# Macro Sony a6000 questions



## AndyB.

Hello, completely new to this forum here!
I'm not really new to photography but I don't understand a lot of the technical things and I'm just getting into macro. I've got a Sony a6000 and I've been wanting to take macro/extreme macro photography of insects and arachnids like jumping spiders, flies, etc. I have a few questions on how to go about this. Should I get the Sony 30mm f/3.5 macro lens or should I just get some cheap kit of 10mm and 16mm extension tubes? Is it a good idea to get both? I've heard that with the macro lens you have to get really close to the subject and that the extension tubes actually help that. Also, what should I do for a flash? Is a ring flash a good idea? Thanks and sorry for the noob questions... gotta start somewhere!


----------



## dxqcanada

With macro lenses, the longer the focal length ... the larger the min focus distance.
The 30mm is 95mm, while the 90mm is 280mm.


----------



## AndyB.

dxqcanada said:


> With macro lenses, the longer the focal length ... the larger the min focus distance.
> The 30mm is 95mm, while the 90mm is 280mm.



Thanks. So would the extension tubes give me a longer min focus distance if I put them on the body with the 30mm lens? I've also noticed that lost macro photographers use a flash that goes around the camera with a diffuser on it instead of using a ring flash. Are there any pros to this? Is the light softer?


----------



## dxqcanada

The Extension Tube does the opposite, it lowers the MFD.
I can't give you much info on flash use ... I avoid using them (just a personal thing) ... but for insects it does give you hand to increase shutter speed.


----------



## dasmith232

It's pretty confusing to work through, until you get used to it. I use terminology that (often? hopefully?) helps to explain, even if it's not technically proper from an academic perspective.

Longer focal length moves the lens farther from the sensor. Extension tubes *also* move the lens farther from the sensor.

However, the focal length is part of the *design* of the lens regardless of how close or far is is *actually* placed from the lens. Focal length is based on objects at infinity distance being in proper focus. Even turning the focus ring (on a normal lens) increases that distance by a relatively small amount to focus on things that are closer.

In subtle contrast, extension tubes change how far the lens is actually placed from the lens regardless of the optical design. There are optical formulae that explain this more properly, but that's beyond the scope of what I'm describing and simplifying here.

All this moving of the optics (and specifically increasing the distance) reduces the amount of light that makes it to the sensor. The more that you increase magnification, the darker things get. Pretty quickly, using flash becomes pretty essential. You *can* avoid using flash, but you'll definitely be limited in what you can do.

There's a rule of thumb (that's probably wrong academically, but) that says to get a "normal" lens to magnify to 1:1, you add enough extension to match the focal length. 50mm lens? Add 50mm extension. 25mm lens? Add 25mm extension. This gets thrown off with modern lenses that supply some amount of "internal extension". I'll leave it to Joe or others to fill in the details. The point is that with longer focal length lenses, you'll get more working distance but you'll need to add a lot of extension. With all that extension, you'll likely need to add light.

Now we get to a "proper" macro lens. It accounts for all this stuff, all in one package that still focuses out to infinity and is still a really sharp lens for normal photography. A good macro lens is expensive, but certainly worth it for those that want to do this a lot.

You can get into macro "cheaply" with the tubes. And that's good to see if you like this field of photography.

On an entirely different (but related) topic, a really good tripod and head is essential in macro photography. Camera shake is really, really pronounced in high magnification work. It's not just the lens that makes macro expensive. It the whole package: including lighting and support.


----------



## AndyB.

Here's what I've gotten to since I got the extension tubes and a little bit of cropping. (I definitely want to get a little closer)I've made a little diffuser for my in-camera flash. It works pretty good but I still need ALOT to improve on and I think my next step is to get an external flash and/or try out the macro lens. I keep getting these rainbow colored specks on my subjects, not sure what it is but I definitely want to get rid of that somehow. Lmk what I should change/ improve on. Critique is greatly appreciated


