Newbie question about macro

[hopeg]

I have a Nikon D5100 with two kit lenses, 18-55 and 55-200. How much of a macro shot can I achieve? I'm having a hard time getting the camera to focus in on something close. I tried macro mode and also in manual. Not sure what I'm doing wrong. Are these lenses able to capture a macro shot? I was attempting to get a shot up close of some print on a craft glue bottle and on a newspaper and I just couldn't get the lens to focus. I honestly haven't really delved in very deep about macro photography, but I thought with a macro mode that I could get at least a little up close, but couldn't. What are these extension tubes I keep reading about? I can't afford a macro lens right now, so are the tubes more affordable? Thanks ahead of time for any input, it's much appreciated

[Saorsa]

The maximum magnification ratio of the 18-55 is 0.31. the 55-200 is 0.29 so you aren't at 1:1 which is usually called macro with either.

To get closer you will need to get a true macro lens or use some other method. If you want to keep Autofocus, you will need automatic extension tubes or a positive diopter lens that goes on the front of your lens like a filter.

Extension tubes are just hollow tubes which will fit between your lens and camera. They will put the lens further away from the sensor and give greater magnification. When they are in place you will only be able to focus in a very limited range so you might need to experiment with a couple of different sizes to get the effect you want.



Be very careful of the cheap plastic sets on various sites. I had one with a faulty lens release and took a while to get it off the camera.

You might also consider a good quality positive diopter, achromat lens or close-up filter. Those are all terms used for the same thing. A lens that goes in front of your lens. You will still only be able to focus in a narrow range but the Raynox 150 and 250 come with a mount that clips on like a lenscap. Here is one on a Nikon P7100 it will fit fine on your lenses.



Kenko auto extension tubes and Raynox macro lenses have good reputations in this regard. There are a lot of other ways to get to macro but these are pretty simple to deal with.

[xpatUSA]

Kenko auto extension tubes and Raynox macro lenses have good reputations in this regard. There are a lot of other ways to get [into] macro but these are pretty simple to deal with.

I have the Raynox DCR-250 and can confirm that it will get you closer and takes good shots. I also have a close-up 'filter' but it's not as good and only fits one diameter, of course.

[Stagecoach]

Hi Hope,

The 'Macro'/'Close Up' scene mode as selected on the dial of your D5100 simply adjusts the camera to what it considers 'optimum' shooting settings for close up photography. It does not affect how close or what magnification you can achieve with whatever lens is fitted.

Apart from the suggestions and information already given regarding close up lenses and extension tubes the next option of course is a 'Macro Lens'.

There's a couple of routes you can consider here for the future,

a) Buy a dedicated 60, 90, 105 or 150mm macro lens, they are not cheap and at times you can get good used deals.

b) Buy a used zoom that has a 'macro' setting. As an example when I first decided to have a go at macro I purchased a used Nikon 28-105D on ebay that had macro capability of 1:2 magnification of extremely high quality on a very useful walkabout lens at a pretty cheap price as they are old technology.

Just some more info that hopefully helps you.

Grahame

[f8andbethere]

Hope, Your kit lens as all lens have a minimum focus distance. I'm not sure what yours are but at some point the lens gets to close to focus.
For economy I'd go with the tubes. Look for quality ones though as described above you could have issues. E-Bay is you friend. I'd look for Nikon myself but thats just me.

Good luck.

[Saorsa]

Hi Hope,

b) Buy a used zoom that has a 'macro' setting. As an example when I first decided to have a go at macro I purchased a used Nikon 28-105D on ebay that had macro capability of 1:2 magnification of extremely high quality on a very useful walkabout lens at a pretty cheap price as they are old technology.

Grahame

The macro inclusive zooms are a good idea but many of those are older lenses that do not include an AF motor in the lens and rely on a focus motor in the camera. The OPs Nikon D5100 does not have an internal motor so those will only work in manual mode.

