Jump to content
bmyates

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

Recommended Posts

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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:

 

post-6136-1189913387_thumb.jpg

 

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

 

Then I add a 4T diopter:

 

post-6136-1189913624_thumb.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:

 

post-6136-1189913882_thumb.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:

 

post-6136-1189914038_thumb.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:

 

post-6136-1189914203_thumb.jpg

 

Wich provides 1:2.3

 

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

 

post-6136-1189914258_thumb.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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

with a 50/60 the subject at 1:1 will be nearly on the front port, the 105/100 macros get a little more working distance, 4 or 5 inches.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
with a 50/60 the subject at 1:1 will be nearly on the front port, the 105/100 macros get a little more working distance, 4 or 5 inches.

 

Lou,

 

Thank you for the feedback. A rather important point, as a matter of fact :-)... So yes, I will be looking at the Nikon 105mm micro w/VR. I saw somewhere else in this forum that the VR actually works quite well underwater.

 

As a footnote, let me add that we are switching to Nikon for the new gear. The D300 to be more specific. I contemplated the soon-to-come D90, but there will be no Ikelite housing for it for a while, whereas the housing for the D300 exists. The D300 has Live View and great ISO. The Live View was a must for me... I tried taking some close-ups with the Canon 20D underwater and framing anything through the viewfinder is a little too much of a challenge for me... I also prefer Nikon's lens line for macro photo. For general purpose photo, I went with Ken Rockwell's advice and got the 18-200mm VR lens. All in all, this is amazing equipment.

 

Cheers,

 

Frederic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh... one more thing... Does anybody manufacture a ring macro flash for underwater? That would be a wonderful gadget!

 

Frederic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

with duel strobe placed right beside the lens port you dont need a ring flash. if you go with ikelite the i-ttl works perfectly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been reeding this topic and I believe I still need some help.

 

I have a Nikon 60 mm macro (on a d200), do I buy a (2x or 3x) TC (or should it be an extension tube) and (4x or 6x) a diopter to get the largest ratio ?

 

Also TC are multiplying the f's we know that, but is it important for underwater macro photography since we all are using powerful strobes at very close distances ??

 

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've been reeding this topic and I believe I still need some help.

 

I have a Nikon 60 mm macro (on a d200), do I buy a (2x or 3x) TC (or should it be an extension tube) and (4x or 6x) a diopter to get the largest ratio ?

 

Also TC are multiplying the f's we know that, but is it important for underwater macro photography since we all are using powerful strobes at very close distances ??

 

Thanks

 

Hi Kermidos,

 

Extension tubes are a bit out dated and cumbersome underwater. I think that you would need about 180mm of extension tube to get the same effects as the 3X T/C.

 

A 2X or 3X T/C will definately lose you some FStops, about F5.6 or F8, but I have seen pics from units a helluva lot bigger than the 60mm micro with 3X T/C attached in the pages of this forum, so I'm guessing that the lighting can be controlled with correct placement more so than power.

 

Now this diopter stuff still scares the shit outa me. I really wish that someone with the "smarts" would step in here and once and for all give a decent 'reading' as to how we select and use these "critters from space". . . . . ;):guiness:

 

Now I know that the 60mm micro has a short focusing distance, and a diopter works by shortening the minimum focusing distance, and if you intend to use a diopter with the 60mm micro to shorten the already short minumum focusing point, some say that the short point will be inside the port and that will be too short. But how short is too short? I have used the 60mm micro with Nexus wet diopter before and used a slightly shorter focusing point and not the full short focusing port with good results. I know that the shorter than full short focusing point gives good results because the pics from the shorter than full short set-up are definately different in magnification than images that haven't been shortened by the wet diopter. Now, I don't have any images from the full short minimum focusing port because I didn't have anything that was short enough to fit inside the port and be photographed at the full short minimum focusing distance. Anyway, I would probably come up short using the wet diopter because I would no longer have the full short minimum focusing point because the short thing that I had placed inside the port for the full short minimum focusing distance of the 60mm micro with wet diopter to take a picture of would be behind the wet diopter and in front of the 60mm micro, so again, I'm guessing that I would come up short. . . . :cry::)

 

It really would be nice for someone to step in and give all the readers a decent working 'paper' on the selection and use of wet/internal diopters. . . . :P

 

Bruce...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Bruce for your prompt reply,

 

I see that we both have the same setup (Nexus flat port, Nikon 60mm macro lens and the wet diopter).

