Minimum alternate macro setup to macro lens?

[Donald Qualls]

I bought a set of Hoya close-up lenses from a Photrio member for about $10 (shipped!). Might not be macro per se, but a very inexpensive and simple way for some experimentation.

IMO, +4 diopter (250 mm = infinity on the lens ring) with a 100+ mm lens is well over the border into macro land -- that combination will give a 2:5 image to subject ratio: a US quarter will record at about 10 mm diameter on the film. The +6 (+4 and +2 stacked) with the same lens is clearly macro. A +10 (included in some diopter sets) on a 100 mm lens can give 1:1. The more diopter you add, however, the more aberrations you'll be able to see...

 

[Starckyx]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have macro lens, extension tubes for Sigma, Minolta A mount, and bellows for Pentax M42 and Konica AR mount. Of the three I find a a true macro lens easiest to use in the field followed by a set of extension tubes, then a bellows. I don't recall ever seeing a bellows for an AF body, but I have used my M42 bellows and adaptor with a Sigma Sa 7 with good results. What mount and lens do you have on hand?

30years ago I was on a budget: cheap reverse adapter + a stepup ring + whatever Minolta lens I had

After switching to Canon I used the EF100 2.8 macro: great lens but extra weight in my bag and not so easy beyond 1:1
I sold it an bought me a reverse ring for EF mount and a set macro extenders
Together with some old manual prime f2.8 lenses I picked up for less then 20€
later on I did some research and bought the kit lens EFS18-55 IS for 25€: great for reverse macro from 1:1 to 5:1 !!!

at the moment I use different setups depending on the subject
as Canon users, we are blessed with the quit cheap Meike MK-C-UP for reverse handheld autofocus and aperture controle (AF usefull depending on camera, lens and available light)
with or without extension tubes between this adapter and the camera.
I prefer internal focusing fast prime lenses because AF will work better and the Meike cable will thank you

From 0: to 0.3:1 ; EF100-400 II for the distance on bigger insects
From 0.8 to 8.3:1 ; EF24-85USM reversed and frontlens removed
From 1.1:1 to 5:1 ; EF50 1.8STM reversed (for 5x you need 20cm extention!)
From 3.5:1 to 7:1 ; with EF24 2.8 IS reversed when distance is not important (AF works!!!)
and a self made very thin extention tube on the EFS10-22 not reversed for wideangle "macro" ; 0 to 0.55:1

experimenting at the moment with microscope objectives and tube lens
If you want to go there too search for allanwallsphotography articles and others

IMO "the lesser glass the better" (no extenders, filter, second lens, ...)

 

[alanrockwood]

experimenting at the moment with microscope objectives and tube lens
If you want to go there too search for allanwallsphotography articles and others

IMO "the lesser glass the better" (no extenders, filter, second lens, ...)

Keeping with the less is better theme, when using a microscope objectives one way to minimize the need for extra stuff is to use an objective corrected for 160mm tube length rather than an infinity corrected lens. That way you only need to use the microscope objective, without the need for an additional lens.

 

[eli griggs]

One tool Canon made that I just recently aquired is the 'L' shaped, viewfinder eye piece for focusing.

I wear glasses and I do have the 'sports' finder which allows a waist level view, or I can make a black card wlf hood for use when the camera's finder is removed, but the little Canon upside down pariscope, gives such beautiful, close up views, those other solutions are now second thoughts when making photographs with macro lenses, tubes or bellows.

 

[vsyrek1945]

I have a few SLRs but no real macro lens, and would like to try some basic macro B&W work.
minimal, inexpensive (extension tubes?) setup that could get me there?
Light metering issues: onboard metering may be weak or non-functioning. Estimate and bracket exposure?

Hello, anyone,

Having just reactivated my Photrio membership after a long layoff (I feel much better now!), this thread caught my attention, since close-focus garden photography has been my "thing" for almost 30 years.

My budget was also limited when starting out, so screw-in close-up lenses were my tools of choice. While Nikon's #0, #1 and #2 are single-element lenses, the 3T, 4T, 5T and 6T are two-element achromats; the 3T and 5T are 52mm size, while the others are 62mm. Canon offered 240D and 480D achromats in 52 and 58mm sizes back in the FL-lens era; I have an example of each in 58mm. Sigma once offered an Achromatic Macro Lens in several sizes, and included one as part of their mid-70s 80-200mm f/4 zoom lens set (inside a compartment in the lens case), which was available in all the then-popular mount systems. Tokina once offered a 77mm close-up achromat for use with their 100-300mm f/4 manual focus zoom, and again later for their 80-400mm f/5.6 AF lens.

After I read an article in Shutterbug comparing results from a Micro-Nikkor 105mm to a 50mm Nikkor mated to a Vivitar Macro-Focusing 2X Telecoverter, with the result that images were virtually identical for all but the most critical applications, I started shopping for one. The Vivitar Macro-Focusing 2X T/C was also available in all the then-popular MF lens mounts, and I later found a Kenko-branded example on eBay. These were unfortunately never made in AF lens mounts.

Moving up in expense are the third-party close-focusing prime lenses; several were notably good-performers: the Vivitar 135mm f/2.8 Close-Focus lens was a "Cult Classic" covered in a magazine article by Herbert Keppler and on Bob Monaghan; the Vivitar Series 1 90mm f/2.5 Macro, built by Kiron, was also featured; a Vivitar 55mm f/2.8 Macro built by Tokina that focused to 1:1 without accessories 's Third-Party Lens web site (as also highly regarded (by comparison, the 55mm Micro-Nikkor uses its 25mm extension tube to go from 1:2 to 1:1). A newer budget macro is the Cosina-built 100mm f/3.5 Macro that was offered at different times as a Vivitar as well as other third-party brands, and in AF as well as MF mounts. Keppler raved about the results he got with it in a Pop Photo article. The lens focuses to 1:2 unassisted, and should be sold with its dedicated 49mm supplementary close-up accessory to get to life-size.

Since that earlier time, development of newer version of great lenses has made great older versions become more affordable; I now have an example of the Canon EF 100mm Macro that was way over budget in the 1990s.

I've gone on long enough about this, but the many available options can be confusing, and I wanted to show some specifics.

Thanks and regards,
Vince

 

[MattKing]

Welcome back Vince

 

[freecitizen]

Reversing ring.

 

[grain elevator]

I'm a big proponent of the 90-100mm macro lens. Offers nice working distance and, most importantly for me, doubles as a short tele as most of them are pretty good at longer distances stopped down a bit. So you get, and carry around, two for one.
Depending of preference, a 50mm macro might be just as good, but I prefer a fast 50 in combination the the slower longer macro lens.

 

[Ivo Stunga]

I do all my macro either with DIY reverse mounting ring, extension tubes or just holding the lens reversed in front of the camera.

Works fine and auto extension tubes often retain controls, making accurate metering possible. I converted mine from a tele converter by removing optics. Metering with reversed technique? I meter the scene, reverse the lens and open one stop up as a starting point. Then bracket some. Tripod is your friend, although all of these - except the beer can - were done handheld.

Here are some examples: