Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
PhotoKB Home
Discussion Groups
Digital Photography
Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot Cameras
Film Photography
35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther Equipment
Photo Technique
Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique General
General Photo Topics
General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK Photography
DirectoryPhoto Clubs

Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / February 2007

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Close Up Photos

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Paul Renfree - 07 Feb 2007 05:34 GMT
I want to be able to take close ups of spider webs, insects, leaves etc. Can
I  use a non-macro telephoto lens such as a Nikon 70-300 to do this, or does
the telephoto lens need to have a macro setting?

What about using a close up lens that screws on to a regular lens ?

Thanks for any advice

Paul Renfree
Marc Sabatella - 07 Feb 2007 05:51 GMT
>I want to be able to take close ups of spider webs, insects, leaves
>etc. Can
> I  use a non-macro telephoto lens such as a Nikon 70-300 to do this,
> or does
> the telephoto lens need to have a macro setting?

A non-macro lens won't get *as* close, but might be close enough for
your purposes - you'll have to try it and see.

> What about using a close up lens that screws on to a regular lens ?

Definitely gets you closer.  If you use a lens hood, stop *way* down,
and use a tripod since the resulting shutter speeed will be slow, you
can get decent results.

---------------
Marc Sabatella
marc@outsideshore.com

Music, art,  & educational materials
Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer"
http://www.outsideshore.com/
Wayne J. Cosshall - 07 Feb 2007 06:03 GMT
>> I want to be able to take close ups of spider webs, insects, leaves
>> etc. Can
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> and use a tripod since the resulting shutter speeed will be slow, you
> can get decent results.

Also provided you get quality ones from a known manufacturers rather
than some of the no-name closeup filters that float around.

Another option is an extension tube or two.

Cheers,

Wayne

Signature

Wayne J. Cosshall
Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/
Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/

Paul Furman - 07 Feb 2007 06:17 GMT
>>> I want to be able to take close ups of spider webs, insects, leaves
>>> etc. Can
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>
> Another option is an extension tube or two.

The closeup lens is the easiest to use with full metering & no fuss but
some compromise in image quality, the extension tube(s) give better
results but usually crippling metering & dark difficult viewfinder.
Wayne J. Cosshall - 07 Feb 2007 09:19 GMT
>>>> I want to be able to take close ups of spider webs, insects, leaves
>>>> etc. Can
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
> some compromise in image quality, the extension tube(s) give better
> results but usually crippling metering & dark difficult viewfinder.
That is true, though the coupled extension tubes I use keep all the
metering working. But the darker viewfinder is a bummer.

Cheers,

Wayne

Signature

Wayne J. Cosshall
Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/
Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/

J. Clarke - 07 Feb 2007 13:27 GMT
>>> I want to be able to take close ups of spider webs, insects, leaves
>>> etc. Can
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>Also provided you get quality ones from a known manufacturers rather
>than some of the no-name closeup filters that float around.

Preferably one of the achromatic types (a set of which in a diameter
suitable to go on the front of a 70-300 costs pretty close to the same
as a decent macro lens).  The single-element type has enough chromatic
aberration to be objctionable, especially with a subject such as a
spider web which properly lit has high contrast and fine lines.

>Another option is an extension tube or two.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Wayne
David Ruether - 07 Feb 2007 15:13 GMT
> Preferably one of the achromatic types (a set of which in a diameter
> suitable to go on the front of a 70-300 costs pretty close to the same
> as a decent macro lens).

You can buy a single 52mm-threaded 3T (strongest) Nikkor achromat for $40 at
www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=158&A=details&Q=&sku=37295&is=REG&add
edTroughType=categoryNavigation

I did not see the 62mm that Nikon also made (perhaps Canon still offers large
achromats). You do not need a perfect fit, since a stepping ring can be used
to adapt it a size up or down to fit the lens. Stopped down to f11, the results
should be good, though maybe not quite up to a true macro lens.

> The single-element type has enough chromatic
> aberration to be objctionable, especially with a subject such as a
> spider web which properly lit has high contrast and fine lines.

I think single-element close-up lenses are generally useless - though Nikon
made some curved-element ones that often worked well, particularly on
video cameras.

>>Another option is an extension tube or two.
>>
>>Cheers,
>>
>>Wayne

These generally produce poor results with zooms, and even with some
non-zooms. I would favor the achromat over the tubes, especially if
you can find a strong enough one in 62, 67, or 72mm thread mount
(B&H sells stepping ring adapters) - and they retain all the features of
the camera and lens, unlike tubes.
--
David Ruether
DRuether@twcny.rr.com
rpn1@cornell.edu
http://www.ferrario.com/ruether
Paul Furman - 07 Feb 2007 15:37 GMT
> You can buy a single 52mm-threaded 3T (strongest) Nikkor achromat for $40 at
> www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=158&A=details&Q=&sku=37295&is=REG&add
edTroughType=categoryNavigation

> I did not see the 62mm that Nikon also made (perhaps Canon still offers large
> achromats).

