 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / January 2005Macro compromise for D70
I like to do some macro shooting but I really don't want to go out & spend $650 on a special lense, mostly because I wouldn't want to keep switching the way I shoot I do both out in the field. I'm looking for a middle point here & I really don't understand optics enough to have a clue. Telephoto lenses tend to be pretty good at macro though the extreme tele lenses only get like 5 feet from a subject whereas I was looking at a wide angle that gets up to a foot away... however I don't know if that's already 'zoomed out' optically that it wouldn't really look close up. I really would like a little converter I could screw on the end of the lense & I thought I saw such a thing for $150 recently but now that I look again, all I see is extenders that add about an inch to the lense length to increase macro ability. More notes about what lenses I'm looking at here: http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photography though what I've said above should explain what I'm getting at for these purposes. I might consider owning two lenses for wide & tele but a special macro lense is just too much. What other sort of general purpose lense is going to give the best closeups? I'm thinking about an image stabilization telephoto zoom and it seems that'd be handy for close ups though it has occurred to me that a wide angle probably lets in more light & would allow me to shoot fast moving insects whereas a big long slow tele zoomed way in is going to be impossible to get that kind of action. At least I'd be able to get flowers in low light with stabilization. > I like to do some macro shooting but I really don't want to go out & > spend $650 on a special lense, mostly because I wouldn't want to keep > switching the way I shoot I do both out in the field. I'm looking for > a middle point here & I really don't understand optics enough to have > a clue. I use a Micro Nikkor 105mm primarily for my macro work, but you can get great results from the Nikkor 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5D IF. I use this lens when I don't want to carry around anything else and it covers a broad spectrum with good performance. Here is a shot I took under daylight with no flash. http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2003/eBay/Dandelion.jpg You can get this lens for around $200 new/used on eBay. Or try B&H. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=1 65829&is=GREY or try http://makeashorterlink.com/?F5562252A Rita Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote: >>I'm looking for a middle point here & I really don't understand optics >> enough to have a clue. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > You can get this lens for around $200 new/used on eBay. Or try B&H. I looked at the camera info on that file, it's taken at max zoom f7.2 & 1/200 sec without bumping the ISO up. Your lense looks like <http://www.nikonians.org/html/resources/nikon_articles/nikkor/af/28-105/28-105_1.html> which is f4.5 at 100mm & mine is f5.6 at 200mm. That little bit extra f-stop seems to make a difference with the depth of field. I just looked back at some of my macros & they tended to be f5.6 at 1/60 using 200mm & took me many shots to get one that's not shaky. Maybe I just need to think about technique more & push the ISO a bit or at least pay attention to the settings. > I just looked back at some of my macros & they tended to be f5.6 at 1/60 > using 200mm & took me many shots to get one that's not shaky. Maybe I > just need to think about technique more & push the ISO a bit or at least > pay attention to the settings. Maybe you should consider using a tripod for macro work. The cheapest way is with diopters. They are small lenses that screw on the end of the lens and allow it to focus closer. They're ok, but not very flat field. The best, cheap, way is to use an extension tube. This goes between the body and the lens and basically shifts everything out about an inch. Fully coupled tubes run about 100-150 US$. There is no glass, so no image degradation. However, you lose infinity focus while they are attached, so it is strictly for closeup. A 25mm tube usually allows a 50 mm lens to focus to 1:1 (lifesize). With the 1.5x magnifaction factor of most D-SLRS, you are shooting larger than life-size. Buster > ...The best, cheap, way is to use an extension tube. > This goes between the body and the lens and basically shifts [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > With the 1.5x magnifaction factor of most D-SLRS, you are shooting > larger than life-size. I really don't understand how these extension tubes work, is it increasing a 50mm lense to a 75mm lense? I've already got 75mm capability but can only get 1.3 ft close. Do these ruin the autofocus and metering? Do they cut down on the light? >> ...The best, cheap, way is to use an extension tube. >> This goes between the body and the lens and basically shifts [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >Do these ruin the autofocus and metering? Do they cut down on the light? No, it is essentially extending the focusing helix in the lens by moving the lens groups farther from the film/CCD. After about 100% of focal length extention, you do get a "bellows factor" that diminishes the light, but, depending on your metering, you'll probably not need to even account for this. You