how to get crazy up close macro photos

dannylightning · Sep 7, 2016

the one lens i have will pretty much focus right up against something but not anything like some up close insect photos i see.

this is about the best i can get. when i put a extension tube on any of my lenses i cant get much better than this. used my 18-35mm 1.8 for this shot. and the ant is still pretty small.

even with the extension tubes on a lens at 200mm its not getting any close yet some people get photos like this

Jumping spider - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

.

.

Scatterbrained · Sep 7, 2016

You'll need a lens that can already do 1:1 macro and then add a whole stack of extension tubes to it.

table1349 · Sep 7, 2016

This would solve your problems: Canon MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Macro Photo Lens

It ought to get you close enough.

Scatterbrained · Sep 7, 2016

BTW: I don't know about Nikon but the Canon 65mm does a true micro at up to 5:1 magnification. If Nikon offers a similar lens it's likely what will get you there. You could also look into macro bellows, but those would be difficult to use with live bugs.

dannylightning · Sep 7, 2016

i finally found some good info. most people getting the crazy close shots are using something like 1:5 instead of 1:1 which it looks like that canon lens will provide but i do not have a canon camera. here is something i found the Raynox DCR-250 Super Macro Snap-On Lens well now my font is big after copy and paste lol

not sure how that would work on one of my lenses but i asked a person on facebook that took crazy close up photos of a spider what they used and they used that raynox thing and the sigma 105mm macro lens which is a 1:1 the photo was perfect, looking at the photos on amazon where people used that raynox thing, there are some pretty good ones.

might be worth a try for the price.

i also saw someone using a reverse adapter ring to put the 18-55mm kit lens on backwards and they got extremely up close detailed photos just by mounting the lens backwards..

dxqcanada · Sep 7, 2016

The Canon MP-E or the Minolta 3x-1x are specialized for greater than 1:1

Extension tubes coupled with a macro lens does get very close.
... in the olden days it was multiple tubes with a 50mm or there is always a reversal ring + wide angle.
The add-on filters always added too much distortion.

Though I will have to say a macro lens really does make a difference with IQ ... though I have yet to add a tube + macro lens.

Spider is 1/4" inch in size ... Sigma 150mm macro (much more expensive than just tubes or reversal ring) handheld no flash ... not even super macro stuff.

480sparky · Sep 7, 2016

Just reverse an old-fashioned 28mm that has an aperture ring.

kalgra · Sep 7, 2016

The Raynox works pretty well but I have the MP-E 65mm so I rarely use it.

Check out Emanuel's post in the macro forum. He is a Nikon user getting excellent results using the raynox 250 on a 70-200mm f/4 VR. See the example he shot with with that combo below.

29152337341_67b55a43c0_h.jpg

dannylightning · Sep 8, 2016

dxqcanada said:
The Canon MP-E or the Minolta 3x-1x are specialized for greater than 1:1

Extension tubes coupled with a macro lens does get very close.
... in the olden days it was multiple tubes with a 50mm or there is always a reversal ring + wide angle.
The add-on filters always added too much distortion.

Though I will have to say a macro lens really does make a difference with IQ ... though I have yet to add a tube + macro lens.

Spider is 1/4" inch in size ... Sigma 150mm macro (much more expensive than just tubes or reversal ring) handheld no flash ... not even super macro stuff.
View attachment 127231

480sparky said:
Just reverse an old-fashioned 28mm that has an aperture ring.

kalgra said:
The Raynox works pretty well but I have the MP-E 65mm so I rarely use it.

Check out Emanuel's post in the macro forum. He is a Nikon user getting excellent results using the raynox 250 on a 70-200mm f/4 VR. See the example he shot with with that combo below.

29152337341_67b55a43c0_h.jpg

why a 28mm sparkey??

spending allot of money is no a option right now since i am unemployed at the moment, just kind of trying to figure out how to get these close up images with what i already have or maybe buying something like that raynox that's not that expensive, that shot of the fly looks pretty darn good. i would be happy with something like what you got dxqcanada, that spider image would be close up enough for me.

i kind of though the extension tubes wold do the trick on a 100 or 200mm lens but they are not doing the trick. i bought those a while back and played with them a little bit around the house. i decided to get them out and try to get some insect photos and i am not getting the results that i want.

the lady with the 100mm macro lens and the raynox sure got some great macro shots so maybe ill give one of those a try and see how it goes. .

dannylightning · Sep 8, 2016

i got this spider with my point and shoot, he was small but most spiders i see are much smaller, this version is cropped allot and the lighting was bad, but this will give you a idea of how much zoom i would like to get. if i could make a small insect show up about this size with out needing to crop the image i would be happy. i have a much less cropped version of this spider and the image quality is descent. but i at least want to get things showing up about this size in my macro photos.. ill post the less cropped photo too, looks good but the spider is just too small and that is one of the bigger spiders i have seen in quite some time.

sure i would love some extreme close up but if i need to spend a bunch of money to make it happen its not a option now. just trying to get a descent close up of small subjects with out spending much money. maybe down the road i can buy a atual macro lens.

here is the less cropped image, the spider is smaller in the photo than i would like it to be.

