Cheap way to make macro shots

[mikeg]

Hello,

I'm looking for a cheap system to make some macro shots.
I've got several choices and I'd like your advice.
a set of kenko extension tubes for my 70-200 is
or a vivitar 100mm f/3.5
or ... ?

What would you choose ?

Thanks,

MikeG

[Scottes]

Tubes probably won't get you down to 1:1 with the 70-200, unless you stack them all (I think). But the images will look a lot better than the Vivitar. Personally I like tubes a lot, but it always depends.

Do you want 1:1? What are you shooting?

[mikeg]

It will mainly be used to shoot corals in an aquarium. Sometime I'll have to shoot things measuring a few millimeters (1 millimeter = 0,039 inch)
or still nature

[timmyquest]

It will mainly be used to shoot corals in an aquarium. Sometime I'll have to shoot things measuring a few millimeters (1 millimeter = 0,039 inch)
or still nature

Take your widest angle lens, turn it around, and look through and prepare to be amazed.

[Scottes]

It will mainly be used to shoot corals in an aquarium. Sometime I'll have to shoot things measuring a few millimeters (1 millimeter = 0,039 inch)
or still nature

You 70-200 won't do for this. Sounds like you'd like 2:1 or even 3:1.

Timmyquest has a good idea - if you've got 2 lenses the same size.

But to start the Vivitar is probably your best best. You'll probably end up getting tubes, too.

[kanwingshing]

What are you shooting? 1mm? If you want to fill the fame decently on a 1mm object you need profession equipements dedicated for Macro work. Nothing else would work. This is becasue you are looking for a magnification up to like 10:1 or more.
However, if u mean 1cm. You can probably get away with a long lens and a close up lens.

[mikeg]

What are you shooting? 1mm? If you want to fill the fame decently on a 1mm object you need profession equipements dedicated for Macro work. Nothing else would work. This is becasue you are looking for a magnification up to like 10:1 or more.
However, if u mean 1cm. You can probably get away with a long lens and a close up lens.

I don't wanna fill the frame with a 1 mm object, but just get a decent view of it. I mean a 2:1 or 3:1 would be enough.

[Jim_T]

You could try a canon 500D closeup lens on your 70-200 lens.. It's more expensive than extension tubes, but very effective.

[iwatkins]

Sigma 105mm Macro lens (1:1) and a set of Kenko tubes ? Or is that a bit too much cash ?

I've used the above setup to great effect. Not sure what the ratio would be with all the tubes and the 105mm lens but it is certainly greater than 1:1.

Cheers

Ian

[Sendide]

just ot remind you that using the stucked tubes, with any lens will cost you a "lot" of light lost.... and with the tinny size you wanna look at (1mm) light is a key factor. a sheap way in no great help. not discouraging you, jsut avoid investing twice .
regards
Khalid

[cowman345]

If you're not fanatic about quality, just get some basic Hoya closeup filters (set of +4, +2, +1 will serve you well.) I used these for shooting my aquarium before I dropped my heater and electrocuted $2000+ of corals and fish including my beautiful, darling desjardinii tang :~(

-dave-

[kanwingshing]

Since the subject you are talking about is only mearsureable in mm. EVEN if you are not intended to fill full frame, you still need decicated marco lens that is capable of more than 1:1 magnification.
Say you are shooting an object that is 1mm and want to fill half of the frame on 10D. you would need at least approx 7:1 magnification factor.

[cowman345]

you don't really need something that can focus 1mm away. that's not the idea here. the goal, I think is to turn out pretty nice coral macros... to be able to focus on something an inch or two away while holding your lens nice and close to the glass to avoid glare (consider rubber lens hood as well).

For this purpose, a set of close up filters will do nicely.

-dave-

[DustinFinn]

I just got the kenko 3 tube set tonight and tested them with my 50mm F/1.8

I had to use the 420EX and still lost some light - I think you will need to get a specific MACRO lens because of the limited DOF and loss of light...

Here is my gallery I posted just a little while ago. it starts with the 12mm tube, then 20mm, then 36mm then the 36+12 and then 36+20+12. Got pretty close but I Cannot think its gonna get you as close you as you want.
http://www.dustinfinn.com/gallery/geek/KenkoTubes_01/index.html

Its a thought.

Good Luck!

[mikeg]

Thank you guys for those very useful infos !

