Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Getting more than 1:1 macro from 1:1 lenses


  • Please log in to reply
101 replies to this topic

#41 Jolly

Jolly

    Lightning Kraut

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 835 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 09 October 2005 - 03:31 AM

yes. these are 100% crops. But still visible that all those converters harm image quality. That's why I preffered the Canon 100-400, which is a zoom, topside over the 70-200 + converter. I think the Kenko x1.4 performs better because the others are 2x converters.

Julian
| Canon 5D I+II / Sealux CC5-GD I+II custom converted | 2x Ikelite DS-125 | ULCS |

#42 markprior

markprior

    Wolf Eel

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 148 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 11 October 2005 - 09:09 AM

Ok I am trying to wrap my head around all these different options.

Can someone tell me if I am right in the following assumptions:

1) 60mm + 2x Tele = 2:1 at same working distance as 60mm 1:1
2) 105mm + 2x Diopter = 2:1 at same working distance as above.

So depending on the length of the Teleconverter both should be able to fit in the same port ?

So which is a preferable way to go to get 2:1.

Sorry if I've got this all wrong but I find the subject quite confusing.

Is there a primer anywhere on diopters and Teles ?

Confused !
Sea & Sea D200 Housing - 60mm,105mm, 10.5mm, 12-24mm (All Nikon) Sigma 17-70mm and Tokina 10-17mm lenses and a bunch of Ports.
Lighting: 2 x Ikelite DS-125, 2 x Manual controller

My Pictures

#43 acroporas

acroporas

    Beach Bum

  • Critter Expert
  • 1776 posts
  • Location:Atlanta, Georgia

Posted 11 October 2005 - 09:40 AM

Mark, your assumptions are close but not completely accurate.

60mm + teleconverter = 120mm f/5.6
105 + diopter = ~90mm f/2.8

So the 60mm + teleconverter will have more working distance.

BUT the 105 + diopter will have larger aperature thus AF will work better and the viewfinder will be brighter making MF easier.

Which method is better is somewhat personal prefrence but I would argue that the 105mm + diopter is better.
William

Canon 5D Ikelite Housing and strobes
15FE | 24/2.8 | 35/1.4 | 85/1.8 | 150/2.8 macro

#44 Chris Bangs

Chris Bangs

    Sting Ray

  • Industry
  • PipPipPip
  • 207 posts
  • Location:Japan/Guam

Posted 11 October 2005 - 06:18 PM

Which diopter is required to produce 2:1 on the 105 mm? I do not use diopters very much therefore I have no clue. I would think it would have to be a +4 or better.
Nikon D70s,Fuji S2, And Misc Nikon/Nikonos film gear collecting dust.
Ikelite and Aquatica Housings
Nikon 12-24 mm, 10.5 mm, 16 mm, 60 mm, 105 mm, 200 mm micro. Sigma 14 mm. + stacks of diopters and teleconverters
Many outdated flashy thingys with aluminum tinker toys to connect them to the cameras.

#45 Jolly

Jolly

    Lightning Kraut

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 835 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 28 February 2006 - 04:29 AM

There are some good calculation scripts in the net (FOV, DOF, reproduction ratios, etc.), but it is not easy to calculate dioptre for 2:1 as some lens data, etc. are required.

I don't have a +4 dioptre but just placed my old Nikonos closeup lens (which is about +4,2) in front of a Canon 100mm macro.

from frame size (width) +4 was not enough to reach 2:1. pics shot with full frame sensor.

100mm macro @1:1 only:
100.jpg

100mm macro @1:1 + nikonos closeup lens:
100niklens.jpg

Julian
| Canon 5D I+II / Sealux CC5-GD I+II custom converted | 2x Ikelite DS-125 | ULCS |

#46 Kelpfish

Kelpfish

    Giant Squid

  • Industry
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1598 posts
  • Location:California

Posted 28 February 2006 - 06:04 AM

here are a few shots using the 105 with a 4t diopter. Full magnification. Whatever the math says, this combo and the added combo of a TC2x can provide nice results. Like Rand says, you just have to keep trying so you can learn the systems quirks.