Because of that, I was hesitant to recommend an older zoom. They are very good though if you have a focus motor in the body. Here is an example of a metallic green bee taken on a casual shooting day with the old 24-85mm f2.8-4.0 Nikkor. First full frame and then cropped.




Since it is a DX camera, the 40 and 85mm Micro-Nikkors are designed for that format and will reach from infinity to 1:1 without accessories like extension tubes or Achromat lenses.

[DanK]

b) Buy a used zoom that has a 'macro' setting. As an example when I first decided to have a go at macro I purchased a used Nikon 28-105D on ebay that had macro capability of 1:2 magnification of extremely high quality on a very useful walkabout lens at a pretty cheap price as they are old technology

I started macro with a 1:2 lens and was frustrated enough that I sold it and replaced it with a true 1:1 macro lens within months.

Adding tubes to your current lenses will get you lot closer. The amount of additional magnification depends on the length of the tubes (more extension = more magnification) and the focal length you choose (longer focal length = less magnification from the tubes). This is explained on the macro tutorial page on this site (https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tu...es-closeup.htm), which also provides a calculator. I strongly suggest that you study that tutorial before you go further.

I use tubes frequently, but they darken the viewfinder, and with a kit lens, you will find that it gets pretty dark.

Macro is technically very demanding, so I generally urge people not to invest a lot of money before they have a chance to try it. A used dedicated macro lens (not a zoom--no zooms are true macro lenses) is a reasonable way to start. Given your camera, something with a focal length of about 60mm would be very good for flowers, but if you want to chase bugs, you will find it easier to use 90 or 100 mm because of the greater working distance at minimum magnification.

[Saorsa]

Perhaps the original poster can help us by letting us know what her goals in macro work are to get more specific recommendations.

[Tringa]

If you are definitely interested in macro photography then a macro lens is probably the best option but, as you have seen, they are not cheap.

Perhaps the cheapest way of getting macro shots is by using a reversing ring. It allows you to mount a lens on a camera the opposite way around.

One side of a reversing ring screws into the filter thread of your lens. The other side has the lens mount for your camera. After screwing the reversing ring on to the lens you detached the lens form the camera, flip the lens around and mount the lens (via the reversing ring) on to you camera.

With this set up and and at the wide angle end of you kit lens you will get a reasonably good magnification.

The attached photo is part of a British 50 pence coin taken with my kit lens at 18mm mounted via a reversing ring. I have just measured a 50p coin and the width of the photo shows about 8mm of the coin. The out of focus regions at the top and bottom are caused by the angle at which the shot was taken and the depth of field was not large enough to get of all of it in focus.


There are drawbacks of using a reversing ring.

These are -

all auto functions of the lens/camera are lost so you need quite a lot of trying out different exposures to get a decent photo,

the camera to subject distance with a wide angle lens is tiny, just a few millimetres, (longer focal length lenses give a bigger working distance but the magnification is lower) and

the depth of field is very, very shallow.

A reversing ring is probably no good if you want to photograph insects but for static subjects it works well at little cost.



In the UK a reversing ring costs about 11GBP.

Dave

[Saorsa]

good point on reversing rings. I had forgotten an old experiment I documented at http://birdsnbugs.wordpress.com/2010...versing-rings/ which actually used the 18-55mm as one of the lenses. The images of a ruler are not exciting but do show the possibilities

There are actually two types of reversing rings. One reverses your lens onto the camera body and the other reverses a second lens onto another which is mounted to the camera.

[Shadowman]

I have a Nikon D5100 with two kit lenses, 18-55 and 55-200. How much of a macro shot can I achieve? I'm having a hard time getting the camera to focus in on something close. I tried macro mode and also in manual. Not sure what I'm doing wrong. Are these lenses able to capture a macro shot? I was attempting to get a shot up close of some print on a craft glue bottle and on a newspaper and I just couldn't get the lens to focus. I honestly haven't really delved in very deep about macro photography, but I thought with a macro mode that I could get at least a little up close, but couldn't. What are these extension tubes I keep reading about? I can't afford a macro lens right now, so are the tubes more affordable? Thanks ahead of time for any input, it's much appreciated

Were you using a tripod or support? It will help if you are focusing manually.