That's a good deal if it fits your lens(es?), I paid a lot for a 77mm Canon.

> You do not need a perfect fit, since a stepping ring can be used
> to adapt it a size up or down to fit the lens. Stopped down to f11, the results
> should be good, though maybe not quite up to a true macro lens.

> I think single-element close-up lenses are generally useless

Think of the cheap kits (several sizes that can be stacked) as training
wheels, it's an easy way to learn about macro shooting, not a high
performance solution. Then you can move up to a real macro lens but
don't expect to make award winning images. Even a good closeup lens is
not that great, it's just convenient and fun to put on various lenses.
David Ruether - 07 Feb 2007 19:20 GMT
>> You can buy a single 52mm-threaded 3T (strongest) Nikkor achromat for $40 at
>> www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=158&A=details&Q=&sku=37295&is=REG&add
edTroughType=categoryNavigation

>> I did not see the 62mm that Nikon also made (perhaps Canon still offers large
>> achromats).

> That's a good deal if it fits your lens(es?), I paid a lot for a 77mm Canon.

Many 70-300mm zooms have a 62 or 67mm front, which a 62mm
achromat will fit (with an adapter for the 67) without vignetting. A
72mm (and probably a 67mm) achromat will fit a lens with 77mm
front. Normally a smaller filter would not work, but a close-up lens will.

>> You do not need a perfect fit, since a stepping ring can be used
>> to adapt it a size up or down to fit the lens. Stopped down to f11, the results
>> should be good, though maybe not quite up to a true macro lens. I think single-element close-up lenses are generally useless
>
> Think of the cheap kits (several sizes that can be stacked) as training wheels, it's an easy way to learn about macro shooting,
> not a high performance solution.

Yes.

> Then you can move up to a real macro lens but don't expect to make award winning images. Even a good closeup lens is not that
> great, it's just convenient and fun to put on various lenses.

I disagree. I have made many critically sharp images with achromats
on lenses that work very well with them, so long as the lens is stopped
down to about f11. BTW, the Canon 72mm achromat worked very
well with my 80-200mm f2.8 Nikkor (though it made for a clumsy
macro lens - I preferred more compact lenses with achromats, and
even with converters and tubes added to that - and the results were
often sharper at high magnification than what I could get with "macro"
lenses, which often perform well up to 1:1, but sometimes not well
at 2X or 3X).
--
David Ruether
DRuether@twcny.rr.com
rpn1@cornell.edu
http://www.ferrario.com/ruether
Marc Sabatella - 08 Feb 2007 04:27 GMT
> The single-element type has enough chromatic
> aberration to be objctionable, especially with a subject such as a
> spider web which properly lit has high contrast and fine lines.

True enough, although the suggestions I gave of using a lens hood and
stopping way down (f/32 if you got it) do help, I find.

>>Another option is an extension tube or two.

Or using a reversed prime in front of your basic zoon as a high quality
close-up lens.

---------------
Marc Sabatella
marc@outsideshore.com

Music, art,  & educational materials
Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer"
http://www.outsideshore.com/
Joseph Meehan - 07 Feb 2007 13:14 GMT
> I want to be able to take close ups of spider webs, insects, leaves
> etc. Can I  use a non-macro telephoto lens such as a Nikon 70-300 to
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> Paul Renfree

   There are many ways of skinning that cat.

   Here are a few things to consider.

   A longer focal length will mean you can be further away from the
subject.  With living subjects like a spider on the web, this can be very
handy.  It can even be good for still subjects as it may allow better
lighting.

   The sharpest and most convenient lens is likely to be a dedicated macro
lens as you will not need add-ons to get the job done.  They are also
designed from the beginning to focus close and usually on something flat.

   Zoom lenses are a special case.  They are already compromises in order
to zoom.  If you are also asking them to focus close, then there are more
compromises that need to be made and as a result there will be some decrease
in image quality.  However many modern lenses are doing a very good juggling
act and can produce very respectable results.

   Assuming you already have that lens, I would suggest buying a +2
close-up lens (fits like a filter) for that lens and see how that does for
you.  You will not have a large investment and it may do everything you
want.

