Macro overkill

[karusel]

I know topics similar to this one have been discussed before, but here I hope the debate will clear any and all fog... I guess some of you have been drooling over the MP-E 65 as I have. If you add the macro twin lite flash to the setup you drool like an egyptian camel in heat. Being a pretty amateur photographer I find it hard to justify the severe costs, the price (lens+flash) is higher than that of a 100-400L glass which I am buying this fall.

I am therefore thinking of alternatives... like reversing a 50mm lens on a telephoto lens, but which one (the telephoto, not the 50mm)? 'm very sensitive about quality and don't like to make compromises, I rather have no lens than some visibly inferior one - optically, not to be mistaken; if there is somewhat poorer bokeh, I can live with it, but I really don't like CA's, geometry distortions, general softness, poor color rendition, and other optical flaws. Also, the MP-E's minimum aperture is 22, can another lens setup yield deeper DOF?

[Conk]

Sounds like you answered your own question.

[robertwgross]

If you are trying to do macro work on a budget, then why not use an extension tube with your existing lenses?

---Bob Gross---

[Tom W]

I second Bob's suggestion - extension tubes will help immensely, particularly if you have a lens with good close-focus capability already.

[robertwgross]

If you are trying to take a photo of the wart on the hind leg of a housefly, then you would need some serious lenses (and some Super Glue).

However, I use an extension tube often when I am trying to get a small flower (maybe 1/2 to 1 inch in diameter) to fill up the frame. I call that ordinary macro work. Autofocus can get a little squirrelly, and often I have to switch over to manual focus to get it right.

---Bob Gross---

[Jon]

And/or teleconverters. 2X TC, say Tamron, and the Tamron 90 f/2.8 macro (1:) will set you back about 700 new at BH. Should get you to about 2:1 without considering about what extension tubes will do. And DOF at the life-size and greater magnifications is so small that changing from f/22 to f/64 on the 90 will get you an additional 0.2 mm at 2 cm focussing distance (that's double the DOF). With a 180 (TC), DOF's virtually nil at the same working distance, but, of course, you can increase the working distance to get the same magnification - that'll put DOF in line with the 90 at the same magnification.

Using a reversed 50 is going to give you a different magnification on different focal lengths. What you're doing is essentially adding a high-class close-up lens of 20 diopter (a +20 close-up) that'll give you on the order of 5 cm. working distance. You'd have to figure what magnification you want at that distance, and decide whether the lenses available in that focal length will meet your other requirements. The formulae are out there but I haven't used them for years. Any good photo reference book should help you figure what will meet your requirements.

[stuartf287]

You may be more discriminating than I am, but I have been blown away by the quality of macros I've taken with an old Pentax 50mm F1.4 lens reversed on my 28-105 Canon lens. I rarely use this particular zoom due to its relatively poor quality, but I chose it for macro-reversal experiments because the difference in filter sizes is relatively small (58mm vs. 49mm for the Pentax lens). The combo vignettes severely at all focal lengths of the zoom under 105. At maximum zoom there is little or no vignetting. I figure I'm getting a macro ratio of about 3.36:1 (that is, 105/50 x 1.6 crop factor). I have gotten shots of tiny gnat-like insects in a neighbor's garden that are incredibly sharp and detailed -- the entire insect is hardly more than a centimeter or so in length and yet it nearly fills the sensor screen. Facets in the creature's eyes and tiny hairs or filaments on its thorax are clearly discernable. I made a 13" x 19" print and the image is more than acceptable. Lighting is a problem, but I shot in daylight and used the built-in flash (not perfect, but it worked). I need to test the combination in more controlled conditions (on a tripod). I'm just sorry that I didn't try reversing the very good Pentax lens earlier. The reversing rings cost about $5.

[karusel]

Jon, that is the answer I was looking for, thanx! 8)

robertwgross, what I want is more than 1:1, 3:1 would do great, also I wish for somewhat longer working distance as with MP-E lens, and as large DOF as possible.

I will try to find some good books. I think I will first try to reverse mount a 50mm lens on the 100-400 and, yeah, that twin lite flash is a must in either case, with minimum aperture it would be a suffer trying to take a decent photo...

[Jon]

Jon, that is the answer I was looking for, thanx! 8)

robertwgross, what I want is more than 1:1, 3:1 would do great, also I wish for somewhat longer working distance as with MP-E lens, and as large DOF as possible.

I will try to find some good books. I think I will first try to reverse mount a 50mm lens on the 100-400 and, yeah, that twin lite flash is a must in either case, with minimum aperture it would be a suffer trying to take a decent photo...

I looked in Alfred Blaker's Field Photography (1976) last night as I remembered his liking a reversed prime for a close-up lens. He supplied the formula m=f/F where f and F are the reversed and prime lenses FL respectively and m is magnification. Regardless of how good the glass is, I think I'd avoid using a zoom in the process if you're extremely concerned about image quality. If you can find it, I highly recommend Blaker's book for technical, macro and nature photography.