Joe

Attached Images

  • small_cowry1.jpg
  • small_fish_eye.jpg

Joe Belanger
Author, Catalina Island - All you Need to Know
www.californiaunderwater.com
www.visitingcatalina.com

#47 Kelpfish

Kelpfish

    Giant Squid

  • Industry
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1598 posts
  • Location:California

Posted 28 February 2006 - 06:05 AM

One more

Attached Images

  • small_SCULPIN.jpg

Joe Belanger
Author, Catalina Island - All you Need to Know
www.californiaunderwater.com
www.visitingcatalina.com

#48 stever

stever

    Sting Ray

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 209 posts

Posted 20 June 2006 - 07:25 PM

the Canon 500D closeup adapter is much better corrected than a single element diopter (Nikon has something similar but maybe not in the selection of sizes)

i have used it topside with and without the Canon 1.4x (which requires a 12.5 extension to make it work) on the 105 macro - for prints up to 13x19 you'd have a very hard time telling either one (or both) is present

my recommendation is:
1 - Kenko TC so you have full focus range (the Kenko pro gets very good recommendations and costs almost as much as the Canon)
2 - if that doesn't get close enough, add the 500D which should still let you focus out to about 3 feet (as i recall)
3 - the Canon 2x with 12.5 extension tube is not terrible, and again you can add the 500d (if you've got the right port extension and can find a focus gear -- do not expect this combination to autofocus -- actually, the 105 doesn't autofucus for macro well in any configuration) - and i'd be suspect of the 3rd party 2x extenders

#49 tonywu

tonywu

    Wolf Eel

  • Industry
  • PipPip
  • 157 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Singapore, Tokyo or Bangkok. Otherwise underwater.

Posted 17 September 2006 - 05:21 AM

Chiming in a bit late here, but I shoot a lot with more than 1:1 using the old Nikon 105 macro in film days, and now with the Canon 100 USM macro.

Kenko teleconverters and extension tubes all work fine. A few sample images, all uncropped:

Canon 100+ 3x teleconverter + diopters to achieve approximately 5x magnification:
http://www.flickr.co...57594174625480/
http://www.flickr.co...57594174625480/

Canon 100 + 3x teleconverter:
http://www.flickr.co...57594174625480/

Nikon 105 + 3x teleconverter:
http://www.flickr.co...57594191585362/
http://www.flickr.co...57594191585362/

The most difficult challenge with teleconverters is finding the appropriate port extensions and manual focus gears to permit manual focusing. Once you've got that tackled, you just need to keep your hands steady and squint really hard!!!
Website | Blog | Facebook | Twitter | Flickr | Vimeo | Blubrry

Canon 5DMkII, 7D, 1D MkIV, Zillion housings + way too much other junk.

#50 Arnon_Ayal

Arnon_Ayal

    Sperm Whale

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1826 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 17 September 2006 - 07:20 AM

Chiming in a bit late here, but I shoot a lot with more than 1:1 using the old Nikon 105 macro in film days, and now with the Canon 100 USM macro.

Kenko teleconverters and extension tubes all work fine. A few sample images, all uncropped:

Canon 100+ 3x teleconverter + diopters to achieve approximately 5x magnification:
http://www.flickr.co...57594174625480/
http://www.flickr.co...57594174625480/

Canon 100 + 3x teleconverter:
http://www.flickr.co...57594174625480/

Nikon 105 + 3x teleconverter:
http://www.flickr.co...57594191585362/
http://www.flickr.co...57594191585362/

The most difficult challenge with teleconverters is finding the appropriate port extensions and manual focus gears to permit manual focusing. Once you've got that tackled, you just need to keep your hands steady and squint really hard!!!


Wow!!! Very impressive results in the links and also in your site.
Do you find a significant decrees in quality because of the teleconvertors?
Arnon Ayal www.arnonayal.com
Nikon D200, Ikelite housing, Dual SB105.

#51 tonywu

tonywu

    Wolf Eel

  • Industry
  • PipPip
  • 157 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Singapore, Tokyo or Bangkok. Otherwise underwater.

Posted 17 September 2006 - 09:34 PM

There is a decrease in quality inherent to teleconverters, but there are a lot of shots you just can't get without the extra reach. My close-up images have been published many time with no problems, so the image degradation isn't too bad.