20160529-IMG_0141-5 by Daniel Caldwell, on Flickr

kalgra · Sep 8, 2016

Sorry for some reason I thought you had the 70-200 already which is why I mentioned it. Google "Yudy Sauw"
He uses a Nikon 105mm macro with the raynox and its many of his images that got me into it. I'm not sure will be able to get the super extreme close ups you referenced without a macro that does true 1:1 or greater. Possibly the cheapest alternative for you that will yield the best results is the laowa 60mm 2:1 for Nikon $399 at b&h.

480sparky · Sep 8, 2016

dannylightning said:
............why a 28mm sparkey?? ............ .

When reversing lenses, the shorter the focal length, the more magnification you get .

smoke665 · Sep 8, 2016

I have a set of these Hoya 52mm Close-up Kit (+1,+2,+4) Lens B-52CUS-GB B&H Photo all the way up to +10. I haven't fully explored using them, but initial results weren't bad. This was a bloom approximately 1/2" in diameter, from a Crepe Myrtle, with a +4 on my 18-55.

dannylightning · Sep 8, 2016

thanks for all the info. that lens looks nice but cant afford it at the moment.

Overread · Sep 8, 2016

A few thoughts and some ROUGH maths*
1 - Extension tubes. Work by reducing the minimum and maximum focusing distances of the lens they are attached to. They fit between the lens and the camera body and purely act as a spacer, they contain no optics (glass). However good quality ones (like Kenko) have metal contacts which let you retain lens control, whilst cheap ones (5$ kind) have no metal contacts and thus lose lens control.
The rough maths is:
Length of extension tubes in mm - divided by - focal length of the lens = magnification : 1
Eg 100mm lens with a 50mm tube gives
50/100 = 0.5:1 or half life size

or a 50mm lens with 50mm tube tives
50/50 = 1:1 or life-size or "true macro" (called such casually as that's the magnification standard for true macro lenses that manufacturers make).

As such you can see that they give the greatest magnification on shorter focal length lenses. Note that they can move the minimum and maximum focusing points to a point where they are so close its impractical to use and also where the lens can never focus; so whilst you can add more you have a limit.
Note - the base magnification of the lens is added to the magnification gained via tube use. This means that if you know the magnification of your lens you can simply add the value to the above result. This means if you use extension tubes on a macro lens youcan get beyond the 1:1 power of the lens.

2) Close up lens attachments/diopters/macro attachments/etc... (they have varied names)
These are like the Raynox DCR250 and come in various powers, with the diopter number denoting how powerful they are (higher number = greater power). They work just like extension tubes, however give greater magnification on longer focal length lenses. I don't know any rough-maths for them.
They come in two flavours - items like Raynox series or Canon 500D and 250D which are high grade multi-element and coated optics. And dirt cheap options that are often sold in kits and are generally single elements. The cheap kind are what most encounter and give a very poor quality result, they work but badly and thus many advise against their use at all. Options like the Raynox (which I also use at times) are great choices and more than capable of standing up to extension tubes or other macro choices.

3) Reverse mounting is what it says and is when you mount a lens backwards onto the camera or onto another lens. This is done by reversing rings which are attached to the screw-threads on the front of a lens (typically used for filters). You might need to use stepping rings sometimes if you can't find a reversing ring that fits your two selected lens choices for this.
The rough maths is - focal length of the lens attached to the body - divided by - focal length of the reversed lens = magnification :1

Eg a 300mm lens on the camera body and a reversed 50mm would give 300/50 = 6:1 (which is greater than the Canon MPE lens mentioned earlier).

Note you generally want the heavier lens on the body so that you're putting the least amount of strain on the screwthreads - of course remember to give your lenses proper support when shooting using this method.

Few other thoughts:
High magnification is very hard to do and I'd advise starting at around 1:1 and getting good and then expanding up from there to higher magnifications. 5:1 is very difficult and often you ned a small light (LED light on a flexi-arm is a good choice) to help give a focusing light that illuminates the subject to make it easier to focus upon (as you get some light loss for high magnifications no matter how you approach taking them).

*These are general rough guideline style maths so the actual magnifications might vary a bit; also due to the fact many lenses adjust their focal length as they focus at different spots so close up they might well have a shorter focal length than advertised (even primes).