Macro Test Pics For Kicks

[K9Kirk]

Ok, so I received some extension tubes yesterday and I coupled all of them together for maximum affect, a 13mm, 21mm and a 31mm attached to a Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS II. It seems to zoom in pretty good but I had to get about 3 inches away from the subjects to accomplish it and that's going to be much too close for nervous insects. I think the Sigma 105mm f/2.8 EX DG OS HSM Macro Lens is in order. Thoughts???

(Untouched photos.) The screw head and flower are close to a 1/4" in width, closer to less than.

 

[Ron Evers]

#1, I bet that will be a hard nut to crack.
Also, shots like this could use some focus stacking.

 

[Derrel]

Yes agreed, a longer focal length lens such as a 105 mm prime lens would most likely would be a better macro lens with extension tubes than would be the 18 to 55 mm Zoom.

The 105 mm sigma is an actual macro lens, and will likely not need any extension tubes to make good close-up photos. The beauty of extension tubes is that they can be used with regular lenses, and allow you to focus pretty close.

The most easy to use set-up involves roughly 12 mm to 25 mm of extension,in just one, single tube, not three tubes stacked together. I have always owned a set of extension tubes since the early 1980s, and have a fair amount of experience with them.

If you would like to do more than a little bit of close-up photography,I would suggest getting a longer lens, something in the 100 to 300 mm focal length range, and getting image magnification from Lens focal length, and then using 12 to 25 mm of extension to get your focusing closer than normal minimum focusing distance for the lens alone.

A 105 mm macro lens would really be a nice thing to have.

 

[Ron Evers]

In the M4/3 world, Olympus has a 30mm macro lens that will focus 0.31 ft from the subject.
Good for tabletop shooting but not for insects or anything that moves.
I just did a little demo, back-lighting a coupon & shooting the lower left corner with the end of the lens 1 inch from the subject.

 

[K9Kirk]

Yes agreed, a longer focal length lens such as a 105 mm prime lens would most likely would be a better macro lens with extension tubes than would be the 18 to 55 mm Zoom.

The 105 mm sigma is an actual macro lens, and will likely not need any extension tubes to make good close-up photos. The beauty of extension tubes is that they can be used with regular lenses, and allow you to focus pretty close.

The most easy to use set-up involves roughly 12 mm to 25 mm of extension,in just one, single tube, not three tubes stacked together. I have always owned a set of extension tubes since the early 1980s, and have a fair amount of experience with them.

If you would like to do more than a little bit of close-up photography,I would suggest getting a longer lens, something in the 100 to 300 mm focal length range, and getting image magnification from Lens focal length, and then using 12 to 25 mm of extension to get your focusing closer than normal minimum focusing distance for the lens alone.

A 105 mm macro lens would really be a nice thing to have.

Thanks for your input. I held off on the new Sigma lens and I'm going to try the tubes coupled to my Canon 70-200 and see if it produces the results I'm looking for. I'll try it on my Tamron 150-600 also. Just curious and I suspect the answer is no but will using the tubes for a zoom on say, the moon, help with something so far away or are the tubes strictly for macro work? (full moon tonight!) Thanks again!

 

[Ron Evers]

Yes agreed, a longer focal length lens such as a 105 mm prime lens would most likely would be a better macro lens with extension tubes than would be the 18 to 55 mm Zoom.

The 105 mm sigma is an actual macro lens, and will likely not need any extension tubes to make good close-up photos. The beauty of extension tubes is that they can be used with regular lenses, and allow you to focus pretty close.

The most easy to use set-up involves roughly 12 mm to 25 mm of extension,in just one, single tube, not three tubes stacked together. I have always owned a set of extension tubes since the early 1980s, and have a fair amount of experience with them.

If you would like to do more than a little bit of close-up photography,I would suggest getting a longer lens, something in the 100 to 300 mm focal length range, and getting image magnification from Lens focal length, and then using 12 to 25 mm of extension to get your focusing closer than normal minimum focusing distance for the lens alone.

A 105 mm macro lens would really be a nice thing to have.

Thanks for your input. I held off on the new Sigma lens and I'm going to try the tubes coupled to my Canon 70-200 and see if it produces the results I'm looking for. I'll try it on my Tamron 150-600 also. Just curious and I suspect the answer is no but will using the tubes for a zoom on say, the moon, help with something so far away or are the tubes strictly for macro work? (full moon tonight!) Thanks again!

Extension tube have a greater affect on shorter lenses than on long ones.

