the turn of its focus ring. You currently do not have any other optics or optical adapters such as extension tubes or reversing rings.
It also seems clear that you want to use that macro lens in your 3:1 setup. In that case, here are some things to think about...
When you stick one lens in front of another, the magnification you get starts at the ratio of the focal lengths, rear:front, when the rear lens is focused at infinity. As you focus the rear lens closer, the magnification typically increases. That increase is seldom as much as you'd expect, and in some cases magnification can actually decrease as you turn the focus ring to "closer".
So, in order to get 3:1 with your macro lens, one approach is to stick a 35mm focal length auxiliary lens in front of it. The auxiliary lens could be a prime 35, in which case the configuration would be as you described: macro lens on camera, then a reversing ring, then the reversed prime, with step rings as needed to fit the various threads.
I cannot predict what image quality you will get with this approach. It depends on details of the lenses. It also depends on how you stop down the combo, which is why I linked to FAQ: Stopping down a lens combo in my earlier reply.
Alternatively, and probably better, you could use a high power closeup lens specifically designed for this sort of use. The Raynox MSN-202 (HERE) has sharp optics and comes with a spring-loaded adapter that makes mounting quick and easy. Focal length of the MSN-202 is 40 mm (25 diopters), so when added to the 105 you'll be getting 105:40=2.6:1 when the 105 is at infinity focus, with higher magnification as you focus closer. The MSN-202 will also clip onto the front of your 55-200 zoom, in which configuration it will give 5:1 at full zoom and infinity focus, proportionally less at lower zoom settings though it will probably start vignetting at some point.
Note that reversing a 50 mm in front of your 105 mm will not reach the magnification range you want. Reversing a 50 in front of your 55-200 will give 4X at full zoom, proportionally less at lower zooms.
You mentioned extension tubes in your first post. Extension tubes are not a good way to reach high magnifications with long lenses. Whatever the focal length of the lens, the added magnification is just extension divided by FL. At its 1:1 setting, your 105 mm macro probably has an actual focal length around 70 mm. So to reach 3:1, (adding 2X magnification) you would need an additional 2*70 = 140 mm of extension. That would be two full sets of extension tubes -- awkward and expensive.
I see in another thread that you've been pointed to http://beingmark.com/macro-illustrated/. That's an excellent reference. Keep in mind that Mark's camera "has the equivalent of a 400 mm internally zooming lens" on which he mounts auxiliary lenses. The impact of that long lens is that he can reach high magnifications at greater working distance than you'll be able to. The MSN-202 has a working distance of 32 mm (or shorter). A reversed prime will be similar.
DOF issues are the same with all cameras and all optics, when shooting the same subjects. With your D5100, 3:1 means that your subject size will be about 8 mm wide. Shooting at effective f/22, your DOF will be roughly 0.1 mm. If you can stop down farther, you'll get more DOF but at the cost of more diffraction blur. Be prepared for considerable frustration when working at this magnification in the field.
I hope this helps.
--Rik
-
kadinlucas
- Posts: 8
- Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2013 10:29 pm
Thank you both very much for the replies, very indepth!
I was obviously ignorant in how any of this worked and assumed that if I had a dedicated macro it would make things easier to get even closer using those methods, but once you start playing around with reversing it comes down to other factors.
I had never heard of the Ranox MSN 202 or any similar kind of equipment. I think this may be the option I attempt, I imagine the images won't be as good quality but I am just interested in getting really close and seeing what the insects really look like!
Thank you both very much. Will most likely look into that Ranox thing
As an aside, here is my flickr if you want to see any of the ~20 photos I have taken. They are not anything special but I am most definitely an amateur and am reasonably happy with a few of them (all were handheld with no other light source too, so not the best focus!) http://www.flickr.com/photos/kadinphotography/
Thanks again.
I was obviously ignorant in how any of this worked and assumed that if I had a dedicated macro it would make things easier to get even closer using those methods, but once you start playing around with reversing it comes down to other factors.
I had never heard of the Ranox MSN 202 or any similar kind of equipment. I think this may be the option I attempt, I imagine the images won't be as good quality but I am just interested in getting really close and seeing what the insects really look like!
Thank you both very much. Will most likely look into that Ranox thing
As an aside, here is my flickr if you want to see any of the ~20 photos I have taken. They are not anything special but I am most definitely an amateur and am reasonably happy with a few of them (all were handheld with no other light source too, so not the best focus!) http://www.flickr.com/photos/kadinphotography/
Thanks again.
-
kadinlucas
- Posts: 8
- Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2013 10:29 pm
Been researching the Raynox lenses. Seems like something I definitely want to get. However, from reading I am not sure if I should get the MSN 202 as you suggested, or the DCR 250. Basically I think the DCR 250 is 8x and the MSN 202 is 25x - so gets closer but with shallower dof.
I think I might not be good enough to handle that shallow dof so will have to decide which one to get!
... Can not find anywhere in New Zealand to get either of these. Only way seems to be ebay where shipping is $45usd or amazon where it is $70... hmm
I think I might not be good enough to handle that shallow dof so will have to decide which one to get!
... Can not find anywhere in New Zealand to get either of these. Only way seems to be ebay where shipping is $45usd or amazon where it is $70... hmm
-
rjlittlefield
- Site Admin
- Posts: 24434
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
- Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
- Contact:
Correct in concept.Basically I think the DCR 250 is 8x and the MSN 202 is 25x - so gets closer but with shallower dof.