----------



## Ysarex

With a mirrorless camera like the a6000 there's another inexpensive macro option a lot of folks fail to consider. With the general collapse of the film darkroom enlarging lenses can be had for very little $$. You can get a 50mm f/2.8 superb enlarging lens for a fraction of it's original value and a fraction of the cost of that macro lens. You'll need a way to focus it and mount it to the camera: M42 Lens to Sony NEX a6300 a6000 a5100 a5000 a7 Adapter/ Macro Focusing Helicoid  | eBay

That mount adapter is helical and so will focus the lens. The screw mount is M42 and the lens will be M39: Amazon.com : Fotasy M39 (39mm) to M42 (42mm) Adapter Ring for 42mm Focusing Helicoid (2 Packs) : Camera Lens Caps : Camera & Photo

You'll still want a cheap set of M42 extension tubes to put you into the general working range you're after. Should be able to put the whole package together for under $100.00.

In use you'll have to focus with the lens wide open and then stop down to take the photo. Put the camera in A mode and you're good to go. The advantage of all this is that the enlarging lens is corrected to work in fairly close and if you buy something like a 50mm f/2.8 Nikkor or 50mm f/2.8 Componon you're probably going to get better results than the Sony macro.

I shoot Fuji mirrorless and my macro lens is an old Rodenstock enlarging lens. I'm not chasing bugs, I use it to do flower close-ups, but it will easily get in that close. Fuji makes a 60mm macro that's about as good, but I had the lens in a drawer from days gone by.

Joe


----------



## Ysarex

dasmith232 said:


> There's a rule of thumb (that's probably wrong academically, but) that says to get a "normal" lens to magnify to 1:1, you add enough extension to match the focal length. 50mm lens? Add 50mm extension. 25mm lens? Add 25mm extension. This gets thrown off with modern lenses that supply some amount of "internal extension". I'll leave it to Joe or others to fill in the details. The point is that with longer focal length lenses, you'll get more working distance but you'll need to add a lot of extension. With all that extension, you'll likely need to add light.



And yes that's correct academically. Double the lens focal length at infinity and you reach X1 magnification. Furthermore the lens will then be equal distant between the film/sensor and focal plane. The distance between the film/sensor and the focal plane will be 4 times the lens focal length at infinity which is the closest the film/sensor can physically get to the subject with that lens. Approaching X1 magnification the film/sensor moves closer to the subject along with the lens. To focus closer than X1 the lens will continue to move closer to the subject and the film/sensor will begin to move away from the subject having reached its closest possible distance (4 times focal length) at X1. The closest the lens can possibly get to the subject is the lens focal length at infinity which gets tricky because to be in focus the film/sensor will have to be at infinity.

Joe


----------



## AndyB.

The I have a few old manual film camera lenses. I found an SMC Pentax M 50mm f2 lens. If I reversed this onto the extension tubes (10 and 16mm Sony e mount) on my Sony a6000 would that give me a nice macro range? What kind of reverse ring would I need? Would it be really expensive/hard to find?


----------



## Derrel

Fotodiox has inexpensive adpaters and reverse-mounting rings, step rings, and so on. Know the filter thread diameter for the Pentx 50mm lens (likely 49mm by the memory I have left), and know what mount you need it to attach to.


----------



## greybeard

I use a Minolta Celtic 55mm macro with a Fotodiox adapter.  Really inexpensive setup and good results.


----------



## petrochemist

AndyB. said:


> dxqcanada said:
> 
> 
> 
> With macro lenses, the longer the focal length ... the larger the min focus distance.
> The 30mm is 95mm, while the 90mm is 280mm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks. So would the extension tubes give me a longer min focus distance if I put them on the body with the 30mm lens? I've also noticed that lost macro photographers use a flash that goes around the camera with a diffuser on it instead of using a ring flash. Are there any pros to this? Is the light softer?
Click to expand...


Extension tubes make a lens focus closer, and they'll have a lot more effect on short focal length lenses. You'll get substantially more magnification at the cost of working distance.

The larger the light source the softer the light, many diffusers used for macro achieve very soft lighting, often a degree of direction on the lighting is desirable. Ring flash is very flat coming from as near as possible the axis of the lens. This is desirable for some subjects, but tends to make less interesting images.


----------

