Minimum alternate macro setup to macro lens?

[jay moussy]

I have a few SLRs but no real macro lens, and would like to try some basic macro B&W work.

What could be a 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?

 

[Donald Qualls]

For an SLR, extension tubes are the way to go.

At 1:1 you'll have twice the effective focal length, so your f/2.8 lens becomes f/5.6. You can use the magnification formula to arrive at effective focal length for other extension tube and lens combinations, or just add the tube length (say, 45 mm) to the lens focal length (say, 90 mm) recalculate aperture (in this example, you'd add 50%, so f/4 becomes f/6 -- close enough to f/6.3, which is 1/3 stop slower than f/5.6).

This works with any lens setup, BTW -- bellows or tubes, or a view camera when stretched out to focus close (for instance, a Speed Graphic with 135 mm lens can easily shoot at 1:1 before you run out of bellows, as can an RB67 with 90 mm).

 

[Dan Fromm]

For an SLR, extension tubes are the way to go.

Hmm. Once upon a time in a universe far away Modern Photography Magazine that used to be ran educational articles on a 2 year cycle. One of the articles was about getting the magnification for closeup work. MP tested heaps of slow (f/1.7 - f/2) "normal" lenses (50 - 60 mm) for 35 mm SLRs mounted on extension tubes and with "close up lenses" (+ diopters) in front of them. The results were always the same. Some lenses were better used on extension tubes. Others were better used with diopters. MP concluded that although both approaches worked with every lens, photographers who wanted best results from a slow normal lens should try both.

I tried diopters, Nikon brand, on a fast normal lens (50/1.4 Nikkor-S, pre-AI) and got very poor results so bought a 55/3.5 MicroNikkor (pre-AI, all this was in 1970) and have stuck with MicroNikkors ever since. If I were the OP, I'd pick one SLR system, buy a used modern macro lens for it and not look back.

 

[Donald Qualls]

And let's not forget reversing rings -- either to mount, say, a reversed 35mm on the filter ring of a 50 mm, or to mount the lens backward directly on the body flange.

If you have two normal or shorter lenses for your SLR, this is probably the highest quality answer at reasonable cost for above 1:1, but metering can be complicated because it's tricky to correctly calculate the effective focal length.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Hmm again. Jay, buy a copy of A. A. Blaker's book Field Photography. He gives better explanations of how to get the magnification than you'll get here.

 

[ciniframe]

Since many legacy mount macro lenses can be purchased for less than $100 the best advice may be to just budget $100 and see what is available used. I have both OM and Pen F mount systems. I have a OM mount Sigma 50mm f2.8 that goes from infinity to 1:1 that was $30 from ebay.
In a pawn shop I found a 55mm f2.8 Vivitar in M42 mount that will also focus to 1:1, that one was $25. Since I have both M42 and OM lens adapters for my Pen F these lenses can be used on that camera also.
If the OP waits a bit a good deal will usually arrive. The good thing about the 50mm’ish macro is that they can often stand in for a normal lens for general photography.
The problem with extension tubes or close up lens sets is that they have increased in price to the point that they may not be a viable choice for close up/macro work.

 

[Dan Fromm]

The good thing about the 50mm’ish macro is that they can often stand in for a normal lens for general photography.

Agree completely. Within a year after I bought my 55/3.5 MicroNikkor I'd ditched my 50/1.4. I now use a 55/2.8 MicroNikkor AIS. I have a couple of 50/2 Nikkors, bought to see what they were like and because they were very inexpensive. The MicroNikkor is still the 50ish lens I use.

 

[bdial]

All of the above can work well. The absolute minimal approach might be to take off the lens, flip it around and hold it against the camera mounting ring. Move back and forth to focus. It's awkward, prone to light leaks if you aren't careful, but works in a pinch. Reversing rings are more better.
As mentioned, these days, some excellent older macros are available almost as inexpensively as extension tubes. A bellows gives you a bit more flexibility and higher magnification that you get with tubes if you want to get really close.

