Crazy macro

[zamanakhan]

How the hell do guys get soo close to a bug where they can clearly see the eyes? where does the oomph from the background come from?

I am guessing they must use tubes or atleast reversing rings ontop of a true macro lens.

I finally started shooting macro after having gotten a 105 macro for 2 years or so, i used that lens for everything but macro. Yesterday i went over out on the balcony and took out my tripod and focusing rails, but to my surprise i actually preferred hand held macro with a sb-600 slightly to the side of the lens. I shot a spider that was on my railing, it was quite small, smaller than a penny, I got pretty darn close to that spider and i am quite surprised it didn't actually run away, i must of been less than 4-5inches away from that thing. Even with a 1:1 Lens i didn't get as close as i wanted, i want to be clearly able to see the thing's eyes up close.

What should i get in addition to the 105 vr to help me get closer? would it be better for me to maybe invest in a 200 f4 macro? or use tubes with my 80-200 2.8? Tubes with the 105? tubes and reversing ring with the 105? what kind of lens on the reversing ring?

I've caught the macro "bug" (very punny) and i want to get closer to these critters.

Currently my setup is a 105vr on a d7000 with a bracket from manfrotto that lets me mount two flashes to either side of the lens, it clips on at the bottom, odd contraption and a bit heavy but it works.

I shot these with it:
Spider-10.jpg | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
Spider-27.jpg | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

also how do i post pics from flikr?

 

[Overread]

I actually prefer handheld with a flash over tripod shooting myself when hunting bugs. When doing flowers or similar very static subjects tripod are great - but for bugs I prefer having a bit more speed to my ability to change the composition or positioning.

As for the magnification boosting you've a few options to consider:

1) Go Canon. Not joking here - Canon make the only lens capable of higher than 1:1 magnification in the MPE 65mm f2.8 macro - this lens goes from 1:1 through to 5:1.

2) Close up lens attachments. These screw/attach to the front of the lens, like a filter, and reduce the minimum focusing distance, at a cost of loss of infinity focusing. I like these as they can be added and removed pretty fast from a lens without having to fiddle around as much as with extension tubes.
Note that there are two rough kinds of these on the market; cheap and good. The cheap are cheap and very poor performers, they'll work but degrade things. The good quality options are quality glass and will often show little to no apparent negative effects of being used.
Options to consider would be the Canon 500D and 250D (The 250D is the stronger) as well as the Raynox series (eg the 150 and 250DCR and the 202 and 505 MSN - the latter two are much more powerful). The power rating is the diopter value - the higher the value the greater the amount of magnification (and also closer you end up working).
Unlike extension tubes these give more magnification the longer the lenses focal length.

3) Extension tubes - reduce the minimum focusing distance at a cost of the loss of infinity focusing. These are often popular for shorter focal length lenses as they give more magnification than on longer lenses. Kenko make about the best quality and priced option - Nikon ownbrand tend to be very overpriced.

4) Reverse lens mounting. Mounting a shorter focal length lens onto the 100mm would let you boost magnification. A reversed 50mm would give you around 2:1 - a reversed 35mm just under 3:1.

5) Microscope optics. This is an area is a bit more complex if simply because you've got to do a bit of homework to find a good option. This method can potentially give you some very powerful magnifications though costs can vary a lot here.

6) Teleconverters - you might need extension tubes to fit these as not all lenses will fit to teleconverters and I've no idea if the Nikon lens will fit their own brand telecoverters. The bonus of teleconverters is that, unlike pretty much all the other options, you do retain infinity focus and you also retain the same working distance. With a 1.4TC you get to 1.4:1 magnification - a 2*TC would give you 2:1. Teleconverters can also be combined (say with close up lens attachments) to give greater magnifications again.

In general I would suggest considering teleconverters and macro lens attachments as a way forward. With the 100mm you are pretty half way between extension tubes and close up lens attachments; but with options like the Raynox 202MSN and 505MSN you can go a lot further with magnification.
Image quality wise its very hard to say which method would give you the greatest gain for the least amount of loss - and honestly it would vary a lot depending on what you chose to use (eg for reverse lens mounting or microscope optics use). Also don't get the idea that the Canon option is the best - its not. It's a very good single package and does more than enough for most people - but there are better options (even though they are no cheaper and also require a fair bit of trial and testing to create).