[Stagecoach]

Hi Hope,

As you will see there are many things to consider and a number of different ways to explore this area of photography. As with starting anything new it is difficult to know how far you will proceed with it or possibly how quickly you will lose interest so there's no simple answer.

Your expectations are a good starting point, so perhaps it's worth looking at some macro shots you like and finding out what equipment was used to take them. If they are ones that are posted here on CiC you will easily get advice on what was used to take them or 'what' could be used.

You will read lots of formulas and figures regarding magnification that can be confusing when starting so look at it simply. Your camera sensor is 23.6 mm wide. True macro 1:1 magnification ratio means that you can fill the frame with a 23mm long bug if you can get close enough, a 12mm long bee will fill half the frame

Just another two things to throw into the pot;

a) The vast majority of macro shooters that want to get in close to their subject use manual focusing.

b) Reversing lenses technically works but it's a great way to get humidity and dust into your lens that then remains there, where you shoot your pics has a major significance here.

Grahame

[jcuknz]

With the obsession in getting close for tight framing it is often ignored how owners of long lenses work. Normally a long lens will not focus close so this is corrected with the addition of a close-up lens* which permits the rig to come closer, but not 'real' close which can be disadvantagious for a number of reasons. * or extension tubes as Grahame works to great result.

ie. in practical terms .... my camera with its 430mm lens** at full zoom can only focus to two metres ....add a moderate close-up lens and instead of 2m to infinity I have a focusing range of 13 inches to 20 inches .... at 13 inches I fill the sensor with a 1.5 inch object **You have a 300mm Angle of view lens so will not be so tight a framing.

Basically one is using the narrow angle of the longer lens to achieve tight framing rather than organising an ability to focus close.

The addition of a close-up lens to a short lens is largely ineffectual becuase the difference in enlargement is minimal.

Adding a two dioptre [ 500mm ] close-up lens to your 55-200 lens will provide you with big close-ups though as to if you get "true macro" is another matter. If you have a magnifying glass in your household I suggest you use it with the 200mm lens to see what you get .... probably not 'photographic quality' but it will show you the potential of working this way.

I would not reccomend the Raynox to you because of the relative sizes of the Raynox lens and the camera lens ... it will work for sure but with light loss or vignetting. Unfortunately the larger CU lenses are expensive. If you need a 77mm that is $145 while a 55mm model is only $25 [ B&H in NY ]

If 1.5 inches is not small enough then stacking a pair of two dioptres might give you 'true Macro' ... for my camera nowhere near 'true macro' 19mm subject on 8mm sensor but maybe for you?.

[Saorsa]

The raynox 150 and 250 both work fine on the 55-200mm Nikkor. There won't be any vignetting at either focal length. at 55mm a dime does not fill the frame. At 200mm you can get really close. Here are two handheld low speed shots of a dime as an experiment.

Raynox 150 at 200mm


Raynox 250 at 200mm


At 55mm the dime does not fill the frame on either but there is no vignetting.

By comparison, I shot with the Raynox 150 on a P7100 and got these results at 28mm and 200mm equivalents



As you can see, a lot of vignetting at wide angle.

[hopeg]

Wow, perhaps I'm jumping ahead of myself here. I can see that there is a lot to learn about this area of photography. I'm still in the process of learning the basics, but macro photography is something I want to learn. I found this used lens on b & h, could this be used at the 1:1 magnification everyone keeps talking about? It doesn't really say...



I believe I will start saving my pennies for a good, used macro dedicated lens. Until then, I think I will look into the magnification filters or extension tubes. I don't particularly like the reverse lens idea, only because I'm still very paranoid about getting dust and what not in my camera, and I know that is a possibility with the reverse lens method. The macro work I'd be interested would vary because I'd be experimenting to see what I like to photograph the most. Thanks everyone for all the input.

