# Best Macro Bang for  My  Buck?



## PhilGarber (Jun 5, 2008)

Hi all,

  I've realized that I am really into Macro photography... I've been looking at prices and found that even a beginner lens  is like $299.00 USD. What is a good affordable lens? ($100.00 USD or less?)

  For a example of the quality I'm looking for I want to be able to see the texture of a basketball at about an inch.

  Thanks!

 Phil,

PS-If you use a different currency then the US Dollar please include the US equivalent, thanks!


----------



## NateWagner (Jun 5, 2008)

Well, I'm not sure what you currently have, but you're probably going to have a difficult time finding macro lenses for under 100 dollars. The way I see it you have a few options

1. you might be able to find an older macro lens (not sure) that would work, perhaps one that would only manual focus. 

2. You could get extension tubes (I know Kenko, and of course nikon and canon have them) they will increase the focal length allowing you to focus from a closer distance. (I think I said that right)

3. you could get step up filters which will do much the same thing as number two. (again, there are more technical differences there, I just don't know them)

#2 you could find for $75 or less (though you may lose your autofocus ability with that) or for 150ish if you kept your autofocus. However, it's probably your best bet if you want to stay in that price range.


----------



## usayit (Jun 5, 2008)

Yes... it would be nice to know what camera you own...

My budget macro setup:
* Used Samsung GX-1L $150 (K-mount DSLR)
* Used Tamron 90mm f/2.5 Macro Adaptall lens $100 
* Used Tamron 2x Adaptall teleconverter (gets you 1:1 mag) $60 (KEH)
* New-Old-Stock Vivitar 6000AF ring light $100
* Used K-mount Adaptall Adapter $30


----------



## usayit (Jun 5, 2008)

BTW.... some sort of lighting (ring light) is practically a must in Macro photography.  You should include one with your budget.  It could be ring light, flash on an off-shoe cord, macro dual head light.... something.

Another setup (relatively inexpensive) to consider...
M42 screwmount adapter for whatever camera you are using
M42 screwmount bellows unit
Takumar 50mm f2 lens

This setup will require a bit more adjustment so tripod is necessary.


----------



## tirediron (Jun 5, 2008)

A few thoughts - the 'Don't skimp on the glass' rules applies doubly in macro work.  Don't buy a cheap lens; if you can't afford a decent one (and remember, there's no shame in buying used gear; it already has that patina on it) wait until you can.  Tubes or close-up lenses are a good hold-over and work well.


----------



## Garbz (Jun 5, 2008)

At that kind of price you may want to look into reverse lens macro photography, or using close up filters or bellows.

A reasonable best bang for buck actual macro lens would be the Nikkor AF 105mm f/2.8 D Given that the AF-S version was released last year this should be available for ~$500 second hand.


----------



## GwagDesigns (Jun 6, 2008)

Id also look into the Sigma 105 2.8 macro, ive been using it for a while now, very sharp, very crisp, in both macro work and portraits


----------



## Overread (Jun 6, 2008)

Just a note

Auto focus is hardly used compared to manual focus with macro - so having no AF is not a problem
If you are going for extension tubes, as they are just a gap for air might as well go for a 3rd party - canon and nikon are rather expensive


----------



## Alfred D. (Jun 6, 2008)

*Best Macro Bang for Your Buck:*


----------



## PhilGarber (Jun 6, 2008)

Alfred D. said:


> *Best Macro Bang for Your Buck:*



 Yeah, but thats only for lighting...right?

Anyway, I use a Rebel XT with an 18-55mm lens..do you think buying a lens off Ebay is too risky?


----------



## usayit (Jun 6, 2008)

PhilGarber said:


> Anyway, I use a Rebel XT with an 18-55mm lens..do you think buying a lens off Ebay is too risky?



I  buy from ebay all the time.... no problems yet.  There is risk involved much like any bargain hunting.  You just have to be smart about how you play the game.


----------



## PhilGarber (Jun 6, 2008)

usayit said:


> I  buy from ebay all the time.... no problems yet.  There is risk involved much like any bargain hunting.  You just have to be smart about how you play the game.



  Thanks! I'll go browse Ebay now!


----------



## PhilGarber (Jun 6, 2008)

@#$%...Never mind it's a Nikon.. It's was only $55.00!


----------



## Alfred D. (Jun 6, 2008)

PhilGarber said:


> Yeah, but thats only for lighting...right?



Lighting is where it all starts, Phil: the word 'photo' means 'light' in Latin.


