# how to get crazy up close macro photos



## dannylightning (Sep 7, 2016)

the one lens i have will pretty much focus right up against something but not anything like some up close insect photos i see.

this is about the best i can get.    when i put a extension tube on any of my lenses i cant get much better than this.   used my 18-35mm 1.8 for this shot.    and the ant is still pretty small.

even with the extension tubes on a lens at 200mm   its not getting any close yet some people get photos like this

Jumping spider - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

.


 .


----------



## Scatterbrained (Sep 7, 2016)

You'll need a lens that can already do 1:1 macro and then add a whole stack of extension tubes to it.


----------



## table1349 (Sep 7, 2016)

This would solve your problems: Canon MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Macro Photo Lens

It ought to get you close enough.


----------



## Scatterbrained (Sep 7, 2016)

BTW: I don't know about Nikon but the Canon 65mm does a true micro at up to 5:1 magnification.  If Nikon offers a similar lens it's likely what will get you there.   You could also look into macro bellows, but those would be difficult to use with live bugs.


----------



## dannylightning (Sep 7, 2016)

i finally found some good info.   most people getting the crazy close shots are using something like 1:5  instead of 1:1     which it looks like that canon lens will provide but i do not have a canon camera.   here is something i found the   *Raynox DCR-250 Super Macro Snap-On Lens  well now my font is big after copy and paste lol

not sure how that would work on one of my lenses but i asked a person on facebook that took crazy close up photos of a spider what they used and they used that raynox thing and the sigma 105mm macro lens which is a 1:1   the photo was perfect,  looking at the photos on amazon where people used that raynox thing,  there are some pretty good ones.

might be worth a try for the price.

i also saw someone using a reverse adapter ring to put the 18-55mm kit lens on backwards and they got extremely up close detailed photos just by mounting the lens backwards.. *


----------



## dxqcanada (Sep 7, 2016)

The Canon MP-E or the Minolta 3x-1x are specialized for greater than 1:1

Extension tubes coupled with a macro lens does get very close.
... in the olden days it was multiple tubes with a 50mm or there is always a reversal ring + wide angle.
The add-on filters always added too much distortion.

Though I will have to say a macro lens really does make a difference with IQ ... though I have yet to add a tube + macro lens.

Spider is 1/4" inch in size ... Sigma 150mm macro (much more expensive than just tubes or reversal ring) handheld no flash ... not even super macro stuff.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 7, 2016)

Just reverse an old-fashioned 28mm that has an aperture ring.


----------



## kalgra (Sep 7, 2016)

The Raynox works pretty well but I have the MP-E 65mm so I rarely use it.

Check out Emanuel's post in the macro forum. He is a Nikon user getting excellent results using the raynox 250 on a 70-200mm f/4 VR. See the example he shot with with that combo below.

29152337341_67b55a43c0_h.jpg


----------



## dannylightning (Sep 8, 2016)

dxqcanada said:


> The Canon MP-E or the Minolta 3x-1x are specialized for greater than 1:1
> 
> Extension tubes coupled with a macro lens does get very close.
> ... in the olden days it was multiple tubes with a 50mm or there is always a reversal ring + wide angle.
> ...





480sparky said:


> Just reverse an old-fashioned 28mm that has an aperture ring.





kalgra said:


> The Raynox works pretty well but I have the MP-E 65mm so I rarely use it.
> 
> Check out Emanuel's post in the macro forum. He is a Nikon user getting excellent results using the raynox 250 on a 70-200mm f/4 VR. See the example he shot with with that combo below.
> 
> 29152337341_67b55a43c0_h.jpg



why a 28mm sparkey??   

spending allot of money is no a option right now since i am unemployed at the moment,  just kind of trying to figure out how to get these close up images with what i already have or maybe buying something like that raynox that's not that expensive,  that shot of the fly looks pretty darn good.   i would be happy with something like what you got dxqcanada,  that spider image would be close up enough for me.    

i kind of though the extension tubes wold do the trick on a 100 or 200mm lens but they are not doing the trick.  i bought those a while back and played with them a little bit around the house.  i decided to get them out and try to get some insect photos and i am not getting the results that i want.

the lady with the 100mm macro lens and the raynox sure got some great macro shots so maybe ill give one of those a try and see how it goes. .