 

[zamanakhan]

thnx, that was a GREAT reply.

Obv canon is a no go as we all know nikon is better :greenpbl:
i am going to consider the filters that magnify. However i would prefer to keep it all in the nikon name, not 100% sure how the canon filters would work i don't want to degrade picture quality too much.

Do extension tubes lower my working distance? as it is with the 105 i thought i was pretty darn close.

Does the working distance change if lets say i mount a 28mm lens reversed in front of my 105 macro? Do i get crazy vignetting? I have a 28 2.8 and it doesn't see much use i would love to use it as a reversed lens. The filter size is 67 on 105 and 52 on 28.

I have a tc20e didn't realize i can get closer with that!!! i have to try that next time, it never occurred to me that i could do that. i have a feeling that this will however degrade the quality a bit.

Thnx again for your help!!!

 

[480sparky]

Extension tubes, as well as bellows, work of the simple principle that the further the lens is from the sensor/film plane, the closer the subject must be in order to be in focus.

"Filters", or close-up filters, are glass........ and you will quickly learn that adding glass in front of your lens will lower the image quality. As extension tubes and bellows have no glass, they do not suffer from this infliction.

 

[zamanakhan]

Extension tubes, as well as bellows, work of the simple principle that the further the lens is from the sensor/film plane, the closer the subject must be in order to be in focus.

"Filters", or close-up filters, are glass........ and you will quickly learn that adding glass in front of your lens will lower the image quality. As extension tubes and bellows have no glass, they do not suffer from this infliction.

do they lower my working distance? i used to have my eye on the kenko system but i never ended up getting them as i got a dedicated setup, but i may invest in them now.

The reason i was hesitant about the filters is basically i don't want to lower image quality, i wonder if a 28 or a 50 in front of the 105 will lower it significantly...?

 

[Overread]

All the methods, with the exception of teleconverters, lower the working distance - that is how they boost the magnification. So you'll be losing working distance no matter how you approach it (even the MPE 65mm drops its working distance as the magnification increases).

As for adding more glass - this always comes up in macro topics and honestly its not as much of a deal as people make it out to be. Adding quality glass infront of quality glass does mean you've added more glass - but its glass that is already good grade and this the effect it has is far more minimal on the overall quality. Further you'll likely be using the setup with the lens closed down from wide open and thus already you'll likely be shooting at the lenses sweet spot.

As for combining Canon and Nikon, the Canon close up lens attachments are just lens attachments - glass and a filter thread is all they are with a Canon name stamped on the side - won't have any effect on your Nikon gear at all. If you're really worried go with the Raynox (yes its 3rd party, but its quality 3rd party - heck a Raynox close up lens is more than capable, in the right setup, of beating the Canon MPE65mm).

Tubes often get listed as not having any degrading effect on image quality, but its a bit of a false truth - yes there is no glass, but you have shifted the lens from its optimum position - the light is thus not reflected onto the sensor in the "best" position possible. Again any degradation is normally undetectable to the human eye in real world shooting.

One thing to keep in mind though is diffraction. As magnification increases most of the above methods result in an effective aperture reduction; similar to the one you see in your lens as you approach the 1:1 magnification (from f2.8 to somewhere around f5-5.6 if my memory is right). Boosting magnification further will result in a smaller effective aperture, even though its not reported on the camera. This won't affect metering through the lens that the camera does, but it will mean that you might have to set a wider aperture on the camera to avoid softening by diffraction.
By way of example when I use the Canon MPE 65mm at 5:1 the aperture I set on the lens is around f5.6 as shown on the camera - in effective terms however the aperture is closer to around f20. In fact many high magnification photos are actually softer when viewed at 100% because of these limits - the crisp perfect sharp shots you see at very high magnifications tend to be the result of very wide apertures and often combined with photo stacking to boost the depth of field.

 

[TCampbell]

There are inexpensive single-element diopters which thread onto the filter rings and magnify the view. A single element diopter works a bit like a magnifying glass -- you can notice chromatic aberration (fringing) around the edges). There are more expensive dual element diopters which use a doublet to control the CA problem. There are some examples floating around the net which compare a single element close-up to a dual-element close-up. The difference is fairly significant.