----------



## Helen B (Jun 6, 2008)

Alfred D. said:


> Lighting is where it all starts, Phil: the word 'photo' means 'light' in Latin.



Greek. In Latin it would be something along the lines of 'lux', as in 'E tenebris lux' (from the darkness, light) or the slightly different 'lumen' (more like 'lamp').

Best,
Helen


----------



## dylj (Jun 6, 2008)

Helen B said:


> Greek. In Latin it would be something along the lines of 'lux', as in 'E tenebris lux' (from the darkness, light) or the slightly different 'lumen' (more like 'lamp').
> 
> Best,
> Helen


 
I love it.


----------



## Garbz (Jun 7, 2008)

:shock: she really does know everything! :shock:

Phil, Nikon or Canon, a $55 lens is too good to be true. Follow usayit's advice and shop smart!

Btw Alfred that system however cheap it is won't work if your near focus distance is 1m


----------



## PhilGarber (Jun 8, 2008)

Thanks Garbz... There's just one problem.. have I mentioned I'm only 13? (Meaning I have no income besides my soon to be created postcards).


----------



## JerryPH (Jun 8, 2008)

I studied latin for a short time. Reading "The Three Little Pigs" as tanslated by a true linguist just seems to add something to it... LOL!

I really love my Sigma 105mm F/2.8 macro... my results are always pleasing.


----------



## Alfred D. (Jun 8, 2008)

> Originally Posted by *Helen B*
> Greek. In Latin it would be something along the lines of 'lux', as in 'E tenebris lux' (from the darkness, light) or the slightly different 'lumen' (more like 'lamp').
> 
> Best,
> Helen





dylj said:


> I love it.


----------



## RyanLilly (Jun 8, 2008)

usayit said:


> Another setup (relatively inexpensive) to consider...
> M42 screwmount adapter for whatever camera you are using
> M42 screwmount bellows unit
> Takumar 50mm f2 lens
> ...



That sounds like a fun setup, M42 adapters are everywhere for about $15, with out the AF confirm, or you can spend a little more with it, but likely unnecessary.  The lens and Bellows can both be had at Keh.com

Usayit, any particular reason to choose the f2 , rather than  others like the f1.4?


----------



## usayit (Jun 8, 2008)

RyanLilly said:


> Usayit, any particular reason to choose the f2 , rather than  others like the f1.4?



No particular reason... The f/2 is cheaper and easier to find crystal clear.  The Takumar f/1.4 are famous for their slightly radioactive coatings that turn yellow over time.  I actually used the 135mm takumar more often on the bellows to give me working distance.  I posted this example in the "shallow depth of field" assignment (using bellows+135mm).... yes.. if you wondering I was bored at home.. heheh lol








BTW....  at least on my Samsung DSLR, I still get autofocus confirmation with an M42.


----------



## RyanLilly (Jun 9, 2008)

usayit said:


> BTW....  at least on my Samsung DSLR, I still get autofocus confirmation with an M42.



You know I was just thinking about it and with the crappy focusing screens in most DSLRs, I think the adapter w/af confirmation would be a good Idea, and /or possibly installing a 3rd party split-image focusing screen.

I haven't really shopped around for others, but Gadget Infinity has the M42 adapter with AF confirmation for $45, the adapter without the AF confirm(just a metal ring with no electrical connections) is only $15.

Link,
http://www.gadgetinfinity.com/search.php?mode=search

Also they have focusing screen for $30, although I have not seen any reviews and I know that there are many others available.

Link,
http://www.gadgetinfinity.com/home.php?cat=296

I was looking at their radio triggers and just started browsing their site, for the price, I think I might try some of their other products as long as I ordering stuff from china.

BTW, I only searched for Canon stuff because thats what I shoot, but I sure similar Items are available for most brands


----------



## JerryPH (Jun 9, 2008)

usayit said:


> I buy from ebay all the time.... no problems yet. There is risk involved much like any bargain hunting. You just have to be smart about how you play the game.


 
Though the odd times, you can find a bargain on ebay, I just see/hear all the horror stories people around me tell me about being ripped off.  For perhaps a few dollars more, I choose to avoid ebay and look elsewhere.  

Starting with supporting known good vendors or known reputable companies, and using ebay and known vendors for pricing, I can make safer decisions and not ever need to be bothered dealing with being ripped off.

I find it a crap shoot... and I prefer not to gamble.


