|
Does anyone else shoot macro? I exclusively shoot macro. I generally use my trusty Canon XTI and Sigma 105mm macro lense (like above). In certain situations I use my old Panasonic FZ8 and the wonderful Raynox DCR 150 and 250 lenses for some super macros (like below).  I thought it might be about time we had a place to discuss macro subjects and tactics.
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2010 05:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 02:45 |
|
|
I'd love to get a decent macro lens for my Nikon, but its far down the list of things I need for my camera. Are extension tubes a decent substitute?
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2010 06:13
|
|
|
That's really the whole reason for this thread. I don't know anyhting about extension tubes, but I'd like to.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2010 06:32
|
|
|
Your spider pic is excellent, by the way.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2010 06:45
|
|
|
Thanks. That photo was used for a fund raising event for the Bohart Museum of Entomology at the University of California at Davis. It's also part of my Minnesota Spider series here How about you, what do you shoot with? Where do you look for subjects?
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2010 07:05
|
|
|
Macro is fun on the side for me. I only have a macro lens for my film camera though so that's where all of my photos come from. I did mess around with that lens reversal trick recently though:  
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2010 07:46
|
|
|
i like macros  (this guy landed on my jeans)  I used a minolta 100mm f/2.8 for all of these
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2010 08:57
|
|
|
Flower Power posted:I love this shot! These were taken with the 50mm f/1.8 reversed.   
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2010 11:40
|
|
|
sanka posted:
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2010 12:12
|
|
|
Can someone explain this lens reversing for me? I only have the 18-55mm 500D kit lens and a 75-400mm canon zoom lens. Will either one of these two get me halfway decent results if I attach a macro filter?
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2010 14:41
|
|
|
Crash Fistfight posted:Can someone explain this lens reversing for me? There are adapters that one can use to attach a lens to a camera in reverse. From what I can understand, this apparently moves the lens elements farther away from the sensor (like a bellows or extension tube would) and thusly gives you a shorter focusing distance and greater magnification. I think it only really works with lenses of smaller focal lengths (i.e., not telephotos), though I could be wrong. William T. Hornaday fucked around with this message at 21:28 on Feb 20, 2010 |
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2010 21:26
|
|
|
You can buy reversing rings at most photo places. B&H has a bunch. I have a few that I use rarely. It does work well, especially with a reversed 50mm on a kit lense, but your working distance can be literally millimeters. In situations like that I much prefer to use my Raynox DCR-150 or DCR-250. They give a lot better working distance, with no noticeable loss in image quality. I love those little guys, and they are worth far more than they cost.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2010 05:56
|
|
|
I love me some macro     
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2010 10:04
|
|
|
I've been using an old Pentax 55mm M42 lens reversed against a Nikon zoom lens attached to a D40 for some fun macro shots. I posted a few of these in the SAD thread a little while back, so sorry for the repeat if anyone notices. A quarter  Crushed red pepper flakes  Generic Italian seasoning  Ground cayenne pepper  The only thing I really want to do different is my lighting setup. I've been relying pretty heavily on a flash with paper ball lanterns surrounding the subject to fill things in a little. Should I just build a cheap light box for inside subjects and use natural lighting for outside subjects when possible?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2010 16:59
|
|
|
sanka posted:In situations like that I much prefer to use my Raynox DCR-150 or DCR-250. They give a lot better working distance, with no noticeable loss in image quality. I love those little guys, and they are worth far more than they cost.   For anyone looking to get into macro on the cheap, a DCR-250 mounted on even one of the cheaper telephotos like the Nikon 55-200 f/4-5.6 VR will get you something like 1.7:1 magnification.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2010 18:35
|
|
|
Eutheria posted:There are adapters that one can use to attach a lens to a camera in reverse. From what I can understand, this apparently moves the lens elements farther away from the sensor (like a bellows or extension tube would) and thusly gives you a shorter focusing distance and greater magnification. I think it only really works with lenses of smaller focal lengths (i.e., not telephotos), though I could be wrong. Lens reversing works better the shorter your lens is, I believe. Try it with the kit lens but I'm pretty sure doing it with the telephoto will be useless.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2010 18:35
|
|
|
I'm looking forward to Spring so I can start shooting macro again.  One day I'm going to get one of these little bastards in focus when they jump. I definitely third the Raynox adapters, they are absolutely fantastic. I got my first start with macro photography by taping an eye piece of a pair of binoculars to the end of my p&s lens and it worked quite well, then I upgraded to the Raynox because it did the same thing except with much better quality. This was taken with a Raynox DCR-250 and a Canon Powershot S5IS:  Original (huge) size: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3275/2915924266_6a7d898500_o.jpg
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2010 18:54
|
|
|
Is there a way that I could use those Raynox filters on something with a 77mm filter size? I know the Raynox DCR-250 says it can be used with a lens with a filter size up to 67mm, would I be able to buy an adapter to step down the filter size on my lens from 77mm to 67mm and then slap the DCR-250 on that?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2010 20:12
|
|
|
KickStand posted:Is there a way that I could use those Raynox filters on something with a 77mm filter size? I know the Raynox DCR-250 says it can be used with a lens with a filter size up to 67mm, would I be able to buy an adapter to step down the filter size on my lens from 77mm to 67mm and then slap the DCR-250 on that? You can get a 77 to 67mm adapter (generally used for connecting a second, reversed lens) on eBay for a few $/£. Whether or not the extra distance will be a problem is another matter though. Some of my shots:    
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2010 20:45
|
|
|
MrFrosty posted:For anyone looking to get into macro on the cheap, a DCR-250 mounted on even one of the cheaper telephotos like the Nikon 55-200 f/4-5.6 VR will get you something like 1.7:1 magnification. I have this very lens. I may be ordering a DCR-250 very, very soon.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2010 04:16