can get a variable "extention tube" in the form of a bellows attachment for many cameras, and probably by after-market mfgrs. Hunt > I really don't understand how these extension tubes work, is it increasing > a 50mm lense to a 75mm lense? I've already got 75mm capability but can > only get 1.3 ft close. > > Do these ruin the autofocus and metering? Do they cut down on the light? A lens focuses by moving the optical center of the lens closer or farther from the film or sensor. The lens moves closer to the sensor in order to focus farther away and farther from the sensor in order to focus closer. Extension tubes provide some additional close-focusing range by moving the lens away from the sensor. The amount of additional close-focusing depends on the focal length of the lens. My longest extension tube was able to (theoretically) move the point of close focus on my 24mm lens inside the front element of the lens! Light loss from using extension tubes depends on the magnification. At 1:1 (life size on the film/sensor) is generally a one stop loss. It goes up from there. As far as loss of autofocus, that depends on the extension tube(s) used. Austin >I really would like a little converter I could screw on the end of the >lense & I thought I saw such a thing for $150 recently but now that I >look again, all I see is extenders that add about an inch to the lense >length to increase macro ability. You likely were looking at diopter filters. These are lenses that screw onto the filter threads of your camera lens and allow the lens to focus closer than normal, essentially reading glasses for your camera. They usually come in sets of +1 +2 and +3 diopters and can be stacked. They generally sell for well under $150 though, typically $25-$50 a set depending on the quality. Ron Ron Lacey Murillo Ontario ron@ronsfotos.com I've had good success with the Nikon diopters (about $48 at places like Adorama). They work best on telescoping lenses in the 200mm range, and give 1:2 or so image sizes. Stay away from the cheap diopters. Mike > I like to do some macro shooting but I really don't want to go out & > spend $650 on a special lense, mostly because I wouldn't want to keep [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > slow tele zoomed way in is going to be impossible to get that kind of > action. At least I'd be able to get flowers in low light with stabilization. > I've had good success with the Nikon diopters (about $48 at places like > Adorama). They work best on telescoping lenses in the 200mm range, and give > 1:2 or so image sizes. Stay away from the cheap diopters. OK thanks guys for the correct terminology to search. Do you know if these diopters mess up autofocus and/or metering? these diopters have no effect on autofocus or metering...one of the nice things about them. btw, also recommend the book: Closeups in Nature by John Shaw--very enlightening on lots of different ways to do macro photography. btw, if you have a 50-100 mm lens, you might try reversing it for high magnification, albeit close focus. Mike > > I've had good success with the Nikon diopters (about $48 at places like > > Adorama). They work best on telescoping lenses in the 200mm range, and give > > 1:2 or so image sizes. Stay away from the cheap diopters. > > OK thanks guys for the correct terminology to search. Do you know if > these diopters mess up autofocus and/or metering? Reversing it? You mean put it on backward? > these diopters have no effect on autofocus or metering...one of the nice > things about them. btw, also recommend the book: Closeups in Nature by John [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >>OK thanks guys for the correct terminology to search. Do you know if >>these diopters mess up autofocus and/or metering? >Reversing it? You mean put it on backward? > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >>>OK thanks guys for the correct terminology to search. Do you know if >>>these diopters mess up autofocus and/or metering? Yes, but with the proper adapter. With older Nikons, you lost metering, and auto aperture, and this was in the days BEFORE autofocus. I'm not sure if there are any reversing rings (adapters) that are linked for any of these functions, but there might be. I'd guess that if there are, you'd need another attachment on the front (was the rear, before reversing) of the lens, which would be wired to the reversing ring, and then to the camera's contacts. You probably could still use your auto-focus indicator, but that may well depend on the camera and what it needs from the lens to indicate focus. As I have not tried any of my old macro gear with my D70 yet, I can't comment on what might, or might not work, regarding the camera's circuitry. Note: the diopter closeup "filters" are often called Proxars (Hassleblad tm, I think) or some adaptation of it. Hunt >these diopters have no effect on autofocus or metering...one of the nice >things about them. btw, also recommend the book: Closeups in Nature by John [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >> OK thanks guys for the correct terminology to search. Do you know if >> these diopters mess up autofocus and/or metering? Going back to the earlier days of Nikon, one of the top lenses for reversing was the 35mm f/2.0. I've never had one, but did use my 55mm Micro-Nikkor reversed on many occasions. There is even a ring that fits the reversed lens mount (now in the front) and allowed