----------



## usayit (Jun 9, 2008)

Don't get me wrong... I support local camera shops all the time (as mentioned in TPF several times).  All my leica stuff is purchased locally.... large ticket items are local.  When I say "local" I"m not even referring to BH or Adorama either.  It is the small things for my collection that are purchased through ebay... rangefinder collection... takumar lenses... pentax screwmounts.. etc..  Since all of these items are no longer in production, it is easier (and better selection) than wandering through garage sales and antique stores for that find that occurs once in every 6 months.  

I've heard those stories too but I've never been a victim.  I'm super paranoid and very careful (check feedback and history).  I try not to "watch" the auctions and get involved in a bidding war.

It would be an interesting thought if there was a sticky of ebay IDs threads that TPF members have had good experiences.  Here are some of the IDs backed by actually real stores.

adorwin - Adorama of NYC.  Lots of good items
bergen_county_camera - my local camera shop
bh-photo - BH of course
cameraprofessor - some repair shop in livingston NJ
kehoutlet - KEH of course
kurlandphoto - high end camera store in NJ
mpplus - local shop in NJ
photovillage - high end camera store in NJ
photozoneusa - local shop in NJ


----------



## usayit (Jun 9, 2008)

RyanLilly said:


> You know I was just thinking about it and with the crappy focusing screens in most DSLRs, I think the adapter w/af confirmation would be a good Idea, and /or possibly installing a 3rd party split-image focusing screen.



I have no personal experience as I ended up just buying a K-mount DSLR for easy support of my screwmount Takumars.  What I can say is that in the Leica-R world, LOTS of photographers use the Canon 5D with Leica R lenses (they are manual too) using an adapter that has a chip to allow AF confirmation.   I do remember Iron Flatline using one.  I don't see why it would be any different adapting screwmount lenses to a Canon body using a similar adapter.  Now the only challenge is finding a good quality M42 to Screwmount adapter.


----------



## Parkerman (Jun 9, 2008)

PhilGarber said:


> Thanks Garbz... There's just one problem.. have I mentioned I'm only 13? (Meaning I have no income besides my soon to be created postcards).





Start mowing yards.


----------



## RyanLilly (Jun 9, 2008)

usayit said:


> I have no personal experience as I ended up just buying a K-mount DSLR for easy support of my screwmount Takumars. What I can say is that in the Leica-R world, LOTS of photographers use the Canon 5D with Leica R lenses (they are manual too) using an adapter that has a chip to allow AF confirmation. I do remember Iron Flatline using one. I don't see why it would be any different adapting screwmount lenses to a Canon body using a similar adapter. Now the only challenge is finding a good quality M42 to Screwmount adapter.



That basically what I was thinking. There are very cheap adapters without the chip for focus confirmation, and there are the better one that do have have the focus confirmation. With the 20D, XT and other APS canon cameras the focusing screen basically sucks for manual focusing, plus the viewfinders are smaller, so its more difficult or just takes more time to focus manually. Since the 5D is a full frame I'm sure that the larger viewfinder alone helps.

Also, If someone was planning on doing mostly macro work, or even just using manual focus lenses a lot, the split-image screen like film cameras had might be a worthwhile investment.

And I have no clue as to the quality of the adapters that I linked to, but its such a simple device you'd have to be a really incompetent designer to get it wrong, now the quality of the materials may be another subject.


----------



## RyanLilly (Jun 9, 2008)

Parkerman said:


> Start mowing yards.



And washing cars, and trimming hedges... into cute animal shapes, etc


----------



## Bifurcator (Jun 9, 2008)

PhilGarber said:


> Thanks Garbz... There's just one problem.. have I mentioned I'm only 13? (Meaning I have no income besides my soon to be created postcards).





Parkerman said:


> Start mowing yards.




Yeah, he can start mowing or he could make his own lens. It's probably about the same number of hours mowing as it is to make your own and he'll learn something useful by making his own. Probably about the same amount of dedication is required as well. All the info needed is on the net and supplies are very reasonable. Who knows, he might like it and we'll have the next Tamron startup. 