 

[MattKing]

Used macro lenses may be more reasonable than you expect - as they are frequently slower than a lot of 50 mm “standard” lenses they don’t attract the same interest from those who seek to use them on digital cameras.
The advantage of close up filters is that they don’t impose a speed loss penalty. They also permit longer working distances. While they may not result in the same resolution as an extension tube with a suitable lens, the brighter viewfinder and more comfortable working distance may offset that.
They are also really easy to pack around.
You need to decide whether you are looking for close work, or flat field close work. Field curvature is deadly for photographing postage stamps, but relatively unimportant for photographing flowers in the field. Properly speaking, a true macro lens features flat field response, and sometimes doesn’t even permit as close focus as non-macro lenses (e.g. the RB 67 140mm macro).
If you can find one, I recommend a neat Vivitar accessory lens that combines a Tele-extender with an adjustable extension tube. It performs well with a 50 mm OM lens, and is tiny in the bag.

 

[runswithsizzers]

The term "macro" - as it is commonly used - is not very precise. The equipment needed to fill a 35mm frame with the image of an ant may be somewhat different from what is needed to fill the frame with a coin or postage stamp. Do you have particular kind of subject matter in mind?

 

[ic-racer]

I have a few SLRs but no real macro lens, and would like to try some basic macro B&W work.

What could be a minimal, inexpensive (extension tubes?) setup that could get me there?

12MM or 13MM are frequently the smallest.

 

[ciniframe]

Matt makes an important point about close up lenses. With them longer lenses can be used to achieve greater magnification, ie a +2 on a 135mm lens will be a much smaller field size than used on a 50mm lens.
This post made me check ebay and I was surprised to find some fairly good deals in close up lenses. One seller was offering the Minolta #1 and #2 close up lenses for $20 with free shipping. These are 2 element cemented achromats, usually better than single element sets.
So, there can be advantages either way.

 

[Starckyx]

Hi Jay
What lenses do you have?
What is the size of your objects you want to frame onto your, i suppose 35mm, film?

 

[Paul Howell]

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?

 

[ericB&W]

I have a few SLRs but no real macro lens, and would like to try some basic macro B&W work.

What could be a 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?

Depends if you want to photograph more static subjects or alive
subjects like insects an small animals .
if you have a high level zoom as 70-210 / 80-300 can use with
an apochromatic lens es x3 and this lets you to stay not too close the subject,
plus there is no loss of luminosity , with additional lens.

 

[jay moussy]

I need to take a detailed inventory of lenses, then pick a likely mount (AR, FD, Nikon or M42).
I should have done that first...before thinking tubes, etc.!

 

[eli griggs]

The Canon FD F3.5 SSC Macro is an outstanding lens, all around, except for low light, standard exposure living people documentation and you'll no find 'better' out there.

Extension rings are simply extenders and I've shot Canon F3.5s since the mid 1970's along with Canon and Vivitar, etc FD tubes, there is no difference that I've ever seen, so if you go FD Canon or M42 with the FD adapter, it should no be a 'costly' thing.

Have fun with the tubes and you'll quickly find your way through the learning curve of using them, in just a few rolls of film.

Do no forget that filters are still very useful, and learn the EV of using these with your kit.

There is good video on YouTube, of excellent macro photographers building and using flash units out of Pringles tubes and Vivitar 283 units, which will greatly help exposures, especially when using a polarizer filter for best quality recording of insects, etc with jewel-like colours, dragon flys, Beetles, feathers, etc.

Have fun!
Eli

 

[Donald Qualls]

Beatles,

The remaining Beatles will likely get you better results with a long telephoto than with a macro setup. McCartney is quite hard to get close to, and Ringo even more so.