I try to take down a 2-3x teleconverter set up on most dives, lately pushing to even higher magnification. If you try a set up like this, the best thing is to find a nice, quiet boring area that no one else wants to dive, reasonably shallow so you have light, but not too shallow so you have swells. Then just practice, practice, practice on any fish. It's amazing how interesting many normal fish look at such high magnfication.
Website | Blog | Facebook | Twitter | Flickr | Vimeo | Blubrry

Canon 5DMkII, 7D, 1D MkIV, Zillion housings + way too much other junk.

#52 Neptun 100

Neptun 100

    Lionfish

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 54 posts

Posted 28 May 2007 - 06:23 AM

Hi, just see...
i got something to add.
Nikon 105VR + x2TC + X1.4TC = 300mm

Nemo Eggs...

Amir

DSC_1264_copy.jpg

#53 Jez_Tryner

Jez_Tryner

    Triggerfish

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 39 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Thailand / Indonesia

Posted 30 August 2007 - 08:44 PM

However, i do find that the filters do work with a 60mm, this is an example of 60mm with a +4. True, i had to get right on them to get this full frame but..it worked...luckily they were turned this way


nice shot Mike ,you must have been up their ass with a +4 and 60mm
good one
Jez
Canon 5d mkII + Canon 10D, Sea and sea housings, 2xInon z-240 + 2xSea and sea ys-90dx, sigma 105mm, 50mm, 12-24mm Canon 17-40mm, Tokina 10-17mm.
Komodo diving - Bali diving - Burma diving - Maldives diving - Sulawesi diving - Raja Ampat diving.

#54 FOTODUIKER

FOTODUIKER

    Damselfish

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 19 posts

Posted 11 September 2007 - 01:36 PM

good evening
Last sunday i was looking for a solution with the sigma 50 mm and a tamron 2x converter
In Holland most off the time , the vis. is very poor, so we need a close working distance for macro.
The sigma works great but.......... I also have a tamron 90 mm.
The test last weekend, seaslugs with the 50 mm and converter , nice shots but not as sharp as I wanted.

Tonight playing with my cam , i used the tamron 90 mm and a diopter + 1 , I have the same working distance but I think the pictures are sharper.

Any one else testing the 50 mm and 2 x converter ??????
greetings
Fotoduiker

#55 rodriguezfelix

rodriguezfelix

    Eagle Ray

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 377 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Caracas, Venezuela
  • Interests:UWP, Surf, Travel

Posted 12 September 2007 - 05:16 AM

I think the sigma 50mm have the same issue as the 60mm from nikon, working distance reduce so much that you going to end crushing things with your port if you are not carefull. That´s why must people use >100mm to this kind of thing.

As you can read here, there are people using 3X TC´s and combos of 2X+1.4X and diopters and stuff, I dare to say with a 50mm or 60mm that is almost close to impossible.

That said, I find good diopters as 4T, 6T and 500D more usefull for supermacro than TC´s if you have to choose between one or another, of course a TC+diopter is always an interesting combo challenge producing amazing results.

Edited by rodriguezfelix, 12 September 2007 - 05:21 AM.


#56 rodriguezfelix

rodriguezfelix

    Eagle Ray

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 377 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Caracas, Venezuela
  • Interests:UWP, Surf, Travel

Posted 15 September 2007 - 07:59 PM

I always found this post very useful, so I`m going to add some tests that I made recently using Nikon D50, Sensor: Standard DX size (23.7 x 15.6 mm), Nikkor 105mm lens, Nikon 4T diopter and Kenko 2X Teleplus Pro 300 Teleconverter. Also I did some basic maths trying to understand myself the magnification provided with this combo. So here it is:

This is the 105 by itself:

Nikon_105mm.jpg

I took this as a base pic to establish 1:1 magnification.

Then I add a 4T diopter:

Nikon_105mm___4T.jpg

As we can see it covers near 17mm, so magnification provided is 1.4:1

Adding a 2X to the 105mm we have this:

Nikon___KTC_2X.jpg

See that it covers close to 12mm, providing magnification of 2:1, prooving that the multiplier works equal for the focal lenght as for the magnification factor.