|
|
|
Dear OP: how do you like the 105mm Sigma macro? A good macro lens is next up on my list and considering how poor / back-to-school I'm going to be shortly, I'm wondering if going the budget route (from say, the 100mm Canon USM model) will treat me right.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2010 04:41
|
|
|
Stew Man Chew posted:Dear OP: how do you like the 105mm Sigma macro? A good macro lens is next up on my list and considering how poor / back-to-school I'm going to be shortly, I'm wondering if going the budget route (from say, the 100mm Canon USM model) will treat me right. For the price of the lens, it's loving phenomenal, it is the macro lens i had for about 2 years before i got the canon 100mm, it seriously is one of the very better ones on the market right now
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2010 04:50
|
|
|
why did I come into this thread, it only made me want to buy a macro lens...which I can't afford  great photos guys
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2010 04:59
|
|
|
Has anyone tried diopters? I've been looking at sets of +1,2,4 and 10. They're usually pretty cheap, which worries me and opinions on picture quality seem to be mixed at best. Is there a higher quality filter out there, or is the Raynox really the only way to go without bellows/extensions/lens reversing, etc? Edit: I love macro. I've spent the winter trying to get my hands on better equipment. I can't wait for spring so I can try again. Here's some of my stuff from last summer.    Some great stuff in this thread...I'm jealous! misunderestimated fucked around with this message at 05:31 on Feb 22, 2010 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2010 05:14
|
|
|
Stew Man Chew posted:Dear OP: how do you like the 105mm Sigma macro? A good macro lens is next up on my list and considering how poor / back-to-school I'm going to be shortly, I'm wondering if going the budget route (from say, the 100mm Canon USM model) will treat me right. I bought a bargain rated Sigma 105mm Macro from KEH for $149, I don't know if it's just my copy or not but the AF is really slow and noisy so I just use it in MF which is fine anyways since I don't want to scare my subjects. I highly recommend it if you ever find yourself in the position of getting one. If you can stand spiders, here's a flickr set of most of my shots with the lens http://www.flickr.com/photos/silenus81/sets/72157618045110348/
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2010 05:15
|
|
|
Well speak of the devil a 105mm is up for $144 right now, holy credit cards batman. Also seems a loud/crappy AF system is a universal complaint, not unique to your lens. I've seen that BGN-rated stuff from KEH is awesome quality, so this'll be on my quicklist. Thanks! Gunshow Poophole fucked around with this message at 06:02 on Feb 22, 2010 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2010 05:44
|
|
|
I took these with a kit lens (because I don't have a straight up macro) but I thought they turned out fairly well. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2010 21:51
|
|
|
Eugh, the Raynox sounded perfect but apparently are next to impossible to find in the UK.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2010 21:54
|
|
|
Are these what you're after? http://www.amazon.co.uk/Raynox-RADCR-0150-DCR-150/dp/B0007KS7D0/ref=sr_1_1 http://www.amazon.co.uk/Raynox-RADCR-0250-DCR-250/dp/B000A1SZ2Y/ref=sr_1_1
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2010 22:12
|
|
|
Pablo Bluth posted:Are these what you're after? Indeed, but they ship from Germany and I'm leaving the UK at the end of the week so I'd probably miss it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2010 22:16
|
|
|
How much better is a ringflash over a normal speedlite for macro? I would love the Canon MP-E65 for my next macro lens, but I don't really want to shell out nearly $1k for a flash only for macro..
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2010 00:01
|
|
|
ricepaddydaddy posted:How much better is a ringflash over a normal speedlite for macro? I would love the Canon MP-E65 for my next macro lens, but I don't really want to shell out nearly $1k for a flash only for macro.. Here is Brian Valentine's (Lord V) flash setup for his MP-E 65. No idea whether it's better than a ringflash, but it certainly seems more than sufficient for him. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2010 00:33
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:Eugh, the Raynox sounded perfect but apparently are next to impossible to find in the UK. http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=130368802102 I was going to buy it, but go for it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2010 00:46
|
|
|
Raikiri posted:http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=130368802102 Nah, it's okay. I'll be out of the UK by the time the auction ends. Thanks though. I was just hoping that some place like calulet or something sell them. The raynox seems perfect for my needs, I'd be mounting it on a 70-200 f4. Plus be able to test macro before laying out for a 100mm f2.8. It's odd how it doesn't really seem that present in England.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2010 00:50
|
|
|
Might be worth trying a cheaper Macro lens, the Canon is lovely but I find my Tamron 90mm does the job just fine. A used one (slightly older version) would set you back about £150-£175 and are really sharp. The AF sucks but then you're not going to be using it much when shooting macro.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2010 01:28
|
|
|
haha, don't tempt me. I'm trying to cut down on photography purchases. I need to buy an underwater housing (albeit just for a compact, gently caress paying the money they want for dSLR housings)
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2010 02:06
|
|
|
Just another quick question, how exactly would you find your max magnification with something like the Raynox? Say your lens has normally a max magnification of 1:4 what math would be involved to find how close you are getting?
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2010 19:08
|
|
|
KickStand posted:Just another quick question, how exactly would you find your max magnification with something like the Raynox? Say your lens has normally a max magnification of 1:4 what math would be involved to find how close you are getting? Best way it to take a picture of a ruler, if your sensor is 22mm across and 2.2cm fills the frame it's 1:1, 1.1cm then it's 2:1 etc.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2010 19:53
|
|
|
Double post, but hey it's been a few days. I have a new subject:    Now with video (1080p/720p available on YT): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_77X_MUsXI
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2010 22:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 02:45 |
|
|
Wow, awesome looking mantis! I've always wanted to shoot a couple of those but I don't see them all that often around here. Great shots and cool video!
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2010 22:51
|
|