Newbee macro question

[Boombeat]

Hi all!

I recently got myself a Konica minolta 7d which i find absolutely fantastic. Recently i started taking photos with the "reverse lens" method which did give me some good closeup shots but at the cost of DOF.
The lens i used is a 24-105mm. The image is of a small 5mm (body size) spiderling of salmon pink tarantula (used image stacking). My question is , what should i get :Kenko extention tubes or close up filters to get a similar image? Being a student im kinda on a budget right now and can't afford a good macro lens . Thanks in advance : )

 

[Tomasko]

Some advocate close-up filters, but I personally prefer tubes. I have some cheap Delta tubes and they work flawlessly (metal mount, el. contacts...).

 

[Boombeat]

Should i get tubes? The lenses on ebay seem kinda cheap also. Just need to find something for now to take micro shots until i can get myself a tamron 90mm 2.8 ....they seem to be pretty good.

 

[KenC]

The close-up filters will degrade image quality somewhat, while extension tubes will not (no glass). So it's your choice of how good you need your photos to be. I haven't used close-up filters in some time, but my gut tells me that if you're photographing 5 mm spiders (yuk, btw) the power or number of filters you will need to get the degree of magnification you need would degrade IQ noticeably. If you can't afford the tubes, then why not stick with what you're doing? You say the downside is DOF, but that is true of any high-magnification work regardless of how you get there.

 

[Boombeat]

Thanks alot KenC that's just what i wanted to know . The thing is im a bit afraid to continue reversing my lens as it's really easy to introduce particles in my dslr and im afraid il scratch my lens this way . Also do you think that a normal extension tube(no AF) can get the job done(taking a photograph of a fly for example). As kenko extension tubes are $100 + while i found some for $10 . Obviously the quality will be very different but if it gets the job done i don't really care lol

 

[Boombeat]

Another pic i took with the lens reverse method. This time the bug is about 3mm .

 

[Bukitimah]

I am not sure you guys consider Raynox as filter. I have used it and find there is almost no loss in image quality. Of course it cannot compare with the macro lens. It is very popular here in Singapore.

 

[Tomasko]

Bukitimah, how would you evaluate build quality of raynox? From what I've heard, it's all plastic and it can be easily damaged.
I use tubes myself and I'm pretty satisfied with them. Got three (13+21+31) for about 70 euros and they can compete with kenko or canon ones.

 

[Actinometro]

Bukitimah, how would you evaluate build quality of raynox? From what I've heard, it's all plastic and it can be easily damaged.
I use tubes myself and I'm pretty satisfied with them. Got three (13+21+31) for about 70 euros and they can compete with kenko or canon ones.

If you allow me, I'll answer.

I own Raynox and tubes as well. Raynox glass is really very very good.

With tubes one loses a lot of light and needs one tube set for each lens diameter. Exchanging tubes in the the field is an headache. I put/remove the Raynox in 3 sec in almost any lens, macro or not..

I don't even compare: Raynox

 

[Tomasko]

Sure, but with tubes you get versatility neither raynox nor close-up filters can offer. I don't agree with the problem you mentioned about exchanging tubes in the field..Sure, it's more difficult than just snapping on raynox, but it is a matter of few seconds!
By the way, I wasn't asking about quality of the glass of Raynox, but about the Raynox as whole, because all except the glass element is plastic.

 

[Overread]

Kenko Extension tubes (about the most popular) are made of plastic too
I think most of my lenses also have significant plastic components - and my camera bodies too!
Ohh and flashes are almost all plastic too


Plastic in itself isn't a bad thing provided its of sufficient quality to survive normal wear and tear use and in that regard the plastic of the Raynox series of close up lens attachments is more then enough to do the job. I also favour them over extension tubes for the speed of use (and for not having the camera sensor exposed to yet more dust ).

In general though for magnification gain you've teh two options of extension tubes or close up lens attachments.

