1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links for holiday shopping!

Which one more effective for marco photos?

Discussion in 'Adapted Lenses' started by dejavu2339, Apr 11, 2013.

  1. dejavu2339

    dejavu2339 TalkEmount Regular

    43
    Mar 25, 2013
    Hi i bought a canon fd 50mm 1.4 and 50mm 3.5 macro and i want to take some macro photos...which metod is effective from each others?
    Using a reverse lens connection or extension tube ?
     
  2. Bimjo

    Bimjo Super Moderator

    Oct 28, 2011
    Washington State
    Jim
    Oh boy, I haven't done this in awhile, but it's probably time.

    How do I macro, let me count the ways. Since you already have a macro lens, I'd probably just use that, but here are the options:

    1) Use a macro lens. Simple. Easy. Can be expensive. AF really not necessary at such extreme magnification ratios.

    2) Use a close up filter (diopter). Simple. Easy. Can be used on multiple lenses to increase magnification ratio options.

    3) Use extension tubes. Simple. A little less easy. Like a close up filter they can be used with nearly any lens. May require a lens with a aperture ring to function properly.

    4) Use a focusing helicoil. Similar to extension tubes, but they allow you to vary the magnification ratio with one device (versus multiple extension tubes). I have two that are teleconverters as well. They are specifically set up to turn a 50mm lens into a 100mm 1:1 macro equivalent lens. They also work with nearly any lens with a aperture ring.

    5) Use a macro reversing ring. This allows you to mount a lens backwards on the camera. Requires a lens with a aperture ring (or some jury-rigging) to allow aperture changes. Exposes the rear element to hazards, especially at high magnification ratios because of the short working distance.

    6) Use a macro coupling ring. Similar to a macro reversing ring, but it allows you to mount a lens backwards on the front of another lens. Magnification ratio depnds on the focal length of the two lenses used. Same hazards to lens elements for a macro reversing ring applies here as well.

    7) Use a bellows. Huge range of magnification ratios possible. Unwieldy to use compared to other options. Tripod almost required.

    8) Various combinations of 1-6. Can get some wild magnification ratios. Lens elements may touch (or nearly touch) the subject.

    9) Use a long lens at the minimum focus distance and crop heavily. While not a true macro shot you can get pretty close with the right lens.

    10) Something I've probably forgotten. ;)

    Basically you pick a method and have at it. Expect very narrow depth of field at high magnification ratios. A tripod is required for me, as I've never been able to hand hold macro shots, though some people do it. If you're not using a bellows, a focusing rail can make life much easier when it comes to focusing, especially if you use focus stacking to increase DOF.
     
  3. Jaf-Photo

    Jaf-Photo TalkEmount Veteran

    484
    Mar 25, 2013
    The dedicated macro lens is most likely to give you the results you want. I haven't tried your Canon lenses, but I have the Minolta counterparts.

    Use the 50mm/3.5 macro set to 1:1, that is my tip. Use good light and a tripod. It's essential as any shake could ruin a macro photo.

    Here's one I took with my Minolta MD 50mm f/3.5 macro 1:1

    Second Passion | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
     
  4. eno789

    eno789 TalkEmount Top Veteran

    720
    Jan 1, 2012
    NoCal, USA
    Brian
    10.1) Teleconverter, especially macro focusing teleconverter;
    10.2) Use a wide angle lens, which some can focus very close, and provide decent magnification (1:4). You get to include the surrounding environment if you choose to do so.

    IMHO, on NEX, reversing lens and extension tube are about the same in terms of effectiveness. It really depends on what you want to take macro picture of. You'll lose infinity with both methods unless you change lens. This may not be a problem at all in some cases. But I generally avoid changing lenses in the field.
     
  5. Bimjo

    Bimjo Super Moderator

    Oct 28, 2011
    Washington State
    Jim
    Thanks Brian, I knew I'd forget something. :)
     
  6. eno789

    eno789 TalkEmount Top Veteran

    720
    Jan 1, 2012
    NoCal, USA
    Brian
    Regarding method #2 "Use a close up filter (diopter)", make sure you use a multi-element achromatic close-up filter, not the cheap junk single-element ones.
     
  7. Poki

    Poki TalkEmount Hall of Famer

    Aug 30, 2011
    Austria
    Regarding performance, Dr. Hubert H. Nasse once made up a comparison of some of these options and was pretty convinced that "true" macro lenses are the absolutely best choice unless you need to go closer than 1:1. The images he used in the comparison showed his point pretty clear, and since you already got a macro lens, why not simply use it?

    The thing I'd think if I were you was how to light macro scenes. If you have some normal flashes, there are certainly ways to use them for macro setups. But yeah, of course there are dozens of ways to light them that work great too.
     
  8. dejavu2339

    dejavu2339 TalkEmount Regular

    43
    Mar 25, 2013
    My macro lens is 1:2 not 1:1
     
  9. xXx1

    xXx1 TalkEmount All-Pro

    Jan 15, 2013
    Sure. These are meant to be used with extension tubes to get 1:1.
     
  10. Poki

    Poki TalkEmount Hall of Famer

    Aug 30, 2011
    Austria
    Exactly. As these lenses already focus down to 1:2, you don't loose as much quality by going 1:1 with an extension tube than you would using a conventional 50mm lens. But even at 1:2, there are nice macro perspectives to get. For example, the current Zeiss Makro-Planars are also 1:2 lenses.
     
  11. xXx1

    xXx1 TalkEmount All-Pro

    Jan 15, 2013
    Image circle is smaller too. That is, you don't lose as much light as with normal lens. I think that this is good compromise, you get 1:2 macro and infinity focus and nice focusing (infinity and 1:1 would need either very long rotation or it would be not as precise with focusing) and simpler optics.

    If I remember correctly you need to have 25mm extension tube to get from 1:2 to 1:1 with 50 mm objective and you lose 1 stop. That is practical but to get from 1:4 maximum magnification to 1:1 with extension tubes you lose too much light (4 stops). As shallow depth of field usually needs f:8-f:16 that makes effective aperture of f:32+. That is from memory and I may be wrong but my experiments with enlarging lens were failure because of light demand.