Macro for a beginner

Scots_quine

Scots_quine

In memoriam
Messages
1,753
Name
Joan
Edit My Images
Yes
I am very interested in macro photography. I have bought a set of autofocus extension tubes (36mm, 20mm and 12mm). I have a Nikon D3100 and the kit lens. I have had some experiments (will post some photos) but the problem I have is that I have to be more or less bang up against what I am photographing - at the moment only flowers - no chance of doing this with something living!
The question is - do I persevere or do I acknowledge defeat and get a dedicated macro lens and if so what would you recommend? Budget is fairly flexible but I would baulk a bit at spending more than the price of my camera on a single lens!
 
Try experimenting with your set-up to learn how it works.

Set the kit lens to its shortest focal length, now try using each combination of tubes in turn (12mm, 20mm, 20+12mm, 36mm, 36+12mm, 36+20mm, 36+20+12mm).

Now do the same with the kit lens set at its longest focal length.

What do you notice about the working distance (the distance between the lens and the subject) as you change focal length, and as you change the extension distance?

You've said you are very interested, so I'm not giving you the answer, just giving a question for you to try.. ;)
 
Presumably I should do all the above at different apertures as well?
Here are some photos I have taken.
Photo 1
DSC_1087small200.jpg

Photo 2
DSC_2087small200.jpg

Photo 3
DSC_2115small200.jpg
 
Alastair,
Tried as you suggested. Couldn't focus at anything less than about 50mm. And there didn't seem much of a difference in closeness to the subject between the different sizes of extension tubes. Seemed only to be a max of a couple of inches between the lens and the subject. Should I have been closer to the lens the more I piled on the extension tubes, or further away? Now more confused and feel as though I am going backwards!
 
It's been a long day.. so I might get some of this the wrong way around.. (if you could send down a white pudding supper from Pittenweem that might focus my attention ;) )..

As you add extension tubes and move the lens further away from the body the magnification will increase and the working distance decrease.

The magnification will be the greatest with the lens at its widest (shortest) focal length.


With extension tubes you're always going to be fairly close to the subject. If you're chasing something you can't get close to then a dedicated macro lens is the way to go. A true macro lens (1:1 or better magnification) can get pricey (e.g. the Sigma 105mm f/2.8 EX), the cheaper option is a lens that can manage a close-up but won't get you true macro magnifications (there's a few available as 70-300mm lenses). But as with most things, you get what you pay for.

An alternative is an attachment like the Raynox, not something I've tried myself but a search of the forum will turn up several threads on this.
 
You can use extension tubes on almost any lens - I myself use them on my 70-300mm L IS USM lens which gives me much greater versatility than a normal macro lens since I can take close-ups from much further away to avoid the subjects getting disturbed and flying away:

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=344817

But trying to use them on a short focal length lens can give you problems as you've found out since it can bring you too close to your subject.

And it can be confusing at first to use them on a zoom since the magnification factor alters with the focal length of the lens and the length of the tubes.

A rough guide to magnification factor is:

focal length of lens/length of extension tubes

So if you have a focal length of 100mm and the tubes total (say) 100mm then you will get a 1:1x mag.

But if you zoom out to 200mm you will get a 1:2 x mag factor and the subject will appear smaller BUT since you are, in effect, getting closer to the subject due to the zoom, watching the subject in the viewfinder can confuse you since you are zooming in but, due to the lowering magnification factor, the field of view can appear to be getting wider - not the usual effect you get from a zoom lens AND the zoom ring can now seem to function as the focus ring does ordinarily.

What I do is put a set of rings on then use the zoom ring to get the subject in reasonable focus then use the ordinary macro technique of moving back and forwards to hit the right point - AF is best disabled for macro work.

.
 
I'm struggling with this also, so understand where your at, try different combinations, but I'm taking photos at the moment at 1-2" away from bug. Took one of a hover fly and he was just about touching the lens. :-) like others have said a dedicated macro is best but then money comes into it.

Just learn to enjoy it with the equipment you have, and be inspired by others on this forum... Buy don't get discouraged. You can achieve alot with the basic kit lens, just have to creep up to bugs a bit more quietly... Ha ha.
 
Would getting a macro lens get you better image quality? Yes.
Do you have to? No not at all.

I love macro photography. It's what I do the most. I do not use a slr. I have used compacts and gotten shots of bees and butterflies. Currently I use a bridge camera, which is great for macro as well.

What I love, is that I have the choice between going up close to my subject. Or using the long end of the lens to zoom in at about 1 m distance. (1.6m on the bridge with a much longer lens)
 
Thanks everyone for the info. I think it will be a case of practise and more practise. At least the long winter months are coming up and I can fill the time.
Has anyone got an opinion on a suitable lens if I do decide to give up on the extension tubes?
 
Scots_quine said:
Thanks everyone for the info. I think it will be a case of practise and more practise. At least the long winter months are coming up and I can fill the time.
Has anyone got an opinion on a suitable lens if I do decide to give up on the extension tubes?
Click to expand...

Don't give up on the tubes - even if you get a macro lens the tubes will still give you even higher magnification.

If you look here:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/20926615@N05/sets/72157623715955928/

you will see many pics taken using extension tubes.

They really are one of the best accessories for macro photography there is.

.
 
I'm with PeterS. TBH I think most people that buy macro lenses to shoot bugs, beetles, flowers/butterflies and everyday stuff would be better off with a decent telezoom and a set of tubes. I had two macros, then put tubes on my 70-200L (which is very high quality to start with) and promptly sold them both.

I can still get down to 1:1, but at greater shooting distances and the ability to adjust framing and range with the zoom makes life so much easier.

Most folks have a telezoom and a set of tubes are so useful for a lot of things, so it's almost a zero cost option. Only a personal point of view, but stacks up for me :)
 
Scots_quine said:
Thanks everyone for the info. I think it will be a case of practise and more practise. At least the long winter months are coming up and I can fill the time.
Has anyone got an opinion on a suitable lens if I do decide to give up on the extension tubes?
Click to expand...

Hi

My daughter has the Sigma 50mm Macro lens - very nice and she gets great results with it, it is a true 1:1 magnifcation lens. She doesn't do bugs (at all :lol:), so the shorter focal length is not an issue.

Hope this is of some help ...
 
BruceMo said:
Some nice photos there, brave man with the wasps :thumbs:
Click to expand...

Thanks for that but I rather like wasps and bees and have never been stung by either.

The secret is simply don't antagonise them by flapping your hands or anything else at them.

If you do that they will sting you and since they also give off attack pheromones any other wasps or bees in the vicinity are also likely to turn up just spoiling for a fight.

.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top