 

Here comes the questions;

 

I will purchase the 3x Kenko TC (do you have suggestions for other brands ?), would you say, it is worth buying a 105 macro vr ( I read in an article that it has an underwater AF problem) and use with the Kenko TC (hoping that Nexus has the port extension)?

 

And is it worth buying the new nikon 60 mm macro.

 

Thank you in advance

 

Kerim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you Bruce for your prompt reply,

 

I see that we both have the same setup (Nexus flat port, Nikon 60mm macro lens and the wet diopter).

 

Here comes the questions;

 

I will purchase the 3x Kenko TC (do you have suggestions for other brands ?), would you say, it is worth buying a 105 macro vr ( I read in an article that it has an underwater AF problem) and use with the Kenko TC (hoping that Nexus has the port extension)?

 

And is it worth buying the new nikon 60 mm macro.

 

Thank you in advance

 

Kerim

 

Hi Kerim,

 

Honestly mate, I know very little on this subject and that is why I continually ask people who have this 'knowledge' to step in so I can learn also.

I think that you could learn a lot from James Wiseman's thread on the Tamron 70 -200mm F2.8 macro lens.

If I were running full frame, this is the way that I would go.

I don't own the new 105mm Micro but if I had the money, I would get one "in a heartbeat." I haven't heard any valid or repeated concerns with this lens.

I have tried the wet diopters with my own 105mm Micro 'D series' lens and cannot get it to work. Focus becomes a serious issue. I have finally found one of Nikon's 3T internal close-up lenses and it works superbly. This is the way I will continue to work in the future.

 

Kenko is the teleconverter of choice. However, the Tamron is 'supposed' to be from the same factory...

 

When I started chasing super macro, I found a few Wetpixel members VERY friendly and helpful. Read the thread that you are in very carefully for your questions and then contact those members for your answers.

 

I have heard mixed reports about the new 'G series' 60mm Micro. I will be trying to buy it for the IF value of the thing, alone...

 

HTH, . . . . and please re-read my opening line.

 

Bruce

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am picking up some new stuff tomorrow....a 70-200VR topside lens, an SB-900 flash and 2 Kenko TCs (1.2x and 2x). I too am keen to try them on my 105VR this week in Lembeh. I may also slap a Inon wet diopter to the front of my Athena port on top of this. My question is how do you customize your focus gears to work with the added length of TCs? Do I just slap it to manual focus and move the rig forwards and back to obtain focus? I can't imagine AF would work well......would it??

Edited by eskasi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a baby goby on 4.5:1 on film days:

249039665_0a3071d094_o.jpg

 

This is his dad on the same setup:

249039806_c2151a7fe4_o.jpg

 

These pictures are only 8 x 5.33 mm!!!

They would look like 6.75:1 on my D300 (but would still be technically 4.5:1).

I heard cases of a few guys who tried to go past 1:1 and simply didn't make it.

I use Kenko Pro300 3x TC and Kenko AF ETs. But I have to lock everything in the max magnification and hunt for the subjects.

I also have the specification for the ports on Sea&Sea system for up to 6.25:1 magnification if you want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just finished a series of small articles on supermacro on my home page.

If the guys at the UWPhoto Resources site wants to use it or link it, feel free to do it.

I tried to use the most updated and correct info available on equipment and the most precise technical info.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all,

 

I ve purchased 1+, 2+, 4+ filters on top of my Nikon 60mm Macro Lens (Old Model).

You will see the results below.

Final shot was taken by adding up all three filters and woody's wet lens on the Nexus Macro port ;

 

 

1 - 60 mm macro

 

2- 60 mm macro + 1+

 

3- 60 mm macro + 2+

 

4- 60 mm macro + 2+ 1+

 

5- 60 mm macro + 4+

 

6- 60 mm macro + 4+ 1+

 

7- 60 mm macro + 4+ 2+

 

8- 60 mm macro + 4+ 2+ 1+

 

9- 60 mm macro + woody

 

10- 60 mm macro + 4+ 2+ 1+ woody

 

I hope this answers some of the questions.

 

Kerim Sabuncuoglu

Istanbul

Edited by kerimos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sponsors

Advertisements



×
×
  • Create New...