[hopeg]

Were you using a tripod or support? It will help if you are focusing manually.

Don't have a tripod yet , but was using a support (some books stacked up). I wasn't focusing manually though, haven't quite got the hang of that yet either....

[Saorsa]

The 40mm is a fine lens and will go to 1:1 magnification.

Here is a comparison with a couple of other Micro-Nikkors.

One thing you need to consider with macro lenses is working distance. The shorter the Focal Length, the shorter the working distance.



For still life shots it doesn't matter much. For live subjects longer is better. In fact, I sometimes put TCs on my 105mm Micro-Nikkor.

[Tringa]

Saorsa makes a good point about focal length of a macro lens and its working distance.

For some shots a close working distance may not be a problem, plants and fungi for example. However, while some insects, such as many beetles and resting dragonflies, are easy to get close to, others (butterflies, for example) can be difficult to approach and a greater working distance is useful. Unfortunately longer focal length macro lenses are more expensive.

Dave

[DanK]

Hope,

as several of the postings have suggested, the best compromise depends on what you want to shoot. Here is my 2 cents, as someone who shoots a lot of macro:

--if there is any chance you want to shoot things that move, don't buy a 45mm lens. It's very short. I have done a lot of bugs with a 60mm lens, but even that is very short, and the percentage of keepers is lower as a result. Macro is technically demanding and initially frustrating. A lens that is too short will make it more so. I suggest you look in the 60-105mm range, depending on the mix of things you want to shoot. For newbies who think they might want to do bugs, I usually suggest starting with 90 to 105 mm.

--Reversing rings are a very cheap way of getting magnification, but for reasons noted above, it is cumbersome, and I would not use it for anything other than static subjects. To be more accurate: I have a reversing ring, and I have used it once or twice.

--if you are going to shoot static objects, a pile of books is not a substitute for a tripod. In macro work, even very tiny motions can ruin the shot. If you experiment with macro and find that you like it shooting static objects, you will probably need a tripod. You should also buy a remote release (you can get them on eBay for less than $15) so that you don't move the camera when you press the shutter.

--If you are going to shoot bugs, I consider external focusing (where the lens extends when focusing) a disadvantage. More likely to scare the critters off.

--Re autofocus: yes, a lot of macro is done with manual focusing, or by leaving the lens alone and moving the camera. However, I do use AF some in the field, when chasing bugs. Often I will use AF to get an initial focus and then move the camera from there.

One benefit of tubes is that you can use them on any lens. So, if you decide to try tubes with your current lens, keep them when you buy a macro lens. You can use them with the macro lens for magnification great than 1:1.

All in all, my recommendation is a used lens in the 100mm range.

Dan

[Glenn NK]

My seven cents worth:

1) Nothing will really substitute for a true macro lens - in addition to getting closer, virtually any brand has very good to excellent optics (resolution).

2) I wouldn't even attempt to not use a tripod because the DOF at macro distances is very thin. However, there is a well known macro photographer (Lord V) that has shot many very good macros, and he has even done focus stacking - without a tripod. I don't know how he does it, but he does. It's not something that everyone can do.

3) For macro, I consider a heavy overcast sky to be pretty ideal conditions - the light is diffuse (soft), and reflections aren't a problem.

4) My favourite time for flower work is in the rain - again, cloudy sky and the water drops can be every effective in an image.

5) In the absence of good soft light under cloud, a diffuser can be a very effective substitute.

6) For an APS-C body (so-called crop), I find that the 100 mm lens works well; with a FF body, I find 100 mm is too short, so I use extension tubes.

7) From my experience (6) above, I wouldn't even consider a 45 mm (Nikon) or 60 mm (Canon) macro lens - Dan K has covered this very well (actually he's covered everything very well).