If you have a 50mm prime try it with your 21 & 31mm tubes together. This will give you a 1:1 macro. However, you will get greater working distance with longer lenses.

 

[Derrel]

Tubes keep the focus close. No inifinity focus is possible once a tube has been introduced

 

[K9Kirk]

Tubes keep the focus close. No inifinity focus is possible once a tube has been introduced

Agreed, I tried taking a few macro pics earlier and I even tried focusing on something far away but everything was a total blur, a tube/tubes prevented focusing at normal/long distances.
The pics I took were taken with my Canon 70-200mm lens coupled to a 21mm tube. Although I like how I didn't have to get in real close they didn't produce the desired affect I was hoping for that a true, 1:1, macro can produce so I'm just going to go ahead and get either the Sigma or another I just ran across, the Tokina at-X 100mm f/2.8 PRO D Macro Lens. Still undecided as to which. Any help in deciding would be appreciated. Both seem to have advantages which make it a hard decision.
f/5.6, 1/400, ISO 100

 

[Ron Evers]

I got to thinking this evening about this thread & realized I had only used tubes with prime lenses, not with a zoom. I had used a Raynox DCR-150 with a zoom.

I assembled an Oly E-M5, Oly 40-150 with 26mm of tubes & went out in the yard in the failing light & took this shot of an Easter lily. The wind was tossing the bloom about & I took 5 frames hand held & selected the best image.

ISO 1600, FL 96mm, f 7.1 @ 1/250s.

I must say that finding the distance from the subject where focus could be achieved was an issue but experience I think would make this much easier.

 

[Derrel]

It's true what Ron says, experience makes using almost any lens and the extension to combo easier. There have been a few Nikon made telephoto zoom lenses that were designed with fairly good close focusing, commonly called "macro" range. These lenses were mostly made in the 1970s and a little bit more in the 1980s in the manual focus eraas well as into the 1990s in the early autofocusing era. With an extension tube or Nikon 6T close-up lens added these lenses gave pretty darn good macro capability. The old 100 to 300 mm F5.6 AIS works extremely well with the Nikon 6T Close up lens, a two-element screw in filter-type attachment,as does the newer AF
75 to 300 mm F 4~5.6 AF Nikkor.

In terms of a prime lens macro the 100 mm F2.8 Tokina ATX and the Sigma 105 mm F2.8 should both be pretty much equal as far as macro lenses go. Both are well regarded.

The advantage of using a zoom lens for macro type pictures is in getting different image sizes from the same camera position.

 

[Derrel]

One thing to remember is that The closer the naked lens is in terms of minimum focusing distance, the better it is as of close of plans when an extension tube is added. For example many 300 mm lenses only focus to 7 feet:for a 400 mm lens the minimum focusing distance might be 10 feet or even 12 feet, so that lens might not be as good as a 50 mm that focuses down to 10 inches or 1 foot when both are filled with Say 26 mm of extension tube

 

[K9Kirk]

I got to thinking this evening about this thread & realized I had only used tubes with prime lenses, not with a zoom. I had used a Raynox DCR-150 with a zoom.

I assembled an Oly E-M5, Oly 40-150 with 26mm of tubes & went out in the yard in the failing light & took this shot of an Easter lily. The wind was tossing the bloom about & I took 5 frames hand held & selected the best image.

ISO 1600, FL 96mm, f 7.1 @ 1/250s.

I must say that finding the distance from the subject where focus could be achieved was an issue but experience I think would make this much easier.

View attachment 176728

Very true that experience, I usually learn things on my own by trial and error and I found that with macro you have to move back and forth to find the "sweet spot" and that it's best to have your camera in "burst" mode to better/quicken your chances of getting one good pic. I'm at the point now where I realize that with macro photography you can be too close and scare something away or simply block out your light or too far away and not get the angle/closeness required at times. I want a lens that is somewhere in between but the more I read about macro photography I want my macro lens to be a prime, 1:1 macro.

I like how the Tokina lens is 1 lb. lighter but I like the versatility of the Sigma with it's ability to image stabilize when shooting subjects at further distances but I'm really not buying it for that ability. I would consider that a plus that I wouldn't use. Something extra for about the same price is what it amounts to for me. Also, from what I've been reading, the OS doesn't really work with macro photography so that feature really doesn't make it a better macro lens, just a heavier one. Hey, look, I'm leaning toward the Tokina lens as we speak, lol! Thanks for the input!