Gotta analyse all that stuff :wink:

Or perhaps save a little more money for a canon 100 macro

[ron chappel]

Get a super cheap/super high quality manual focus lens(any brand that has stop down aperture blades) and make a mount for it so it is held backwards on your EOS body.
Easily by FAR the cheapest high image quality option. Make the mount out of an eos body cap + tube + filter (make the tube the length to suit the magnification you want)
Or make a variable one like my brother made.

[defordphoto]

You could try a canon 500D closeup lens on your 70-200 lens.. It's more expensive than extension tubes, but very effective.

That's exactly what I was going to say. I really want to get one of these. Attached to a 70-200 or a 100-400 and you are so there. Major macro lens! A lot of photogs use this handy attachment for macro work.

$134 at B&H: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=WishList.jsp&A=details&Q=&sku=87503&is=REG

[ron chappel]

Not sure if it helps but...
If you are only using the images for web display,don't forget the SERIOUS cropping ability of of a 6.1Mp file :)

[mikeg]

That's exactly what I was going to say. I really want to get one of these. Attached to a 70-200 or a 100-400 and you are so there. Major macro lens! A lot of photogs use this handy attachment for macro work.

$134 at B&H: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=WishList.jsp&A=details&Q=&sku=87503&is=REG

Do you think it will be better than extension tubes ? To me extension tubes have no glass hence no loss. Correct me if I am wrong ??
Here is what canon says about extension tubes : "... often providing greater magnification than is possible with close-up lenses..."
Kenko ext. tubes and 500D closeup filters are almost the same price.
As the 70-200 has a minimum focusing distance of 1.4 meters (4.6ft)
what will be minimum distance with the 500D attached ?

Thanks


MikeG

[Scottes]

As the 70-200 has a minimum focusing distance of 1.4 meters (4.6ft) what will be minimum distance with the 500D attached?

I tried this lens at 70mm with a 36mm tube. The subject was *inside* the lens hood before I could focus. Needless to say this is pretty useless - at this distance DoF is measured in nanometers.

This was with the 100-400 at 400mm, from an old post I made:

The eye is now a mere 14-1/2" from the front of the lens, approximately 28" from the sensor.
http://www.itsanadventure.com/postimages/400_500d_f38.jpg
In that image the eye is 3/8" diameter in real life.


If I can remember I'll take some test shots Saturday, 70-200 with tube and 500D, and compare them to a Sigma 105mm Macro lens. So if you don't see something here by Saturday night then PM me to remind me. I kinda want to know the information, too, but I'm fairly busy until Saturday night.

[Scottes]

A couple other things...

Tubes lose light, 500D barely does. I've heard that a 36mm tube loses 1 stop. A 500D probably loses 1/10 of a stop.

Tubes let you get closer, but the closer you are the less DoF you have. Dramatically.

The 500D is more likely to distort the edges, especially when on a wide angle like the 70-200 at 70mm.


Reading back I see that you say "2:1 or 3:1 would be enough" - I very highly doubt that you're going to get even 2:1 from your 70-200. I took my 100-400 at 400, with a 500D AND 68mm of tubes and barely got past 1:1. And that was a monster setup requiring a macro slide tripod mount to boot.

[Jim_T]

The 500D might distort edges, but the sensor crop probably does away with most of it.. I've never noticed much distortion.

One more thing about the 500D is that it lets you focus FURTHER BACK, not closer.. This is good two ways.. First, your lens isn't getting in the way of the ambient light.. Second, if you're shooting bugs, they won't get scared and crawl away..

Here is a penny I took with my EF100-300 f/4.5-5.6 lens set to 200mm with the 500D installed.. I measured the focusing distance and the front element of the lens was 19 inches (almost two feet) from the penny. (The lighting could have been better.. I just did a quickie shot for demo purposes)..

http://www.pbase.com/image/27537739/original

It's a straight original size crop. This is how much magnification the 500D provides at 200mm.. (You can get back even futher and get more magnification at 300mm :) )

[cowman345]

I have a Canon 100mm 2.8 Macro and LOOOOOVE it. But what if i wanted to increase the lens to subject distance? Would extension tubes do the trick? (FYI most of my macro stuff is insect closeups, and manually focused, using Flash as strong fill to direct sunlight in most cases)

-dave-

[Scottes]

In a way, yes. Though normally used to let you focus closer, they also provide some magnification if you don't move the camera.