----------



## dannylightning (Sep 8, 2016)

i got this spider with my point and shoot,  he was small but most spiders i see are much smaller,   this version is cropped allot and the lighting was bad,    but this will give you a idea of how much zoom i would like to get.    if i could make a small insect show up about this size with out needing to crop the image i would be happy.         i have a much less cropped version of this spider and the image quality is descent.  but i at least want to get things showing up about this size in my macro photos..  ill post the less cropped photo too,  looks good but the spider is just too small and that is one of the bigger spiders i have seen in quite some time.

sure i would love some extreme close up but if i need to spend a bunch of money to make it happen its not a option now.   just trying to get a descent close up of small subjects with out spending much money.   maybe down the road i can buy a atual macro lens. 






here is the less cropped image,    the spider is smaller in the photo than i would like it to be.




20160529-IMG_0141-5 by Daniel Caldwell, on Flickr


----------



## kalgra (Sep 8, 2016)

Sorry for some reason I thought you had the 70-200 already which is why I mentioned it. Google "Yudy Sauw"
He uses a Nikon 105mm macro with the raynox and its many of his images that got me into it. I'm not sure will be able to get the super extreme close ups you referenced without a macro that does true 1:1 or greater. Possibly the cheapest alternative for you that will yield the best results is the laowa 60mm 2:1 for Nikon $399 at b&h.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 8, 2016)

dannylightning said:


> ............why a 28mm sparkey??  ............ .



When reversing lenses, the shorter the focal length, the more magnification you get .


----------



## smoke665 (Sep 8, 2016)

I have a set of these Hoya 52mm Close-up Kit (+1,+2,+4) Lens B-52CUS-GB B&H Photo all the way up to +10. I haven't fully explored using them, but initial results weren't bad. This was a bloom approximately 1/2" in diameter, from a  Crepe Myrtle, with a +4 on my 18-55.


----------



## dannylightning (Sep 8, 2016)

thanks for all the info.   that lens looks nice but cant afford it at the moment.


----------



## Overread (Sep 8, 2016)

A few thoughts and some ROUGH maths*
1 - Extension tubes. Work by reducing the minimum and maximum focusing distances of the lens they are attached to. They fit between the lens and the camera body and purely act as a spacer, they contain no optics (glass). However good quality ones (like Kenko) have metal contacts which let you retain lens control, whilst cheap ones (5$ kind) have no metal contacts and thus lose lens control. 
The rough maths is:
Length of extension tubes in mm - divided by - focal length of the lens = magnification : 1
Eg 100mm lens with a 50mm tube gives
50/100 = 0.5:1 or half life size

or a 50mm lens with 50mm tube tives
50/50 = 1:1 or life-size or "true macro" (called such casually as that's the magnification standard for true macro lenses that manufacturers make). 

As such you can see that they give the greatest magnification on shorter focal length lenses. Note that they can move the minimum and maximum focusing points to a point where they are so close its impractical to use and also where the lens can never focus; so whilst you can add more you have a limit.
Note - the base magnification of the lens is added to the magnification gained via tube use. This means that if you know the magnification of your lens you can simply add the value to the above result. This means if you use extension tubes on a macro lens youcan get beyond the 1:1 power of the lens.

2) Close up lens attachments/diopters/macro attachments/etc... (they have varied names) 
These are like the Raynox DCR250 and come in various powers, with the diopter number denoting how powerful they are (higher number = greater power). They work just like extension tubes, however give greater magnification on longer focal length lenses. I don't know any rough-maths for them. 
They come in two flavours - items like Raynox series or Canon 500D and 250D which are high grade multi-element and coated optics. And dirt cheap options that are often sold in kits and are generally single elements. The cheap kind are what most encounter and give a very poor quality result, they work but badly and thus many advise against their use at all. Options like the Raynox (which I also use at times) are great  choices and more than capable of standing up to extension tubes or other macro choices.

3) Reverse mounting is what it says and is when you mount a lens backwards onto the camera or onto another lens. This is done by reversing rings which are attached to the screw-threads on the front of a lens (typically used for filters). You might need to use stepping rings sometimes if you can't find a reversing ring that fits your two selected lens choices for this. 
The rough maths is - focal length of the lens attached to the body - divided by - focal length of the reversed lens = magnification :1 

Eg a 300mm lens on the camera body and a reversed 50mm would give 300/50 = 6:1 (which is greater than the Canon MPE lens mentioned earlier). 

