Different ways of doing macro

Wayfall

Honorable
Dec 27, 2013
164
0
10,660
Hi

I have a Canon 450D. I am a happy user of my 50mm 1.8 STM and Sigma 105mm Macro lens.

My question is this:
Which is better? A actual physical 1:1 macro lens, a lens attached to extension tubes or a closeup filter. I presume their are other ways I haven't heard of yet as well.

What's your experience with these and your take on which you prefer for what reason?

Thanks!
 

USAFRet

Illustrious
Moderator
Which is 'better' depends on what YOU want to do with it.

I use a combination.

All shots with a Fuji X-T1. Lightroom software.
35mm f/1.4 and 18-55mm kit lens
Item in question here is 0.85" (21.6mm) tall

An extension tube, a reverse ring, or just software.
The reverse ring literally mounts the lens backwards. In this case, the 18-55mm kit lens.

MCEX-16 extension tube:
https://www.fujivsfuji.com/mcex-11-vs-mcex-16/

Extension tube and reverse ring
Dxw5ehQ.jpg


No sharpening or other manipulation in software, other than cropping.

35mm, uncropped at ~15"
IUiJfKM.jpg


35mm, cropped with Lightroom.
LaswhVI.jpg


Extension tube:
AbBucg3.jpg


Reverse ring:
gLdT1IU.jpg

 

bjornl

Estimable
That depends on what magnification level you are shooting for. Bellows are the best way to get very high magnification although working distance (the distance from the front of your lens to your subject) becomes an issue.

For high-power macro I've used a rear mounted tele-converter (increases either magnification or working distance), a series of extension tubes (increases magnification, but costs working distance), a front mounted (high-end screw in tele-converter) which increases working distance, and sometimes a diopter (front mounted "lens" (filter type) which increases magnification (this one has the largest negative impact to image quality). All mounted on a 1:1 90mm macro lens.

632648.jpg


632649.jpg


1880360.jpg


673377.jpg


Eyeball of a living snail at around 5:1 magnification
 

Wayfall

Honorable
Dec 27, 2013
164
0
10,660
@bjornl Err ye you haven't put your picture URL in correctly. Use imgbb.com to upload it and get a picture URL, copy it, after that come back to Toms and the click the add picture icon in the text edit box and paste it in.

Also please simplify your answer from before please as i had no idea what any of that meant.
 

USAFRet

Illustrious
Moderator


I see his pics just fine.
 

bjornl

Estimable

They show just fine for me, even if I am not logged in. So it is not the URL, perhaps it has something to do with your location. The moderator and I are both in the USA.

As for a simple answer: In general a 1:1 macro lens gives the best results. I was talking about options to achieve macro images and how to achieve greater than 1:1 magnification.
 

USAFRet

Illustrious
Moderator


oops, they're gone
---------
<Code>AccessDenied</Code>
<Message>Request has expired</Message>
---------
 

bjornl

Estimable
Oops. DPR used to allow cross-site linking. It seems that there is a timer involved now. I'll post them on imgur myself.

Macro rig - Dissassembled
Showing the various bits and pieces you can use to achieve greater magnification
iyGs0F7

iyGs0F7.jpg


Macro lens assembled. Fairly long and heavy.
BoJ8jk5

BoJ8jk5.jpg


Mounted on one of my DSLRs
HGV1V3U

HGV1V3U.jpg


Microscopic baby spider taken at well over 5:1
Even right next to the spider, I could only barely see it as a dot that was moving. The background is a white picket fence, not a slide in a lab or studio
1vyMNA4

1vyMNA4.jpg


The eyeball on a live snail magnification just under 5:1. The diopter lens was not used and so it is sharper.
0aFeSiu

0aFeSiu.jpg


A 70-200 VR f/2.8 (high end sports lens). I had just moved and could not find my macro lens. So I used a high quality lens because I knew the glass was very good and that magnifying the middle would not leave me with garbage for an image. I also used a quality tele-converter and 3 extension tubes. Total magnification is just over 2:1. Only light in the image is from a 40watt bulb around 15-20 feet away.
v8ZWBzN

v8ZWBzN.jpg


House in dew drop. Taken in natural light slightly before dawn. Droplets were very fine (small). Lens was a 90mm 1:1 macro lens.
yK1ZDys

yK1ZDys.jpg


House again this time in a larger frozen drop. Used the lens I had already on the camera. Magnification was a modest 1:3.
oXRXB6e

oXRXB6e.jpg


Some ideas on the differing effects of the options out there. Hope you found it useful.
 

bjornl

Estimable


The settings vary depending on the situation of course. The spiderweb was dew (fine-mist) not rain. So a the settings were modest:
Focal length: 90 mm
Shutter speed: 1/250 sec
Aperture: F22
ISO: 640
Exposure comp.: ±0.00

The snails eye was my most difficult photo. Lots of out of focus junk to get a keeper with the DOF I wanted.
Shutter speed: 1/40 sec
Aperture: F5
ISO: 1000