That said if you're getting into macro photography what about a $25 close up lens first? There are two basic types. Single element multi-coated ones often designated by an MC printed on the barrel and multi-lens high grade achromatic ones often designated with an AC printed on the barrel. The price difference is usually negligible like $25 for the MC and $45 for the AC or something like that. Regardless of the focal length of your camera lens (if it's distance reading is set to infinity) focus is obtainable at a point equal to the distance from the tip of the camera's lens to the focal length of the close up attachment. Of course adjusting the focus in from infinity will bring it in closer as well!  The various focal lengths available from close up attachments are all about the same price and designated usually by a "No. X"  also printed on it's barrel. For example a "No. 1" close up lens is 1,000mm and a "No. 10" is 100mm.  This would mean that with a No.1 the farthest you can (typically) focus out to is 1000mm or about 1 yard and with a No.10 100mm (10 cm) or about 1/3 of a foot.  Here's a useful table of designate numbers and their typical focal lengths:

Ah, bummer... no {code} {/code} tags here???

OK, I'll look for one someone else made on line: (hmm no luck on the first 5 tries) OK, bare with the justified text here then I guess:

Number.........Focal Length............Magnification 
No.1.............. 1000mm................ 1/20 - 1/6.5
No.2................ 500mm................ 1/10 - 1/5
No.3................ 330mm................ 1/6.7 - 1/4
No.4................ 250mm................ 1/5 - 1/3
No.5................ 200mm................ 1/4 - 1/2.8
No.6................ 160mm................ 
No.7................ 140mm................ 
No.8................ 125mm................ 
No.9................ 115mm................ 
No.10.............. 100mm................ 1/2.3 - 1/1.7​
The AC types are really recommended as there's almost no fringing or other aberrations that occur with them as opposed to the single lens MC types. At about No. 8 you start seeing some pin cushion (AKA Pillow shaped) distortion on the outer edges for both types. It's usually not too bad though depending on the camera's lens.

I often read people recommending to buy a set comprised of No.1, No.2, and No. 4 only -  saying that by combining them you can get a No. 3 (by adding the No.1 atop the No.2), No. 5 (4+1), No. 6 (4+2), and a No.7 (1+2+4) but I dunno if I would recommend that as aberrations (fringe etc.) and distortions are compounded not to mention that these things are thick so with just 2 of them on the front of your lens you've got about a 1 inch black tube which will cause severe vignetting at the lower end of most zoom lenses. I would get a No. 4 (or 5) and a No. 10 (or 9) if I had limited funds and wanted to play with macro. And probably the No. 4 (or 5) is more generally useful than the 10.

Extension tubes are "OK" too but far less convenient IMO and now you're exposing your sensor to dust every time you attache or remove it. 

Hope that helps.


----------



## Bifurcator (Jun 9, 2008)

usayit said:


> No particular reason... The f/2 is cheaper and easier to find crystal clear.  The Takumar f/1.4 are famous for their slightly radioactive coatings that turn yellow over time.  I actually used the 135mm takumar more often on the bellows to give me working distance.  I posted this example in the "shallow depth of field" assignment (using bellows+135mm).... yes.. if you wondering I was bored at home.. heheh lol
> 
> 
> 
> ...



As is par for your shots this is very interesting!  But what is it? A chair leg/foot? or... umm? 

Cool shot!


----------



## usayit (Jun 9, 2008)

Banana!!

I was bored one day and my used Samsung GX-1L just arrived in the mail.   I wanted to try it out...  I'm guessing its close to 10:1 magnification.


----------



## Bifurcator (Jun 9, 2008)

A banana??? I thought for sure I was looking at iron oxide and paint - Heh! Cool!

Q. What do you get when you cross a banana with a photographer? 

A. A bananagrapher! Or pictures with appeal!


----------



## usayit (Jun 9, 2008)

oooOOooo...  just gave me an idea for yet another photo-portfolio to add to my bookshelf.  A bunch of macros and the viewer has to guess what it is...


----------



## Bifurcator (Jun 9, 2008)

BTW, what was the subject distance (either from the end of the lens or from the film plane)?  I'm going to try and duplicate that shot with no macro and a close-up lens so PhilGarber can see the difference. Also, is that a crop or a scale, or both?


----------



## PhilGarber (Jun 9, 2008)

Hey,

 Thanks Bifurcator! (And others too, especially you guys giving Ebay advice!)


----------



## usayit (Jun 9, 2008)

Bifurcator said:


> BTW, what was the subject distance (either from the end of the lens or from the film plane)?  I'm going to try and duplicate that shot with no macro and a close-up lens so PhilGarber can see the difference. Also, is that a crop or a scale, or both?



I don't quite remember the subject distance...sorry  No cropping was done.  Just basic stuff in PS (levels, contrast, color balance).  Just using a 135mm lens attached to a bellows on a tripod.


