Macro lens with spacers / teleconverters

[SnappingShark]

I own a 60mm Micro (or macro, for you non-Nikon peeps) lens - and I love it.

I want to take the same pictures of bugs - same results, but not get AS close - in other words, I want to extend my working distance from the subject.

Do I need to add spacers, use a teleconverter, or buy different (such as a 105mm) lens ?

 

[Overread]

You've a few options;

1) Teleconverters. These will increase the magnification of the lens by the same factor that they increase the focal length. They have no effect on the minimum focusing distance nor the maximum focusing distance. As a result you can use them to increase your maximum magnification and to also give you more working distance at lesser magnifications. Note that teleconverters all have a front element that protrudes forward; this goes into the rear of the lens. As a result there are many lenses that will not physically fit a teleconverter (with most of them being those of shorter focal lengths). Kenko Pro teleconverters are wlel made and have the smallest front element protrusion - however I'm not sure if even they could fit the 60mm.

2) Longer focal length macro lens. Your magnification will be the same (ergo it will frame the same at the closest focusing distance) but your working distance is now greater.

3) Extension tubes - these work by reducing the minimum and maximum focusing distances; this can mean that the lens is left unable to focus on anything more than a few inches away from the front element. As a result whilst you can use them to increase the magnification of your 60mm you will not get increased working distance, you will get less.

4) Close up lens adaptors/diopters/filters these work the same as extension tubes* in reducing the maximum and minimum focusing distances. Again like the extension tubes this is not ideal for your intent.


Note - longer focal lengths (either native to the lens or as a result of using the teleconverters) result in increased background blurring. The actual depth of field remains the same, but the fall off into blur gets stronger. You'll see this most if you compare extremes such as a 150mm to a 35mm macro lens.

*Note 2 - the amount of magnification you get with extension tubes increases when using the same tube length on shorter focal length lenses. With close up lens attachments you get increased magnification for the same diopter rating (diopter being the power level of the lens attachment) when using them on longer focal length lenses (so the opposite of extension tubes).



In your situation chances are you'd be best to get a longer focal length lens as I don't think the 60mm can take any extension tubes on the market. There is a trick where you use an extension tube as a spacer between a teleconverter and lens, however since you are still adding the extension tube you'll get that hit to maximum and minimum focusing distances and I'm honestly not sure if you'd see any increase in your current magnification working distance.

A 105mm will give you some increase, a 150mm or 180mm would give you even more.

 

[SnappingShark]

Yes that was my worry - that I would have to spend a lot of money to get a couple more inches working distance, without having to give up the quality of the lens.

Thanks for your detailed reply - much appreciated.

 

[weepete]

I managed reasonable results with a 70-300mm lens with a small extension tube on it, might not quite be 1:1 but does allow me to focus about 3ft away from my subject. It might be a cheap option to try if you have a longer lens already.

 

[Gavjenks]

Adding extension tubes to a longer lens will address your issue, as you seem to have discovered. E.g. a 300mm.

My 70-300 at 300mm with like 150mm of extension tubes on it gets almost 1:1, and about 1.5-2 feet of working distance.

The loss of light is not that bad, either.


Problems that you encounter doing this, however, are that the 12 or so lens mounts for all the little tubes can end up being kinda unstable, and may break the electronic communication from flexing, etc. Plus you have to own more than one set of extension tubes. Macro bellows are probably a cheaper option.

Also, it looks kinda ridiculous:

 

[table1349]

Read this tutorial on extension tubes and closeup lenses. It even has a calculator that will tell you what you want to know on working distance.
Macro Extension Tubes & Close-up Lenses

If you want to increase your working distance you are going to need a longer focal length such as the 105 or a 180 macro lens.

 

[SnappingShark]

I went out and bought the Nikkor 105 f/2.8 and found a buyer for the 60mm at a very reasonable, close to what I paid, price!

Thanks again for your comments - already, this 105 is working for me so much better!

 

[SnappingShark]

Also, it looks kinda ridiculous:
View attachment 55516

You're not wrong there!! haha. An assassin could probably take his rifle apart quicker than that thing!

 

[grafxman]

Adding extension tubes to a longer lens will address your issue, as you seem to have discovered. E.g. a 300mm.

My 70-300 at 300mm with like 150mm of extension tubes on it gets almost 1:1, and about 1.5-2 feet of working distance.

The loss of light is not that bad, either.


Problems that you encounter doing this, however, are that the 12 or so lens mounts for all the little tubes can end up being kinda unstable, and may break the electronic communication from flexing, etc. Plus you have to own more than one set of extension tubes. Macro bellows are probably a cheaper option.

