Wetpixel Live: Macro Close Up Lenses

[Phil Rudin 426]

Hay Stuart, I appreciate your interest in learning all that you can but the first question you should be asking is do I even need to buy a closeup lens. If you were one of my students I would have you manually focus your 90mm macro to 1:1 and leave it at 1:1 for an entire macro dive. Then you can get an idea of how close you need get to your subject and how small 1:1 really is. I have attached two photos of Yellowheaded Jaw fish both taken with the 90mm macro. I see photos on the net all the time where the photographers take like photos and note that they used some type of closeup lens with there 1:1 macro lens, I have had many students that have done the same thing. 

C/U lenses reduce the distance to the subject and reduce DOF so why would you want to use one unless you were already at life size and need to get more magnification. Second you have a huge 62MP's of info in each image which allows room to make large crops of images shot at life size without a C/U lens. The second two images were taken with the 90mm and an Aquatica ACU +10 C/U lens I was using for a review. To shoot at greater than life size subject choice is the most important factor, you need the correct size subject for the extra magnification. Both the Hermit crab eye and the Shrimp were both found on a night dive and shot at F/18 with the excellent Backscatter MF-1 flashes.

Edited January 28, 2021 by Phil Rudin

[stuartv 32]

Hi @Phil Rudin I really do appreciate the time you've taken to help educate me.

The thing is, I don't have a 90mm lens. I only have the Sony 28-60. That is what I'm considering to buy a C/U lens for.

My concern is to be smart about what I buy, so that if and when I do get the 90mm lens, I am able to get some use from whatever C/U lens I have bought. If it doesn't make sense to buy one C/U lens that would be useful with the 28-60 now and then still be useful (for even smaller subjects) with the 90 later, then so be it.

[bvanant 189]

Stuart: The big question is how small of things are you interested in. If you use the calculator on the Subsee site and figure that the 28-60 has an out of the box magnification of 0.16 (full frame of 200 mm subject) and you pick the +5 diopter you would get an improvement of about 3 fold (new full frame magnification is 84 mm). So if you are shooting things around 3 inches long you will be golden. If you want however to shoot nudibranchs that are on the order of half an inch long then you will need to crop a bit.

BVA
 

[stuartv 32]

3 hours ago, bvanant said:

Stuart: The big question is how small of things are you interested in. If you use the calculator on the Subsee site and figure that the 28-60 has an out of the box magnification of 0.16 (full frame of 200 mm subject) and you pick the +5 diopter you would get an improvement of about 3 fold (new full frame magnification is 84 mm). So if you are shooting things around 3 inches long you will be golden. If you want however to shoot nudibranchs that are on the order of half an inch long then you will need to crop a bit.

BVA
 

To me, that's kind of like talking to a new driver student and asking "well, how fast do you want to drive?"

I don't have the experience to really say "I want to shoot things that are nnn cm long."

I shot a very small critter last month in Cozumel. The guide said it is a Lettuce Leaf Sea Slug. It seems like it something like 3/4" long(? maybe?). I shot it with a 28mm prime out of a flat port, with my FF Sony and no diopters or anything. I cropped a LOT and got a FB-worth photo out of it. 61MP does have its advantages.

I also shot some banded shrimp and similar. I'd like to be able to shoot more of those kinds of things. And nudis.

My assumption about how things will go is that I'm starting with the 28-60 lens. I will buy some kind of C/U lens to add to it. At some point, I will find that I want to shoot things that are small enough that the 28-60+CU is no longer adequate and I'll have to decide between sticking with the 28-60 and getting a stronger CU lens for it, or switching to a "real" macro lens, like the Sony 90mm. OR, I'll decide that really tiny things aren't MY thing and I'll never go further than the 28-60 and a CU lens.

My thought is that the ultimate best macro setup (for a Sony FF camera) would probably be built around the 90mm macro lens (vs the 28-60). I'm going to start with the 28-60 and a CU because I already have the 28-60 and because of the flexibility that I will have with that lens and CU. Even if I don't change in the water, I can still show up to the dive site with that (plus my WWL-1) and let the hooker splash, come back up, and tell me whether there are bunches of sharks on the bottom or not. If yes, put on WWL-1 and splash. If not, put on the CU lens and splash. All without having to open my housing while on the boat.

So, I might end up getting the 90mm later, or not. I don't know yet, 'cause I don't have any macro experience yet.

What I'm trying to do right now is figure out if there's a CU lens that makes sense to buy and use with the 28-60 that will also be useful with a 90mm macro lens later, IF I do end up going that way.

From what Phil said, a CMC would not be good on the 90. But, I think an SMC would be good on a 90 and I'm guessing I could also use it to good effect paired with the 28-60? If so, then I might buy the SMC, instead of the CMC, even though it costs a bit more, just to avoid buying a CMC now and still buying an SMC later (with a 90mm macro lens). Or, if the Inon UCL-90 would work well with the 90mm macro and also with the 28-60, then maybe I would go that route, as it's less expensive.

I am sorry to be so frustrating to all of you that I know are really trying to help me. Maybe I'm just overthinking it all and should just shut up, get a CMC-2 or UCL-90, and go shoot until I DO have the experience to know better what I need to change. It wouldn't be the first time I've been guilty of overthinking to the point of analysis paralysis...

 

 

[ChrisRoss 150]

Stuart, if you've shot no macro I predict you'll be happy for a long time with your 28-60 and something like the UCL-90.  Getting working distance and reasonable magnification will make life easier and you are more likely to get good results straight up - the lighting setup will be easier for a start.

If you get the 90mm macro down the track shoot it bare for a while and if you feel the urge tale your closeup lens with you - you'll note that Adam and Alex mentioned that many divers end up with multiple lenses and use the lowest power one the most.  If say down the track you have your 90 mm and feel the urge try out your existing lens and see how you go. 

I expect if you continue going out to wrecks you'll continue to go the WWL/close up lens route unless you find a treasure trove of mini subjects to shoot out there.  If it's open ocean I'd suspect days where you could use the 90 plus closeup lens would be limited due to surge and you'd use it more on trips to areas with protected reefs to find little stuff or maybe places like blue heron bridge if you ever go there.

[JohnLiddiard 26]

With my first film SLR I started with only a 28-70 lens. With a dome port it got sort of wide-ish angle. I needed a +4 diopter inside the dome to focus. I also had a flat port. The same 28-70 lens without the +4 turned out to be good for shooting fish. With the +4 behind the flat port it was also good for about 1:1 macro, but wouldn't focus on anything further than a few inches away.

I subsequently expanded my repertoire of wide angle and macro lenses and ports to go with them. But even with 60 and 105 macro lenses, I found myself often returning to the 28-70 with +4 behind a flat port as a favoured macro set up because, within its short range, it was very easy to focus and could zoom out a little.

Eventually the 28-70 lens broke beyond economic repair. :-(

All that is several cameras behind me now. Looking back, that 28-70 general purpose lens stirs fond memories, especially with a +4 behind a flat port.