Oddly... I haven't been able to find any dual-elements OTHER than Canon's 250D and 500D (the 250D is designed for lenses from 30mm-135mm focal lengths, the 500D is designed for lenses from 70-300mm) Let me know if someone is aware of a maker of dual-element close-up lenses (chromatic doublets) other than Canon. BTW, the Canon filters aren't cheap and are somewhat hard to find in-stock.

Don't forget that at ludicrously close focusing distances the DoF can be razor thin. If hand-holding a camera, even after focusing carefully, the slightest body movement either forward or backward can throw your subject completely out of focus.

 

[zamanakhan]

All the methods, with the exception of teleconverters, lower the working distance - that is how they boost the magnification. So you'll be losing working distance no matter how you approach it (even the MPE 65mm drops its working distance as the magnification increases).

As for adding more glass - this always comes up in macro topics and honestly its not as much of a deal as people make it out to be. Adding quality glass infront of quality glass does mean you've added more glass - but its glass that is already good grade and this the effect it has is far more minimal on the overall quality. Further you'll likely be using the setup with the lens closed down from wide open and thus already you'll likely be shooting at the lenses sweet spot.

As for combining Canon and Nikon, the Canon close up lens attachments are just lens attachments - glass and a filter thread is all they are with a Canon name stamped on the side - won't have any effect on your Nikon gear at all. If you're really worried go with the Raynox (yes its 3rd party, but its quality 3rd party - heck a Raynox close up lens is more than capable, in the right setup, of beating the Canon MPE65mm).

Tubes often get listed as not having any degrading effect on image quality, but its a bit of a false truth - yes there is no glass, but you have shifted the lens from its optimum position - the light is thus not reflected onto the sensor in the "best" position possible. Again any degradation is normally undetectable to the human eye in real world shooting.

One thing to keep in mind though is diffraction. As magnification increases most of the above methods result in an effective aperture reduction; similar to the one you see in your lens as you approach the 1:1 magnification (from f2.8 to somewhere around f5-5.6 if my memory is right). Boosting magnification further will result in a smaller effective aperture, even though its not reported on the camera. This won't affect metering through the lens that the camera does, but it will mean that you might have to set a wider aperture on the camera to avoid softening by diffraction.
By way of example when I use the Canon MPE 65mm at 5:1 the aperture I set on the lens is around f5.6 as shown on the camera - in effective terms however the aperture is closer to around f20. In fact many high magnification photos are actually softer when viewed at 100% because of these limits - the crisp perfect sharp shots you see at very high magnifications tend to be the result of very wide apertures and often combined with photo stacking to boost the depth of field.

that is fine, i know the value of higher quality glass infront of the lens. When i started i used tiffen and no name brand cpls and uv's but i noticed flares and degration so i opted uv less and cpl is a heliopan and nd filters are B+W. I have no problem having canon close up filters what i ment when i said i would stay nikon is that if i were to use a reversing adapter i would stick a nikon lens on the front, also i would not switch to canon just for the mpe (although it is a SWEET lens.) It's just not cost effective for me to do the switch.

I am going to try with the teleconverter when i get back home but the teleconverter isnt all that great when i use it with a 80-200 2.8 it degrades quality quite a bit, i actually have more faith in canon close up filters. If the images are still relatively sharp with tele converters i will order a set of the close up filters. if no i am gonna try my hand at extension tubes.

 

[Overread]

TCampbell - Raynox are double element. DCR 150 and 250 are their weaker options (250 is the stronger) whilst they've also much stronger options in the MSN 202 and 505 (505 being the stronger). There are also some previous versions kicking around from a discontinued kit as well as a few other kits they sell. Their products were generally pitched more to the video camera than the DSLR world, but they work well on either.

 

[zamanakhan]

got home and went outside to the balcony again and ure enough the lil bugger was still there.

I tried this with the TC20E and the 105vr this is what i go so far un cropped:
spider-17.jpg | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

much closer compared to before as the ones before are cropped. Still not as close as i would like to be but i think loosing working distance would suck, i am ridiculously close to the spider as it is. I can always crop, however i am also starting to see alot of noise with the iso for sharpening and such but this is somethin i am going to just have to get better at on my own.

I will look into the close up filters when money isn't as tight, they seem like a great option for me, when something doesn't spook as easy or is not very aggressive.