By the way, I hope you're reading those "x" symbols as meaning "the unknown", as in, "I don't know what the 8 and 25 really mean". Raynox and their resellers seem to throw around X's pretty liberally and loosely.
If you look on the Raynox web page that I linked earlier, you see that the DCR-250 is specified as "Magnification: 8-Diopter". The term "diopter" is very well defined. It's just 1000 mm divided by the focal length of the lens. A 1 diopter lens has focal length 1000 mm, 2 diopter is 500 mm, 4 diopter is 250 mm, and 8 diopter is 125 mm. The DCR-250 has 125 mm focal length. Similarly the MSN-202 is specified as "Magnification: 25-diopter", which means it has focal length 1000mm/25 = 40 mm.
What each of these lenses actually provides in terms of magnification depends on what you pair them with. If you stick them in front of your 200 mm zoom focused at infinity, then the respective magnifications are 200/125 = 1.6X for the DCR-250 and 200/40 = 5X for the MSN-202. But stick them in front of your 105 macro focused at infinity, and they're only 0.84X and 2.625X. Go to the B&H Photo site, and the very same lenses are called "Raynox DCR-250 2.5x Super Macro Lens" and "Raynox MSN-202, 37mm, Super Macro/Close-Up Lens". Why is the DCR-250 described as 2.5X? Well, I don't know! I guess that number is what it gives on some particular camera. The spec of "37mm" for the MSN-202 is simpler to understand -- that's the diameter of its rear thread, nothing at all to do with magnification or focal length! In the detailed specifications, they list the magnification as "9.3x". That's 3.72 times as powerful as "2.5X", not too far off the ratio of focal lengths = 3.125. Amazon, meanwhile, agrees with B&H about describing the DCR-250 as Raynox DCR-250 2.5x Super Macro Conversion Lens, but then turns around and lists the MSN-202 as what appears to be less powerful: "Raynox MSN-202 1.5x Super Macro Lens".
Be careful about those X's. They can mean anything...
Going through Raynox's web site to find distributors in Oceania, it looks like http://www.haldex.com.au/ is active for Australia. They list the DCR-250, but I don't see the MSN-202 listed. Raynox offers http://www.lacklands.co.nz/ for New Zealand, but I can't actually find Raynox on their website.
--Rik
-
kadinlucas
- Posts: 8
- Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2013 10:29 pm
I ordered one of the Raynox lenses from Ebay.
I was wondering if you might give me any advice on a new setup I might look into. I am considering selling all 3 of my lenses, and buying the Tamron AF 18-270. 3.5-6.3 Di II VC PZD OR Sigma AF 18-250/3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM Macro. This covers all the range I currently have and more, the reviews seem alright, and with the longer 270mm it will work better for the Raynox attachment. I am very much an amateur and probably wouldn't notice slightly worse image quality but would appreciate the convenience. Then I could look at getting a 35 or 50mm prime for when I do want faster glass, but would have one lens that covers all the range.
Thanks.
I was wondering if you might give me any advice on a new setup I might look into. I am considering selling all 3 of my lenses, and buying the Tamron AF 18-270. 3.5-6.3 Di II VC PZD OR Sigma AF 18-250/3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM Macro. This covers all the range I currently have and more, the reviews seem alright, and with the longer 270mm it will work better for the Raynox attachment. I am very much an amateur and probably wouldn't notice slightly worse image quality but would appreciate the convenience. Then I could look at getting a 35 or 50mm prime for when I do want faster glass, but would have one lens that covers all the range.
Thanks.
That sounds like a direction diametrically opposed to what I'd want!.
I haven't looked for reviews for the lenses you propose, but can't believe that a 15:1 zoom is going to be on the same resolution planet as a dedicated 100mm macro, close up.
Many reviews, frankly are there to be attractive and sell through affiliate ads, earning the creator money, not to be objective or help YOU.
Wait until you get your Raynox lenses.
I have the three mentioned. I see them as OK, not spectacular. I expect that when you put the 202 on the front of a long tele, you'll be horrified to see how little you get in focus.
"you may want to rethink your objectives"
I haven't looked for reviews for the lenses you propose, but can't believe that a 15:1 zoom is going to be on the same resolution planet as a dedicated 100mm macro, close up.
Many reviews, frankly are there to be attractive and sell through affiliate ads, earning the creator money, not to be objective or help YOU.
Wait until you get your Raynox lenses.
I have the three mentioned. I see them as OK, not spectacular. I expect that when you put the 202 on the front of a long tele, you'll be horrified to see how little you get in focus.
"you may want to rethink your objectives" -
kadinlucas
- Posts: 8
- Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2013 10:29 pm
Haha yeah it is probably a backwards way of thinking... I may keep my macro lens but am quite keen on swapping the 18-55 and 55-200 kit lenses for one of the 18-250/270. Will keep thinking about things, just got a really good job starting next year so will either possibly have less time for photography or more money for better lenses!
-
rjlittlefield
- Site Admin
- Posts: 24434
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
- Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
- Contact:
I briefly tested that Tamron at a camera show. It was surprisingly good considering the long range. Not quite good enough to shell out the cash and give up my 18-55 and 55-200, given my use pattern. But if I carried around my DSLR for general use I think I'd change my mind.
I definitely agree, though -- wait until you get the Raynox and see how it works for you. The fixed-distance aspect of closeup lenses is something you have to experience to appreciate.
--Rik
I definitely agree, though -- wait until you get the Raynox and see how it works for you. The fixed-distance aspect of closeup lenses is something you have to experience to appreciate.
--Rik