Introduce me to Macro Photography.

[reissigree]

I've been on the forum for several months now and I can tell that I've greatly improved because of you guys. I've found a sudden interest in macro photography but have no idea where to begin. Do I need to buy a separate lens? How much do they cost? Can I just buy an attachment for a lens I already have? Buying a new lens over $200 isn't exactly an option right now as I've just purchased two recently. I currently have a 18-55mm 3.5-5.6 Nikon lens, a 35mm 1.8 Nikon lens, and a 55-300mm Nikon lens. If I could use an attachment would it work best on my 35mm? Thank you guys so much!

 

[Kerbouchard]

Hmm, Macro for under $200 at a beginner level. I guess I would have to go with http://www.amazon.com/Kenko-Extensi...1?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1324871770&sr=1-1

If that's out of your price range, buy the cheapest set of close up filters that you can find. The quality won't be there, but it will at least let you know if its something you want to invest real money into.

Do you already have a tripod or any additional flash gear? The first is just about a requirement and the second helps out a lot. If not, realize those are an additional expense.

 

[reissigree]

I have a tripod, but no flashes. I've also been wanting to learn about that.

 

[Kerbouchard]

I have a tripod, but no flashes. I've also been wanting to learn about that.

Well, a tripod is a good start and with subjects that don't move, flash is not necessarily required.

The only thing you really need is a set of extension tubes, a tripod, and some time. Heck, you can do it with a 50mm 1.8 D and a reversing ring. It's just a lot more difficult than with a proper Macro lens.

There are basically 4 ways to do macro.
1) A macro lens
2) extension tubes
3) reversing a prime lens that has a built in aperture control
4) close up filters

1 results in no loss of quality, has the tools required to do Macro well, but it can be expensive($500+)
2 results in no loss of quality, but it's not as easy and you lose some light.(around $200)
3 is ridiculously hard to do well. Requires a lot of effort, but it's cheap, and can produce amazing results.(if you already have the lens, you can get into for under $20 bucks)
4 results in a significant loss of quality, but it is fairly cheap and is fairly easy to use.(also under $20 bucks in most cases) They did make close up filters that were of very good quality but they discontinued them and they are getting harder to find(as well as more expensive)

 

[usayit]

Heres what i started and still use..

90mm or longer adapted manual macro lens. In my case a Tamron 90mm f/2.5
cheap vivitar ring flash with the right step up rings. I taped over the auto sensor so it fires full all the time. Flash has no manual control.

Reason, 90mm gives good working distance. Ring flash for me was more important than a tripod at the time. Provides enough light for handheld photos and enough to shoot at f8-f16 for ample DOF to work.


Later,

1:1 adapter
tripod with 3way head
focusing rails. Mine was cheap broken novoflex. the forward rails broke off from the side rails. Drilled and tapped the forward assembly to be mounted right on the tripod head. No side adjustment but I can live.

Reason,

More magnification. But more magnification makes it harder to shoot without support. Tripod mounted macro without focus rails is difficult. Remember, in Macro you focus by shifting forward and backward position.

Even later,

Sliding arm
Second flash with manual control on an optical trigger.

Easier to position and second light for times I was some directional.

 

[cgipson1]

One close up "filter" that is actually an add-on lens... gives excellent quality... and would work very well on your 35mm. I know, my GF has one.. and borrows my Raynox 250 sometimes to use on it.

Amazon.com: DCR-250 Super Macro Snap-On Lens: Camera & Photo

Here is a shot I took using the Raynox... admittedly on my Tokina 100 macro lens.. but the 35mm rocks also. Spider was about 1/2" long... (see any "loss of quality"?)

The kenko tubes will give you more magnifacation on your 35mm than this lens does though.. so that might be better!

 

[cgipson1]

Here is a shot using my GF's 35mm 1.8 and the Raynox DCR-250... a thumb tack (shot was cropped to 1857x1459 before reducing the size to post it here) Took it just minutes ago.. just for you!

 

[Dillard]

Zeikos also makes a cheaper version that is almost as good (Actually got them today!)

 

[reissigree]

I have a tripod, but no flashes. I've also been wanting to learn about that.

Well, a tripod is a good start and with subjects that don't move, flash is not necessarily required.

The only thing you really need is a set of extension tubes, a tripod, and some time. Heck, you can do it with a 50mm 1.8 D and a reversing ring. It's just a lot more difficult than with a proper Macro lens.

There are basically 4 ways to do macro.
1) A macro lens
2) extension tubes
3) reversing a prime lens that has a built in aperture control
4) close up filters

1 results in no loss of quality, has the tools required to do Macro well, but it can be expensive($500+)
2 results in no loss of quality, but it's not as easy and you lose some light.(around $200)
3 is ridiculously hard to do well. Requires a lot of effort, but it's cheap, and can produce amazing results.(if you already have the lens, you can get into for under $20 bucks)
4 results in a significant loss of quality, but it is fairly cheap and is fairly easy to use.(also under $20 bucks in most cases) They did make close up filters that were of very good quality but they discontinued them and they are getting harder to find(as well as more expensive)

Thanks for the explanation! This will definitely help me when I decide.

 

[reissigree]

Heres what i started and still use..

90mm or longer adapted manual macro lens. In my case a Tamron 90mm f/2.5
cheap vivitar ring flash with the right step up rings. I taped over the auto sensor so it fires full all the time. Flash has no manual control.

Reason, 90mm gives good working distance. Ring flash for me was more important than a tripod at the time. Provides enough light for handheld photos and enough to shoot at f8-f16 for ample DOF to work.


Later,

1:1 adapter
tripod with 3way head
focusing rails. Mine was cheap broken novoflex. the forward rails broke off from the side rails. Drilled and tapped the forward assembly to be mounted right on the tripod head. No side adjustment but I can live.

Reason,

More magnification. But more magnification makes it harder to shoot without support. Tripod mounted macro without focus rails is difficult. Remember, in Macro you focus by shifting forward and backward position.

Even later,

Sliding arm
Second flash with manual control on an optical trigger.

Easier to position and second light for times I was some directional.

Sounds like my kind of setup! And the lens wasn't too expensive. I just wouldn't know how to set it all up

 

[reissigree]

Here is a shot using my GF's 35mm 1.8 and the Raynox DCR-250... a thumb tack (shot was cropped to 1857x1459 before reducing the size to post it here) Took it just minutes ago.. just for you!

Seriously?!? That's amazing! I'm definitely going to have to buy that.

 

[reissigree]

Would my Nikon D3100's flash not work for this though? Also, would my 55-300mm lens work better or my 35mm?

 

[cgipson1]

Would my Nikon D3100's flash not work for this though? Also, would my 55-300mm lens work better or my 35mm?

Pop-up flash doesnt work well for macro subjects.. as the lens gets in the way of the light..casts a shadow. I took the shot above with a SB-700 mounted on my D7000 with Stofen diffuser on the flash. That works fairly well as you can see. The pop-up flash might be ok with your 35mm.. since it is a short lens, but I doubt it.

I have never tried either tubes or a Raynox on a zoom like that.. so have no idea.

 

[reissigree]

I would probably make a 'snoot' as someone on a forum somewhere called it lol. Just like a tube with aluminum foil inside to get the flash all the way to the end. Well thanks man, I'll go ahead and buy this!