50mm as a macro lens
- Thread starter samsnikon
- Start date
I have used a 20mm Kenko extension tube with my 50mm, it works just fine. the draw back is the front of the lens is close to the subject. However as I say it worked for me. I have also used magnifying macro 'filter screw' type lenses on my 18-70mm at 70mm, that worked for me too, however they are both cheap stop gap options, but the IQ is better than you would think . . .
This is a sample, D80/50mm/20mm Kenko tube, and then a bit of zoom in PS:
I'm not heavily into macro, so the budget option suits me.
CJS
- Messages
- 4,888
- Edit My Images
- No
extension tubes - a 12mm will give you a moderate increase on your minimum focus distance, a 25mm will get you pretty close and anything more and your front element will nearly be touching the subject. Whether or not you'll get 1:1 magnification is another matter that will require research.
I use a 12mm extension tube on my 85 f/1.8 to just allow me to get a bit closer, the minimum focus distance is pants and on full frame it can be rather hard filling the frame with anything smaller than an A4 sheet of paper. Be aware that with extension tubes your focus "area" becomes very limited - with my 85 I think I have only a few inches to play with, so while tubes are great for occasional use they shouldn't replace a proper macro lens. If I did more Macro I'd buy a dedicated macro lens instead.
Extension tubes don't contain any glass, they just move the lens further away from the camera body - so don't go paying for expensive Nikon air when Kenko air (for instance) is just as good
Also be aware that at very close focus distance like CJS shot above depth of field is absolutely tiny - I am guessing CJS shot was done at or close to f/22 - certainly no less than f/11. Macro at f/1.4 just won't work..
I use a 12mm extension tube on my 85 f/1.8 to just allow me to get a bit closer, the minimum focus distance is pants and on full frame it can be rather hard filling the frame with anything smaller than an A4 sheet of paper. Be aware that with extension tubes your focus "area" becomes very limited - with my 85 I think I have only a few inches to play with, so while tubes are great for occasional use they shouldn't replace a proper macro lens. If I did more Macro I'd buy a dedicated macro lens instead.
Extension tubes don't contain any glass, they just move the lens further away from the camera body - so don't go paying for expensive Nikon air when Kenko air (for instance) is just as good
Also be aware that at very close focus distance like CJS shot above depth of field is absolutely tiny - I am guessing CJS shot was done at or close to f/22 - certainly no less than f/11. Macro at f/1.4 just won't work..
Last edited:
extension tubes - a 12mm will give you a moderate increase on your minimum focus distance, a 25mm will get you pretty close and anything more and your front element will nearly be touching the subject. Whether or not you'll get 1:1 magnification is another matter that will require research.
I use a 12mm extension tube on my 85 f/1.8 to just allow me to get a bit closer, the minimum focus distance is pants and on full frame it can be rather hard filling the frame with anything smaller than an A4 sheet of paper. Be aware that with extension tubes your focus "area" becomes very limited - with my 85 I think I have only a few inches to play with, so while tubes are great for occasional use they shouldn't replace a proper macro lens. If I did more Macro I'd buy a dedicated macro lens instead.
Extension tubes don't contain any glass, they just move the lens further away from the camera body - so don't go paying for expensive Nikon air when Kenko air (for instance) is just as good
Also be aware that at very close focus distance like CJS shot above depth of field is absolutely tiny - I am guessing CJS shot was done at or close to f/22 - certainly no less than f/11. Macro at f/1.4 just won't work..
Front of lens to subject distance can be a problem with easily spooked insects etc., so you have to be selective. Similar problem exists with short FL macro lenses, 90mm plus on a true macro lens starts to get further away? 'Depth of field' always seems to be a problem with macro . . .
Spider settings were:
ISO: 400
Aperture: f8
Shutter: 320
Metering: Center Weighted
Manual focus
As I say, I'm no expert, just dabble a bit.
CJS
Last edited:
- Messages
- 4,888
- Edit My Images
- No
gobsmacked that it was f/8! great photo though.
Nod
Tootles
- Messages
- 50,006
- Name
- Nod (UK)
- Edit My Images
- Yes
3 ways to do the job (sort of!). In increasing price order...
Supplementary close up lenses to screw into the filter thread. Often sold in sets. Cheap and will get you closer to the subjects.
Reversing ring. Has a filter thread on one end and a mount on t'other, allowing the lens to be fitted back to front on the body. IIRC, there's a gizmo that allows some automatic operations by connecting the body's electrics to the lens (only for Canons IIRC).
macro tubes. Again, sold in sets and fit between the body and lens, often having complete electronic communication between body and lens as well.
Supplementary close up lenses to screw into the filter thread. Often sold in sets. Cheap and will get you closer to the subjects.
Reversing ring. Has a filter thread on one end and a mount on t'other, allowing the lens to be fitted back to front on the body. IIRC, there's a gizmo that allows some automatic operations by connecting the body's electrics to the lens (only for Canons IIRC).
macro tubes. Again, sold in sets and fit between the body and lens, often having complete electronic communication between body and lens as well.