----------



## Bifurcator (Jun 10, 2008)

OK Kewl, he's shooting with about 30mm ~ 90mm (equiv) if the math in my head is right and it's a 3.5 to 5.6. So here is that famous Minolta lens at 30mm (1st at f11 and then at f3.5) and at 90mm (1st at f11 and then at f5.6). The focal length (30mm and 90mm) was selected using the barrel markings so it won't be perfect - only very very close.  This is using a cheeper MC #10 and at f11 30mm you can see some chromatic aberration on the ruler near the edge of the frame (see the funny colors?) around the "6". I think I have just about every close up lens made or close, so if you want to see different one just ask.  This is the Kenko MC #10.  As Kenco is the Japanese end of Hoya (at least on paper) the Hoya should be identical or almost identical.

I have an 8mp sensor just like you Phil, but yours is a bit larger and CMOS so it will be less noisy and a tad flatter. I scaled them like usayit did so if you want to know what you can get from a crop just enlarge it back to 8mp in photoshop - and I'll include a sample as well. These are all without any processing applied otherwise - and my banana is no where near as kewl as usayit's banana. Banana envy? 




Focal distance (barrel reading) 30mm.
Focused at it's farthest (infinity) distance at f11. 
Add 3 to the ruler reading to get distance from the end of the lens.



Focal distance (barrel reading) 30mm.
Focused at it's farthest (infinity) distance at f3.5.  
Add 3 to the ruler reading to get distance from the end of the lens.
Crop area marked for the below image.



Focal distance (barrel reading) 30mm. Cropped.
Focused at it's farthest (infinity) distance at f3.5.  
Crop area marked in the above image.


______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________





Focal distance (barrel reading) 90mm.
Focused at 50cm (limits of Phil's lens) distance at f11. 
Working distance from the end of the lens was about 5cm.



Focal distance (barrel reading) 90mm.
Focused at 50cm (limits of Phil's lens) distance at f5.6. 
Working distance from the end of the lens was about 5cm.
Crop area marked for the below image.



Focal distance (barrel reading) 90mm. Cropped.
Focused at 50cm (limits of Phil's lens) distance at f5.6. 
Working distance from the end of the lens was about 5cm.
Crop area marked in the above image.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________​

So basically the top three represent the farthest you can get away from the subject and the bottom three represent the closest you can get to the subject given the lens you have listed in your profile with a No.10 MC close-up attachment, let me know if you need to see others.

Also note that my focus wasn't perfect. It looks like I missed by a millimeter or two as I was using manual focus and then adjusting the camera distance to achieve focus. Auto focus works great through a close-up lens but my current camera doesn't show a focus point read-out in the VF or LCD.


----------



## Bifurcator (Jun 10, 2008)

Alfred D. said:


> *Best Macro Bang for Your Buck:*



Also the lighting for these was basically like you see in the image above. But I never cut a hole for the lens. Just roll it around the flash head. Different papers will give different results too. Spit and tish make a great diffuser cap for example.


----------



## usayit (Jun 10, 2008)

Bifurcator said:


> and my banana is no where near as kewl as usayit's banana. Banana envy?



Hehehehe!!   :cheers:

Good work on the samples. 

Here's another from the same "roll" but I posted the banana because I thought it was more interesting.


----------



## Bifurcator (Jun 10, 2008)

usayit said:


> Hehehehe!!   :cheers:
> 
> Good work on the samples.
> 
> Here's another from the same "roll" but I posted the banana because I thought it was more interesting.



Thanks.

Nice shot! And here's a comparable shot (tho not as artistic) showing what a No. 9 AC type (so no chromatic fringing this time) close up lens looks like on my sensor within Phil's lens limitations. Phil, again with your setup it will be slightly flatter at these settings (I think...). 






The difference in "warmth" is of course the lighting model used. This one was processed a little bit to get the basic yellow tone to match usayit's shot.


----------



## hippyatheart (Jun 10, 2008)

Bifurcator said:


> A banana??? I thought for sure I was looking at iron oxide and paint - Heh! Cool!
> 
> Q. What do you get when you cross a banana with a photographer?
> 
> A. A bananagrapher! Or pictures with appeal!


 

Oh my oh my oh my, i love it!


----------



## Bifurcator (Jun 10, 2008)

Hehehe,  Of course.  It would take a fellow hippy to appreciate the depth and magnitude presented there.


----------



## PhilGarber (Jun 11, 2008)

Thanks guys.


----------