Also, it looks kinda ridiculous:
View attachment 55516

I'd like to see you try to take that thing on board a jetliner. Security personnel would probably draw guns and evacuate the airport! :lmao:

 

[table1349]

Looks a little phallocentric to me, as well as being more than a little impractical. I would suggest that a good Mohel could remedy the problem quite easily.

 

[Gavjenks]

I'd like to see you try to take that thing on board a jetliner. Security personnel would probably draw guns and evacuate the airport! :lmao:

It disassembles.

Looks a little phallocentric to me, as well as being more than a little impractical. I would suggest that a good Mohel could remedy the problem quite easily.

I'm concerned that you don't really know what circumcision entails, because that made absolutely no sense.



Anyway, in my experience, if you aren't willing to look silly as a photographer, then you're inevitably going to miss quite a lot of what could have been your best shots. It's about getting the camera where it needs to be and how it needs to be, not where or how it looks coolest. Unless of course your main goal is to pick up chicks with photography. Which is totally fine and I don't begrudge you that. But I do suggest you leave this forum and go to a place that will be much more efficient for those purposes: modelmayhem.com

I'm not aware of anybody who sells 300mm dedicated macro lenses, so unless I'm missing something, a setup like the one screenshotted above provides capabilities in terms of working distance that there is currently no other way to achieve. It will almost triple your working distance over the Canon 180mm macro, for instance.

 

[table1349]

Looks a little phallocentric to me, as well as being more than a little impractical. I would suggest that a good Mohel could remedy the problem quite easily.

I'm concerned that you don't really know what circumcision entails, because that made absolutely no sense.

Upon first reading your reply I came away with the impression that you were feigning ignorance in some sort of face saving maneuver. However after reading you insulting reply in another sub forum to a first time poster for whom English is a second language, all in what you then went on to profess was humor I have reassessed my first impression and have come to the conclusion that you were feigning nothing. Perhaps this could be of service to you.

 

[Gavjenks]

Upon first reading your reply I came away with the impression that you were feigning ignorance in some sort of face saving maneuver. However after reading you insulting reply in another sub forum to a first time poster for whom English is a second language, all in what you then went on to profess was humor I have reassessed my first impression and have come to the conclusion that you were feigning nothing. Perhaps this could be of service to you.

I understand it's a joke. What I meant is that the joke doesn't make sense. A circumcision does not make a penis less phallic since it is still, in fact, 100% phallus, nor does it make a penis more practical to use (quite the opposite in fact).

 

[Overread]

Nikon makes a 200mm macro which is the longest native 1:1 macro lens that I've seen on the market. However a Sigma 150mm macro plus a 2*Teleconverter gives you a 300mm 1:1 capable macro lens (that can also go all the way to 2:1). A 180mm gives you a whopping 360mm.

That said the longer your working distance the further away you have to be and that also drastically increases the effect of handshake and also often makes it harder to lean on something local to get extra support. It makes tripods very important or at the very least monopods to help with the stability of the shot (yes you can do it hand held, but its a lot harder).


As for the using of two sets of extension tubes on a 300mm 0.5:1 macro lens I'm not sure. I can't say how the working distances compare, but it is a very front heavy setup. You'd also certainly notice an image quality hit (yes yes extension tubes have no glass in them, but the increased distance of lens to camera reduces the optimum sharpness all the same). It's something you'd have to compare, but which might just practically not be suitable to make it worth trying (I've not known many to ever use two sets of extension tubes).

Now you could use a macro lens attachment on the end of the 300mm; much more manageable.

 

[Gavjenks]

The two sets can introduce more aberrations, yes. However, not nearly as many as you would expect by extrapolating from the effects on shorter lenses. A 300mm focal length is a very gradual spreading of light.

For the same reason that diffraction is based on F-stop, not on aperture diameter, it's no more of a problem than using extension tubes at more normal focal lengths. At 300mm, the errors propagate more slowly, because the light is converging more slowly and has less lateral movement per mm of backfocus. So the effect of CA and Spherical aberration are equal to what you would expect by adding about 30mm of extension to a 50mm lens. I.e. not much.

Would a dedicated 300mm macro lens have higher optical quality? yes, absolutely. However, they don't exist. So that's not an option. And the results of the two sets of tubes is quite satisfactory for anybody but the most demanding macro specialist (anybody who would find tubes acceptable in ANY circumstances)

I don't have a third set of tubes to get me to 1:1 macro quite exactly, but from using online calculators, it says that the working distance at 1:1 with just a couple more extenders would be slightly less than 1 meter, i.e. over 3x larger than the working distance of the Canon 180mm macro.


Also, for the same reasons, the light falloff is quite reasonable, also on par with the loss of light from using a 30mm extension tube or so with a 50mm lens. The setup I photographed above operates with somewhere between a 1-2 stop penalty, or roughly a nice respectable f/10.