Moving on . . . to macro?

[Sutton Warrior]

. . . from my thread; 'Its Janets fault' . . . the macro tubes arrived this morning. Kenko are at the budget end of the market, but I am impressed with the perceived quality, although a pouch rather than a plastic bag in a box might have been a nice idea, but that's splitting hairs at £85 for a set of three full fuction tubes, 12mm, 20mm and a 36mm stackable in any combination or on their own.

 

Macro photography has never been my no. 1 thing, however, to have a try at a modest amount seemed a good idea, another string to the bow? Looking through the web at sites that mentioned 'tubes' as an option to a full macro lens, the recommendations were mixed. However I surmised, simple tube, no glass = no loss of quality, the chosen lens is as good as it is?

 

So here we are, new toy, lovely weather and a Saturday morning . . . First which lens to choose, Nikon 18-200, or the 18-70 AF-S, always had a liking for the old 18-70, now regarded by many as, as good as it gets with out having a 'pro' label, but sadly still suffers with the tag 'kit', because it was originally supplied with the old D70 and 70S. The 18-200 is in my humble opinion a great lens for the traveler, walker and general grab and go types like me, I love it, but it did not cut the mustard when I tried it with a 20mm tube. So that left only the 18-70mm. If that failed, I was into a new 50mm f1.8 prime, one of Nikons best, so they say?

 

First few shots were shaky to say the least, problems encountered; small aperture f8 to get any depth of field, this lead to a slow shutter speed and auto focus hunt/not working at all, due to lack of light Not to mention wind, the lightest of a breeze was enough to move the flower, and getting insects to pose and say 'cheese' was impossible

 

But I had done my home work on the net, rack up the ISO to 400, use manual focus, set the focus, set the camera to continuous shot and as the shutter fires, rock gently forwards into the focus area, one of say half a dozen shots is likely to be as you want it, or at least sharp?

 

The obvious use of a tripod is a wast of time for insect chasing. I have discovered that macro is something that needs working on, it certainly is not simply, screw on a 'macro lens' and press the shutter, 0.5X (1.2) macro or even 1 to 1, only scratches the surface if you are serious about your macro, so it seems, if what I have read is anything to go by . . .

 

The shot that was anything near what I was expecting in my first session, 15 pics to get one!!

 

After I had made changes to settings and tried rocking for focus, still need to work on angles, and 'eye(s)' contact

 

The set up, a 20mm tube, 18-70mm 'kit' lens. Its compact, balanced and looking forward to some more garden safaris . . . Not to cumbersome in the field either.

 

Why did I choose the 20 mm tube over 36mm or an even longer combination stack? After all, more tubes = a bigger image. First the magnification makes hand holding near impossible, hard enough with a 20mm tube, the other reason was the lens has to be so close it casts a shadow and if photographing insects they are scared off, close, close, is strickly studio and inanimate objects I think.

 

Finally, something unexpected was the intensity of colour that was evident. Might still go for a 50mm Nikon f1.8 prime, fast, pin sharp glass . . . at £85 a pop

 

SW

Edited August 8, 2009 by Sutton Warrior

[Janet]

I was spoilt for choice on this one!

 

 

How do you get the critters to make eye contact?

 

 

This was unexpected! Coming in to land....!!!

 

 

 

None of my pictures turned out as well as I'd hoped, but I've learned one thing....patience is a virtue!

 

It's impossible to get them to pose, and it's very difficult to capture something that moves so fast. As you also pointed out, the slightest breeze and you have problems.

 

For me at the moment it's just point, shoot and hope for the best! Still, I'm learning as I go along (and having immense fun!)

 

I don't quite understand how tubes work....any chance of a simple explanation?

 

Where are all the macro guys?

 

Janet

[Steve Randles]

Extension tubes fit in between the lens and camera body...thereby "extending" the lens. What it does is it moves the front glass of the lens away from the sensor by however big the tube is, this increases the photo size but means you have to get closer to your subject. As an exampe one of my lens's has a minimum focus distance of 1 metre, if I used the same lens with an extension tube the recorded photo would be a lot closer/zoomed in but I might have to get as close as 4 inches to focus it...this is the trade off with using extension tubes and why I'm holding back from buying any and waiting until I can afford a 1:1 macro lens instead. They are a good option but not the route I want to take myself.

 

Steve...

[Janet]

Thanks for that Steve....I'll go and have a Google and find out more!

 

Janet

[Sutton Warrior]

Extension tubes fit in between the lens and camera body...thereby "extending" the lens. What it does is it moves the front glass of the lens away from the sensor by however big the tube is, this increases the photo size but means you have to get closer to your subject. As an example one of my lens's has a minimum focus distance of 1 metre, if I used the same lens with an extension tube the recorded photo would be a lot closer/zoomed in but I might have to get as close as 4 inches to focus it...this is the trade off with using extension tubes and why I'm holding back from buying any and waiting until I can afford a 1:1 macro lens instead. They are a good option but not the route I want to take myself.

 

Steve...

 

Thanks for that proper explanation Steve. I agree with your last comment, a true 1.1 macro is king . . . or queen, not wishing to be sexist . However, macro has never been a 'must do' in my book, Janet fired up my thought along these lines. So I wondered if tubes might be worth a try. I have an old, manual tub, had a play, the poor quality pictures had enough in them to make me think £85 might just be an investment?

 

As you have seen, these pictures are OK'ish, but are 'close photography', rather than true macro. One has, with searching, discovered 1.1 macro is only the beginning if you are into frame filling with, say, a flies head.

 

OK, tubes arrive, take some pics, its difficult, getting so close 2" or 3" is simply a nightmare.

 

Re think . . . I like my 18-70 for normal photography, but cant deal with the close in hand holding, I get the shakes, bending, aquard position, the bl**dy fly wont stay still . . . the results are OK but not what I would call stunning? How about a longer tube . . . that was even worse, 3" became 3mm More thinking, the only optio is my Siggy 70-300 APO . . . It has a 1.2 macro (close up) facility at the 300mm end. Had already discounted that as a wast of time hand held and over 1 meter from camera to subject!

 

So, how about if I just treated the Sigma as a streight lens? Long minimum focus . . . but its worth a try, no other options.

 

This was the result of some experimenting:

 

 

Sigma 70-300 APO, set to 100mm, f8 apature priority, fixed manual focus (move the camera to focus), hand held. I played around with the macro rings, and the focal length of the lens. Two rings, 12 and 20mm stacked, with the lense set to 100mm gave an aproximate lens front to subject of about 10" (250mm) ideal to follow the subject. Did not feel cramped or uncumfortable, pinched a cushon from the sette to kneel on Not pin sharp . . . a blunt pin may be But its got my interest, its probably showing the limit of the lenses ability as well? what does one expect from a lens at £150 brand new.

 

The next stage will be a tripod, got a nice solid Manfrotto 55, mirror lock, cable shutter release and a static subject to see just how much further the combination will go? Cheap lens, tubes . . . I wonder, what ever next!

 

SW