Note you generally want the heavier lens on the body so that you're putting the least amount of strain on the screwthreads - of course remember to give your lenses proper support when shooting using this method. 



Few other thoughts:
High magnification is very hard to do and I'd advise starting at around 1:1 and getting good and then expanding up from there to higher magnifications. 5:1 is very difficult and often you ned a small light (LED light on a flexi-arm is a good choice) to help give a focusing light that illuminates the subject to make it easier to focus upon (as you get some light loss for high magnifications no matter how you approach taking them). 

*These are general rough guideline style maths so the actual magnifications might vary a bit; also due to the fact many lenses adjust their focal length as they focus at different spots so close up they might well have a shorter focal length than advertised (even primes).


----------



## dannylightning (Sep 8, 2016)

Overread said:


> A few thoughts and some ROUGH maths*
> 1 - Extension tubes. Work by reducing the minimum and maximum focusing distances of the lens they are attached to. They fit between the lens and the camera body and purely act as a spacer, they contain no optics (glass). However good quality ones (like Kenko) have metal contacts which let you retain lens control, whilst cheap ones (5$ kind) have no metal contacts and thus lose lens control.
> The rough maths is:
> Length of extension tubes in mm - divided by - focal length of the lens = magnification : 1
> ...



great info,   thanks.    since i have a crop sensor and using tubes to find 1:1  i would probably need to add the 1.5X crop to my lens right.    so a 35mm lens would be a 52mm lens after the crop factor.  and if i thew 50mm of extension tubes on that 35mm lens and crop sensor body that would basically give me 1:1


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 8, 2016)

Crop factor has nothing to do with reproduction ratio.  You can use the same lens on an 8x10, a 4x5, a 6x6cm Hassy, a full frame or a crop body..... the magnification will be identical.


----------



## kalgra (Sep 8, 2016)

Forgive me if I am overstepping or incorrect but even though the crop sensor does not change the magnification in any way you do get a cropped image at a higher pixel density so in effect its almost like working at a higher magnification than a full frame camera. I use my APSC camera over my FF for this very reason when working with really small critters.


----------



## Overread (Sep 8, 2016)

As Sparky said the crop factor has no effect on magnification. I forgot to mention:

1:1 means  size of the image reflected on the sensor : size of the subject in real life.

Hence 1:1 being called life-size or true macro means that the reflected image on the sensor (no matter the sensor size) is the same as it is in reality. Meanwhile 0.5:1 would be half life-size and 5:1 five times life size. 

Note that this now gets fiddly as crop factor "kind of" has an effect in so much as if you have the same magnification on a fulflrame and a crop sensor the crop sensor really does appear as if you've cropped out the middle of the image and then blown it up a little to fit the MP of the sensor. 
So in a kind of way you do get more, although you could also say that you miss the edges (depends on how you want to compare it).


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 8, 2016)

kalgra said:


> Forgive me if I am overstepping or incorrect but even though the crop sensor does not change the magnification in any way you do get a cropped image at a higher pixel density so in effect its almost like working at a higher magnification than a full frame camera. I use my APSC camera over my FF for this very reason when working with really small critters.




No.  If you were to photograph, say, a US quarter at 1:1, the projected image would be the same diameter as the actual coin........ 0.955".  The size of the sensor makes no difference.  It's just once you get below a sensor or film size of less than 0.955", you will start to crop off parts of the image of the quarter.  But the magnification will remain the same.


----------



## jake337 (Sep 8, 2016)

480sparky said:


> Just reverse an old-fashioned 28mm that has an aperture ring.



or reverse that 28mm at the end of a 100mm macro with 127mm of extension tubes.  Although at this much magnification you will need a way to focus stack of you want anything in focus.


----------



## kalgra (Sep 8, 2016)

480sparky said:


> kalgra said:
> 
> 
> > Forgive me if I am overstepping or incorrect but even though the crop sensor does not change the magnification in any way you do get a cropped image at a higher pixel density so in effect its almost like working at a higher magnification than a full frame camera. I use my APSC camera over my FF for this very reason when working with really small critters.
> ...



I think you might be misunderstanding what I am saying or I am just not explaining myself very well (most likley the later). I was not stating that the sensor changes anything with the reproduction ratio. What I was trying to say is the exact the same thing that @Overread said right after me. He just said it much better than I.