 

[wiltw]

Jay,
As already pointed out,

1. 'macro' is a poorly used term by most photographers to simply mean "Fill the frame with what I am shooting", even when the object photographed is 5" wide filling a frame which is 1" high (the 24mm x 36mm frame).
2. the classic formal use of 'macro' for scientific work is the photography of simply at 0.5X magnification on film or larger magnification, to about maybe 5X; IOW, with 135 format, you could photograph something up to 48mm to fit in the 24mm frame at half size, and that is true 'macro' photography ...any magnification smaller than 0.33X is simply 'close focus' photography., and >5X is typically called 'photomicrography'

Which of the above two definitions are you envisioning for your photography?

1. Real 'macro' lenses allow 0.5X or 1X photographs to be made without use of extension tubes or extension bellows.
2. Real 'macro' lenses typically are OPTIMIZED for better performance at very close focus, closer than the typical 9 * FL that conventional lenses use for their closest focus distance
3. Real 'macro' lense are also corrected for 'flat field' work, the photography of postage stamps, for example

Extension tubes permit conventional lenses to focus closer than 9*FL (#1), but typically they do not make the lens perform better with regard to the other two characterisics (#2, #3) in the immediately previous section.
But not all macro work needs both #2 and #3. You do not need 'flat field' to shoot a bug, for example.
An extension tube of a given length, e.g. 25mm, is more effective with lens of shorter FL than it is wil lens of longer FL. The magnification provided (assuming lens focused at Infinity) = Extension length / lens FL

• 25mm/50mm lens = 0.5X magnification
• 25mm/100mm lens = 0.25 magnification

Diopters were primarily intended for use on cameras which did not have interchangeable lens...the filter screws in front of the lens. Diopter lenses come in two types...single element optics, and double element optics. The double element are higher quality optics, but most aftermarket 'filters' are single element. Both Canon and Nikon offer their brand double-element diopter filters. Keep in mind that all filters can degrade the optical quality of the primary lens to which it is mounted...especially with regard to degradation of contrast due to the use of inexpensive optical coatings which may not pass 99%+ of the light striking the filter surface.

 

[Dan Fromm]

The Canon FD F3.5 SSC Macro is an outstanding lens, all around, except for low light, standard exposure living people documentation and you'll no find 'better' out there.

Short focal length means short working distance. For me -- not everyone has the same preferences -- around 100 mm is the most useful focal length for closeup work with a 35mm SLR. As mentioned above, my first macro lens was a 55. I wouldn't go shorter for most subjects.

Jay, remember that some macro lenses for 35 mm SLRs go to 1:2 on their own mounts, require a tube to go to 1:1. Others go to 1:1 on their own mounts. My aged (all AIS) MicroNikkors need tubes. I haven't found using tubes a problem.

The big exception is Canon's MP-E65mm f/2.8 1-5X Macro Photo, which works at 1:1 to 5:1.

 

[alanrockwood]

I have a few SLRs but no real macro lens, and would like to try some basic macro B&W work.

What could be a 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?

How much "macro" do you want? Is it just to get a little closer for some close up shot, meaning that the subject is a few inches wide? Is it to get into the "true" macro range, meaning that the subject is plus or minus about an inch wide? Is it to get true magnification, i.e. the subject is a fraction of an inch wide?

The most versatile way of getting there is to get a set of extension tubes. You can usually find generic extension tube on ebay for not much money. The problem here is that they are very fiddly to use. For example, if you don't have through-the-lens metering you are going to have to do a lot of calculating for exposure compensation and adjusting your camera settings accordingly. Plus there's the issue of putting the tubes on and taking them off in combinations that give you the magnification you are looking for. Please note that you may suffer a small amount of image quality degradation using extension tubes. The reason is that "normal" lenses are optimized for conditions where the object is relatively far from the lens, i.e. not with the object close to the lens. This is called "conjugate ratio", and lens aberrations depend on the conjugate ratio.

If you are only looking to get more into the close-up range without necessarily getting into the true macro range then a set of diopters might be your ticket. They are easy to put on and take off, and they don't require exposure compensation. The down side is that simple diopters may result in some resolution degradation. However, if you use moderate power diopters and don't stack them, and if you stop the lens down, the images will probably be better than you might expect if you believe all of the negative comments that are often made about negative diopter lenses. Plus, most of the image degradation will occur near the edges of the frame where it usually doesn't matter much. Anyway, who cares if you will need to stop the lens down? If you are photographic three dimensional objects (e.g. not doing document photographs) you are going to do some fairly extreme stopping down of the lens in order to get depth of field anyway. Simple diopters are very inexpensive on ebay, especially if you buy generic ones.