 

[Overread]

You may find losing working distance actually helps in some ways. The more you magnify the more your body shake will affect the shot - at high magnifications framing and getting a focused shot is very tricky. Having less working distance helps because you can put your hand on the ground/surface near the subject and brace the lens of the lens on your hand for stability.

 

[xj0hnx]

I've been using a mix of the Hoya +1/+2/+4 screw on filters, and the old HCE Vari-Close-Up Lens. Much easier than the tubes I was using, and they don't have to be used on full manual. Much easier to deal with light too, with the tubes it's hard to get enough light, and you HAVE to use a tripod (at least I did).

 

[mjhoward]

4) Reverse lens mounting. Mounting a shorter focal length lens onto the 100mm would let you boost magnification. A reversed 50mm would give you around 2:1 - a reversed 35mm just under 3:1.

Good recommendations. As per #4 & #6, this guy Photos : ThomasShahan.com uses a reversed 28mm manual lens stacked on a 2X teleconverter. 2X teleconverters are pretty notorious for making 'soft' images when used in the traditional way. I think you can probably tell from his photos that, as Overread has said, it doesn't quite have that effect on macro... his images are quite sharp.

I wouldn't recommend extension tubes AT ALL for what you are trying to accomplish. Just to get to 2:1 magnification, you're going to need 100mm worth of extension tubes which means you'll have to buy 2 sets. This doesn't even address all the slop in the tubes and strain you'll be putting on the camera body mount. If anything, you might want to look into a bellows. You can get cheap ones for $50 or you can get nice name brand ones that are precision tools. Either way, they'll take the stress off the camera mount and you'll get adjustable extension all the way up to ~200mm (varies by bellows unit).

 

[zamanakhan]

You may find losing working distance actually helps in some ways. The more you magnify the more your body shake will affect the shot - at high magnifications framing and getting a focused shot is very tricky. Having less working distance helps because you can put your hand on the ground/surface near the subject and brace the lens of the lens on your hand for stability.

you've got some sick macro shots on flikr overread, it seriously makes me consider switching to canon, i was doing the numbers last night. It is also probably much easier to get a hold of a 5dm3 than a d800 right now, canon has better production i think. It would just be a huge hassle for me however to try and sell off all my lenses and camera body and flashes... and everything else. If i wasn't a student and had a full time career i would seriously consider it. I also suspect that it has more to do with skill, technique and experience, i can most likely get similar shots with the right equipment on nikon it will just be a pain but that will only give me the "ability" to get such images not the knowledge and experience to have consistent results. You are also right about the working distance, when i took the shots above i had to have my elbow on the railing or i was constantly loosing the bugger.

 

[zamanakhan]

4) Reverse lens mounting. Mounting a shorter focal length lens onto the 100mm would let you boost magnification. A reversed 50mm would give you around 2:1 - a reversed 35mm just under 3:1.

Good recommendations. As per #4 & #6, this guy Photos : ThomasShahan.com uses a reversed 28mm manual lens stacked on a 2X teleconverter. 2X teleconverters are pretty notorious for making 'soft' images when used in the traditional way. I think you can probably tell from his photos that, as Overread has said, it doesn't quite have that effect on macro... his images are quite sharp.



I wouldn't recommend extension tubes AT ALL for what you are trying to accomplish. Just to get to 2:1 magnification, you're going to need 100mm worth of extension tubes which means you'll have to buy 2 sets. This doesn't even address all the slop in the tubes and strain you'll be putting on the camera body mount. If anything, you might want to look into a bellows. You can get cheap ones for $50 or you can get nice name brand ones that are precision tools. Either way, they'll take the stress off the camera mount and you'll get adjustable extension all the way up to ~200mm (varies by bellows unit).

i'd like to try this as well but i think my 2x will not mount with my 28mm 2.8 as the newer 2x convertors have a big protruding lens bit making it impossible to mount anything reversed on it unless the lens is recessed. I may consider getting a manual focus 2x converter. The thing is i dont want to go out buying everything and in the end getting the same result but having 3 diffrent ways to do it. Ideally i'd like to do it with a greatest working distance and lowest cost.

I already have the 105 vr macro a 2x teleconverter, a 28mm manual focus 2.8 lens. I am just wondering if it is better for me to get close up filters for this kit, or reversing ring, or get a manual 2x converter to mount the 28 with etc.