for semi-auto aperture viewing, with a dual cable release. This ring held the aperture open, then "stopped" it down, when you fired the shutter via this special cable. Metering was done in " stopped-down" mode with the old Photomics, as the coupling prong had to be nudged up to signify f/5.6, and there was no aperture ring attachment to that prong, when the lens was reversed. My older Nikons metered just fine in those days. Hunt > I like to do some macro shooting but I really don't want to go out & > spend $650 on a special lense, mostly because I wouldn't want to keep > switching the way I shoot I do both out in the field. I'm looking for a > middle point here & I really don't understand optics enough to have a clue. I use the 60 mm Micro as a normal lens. It works very well and makes especially nice portraits. > I use the 60 mm Micro as a normal lens. It works very well and makes > especially nice portraits. What distinguishes that as a micro lense then? My 28-200 zoom includes a 60mm possibility but no matter the zoom it'll only get 1.3 ft close. > What distinguishes that as a micro lense then? My 28-200 zoom includes a > 60mm possibility but no matter the zoom it'll only get 1.3 ft close. Macro focusing. The current 60mm Micro Nikkor focuses to 8 3/4 inches, giving a 1:1 reproduction ratio. Does your zoom give you 1:1?  SignaturePhil Stripling | email to the replyto address is presumed The Civilized Explorer | spam and read later. email from this URL http://www.cieux.com/ | http://www.civex.com/ is read daily. > > What distinguishes that as a micro lense then? My 28-200 zoom includes a > > 60mm possibility but no matter the zoom it'll only get 1.3 ft close. > > Macro focusing. The current 60mm Micro Nikkor focuses to 8 3/4 inches, > giving a 1:1 reproduction ratio. Actually, it only gives you 1:2.8 on 35 mm film, or 1:2.375 on the D70. To get 1:1 you still need extension tubes. >> Macro focusing. The current 60mm Micro Nikkor focuses to 8 3/4 >> inches, giving a 1:1 reproduction ratio. > > Actually, it only gives you 1:2.8 on 35 mm film, or 1:2.375 on the > D70. To get 1:1 you still need extension tubes. I always thought the 60mm gave you 1:1 on 35mm film and slightly more on the D70? http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=5&productNr=1987 Rita > >> Macro focusing. The current 60mm Micro Nikkor focuses to 8 3/4 > >> inches, giving a 1:1 reproduction ratio. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=5&productNr=1987 You are, of course, absolutely correct. I am a complete idiot who left the limit switch on while making his measurements. I think I'll just crawl into a hole now. I should know better than to write this stuff when tired. Okay, at closest focusing distance I can fit just 7/8" on the 1" screen, making it slightly larger than 1:1. > > > What distinguishes that as a micro lense then? My 28-200 zoom includes a > > > 60mm possibility but no matter the zoom it'll only get 1.3 ft close. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Actually, it only gives you 1:2.8 on 35 mm film, or 1:2.375 on the D70. To > get 1:1 you still need extension tubes. Hmm. Maybe that's the distinction? SignaturePhil Stripling | email to the replyto address is presumed The Civilized Explorer | spam and read later. email from this URL http://www.cieux.com/ | http://www.civex.com/ is read daily. > > > > What distinguishes that as a micro lense then? My 28-200 zoom includes a > > > > 60mm possibility but no matter the zoom it'll only get 1.3 ft close. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Hmm. Maybe that's the distinction? No, see the other posts. I really screwed it up. The 60 mm Micro Nikkor gives you better than 1:1 if you don't stupidly leave the limit switch on while you are measuring stuff. You can fill the 1 inch sensor with a 7/8 inch object. > > I use the 60 mm Micro as a normal lens. It works very well and makes > > especially nice portraits. > > What distinguishes that as a micro lense then? My 28-200 zoom includes a > 60mm possibility but no matter the zoom it'll only get 1.3 ft close. Very close focusing down to 8 3/4 inches. By itself I can get 1:2.38 object to focal plane ratio which is a little better than the 1:2.8 it gets with 35 mm film. A 1:2.38 ratio means that a 23.8 mm dot will be 10 mm on the CCD. I can focus close enough that a 2 inch square will just fit horizontally on the CCD, but only 2/3 of it vertically. (I actually tested this against a ruler; the 60 mm Micro Nikkor gives you a little more magnification than it does on a film camera.) It is like scanning the object at 1200 dpi. Fitting extension tubes to the lens would enable even more close focusing to 1:1 or better. BTW, have you tried using a scanner for some of your photomacrography? Scanners can create very high resolution 1:1 images, albeit depth of field is shallow. You can arrange all manner of objects, even drape the background with different kinds of cloth, and the scanner will act just like an 8x14 view camera with macro lens. >>What distinguishes that as a micro lense then? My 28-200 zoom includes a >>60mm possibility but no matter the zoom it'll only get 1.3 ft close. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > can focus close enough that a 2 inch square will just fit horizontally on > the CCD... It is like scanning the object at 1200 dpi. Amazing! On my old pocket digicam I could focus to 7 inches & photographed a mm scale then used that scale to measure field photos I had shot at the same distance. My D70 with a 200mm zoom scales about 2-3/4" wide. > Fitting extension tubes to the lens would enable even more close focusing > to 1:1 or better. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > with different kinds of cloth, and the scanner will act just like an 8x14 > view camera with macro lens. Yes I have: <http://www.edgehill.net/grasses/melica/junkyard-melic-scans/index.htm> It is pretty cool and easy. I think that was about 1200dpi I don't recall. Um, no those were done holding an old slide projector lense against the lense of a pocket digicam. That only focused at about 1/4 inch from the subject! Here's a scanner image (big file, sorry): <http://www.edgehill.net/nodding-brome/nodding-brome0a.jpg > > > I use the 60 mm Micro as a normal lens. It works very well and makes > > > especially nice portraits. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > with different kinds of cloth, and the scanner will act just like an 8x14 > view camera with macro lens. OK, Paul, a little bit of a correction. The Micro lens does a little better than 1:1 if you don't leave the stupid limit switch on. You can fill the 1 inch sensor with an object that is only 7/8 inch across. > > I like to do some macro shooting but I really don't want to go out & > > spend $650 on a special lense, mostly because I wouldn't want to keep [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I use the 60 mm Micro as a normal lens. It works very well and makes > especially nice portraits. You do not find it to be too sharp for a portrait lens? Or do you manually soft-focus it? > > > I like to do some macro shooting but I really don't want to go out & > > > spend $650 on a special lense, mostly because I wouldn't want to keep [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > You do not find it to be too sharp for a portrait lens? Or do you > manually soft-focus it? It is too sharp for a portrait lens, but I digitally soften it in Photoshop. OTOH, when I am photographing airplanes those rivets really stand out. OK I found the item I was looking for. $140 Canon 500D +2 77mm 2-element close-up diopter http://www.adorama.com/CA77CU500D.html More info: http://www.earthboundlight.com/phototips/closeup-diopters.html http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0005yN The descriptions says "changes the closest focusing distance from infinity to 9.9" What exactly does that mean? Sounds like it will not focus on anything beyond 9.9 inches away. It is supposed to have a very narrow depth of field but I guess that's a given. Sounds not much quality difference from a 'real' macro lense except the incovenience of having to unscrew it for anything over 10 inches away. > What exactly does that mean? Sounds like it will not focus on anything > beyond 9.9 inches away. It is supposed to have a very narrow depth of > field but I guess that's a given. Sounds not much quality difference > from a 'real' macro lense except the incovenience of having to unscrew > it for anything over 10 inches away. Paul, a few things to consider is what you really want the lens to do, quality of macro, versatility, and price. Diopters are very cheap and give mediocre and acceptable results. The 28-105mm lens I recommended will get you really close to the subject, within inches. This is a great inexpensive general all purpose lens if you just want to carry only one lens. If you want a true macro lens you should consider the Micro Nikkor 60mm or the 105mm. I prefer the 105mm over the 60mm since I don't have to be inches from the subject to get 1:1. This gives me better control for lighting. Here is one of the very first pics I took using the 105mm. The cap of the mushroom isn't that much bigger than 0.25" and was shot handheld f/22 with flash. http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2003/eBay/Mush_00.jpg Rita Rita, That picture represents what I would like to be able to shoot. How "inexpensive" is this lens? Thanks >> What exactly does that mean? Sounds like it will not focus on anything >> beyond 9.9 inches away. It is supposed to have a very narrow depth of [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Rita > Rita, > That picture represents what I would like to be able to shoot. How [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> >>http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2003/eBay/Mush_00.jpg Here's the relevant info from above: Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote: > paul wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I use a Micro Nikkor 105mm primarily for my macro work, but you can get > great results from the Nikkor 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5D IF. I use this lens when > I don't want to carry around anything else and it covers a broad spectrum > with good performance. Here is a shot I took under daylight with no flash. > http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2003/eBay/Dandelion.jpg > > You can get this lens for around $200 new/used on eBay. Or try B&H. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=1 65829&is=GREY > or try > > http://makeashorterlink.com/?F5562252A > > Rita Thank you Paul. >> Rita, >> That picture represents what I would like to be able to shoot. How [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > > > Rita |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.