If we put this three together, we going to obtain this:

Nikon_105mm___KTC_2X___4T.jpg

Covering 8mm I dare to say that magnification provided is 3:1

I also did some test with the Sigma 17-70mm macro:

Here`s the lens by itself:

Sigma_17_70mm.jpg

Wich provides 1:2.3

And adding the 2X TC we get really close to 1:1

Sigma_17_70mm___KTC_2X.jpg

This is not intend to be a cientific post ,so I know I could use a tripod and other things to provide a more accurate result, but I think this help.

#57 Dan Schwartz

Dan Schwartz

    Sting Ray

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 240 posts
  • Location:Sayreville, Peoples' Republic of New Joisey
  • Interests:NASCAR & IndyCar photography; large format photography; wet darkroom work. Getting ready to drag my gear underwater...

Posted 16 October 2007 - 11:11 AM

You also lose light with an extension tube due to the Bellows Factor...

The extension tubes will allows closer focusing resulting in higher magnification, this without loss of opticall quality but the drawback is proximity, you end up being much closer so use only with longer focal lenght.


I love the smell of fixer in the morning!

#58 rtrski

rtrski

    Great White

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 993 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas, USA
  • Interests:Slowly learning digital photography and underwater digital photography. Like drinking from a salt-water firehose... ;-)

Posted 15 March 2008 - 06:57 AM

I have nothing to say on this topic, aside from I kept getting the creeps seeing a certain name on the Last Post on a stickied subject. So I am remedying that situation. :P

Current rig: Sony SLT-alpha55 in Ikelite housing, Sigma 105mm f2.8 DC Macro w/ Ike 5505.58 flat port or Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 DC HSM behind UWCamStuff custom 5" mini-dome. Dual INON z240 Type IVs triggered with DS51 for TTL mimicry, or DS51 alone with home-made ringflash assy for macro.

 

Topside, unhoused: Sony SLT-alpha99, Sigma 150-500mm + 1.4TC (Saving for Sony 70-400 G2), Sigma 15mm diagonal fish, Sony 24-70mm f2.8 CZ, Tamron 180mm f2.8 Macro...all the gear and nary a clue...


#59 tubino

tubino

    Wolf Eel

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 150 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toledo, Ohio USA
  • Interests:Vacuum tube audio, vintage hi-fi, horn speakers, Tannoy dual concentric speakers.

Posted 22 August 2008 - 06:28 AM

I think this pinned thread should have a link to a recent one on UW magnifiers in the Beginners Forum. There is some good info there on calculating magnification, with examples.
Nikon D300s, Ikelite housing + 2 Ike DS-160. Tokina 10-17 fisheye, 11-16mm, Sigma 50 macro, Nikon 105 VR, SubSee Magnifier.

#60 fcharp

fcharp

    Hermit Crab

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 3 posts

Posted 03 September 2008 - 03:02 PM

Since I am a new member, I am not able to start a new topic... but this is close enough and the posters obviously have the knowledge.
My question has to do with macro-photography. It is rather general, but please bear with me. My wife is a marine biologist and conducts regular photo surveys of coral reefs. So far, we have been using a Canon 20D with the Ikelite housing and DS-200 strobe. The setup was adequate for her needs which -- essentially -- required taking pics of algae or corals at a distance of approximately 1 meter.
But our needs are evolving and we now require much more detail. I just got a 5D body and have been agonizing over the choice of an adequate lens for macro photo. In a nutshell, it seems that the Canon 100mm f2.5 Macro lens is the best fit. I am not crazy about the Canon 50mm Macro/Lifesize combo because it reportedly has a tendency to hunt at certain focal lengths.
The requirements are to be able to take pictures of algae or corals with the maximum detail possible (corals identification can require getting down to the corallite level). In your opinion, is the above combo adequate? I would prefer a 60mm Macro, but it only exists in the EF-S version. The 100mm is quite bulky, but the reviews generally report that this is a very good lens.
Reading this forum, I am starting to wonder if we would not be better off with a non-macro lens equipped with a doubler....
Any comments and pearls of wisdom or experience would be welcome :-)

Frederic