In a test with my 100-400 at 400 I set the camera up on a tripod 12.5 feet from the subject. I then tried different tubes without ever moving the tripod. 12mm tube gave 10% magnification, 20mm gave 15%, and 36mm tube gave 27%. I have no idea if these numbers will hold true for a 100mm, but they will give *some* magnification. So you get get a little further back and still get 1:1, or stay at the same distance and possibly get 1:1.25.

Considering the 100mm I'd *guess* that it would allow you to move the camera back 3 or 4 inches more while still retaining 1:1. Just a guess. It might give you 5-7" if you wanted 1:2. It's not a whole lot, but it helps.

[karusel]

How about the canon 65mm 1-5?

[EXA1a]

Tubes let you get closer, but the closer you are the less DoF you have. Dramatically.


That's a very common false reasoning.

DOF is related to the magnification ratio and aperture, not tol the distance, nor on focal length.
Macro lenses don't have "good" or "bad" DOF. That's all the same. That's physics. Macro lenses only have good or bad resolution, color, contrast, working distance.

--Jens--

[mikeg]

The 500D might distort edges, but the sensor crop probably does away with most of it.. I've never noticed much distortion.

One more thing about the 500D is that it lets you focus FURTHER BACK, not closer.. This is good two ways.. First, your lens isn't getting in the way of the ambient light.. Second, if you're shooting bugs, they won't get scared and crawl away..

Here is a penny I took with my EF100-300 f/4.5-5.6 lens set to 200mm with the 500D installed.. I measured the focusing distance and the front element of the lens was 19 inches (almost two feet) from the penny. (The lighting could have been better.. I just did a quickie shot for demo purposes)..

http://www.pbase.com/image/27537739/original

It's a straight original size crop. This is how much magnification the 500D provides at 200mm.. (You can get back even futher and get more magnification at 300mm :) )

Thanks Jim. That's a good example. If I get this for my macro shots, it will be ok :)
I think I'm gonna take this instead of extension tubes...

[mikeg]

How about the canon 65mm 1-5?

That could be interesting but it costs $ 819.95 @ bh. A little bit too much for me :wink:

[iwatkins]

Mike,

See here (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=28035&highlight=) for some shots I did with the Sigma 105mm Macro plus all three of the Kenko extension tubes.

If you don't know, the british one penny coin is approx 6/10's of an inch across.

Cheers

Ian

[mikeg]

Mike,

See here (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=28035&highlight=) for some shots I did with the Sigma 105mm Macro plus all three of the Kenko extension tubes.

If you don't know, the british one penny coin is approx 6/10's of an inch across.

Cheers

Ian
Thanks for the link Ian. I'm always impressed by the shallow DOF but that's usual with macro lenses...

With that setup I'll be able to emphasize a 1mm polyp on a SPS coral ! :lol:

[cowman345]

Time Out... I was under the impression that the 500D is simply a "close-up filter" like the popular hoya sets (+1, +2, +4, etc.). Am I mistaken?

-dave-

[Scottes]

Time Out... I was under the impression that the 500D is simply a "close-up filter" like the popular hoya sets (+1, +2, +4, etc.). Am I mistaken?

Same things basically, but the 500D is much better quality and much better image quality.

[Scottes]

Tubes let you get closer, but the closer you are the less DoF you have. Dramatically.


That's a very common false reasoning.

DOF is related to the magnification ratio and aperture, not tol the distance, nor on focal length.

OK but if you're using tubes on a lens the tubes get you some magnification on their own, and then you can get closer for even more magnification. So the end result is more magnification and thus less DoF, right? So if tubes can get you from say 1:1 to 2:1 then you'll have a lot less DoF, right?

[tomas-tnt]

Reversed wide-angle lens is very usefull combination (28mm/2.8 in combination with another lens (for example 90mm) you can get to 10:1 magnification). BUT there is a problem with focusing distance. The thing you are taking a shot should by few centimeters from the lens (useless for live insects).
Here is few examples with reversed 28mm/2.8 and 60mm extension tubes.
http://stgyro.blogspot.com/2009/01/makro-s-helios-28mm28.html

50mm/1.8 with extension tubes has benefit of light lens (you dont need as much light as with reversed 28mm/2.8). BUT, there is the same problem. Short focusing distance from the lens. More here ...
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=148797

[Larry Weinman]

The Vivitar macro lens is excellent. A guy in our camera club uses one and his results are first rate. That's the nice thing about macro, there are no bad macro lenses