----------



## dannylightning (Sep 10, 2016)

edit.  i just looked up the filter size of my sigma lenses and one is 82mm and the other is 72mm and so is my nikon 18-200mm lens     so the raynox things wont work


check out this photos,   Jumping Spider     since i have extension tubes and say i get one of these things here could i get about as close to something as they did in this photo.

the raynox 150, 4.8-Diopter     people say this is easy to work with,  some folks seem to think its not enough magnification others say it is.

the raynox 250, 8-Diopter,      some people say its very hard to work with and you cant hand hold it because there is so much magnification  i would prefer to be able to hand hold my camera,

the hoya close up kit that comes with a the 3 screw on  (+1,+2,+4)  filters.    with this it would only work on lenses with the filter size that i buy.   but the raynox should work on all of my lenses which would probably be a plus

I would be happy if i could get that close to something on my budget. those are the 3 things i am considering at the moment, when i have some money that i can spend maybe ill get a real macro lens but for now i think i want to find a inexpensive way to get a descent close up of something small.    the extension tubes alone are not doing it.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 10, 2016)

You can put any size filter on any lens with filter adapters.


----------



## Overread (Sep 10, 2016)

The DCR 250 can be used hand held without trouble; though depends somewhat on what lens you put it on (a very heavy very long focal length lens might be more difficult). Note that for macro you really have to try yourself; for many magnifications you can shoot handheld with the right method; but some fnid it too hard and need a tripod.


----------



## Streets (Sep 10, 2016)

jake337 said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > Just reverse an old-fashioned 28mm that has an aperture ring.
> ...


That is proof that if you can get enough magnification, no one can tell what the subject is.  That is not photography, it is science.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 10, 2016)

Streets said:


> jake337 said:
> 
> 
> > 480sparky said:
> ...


----------



## dannylightning (Sep 10, 2016)

that's definitely a close up


----------



## petrochemist (Sep 11, 2016)

dannylightning said:


> even with the extension tubes on a lens at 200mm   its not getting any close  .


 Extension tubes work better with shorter focal lengths. On a 200mm lens you need 200mm extension to reach life size (some of this will typically come from the lenses focusing range).
Using your 18-35 with ~30mm added extension should allow you to focus from just under life size (zoom at 35) to around 2x. But you'll have to get pretty close to focus at all, focusing is usually done by moving the camera & lens relative to the subject - generally rocking back & forth to fine tune the focus.

If using a long lens the Raynox you mentioned above will work better than extension.

Sorry I see Overread & others beat me too it!


----------



## petrochemist (Sep 11, 2016)

Streets said:


> That is proof that if you can get enough magnification, no one can tell what the subject is.  That is not photography, it is science.



It's still Photography, which IMO is both an art & a science. Sometimes people can only tell what it is if you use extreme magnifications


----------



## nzmacro (Sep 12, 2016)

Raynox fan here as well. Bellows, macro lenses all gone now days. Camera is either a Sony NEX-7 or Oly E-M10 and a Canon FD 100-300 F/5.6L, on goes a Raynox DCR-250.

Advantage is the lens to subject distance of around 100mm with a ratio of  near 4:1

All the best.

Danny.


----------



## dannylightning (Sep 12, 2016)

petrochemist said:


> dannylightning said:
> 
> 
> > even with the extension tubes on a lens at 200mm   its not getting any close  .
> ...



my 18-35mm 1.8 is already able to focus at 11 inches from a subject according to specs. I would say mine will actually focus closer than 11 inches.    I was playing with it and the tubes again the other day.  If I put 36mm worth of extension tubes on it the lens hits the subject and still cant focus,   if i put less extension tubes on that lens the lens is basically right up against the subject before its close enough to get focus and the lens blocks out all the light.    I think I can only use the 12mm ext tube on that lens due to this reason and that still gets so close that bugs often run away when i try to shoot them but i cant enlarge the subject enough for my liking.

I was also trying to use around 50mm of ext tubes on the 50-100 at 50mm and the same thing,  the lens would hit the subject before it could get focus so i cant get a 1:1  whit those lenses.

so I think I need some other form of magnification or a real macro lens would be a beter option than a regular lens with tubes to get nice close ups of really small objects.   I was reading about extension tubes on a actual macro lens and it sounds like that works out great.  