Good Luck

Signature

Joseph Meehan

Dia 's Muire duit

Paul Furman - 07 Feb 2007 15:42 GMT
> I want to be able to take close ups of spider webs, insects, leaves etc. Can
> I  use a non-macro telephoto lens such as a Nikon 70-300 to do this, or does
> the telephoto lens need to have a macro setting?
>
> What about using a close up lens that screws on to a regular lens ?

Another possibility is to look for a normal to wide angle non-zoom lens
designed with what Nikon calls CRC (Close Range Correction). These can
be close enough for spider webs, big leaves & large fearless insects and
are useful in other ways.
David Ruether - 07 Feb 2007 19:31 GMT
>> I want to be able to take close ups of spider webs, insects, leaves etc. Can
>> I  use a non-macro telephoto lens such as a Nikon 70-300 to do this, or does
>> the telephoto lens need to have a macro setting?
>>
>> What about using a close up lens that screws on to a regular lens ?

> Another possibility is to look for a normal to wide angle non-zoom lens designed with what Nikon calls CRC (Close Range
> Correction). These can be close enough for spider webs, big leaves & large fearless insects and are useful in other ways.

For relatively large "macro" subjects, this is a good idea - but as you get
close to overcome the large size of the field of the WA lenses, it is too easy
to cast a shadow on the subject. The 28mm f2.8 MF *AIS* Nikkor is the
longest CRC lens with really good close performance, though - but somewhat
too wide for easy use except maybe for flowers. One lens does stand out for
close-up shooting purposes (other than the macro lenses, which also have
distance-compensation to keep performance high over an unusually wide
range of focus distances), and that is the 180mm f2.8 AF Nikkor - it is really
excellent even on a short tube and likely also with an achromat and/or short
tele converter.
--
David Ruether
DRuether@twcny.rr.com
rpn1@cornell.edu
http://www.ferrario.com/ruether
DoN. Nichols - 08 Feb 2007 03:47 GMT
According to Paul Renfree <prenfree@telusplanet.net>:
> I want to be able to take close ups of spider webs, insects, leaves etc. Can
> I  use a non-macro telephoto lens such as a Nikon 70-300 to do this, or does
> the telephoto lens need to have a macro setting?
>
> What about using a close up lens that screws on to a regular lens ?

    Aside from the other things which have been discussed, look on
eBay (or other used sources) for the 200mm f4 Medical Nikkor, which has:

1)    A set of six close-up lenses which can be used singly or in
    combination.

2)    A built in ring flash around the lens, with a built-in incandescent
    focusing illuminator.

    For the D70, the better version of this is the later one,
identifiable by:

1)    Color rings let into grooves in the OD of the close-up lenses.

2)    Matching colors on the barrel of the lens assembly documenting
    which combinations of close-up lenses give which magnification.

3)    A three-pin D-shaped connector for the ring flash power.  (The
    older one uses a four-pin round connector.)

4)    A switch on the battery power supply to cut the flash power by
    a factor of four, so you can use the closest lens combinations
    without overpowering the 200 ISO minimum of the D70.  (The
    closest combinations normally are happier with an ISO/ASA of 25.
    (The markings on the lens are in ASA -- because it is an older
    lens, after all.) I think that a D200 might work just as well
    with the older version.

5)    The battery power supply uses eight D cells on the newer unit
    while the older one uses two D cells for the focus illuminator,
    and a rather expensive and difficult to find high voltage
    battery for the flash voltage.  (Note that I have only seen the
    older battery supply documented for the older lens, not
    personally experienced it.)  What I had for the older one was the
    AC power supply which has no switch for reduced flash output.
    There was a documented cable to produce the reduced power to the
    flash unit, but no clue what the series resistance should be.

    You will need an adaptor to provide a PC contact for the flash
from the D70's hot shoe.

    Exposure is done in manual mode, and turn off the auto-ISO if
you normally have it on.  You set the ISO on one ring, and the
magnification on another ring, and this sets the aperture for the
correct exposure.

    Overall, it produces excellent and even illumination of close-up
shots, all the way in to a 2X magnification, and it works quite well
with hand-held shots.  There is no focus mechanism on the lens -- you
focus by changing lens to subject distance after selecting the desired
magnification by your choice of close-up lenses.

    It is *supposed* to document the magnification, or a frame
number, in the bottom-right corner of the frame -- but with the D70's
crop factor, this does not show up at all.  I won't be able to use that
again until Nikon comes out with a full frame DSLR. :-)

    Because this is built on the base of a 200mm lens, it does an
excellent job of putting some disance between you and the subject.
(This was a particular benefit in its design function, as you were
unlikely to get blood from the medical use on the lens elements (or
yourself).

    Enjoy,
        DoN.
Signature

Email:   <dnichols@d-and-d.com>   | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
    (too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
          --- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

 
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.