Some basic macro questions

Hey guys I'm new here and I've got some questions about macro photography. I've got a film SLR with a few lenses, a 50mm Planar, 85mm Sonnar and a 28mm Sigma. Would the better option be to reverse one of the lenses or get macro extension tubes? I know reversed wide angles are considered good for macro but would that be better then the 50mm or 85mm with extenion tubes? Finally what film stock would you guys recommend? I shot a lot of macro on digital a while back using a 90mm macro lens but that lens didn't ever focus close enough for me. I really don't feel like buying any new lenses as those cost me way too much to begin with. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Welcome to APUG

Film:

Much depends on what your end goal is. It all works, usually general purpose lenses won't do as well as a macro lens which is optimized for close work. Other than that I don't know that it matters much. Extension tubes will give you a little more flexibility in working distance and magnification. If you use extension tubes that link the automatic aperture then handling will be a little easier.

OTH, reversing the lens is easy, it helps to have a reversing ring, but they aren't absolutely necessary, when you see that great bug you don't have to dig through your bag to get tubes out, just flip the lens around and you're in business.

And, welcome to APUG.

Hmm. OP, you admit you have a lot to learn. Unfortunately you've come to the wrong place to learn it. Not because of this site's regulars' lack of knowledge but because of the shortcomings of the bulletin board as a medium of communication. You asked short apparently simple questions that want a book length answer. What you'll get here are short answers that usually miss most of what matters.

So buy a book. Two books, actually. A. A. Blaker's Field Photography is an outstanding book for beginning photographers and the ideas it presents apply to digital as well as to film. And Lester Lefkowitz' The Manual of Closeup Photography offers a deeper treatment of macro work. A couple of Blaker's formulas are incorrect, Lefkowitz gets everything right. Both are available at low prices from sellers on abebooks.com, alibris.com, amazon.com, ...

OP, you asked whether to reverse a lens or to put it on extension tubes. Which should be done depends on the magnification at which you intend to work. General purpose lenses are optimized for shooting with a large subject in front of the lens and a small image capture device behind the lens, i.e., for magnifications < 1:1. When shooting above 1:1, you'll have a small subject in front of the lens and a large image capture device behind it. In this situation the lens should be reversed to preserve its optimizations.

There's an adage in the machining profession (I'm a Journeyman Tool & Diemaker):

The apprentice learns the rules.

The journeyman applies the rules.

The master writes the rules.

Rules exist to establish a framework from which knowledge expands.

When learning to drive, you're taught that the car turns right when you turn the wheel clockwise.
Obviously, a person can get in a car and figure this out for himself, hopefully before killing himself.

Learning and following the rules during the first phases of practice saves countless hours of experimentation.

Rules exist for a reason. When you understand the reasons, you can start modifying the rules.

- Leigh

I would go for a used macro lens.
I bought a 55/3.5 micro Nikkor for less than $100.
Manual lens for film cameras are relatively cheap these days, due to digital and auto focus changing the market.

For your lenses, I would use the 85 and get a set of extension tubes, or a set of close up lenses to screw into the front of your 85.

So many choices.
So many limitations.

A reversing ring gives high magnification but has no aperture connections so you would focus
wide open, then stop the lens down for exposure. Very limited range of subject-camera movement
and dedicated to one filter size.

Extension tubes. Use 'em with any of your lenses to change the closest focus distance of each lens.
The tubes can be used individually or in combination, given any lens the more extension the closer
you can get. Most tube sets have aperture linkage so you can focus wide open and the
lens will stop down when you take the the picture.
One disadvantage will be light loss but ttl meters will still work.

Close-up lenses, think magnifying glass. fit a particular filter size and won't focus as close as the tubes or reversing
rings but there's no light loss and they can be stacked to minimize focusing distance.

IMO reversing rings are the least convenient.
Close up lenses won't give great magnification, get to fit the largest size filter ring
and step down rings to adapt to the other lens(s)
If you want high magnification, tubes will do it. BUT! Higher the magnification, the
closer you need to be to the subject. And it's gonna be dark in there.

Older sets of tubes or CU lenses came with cheat sheets to determine working distances
with different combinations of tube/lenses. Most assumed a 50mm lens & you had to
experiment with any other fl.

A macro lens will be the most flexible. From infinity(normal) to life size on the film. extension
tubes can be added to increase magnification further but ya can't get inside the subject.

RolleiPollei said:

... Would the better option be to reverse one of the lenses or get macro extension tubes? ...

Click to expand...

Both. What does "better option" mean (for you) anyway? ... Extreme magnification? Light conditions? ... One "best" option could be "that 28 mm inverted on a set of extension tubes"

RolleiPollei said:

... I know reversed wide angles are considered good for macro but would that be better then the 50mm or 85mm with extenion tubes? ...

Click to expand...

50. Again, it depends on many things ... but yes, 50 mm should be the "best" ... less extension tubes you'll need for same ratio, better (max.) aperture options and better (min.) focus distance ...

RolleiPollei said:

... Finally what film stock would you guys recommend? ...

Click to expand...

+/- 400

RolleiPollei said:

... I really don't feel like buying any new lenses as those cost me way too much to begin with.

Click to expand...

Now you don't ... but do not exclude the future possibility of buying a "better" "planar" dedicated lens, like the 60 mm. Start saving money!

Good luck, and welcome to APUG!

I like extension tubes and you can probably get a set of auto tubes for not a bunch of money. If you want to try tubes, close up lenses and reversing rings, you can likely do all three for less than the price of a nice meal with your favorite person. Don't agonize over the decision.

Depends on your definition of "macro". I usually consider macro to be 1:4 to 1:1 (or a bit closer). That said, a true macro lens is the best solution. if it's in your budget, and a used macro lens might be cheaper than a set of extension tubes and a reversing ring (depends on which lens mount you are using). The longer, 85mm lens with extension tubes is pretty good for macro in the wild, especially if your subjects are either shy and retiring or aggressive and "bitey". Many wildlife closeups are shot with even longer 200mm lenses. You don't really need to reverse the lens until you get down to about half life size. And an un-reversed lens will still meter wide open and stop down automatically (assuming your extension tubes are also "automatic" and meter coupled). You could also look for a bellows for your camera, either dedicated or fitted with an lens conversion adapter or t-mount, since you are not working at infinity you can use simple adapter without optical corrector lenses of dubious quality in your close up rig. Simplest for field work are closeup lenses which work exactly like reading glasses. The cheap ones have issues but better close up lenses are available, the Nikkor 3T, 4T (both 52mm filter mount) and 5T and 6T (62mm filter mount) are highly regarded, as are the Canon 250D and 500D, there are non-D versions which are less well corrected. There are other brands look for 'achromats'. Don't worry about flat field performance in the wild since you are working in a 3D environment rather than copying 2D materials.