I might try out this screw on magnification kit that comes with a  +1 +2 +3 +5 and +10  screw on filter.    saw it on amazon,  it has lots of really good reviews and people posted lots of photos they took using the kit and for 17 bucks its worth a shot till i can afford a real macro lens,  as close as my 18-35mm lens can focus I bet something like that would give me pretty good results,  its worth a shot.


with my 18-200mm lens at 200mm and all 3 extension tubes I can get focus with the lens right up against the subject and the lens blocks out the light.    i took this photo like that and i laid a flash light sideways on the table so light would get between the coin and the lens.       basically with all of my lenses and extension tubes the lens needs to be right against the subject to get a really nice close up and i think i already say the bugs start running away when you get that close

if i could get a nice close up image like that with the lens a little farther away that would be great..




playing with extension tubes20151217-DSC_6927 by Daniel Caldwell, on Flickr


----------



## petrochemist (Sep 12, 2016)

The subject will be close using extension tubes effectively, but your 50mm example SHOULD focus with the subject 100mm (twice the focal distance) in front of the 1st nodal point. The nodal point will typically be within the lens relatively close behind the front element, it varies on lens design but I'd expect the object distance at 1:1 to be 90-100mm in front of the lenses front surface.
Fit the extension tube & set the lens to manual focus at infinity. Then move the camera slowly closer/further from the subject till the image is in focus. DOF will be very small & the difference the focusing control makes will usually be fairly minimal.
AF can be easily fooled in macro, and you may want to remove the hood to get enough light on the subject...

If you still can't find focus zoom out to 100mm & try again with the extension tube still in place. Focus will be further away& the image less magnified (around 1:2). Having found focus you can zoom in gradually moving the camera closer as you go...

Working distance is often an issue in macro. particularly if shooting bugs. Shooting early in the morning when it's cold helps as the insects need to warm up before they can run away


----------



## dannylightning (Sep 12, 2016)

petrochemist said:


> The subject will be close using extension tubes effectively, but your 50mm example SHOULD focus with the subject 100mm (twice the focal distance) in front of the 1st nodal point. The nodal point will typically be within the lens relatively close behind the front element, it varies on lens design but I'd expect the object distance at 1:1 to be 90-100mm in front of the lenses front surface.
> Fit the extension tube & set the lens to manual focus at infinity. Then move the camera slowly closer/further from the subject till the image is in focus. DOF will be very small & the difference the focusing control makes will usually be fairly minimal.
> AF can be easily fooled in macro, and you may want to remove the hood to get enough light on the subject...
> 
> ...



alright let me try this again,   stuck the 36mm ext tube on my 35mm lens.    I set the focus to the infinity mark and tried to get focus on something,    

I started about a foot way and I slowly moved closer,   right about the time it started to focus the lens bumped against the water bottle and blocked the light.  if i moved back even a hair it went out of focus pretty bad.   

i tried rotating the focus ring to see if it would work better at something other than infinity but could not get focus unless the lens was resting aginst the water bottle, 

i tilted the lens at a slight angle so some light wold get in there and snapped this shot.





.


----------



## dannylightning (Sep 12, 2016)

OK one more try with the 50-100,    put 48mm of extension tube on since that is as close as i can get to 50mm with the tubes.   set the lens to 50mm  and put it at infinity fous and these are the results i got.  maybe my extension tubes are not correctly marked as far as the mm of the tubes..

50mm with lens bumped up all the way against the water bottle, i cold not get focus. 


at 60mm same exact thing,  slightly more in focus as the lens hit the waterbottle but still could not get a focus.


at 70mm  i was able to get focus,  i would say 1-2 inches from the water bottle.


----------



## dannylightning (Sep 12, 2016)

and one more test on the 35mm lens,  here is a photo with no tube and one with each tube.

35mm lens no extension tube about a foot away from the subject.


35mm lens with a 12mm extension tube about 2 inches away from the subject


35mm lens with a 20mm extension tube about 1 inch or less from the subject. it does not look like it magnified the subject any more than the 12mm tube did.