1) Extension tubes - give more magnification when used on shorter focal length lenses, the rough maths of their magnification being:
( length of the tubes in mm - divided by - focal length of the lens ) + magnification of the lens = magnification : 1
Note that whilst they don't add any glass they do move the optics away from their optimum position and thus there is degradation to image quality; though its mostly minor to the point of not being noticeable outside of tests. Note also that ultra cheap extension tubes should be avoided as they don't have metal contacts and thus don't allow aperture control over the lens they are attached to.
Canon ownbrand ones are also overpriced - Kenko series ones are the most popular (And for those who own both canon and Kenko they can't tell the build quality of them apart)

2) Close up lens attachments/macro filters/diopters work the opposite way by giving more magnification when used on longer focal length lenses. These again come in the cheap and more expensive flavours; the cheap are the ones that many people encounter and quickly find them to be very sub-par - however the higher quality options are excellent optics. Raynox series and the Canon 500D series are ideal options (yes the 500D is also a camera body name just to be confusing).


In general terms 100mm is the dividing point - shorter lenses its better to go for extension tubes and longer its better to go for the close up lens attachments - at least for pure magnification gain. Since you're pushing for magnifications of around 3 - 5 :1 even a regular macro lens won't be enough (they go only to 1:1).
You've a few options:

1) Microscope objectives - this is a whole area unto itself and sadly I don't know enough to give proper advice, but its a cheap and simple way into the world of highmagnification photography - note this does not mean sticking the camera to a microscope but using the objectives directly like a lens on the camera. For highmagnifiation photography this is a very viable option, but you'll have to find some better informed photographers than myself:
try: www.photomacrography.net :: Index

2) Higherpowered closeup additions - a Raynox MSN 505 - might well get you the higher magnifications you're after; I think that the 150 and 250 will simply not be powerful enough for your desires.

3) Extension tubes - I don't think these will work easily - even at the 24mm end you'll be needing 100mm or so of extension tube and by that point there is a good chance that the focus point will have moved inside the lens itself (that its its focusing distance is shortened to the point where its actually moved inside the lens itself and, is thus, impossible to focus).

 

[GeorgieGirl]

Thank you for this overview, I have been wondering what options are available for macro that will allow one to dig deeper, if you will, I don't know how other to describe it. Over, are you saying then that on a 60mm lens and with a 7D body that the Raynox is not the best option but tubes are? I am trying to detemine what might be best for me. Thanks again.

 

[Overread]

Georgie - it depends somewhat on what you are aiming to get. Most people are out to get the macro lens magnification of around 1:1 so the rule about the 100mm break point between extension tubes and close up lens attachments works fairly well. Once you get to wanting to push further it gets a bit more muddy.

With a fullset of Kenko extension tubes you'd probably get a 60mm lens to around 2:1 magnification (twice life size). Adding a more powerful close up lens attachment (eg Raynox 202 or 505) might well take you further (I'm honestly not sure I've never fully learnt the maths for close up lens calculations and I've not got either of those adaptors to test with - though they are significantly more powerful than the 250 and 150 that are the most popular choices).

I'd put my bets though on the 202 or 505 from Raynox if you want pure magnification gain from the setup beyond the 2:1 magnification point.

 

[GeorgieGirl]

I don't want to hijack Boombeat's thread with my questions...I had started a thread yesterday with some photos that I had taken and I had my questions contained in that thread. I want to dig so deep that macro becomes abstract, which is perhaps unlike those who want to shoot close up with critical detail as the OP has illustrated with his photos. So again, I don't want to veer off in a different direction that the OP.

If you have a minute and could take a look at my thread, it would be helpful. If you decide that this is as good a place as any to have dialog about common issues, I will leave that up to you.

 

[Boombeat]

Cheers overread!

The "Raynox MSN-505" looks good. Would the magnification be affected tho since im using a regular 24-105mm lens? I found some images on the internet but from what i was reading they seem to be taken with a macro lens + the Raynox.

@GeorgieGirl : Feel free to post here if you want : )