As far as image quality is concerned, it is actually quite hard to find A/B comparisons of images made with diopters vs. other methods, especially if you are looking for shots made under relevant conditions, meaning with the lens stopped down to a significant degree. I did find one comparison in a book where they compared a +6 diopter (which is getting into a fairly hefty diopter range) with a true macro lens, and sure enough there was a difference in image quality, but surprisingly less difference than I would have expected. Reference: p. 46 of the book "The Manual of Close-Up Photography" by Lester Lefkowitz. I am attaching a copy of the relevant part of that page. Note: This is looking at an enlarged part of the corner of the frame, which is where the diopter solution will perform the worst in comparison to a true macro lens, but to me the result looks not too bad. In fact, to me the photo shot at f/11 with the +6 diopter (upper right) is slightly better than the macro at f/4 (lower left) and almost as good as the macro at f/11 (lower right).

If you can get an achromatic diopter (two-element diopter) then your image quality is probably not going to suffer to any noticeable amount. The main problems with these is that they tend to be expensive and/or hard to find.

If you want to get into the extreme closeup range then you should get a 4x microscope objective, an inexpensive set of extension tubes, and and adapter to attach the microscope objective to the extension tubes. This doesn't have to cost very much, and the results will amaze you and your friends. Read about it here: https://www.closeuphotography.com/seventeen-dollar-plan-4x-objective.

Here are a couple of more links worth looking at:

https://coinimaging.com/add-on_macro.html

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explor...-solutions/macro-on-a-budget-close-up-filters

One of these links shows what can happen if you reverse a diopter lens in front of a regular lens. The improvement in image quality can be dramatic. This is actually an idea I have been meaning to try for a long time but never got around to it. It's nice to see someone show that it works. However, I would have preferred it if I were the first to show that it works. Anyway, the reason I considered this is that under certain conditions a simple meniscus lens can exhibit zero spherical aberration and zero coma, (the two worst aberrations), and reversing a simple diopter lens can approximately mimic those conditions. (Oops, correction, when I read it again it seems that the article showed what happens when reverse-mounting an achromatic diopter, not a simple meniscus diopter. I am surprised at this result because reverse-mounting an achromatic diopter should not help. Possibly I am reading the article wrong.)

Here's another link worth reading.

https://www.davidkennardphotography.com/blog/865-sonia-close-up-kit-review.xhtml

 

[eli griggs]

Another use of macro using regular lenses with extension tubes can be found, you guessed it, YouTube.

The video shows natural light being used with a Hasselblad film camera and the use of two focal length tubes, on a tripod, for portraits of the shooters son.

Using the much abbreviated depth of fields available, the photographer in question make one more aspect of the use of extension tubes, clear, in easy to see results.

 

[eli griggs]

Fair catch, I've been looking at old videos, documentaries, interviews about the Fab Four the last few weeks and no thinking does no help my writing.

The remaining Beatles will likely get you better results with a long telephoto than with a macro setup. McCartney is quite hard to get close to, and Ringo even more so.

 

[dourbalistar]

In 2020, 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. You can either use the in-camera meter or a handheld incident meter. So far, no complicated exposure compensation calculations. Here's an example with the +4 close-up lens, at or near minimum focus distance:


Here's another example. I forgot whether this is with the +2 or +4, but the LEGO minifig gives a good idea of how "macro" you can get with some simple close-up lenses:


Finally, here's an example with stacked +4 and +2. For size reference, the subject is a chrysanthemum flower:

 

[eli griggs]

I used close-up 'filter' magnifying lenses when I first started colour work, in the way-back and I was able to do some sound work with them, so this is a good way to go, IMO.