35mm lens with the 36mm extension tube and the lens pretty much resting against the subject


----------



## SquarePeg (Sep 12, 2016)

I bought a set of extension tubes a while ago and had similar results.  I found them to only work with some of my lenses, not with all.  The best use I got out of them was with my 55-200 kit lens.  Since that lens isn't great to begin with, they were essentially useless unless shooting with a tripod and controlled lighting.  I get better "macro" shots with my Sigma 17-70 because the minimum focus distance is so short that I can be on top of my subject, sometimes touching it if it's backlit, and still get focus.  I have the 105mm f/2.8 now and, while I love it for portraits and for the great bokeh, despite it's "macro" designation it doesn't get me up close and personal with any bugs or spiders like those shots you are referencing.  Even with cropping.  In reading about macro it seems a lot of people stun the bugs, bring them into a studio type set up and get their shots that way.


----------



## Overread (Sep 12, 2016)

Nothing stops you using extension tubes on a regular macro lens; the bonus is that they should, in theory, give you more working distance*. Yes tubes can result in you being right on top of your subject and thus running a high chance of spooking the bug or/and of shadowing the subject with the camera and lens and thus making lighting difficult. 

You can certainly shoot live bugs, but yes shorter working distances make for a much harder situation .

*distance from the lens front element to subject; as opposed to minimum focusing distance which is measured from the sensor/film to subject. As you can see in general terms min-focusing distance is good enough for regular shooting but in macro working distance becomes all the more important.


----------



## chuasam (Sep 13, 2016)

LAOWA 60mm f/2.8 2:1 Ultra-Macro Lens | Venus Optics - Anhui ChangGeng Optical Technology Company Limited 
here's a really affordable macro lens


----------



## Overread (Sep 13, 2016)

Ahh I totally forgot about the Venus macro lens!
There are some reviews for it about and I did look into it when it was released but I can't recall what I found, although I have a gut feeling its like the Rokin type lenses - no frills basic operation but decent optical quality and performance.

There's certainly a market in lenses which lack frills like AF but which are affordable and good performers and for macro the lack of AF isn't a weakness.


----------



## dannylightning (Sep 13, 2016)

The lowa looks awesome as far as image quality goes but it appears that you need to be very close to your subject with that lens.   someone already mentioned that lens and i have done my research.     tokina makes a AT-X 100 D 100mm f/2.8 pro II macro lens or something like that,  its about the same price and gives you better working distance,  great image quality too but i cant really afford it at the moment.  for what its worth i think ken rockwell said its one of the best lenses he has reviewed optically lol.

I did figure out a good combo with my 50-100mm lens and i can focus probably about 6 inches or farther from my subject.    i throw 2 of the extension tubes on it,  set the focus to 0.95 and use the lens at 100mm.     these are cropped a good deal but I am getting great results.   I may just buy a 20 dollar screw on close up kit and see how that works out.   the focus is already very hard to get hand held like this though..

in the first photo i did not crop it much,  that fly was really small.  the beetle was maybe 1/4 inch long


----------



## nzmacro (Sep 14, 2016)

Danny, great name that 

Good results, but be careful with cheap single element addons. Something like the Raynox DCR-250 is a 3 element two group design and shows no CA. There is quite a bit of difference and the Raynox are really sharp. DOF is always hard to get, so I use a ringflash and stop the lens right down to F/22 - F/32

With a Canon FD 100-300 F/5.6L on the Sony NEX-7, no cropping. All FF from the NEX-7












Red admiral butterfly













The only issue you might have with the Raynox is that you need the right filter size on the lens within the range of the adapter, 52-67mm. Longer focal lengths above around 100mm to avoid vignetting.

A decent zoom gives you a variable macro range and all from a good lens to subject distance.

All the best Danny and good luck with the decision. Its never easy.

Danny.


----------



## dannylightning (Sep 14, 2016)

nzmacro said:


> Danny, great name that
> 
> Good results, but be careful with cheap single element addons. Something like the Raynox DCR-250 is a 3 element two group design and shows no CA. There is quite a bit of difference and the Raynox are really sharp. DOF is always hard to get, so I use a ringflash and stop the lens right down to F/22 - F/32
> 
> ...



Thanks,  those are some great photos you posted

the rayonex does not fit on any of my lenses,  there all 72-82mm filter sizes.  i don't want to hold it up by hand in front of the lens.   

I can get a set of the cheap filters for 17 bucks that will fit on 2 of my lenses.  the photos people have posted on amazon that they took with the cheap filterset for the filter set, some of them are excellent and allot of them are very good.  

I had a set of the cheap filters like this or maybe one of those big 0.42x screw on attachments at one time,  cant remember which one it was but it worked well for the most part.    that was back in 2007 or something,  not sure what happened to them but I got photos like this with the attachments and a kit lens.     the photos are not perfect but i still like them and I had fun playing with them.

trying out a inexpensive filter set for now seems like the way to go.  something to play with and if  I decide to stick with macro photography eventually ill get a real macro lens and one of the rayonex attachments.


----------



## JohnFranklin (Sep 16, 2016)

I use a wonderful brass botanical pocket microscope for my macro work.  It is excellent for viewing insects and sketching them on paper for future reference.


----------



## nzmacro (Sep 16, 2016)

JohnFranklin said:


> I use a wonderful brass botanical pocket microscope for my macro work.  It is excellent for viewing insects and sketching them on paper for future reference.



 I use an Olympus trinocular microscope and etch the images into stone using a portable CNC laser cutter. Takes a fair bit lugging the bag around though.

*I once ate three pairs of boots.*

Danny.


----------



## JohnFranklin (Sep 17, 2016)

nzmacro said:


> I use an Olympus trinocular microscope and etch the images into stone using a portable CNC laser cutter. Takes a fair bit lugging the bag around though.
> 
> *I once ate three pairs of boots.*
> 
> Danny.



My goodness, that is a spectacular set-up!


----------



## beagle100 (Oct 5, 2016)

gryphonslair99 said:


> This would solve your problems: Canon MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Macro Photo Lens
> 
> It ought to get you close enough.



the MP-E65 always helps macro shots
https://www.flickr.com/photos/lordv


----------



## Advanced Photo (Oct 5, 2016)

This would do it. BTW the printer they used is a lot like the one I use to make large format prints. Great machines.


----------



## Drive-By-Shooter (Nov 26, 2016)

Chuasam,  The LAOWA is beyond his budget.  When he gets back, financially, the Sigma 105 is often a third off, making it only $200 more than the Laowa.  N-PHOTO magazine (UK) which I respect, rated it the best.  I have been extremely happy with this and my other sig lenses.
[Sigma improved a ton recently.  not all are as good as the ones I bought (listed in my signature).  optically, these are outstanding.  some others have focus issues, like back focusing.  mine focus extremely quickly, but with close up shooting, manual focus is often best regardless of the lens.  in other words, the sigma micro can search for a while.]

I have an old B&W one lens close-up attachment from my film days that I used on a 20-35 zoom.  It's pretty good, but will cause sharpness to be reduced on the sig.  I will let you know how it works after I buy a ring size adapter.

I plan to get extension tubes to get closer with both of my micro lenses.

Consider buying an older micro lens like my 60mm that i used in a housing underwater for years and still use, but the siggie blows it away (click on pic to zoom in):  WHI_2118
Butterly House

Here are some recent shots with the sig micro:
Hibiscus in need of a proboscis
Tiny Pansy
popup flash in command mode -.7, Nikon 910 hand held -.3
WHI_1844
WHI_1836

The close up lens was strange when I used it on a 200mm lens to get crazy close:
WHI_1874

Also, you will need at least one, better two flashes as you stop down to f16 or more to get decent DOF.
REMEMBER, DOF decreases when you:
1.  increase lens focal length
2.  decrease lens to subject distance
3.  open up the aperture

*Danny, good luck with your job search!*



chuasam said:


> LAOWA 60mm f/2.8 2:1 Ultra-Macro Lens | Venus Optics - Anhui ChangGeng Optical Technology Company Limited
> here's a really affordable macro lens


----------



## greybeard (Dec 1, 2016)

Raynox 250 on a Nikon 55-200  with popup flash


----------



## chuasam (Dec 3, 2016)

gryphonslair99 said:


> This would solve your problems: Canon MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Macro Photo Lens
> 
> It ought to get you close enough.


I've been meaning to get a triocular adapter for my microscope


----------



## petrochemist (Dec 4, 2016)

chuasam said:


> I've been meaning to get a triocular adapter for my microscope



I just use eyepiece projection with the microscope at work. Does the job nicely but it's not very mobile & working distance is severely limited.

Here's a bit of a coin zoomed out as far as possible (the w is ~1mm across):






My own microscope has a digital camera built in instead of eyepieces. It can't manage anything less than 100x which is a bit powerful for most subjects! DOF & working distance are even less than with the works scope.


----------

