macro lenses

[jann1033]

i was reading someplace( ??) a teleconverter will increase the magnification on a macro lens and wondered if anyone has ever done this...i was trying to find some photos of that and wondered if they would be like the ones where you can see the compound eye parts of a bug or even more magnified.

i also read ( probably the same place i can't remember) that the needed focal length would somehow change as to the sensor...ie for rebel xt size a 60 mm macro lens would be ok, larger sensor needs a 100mm...so i wonder since mine is 100mm would that change the magnification any? not sure why they stipulated the different focal lengths for sensor sizes and it didn't explain just said the rebel sensor size used 60mm etc.

also, what tripod head do you use for macro..right now my tripod has a panning head and it is driving me crazy...actually using a tripod period drives me crazy since i have zero patience for" shorten the legs, lengthen the legs shorten 2 legs lengthen one leg junk" so i can position it where i want to....but i guess it's a necessary evil..figuring a monopod wouldn't be enough support for macro stuff. i am figuring a ball head would be better but wondered about what others use

do you use a macro ring? if i used a telecon. with my lens it would up it to f 4.5 or would it be 4 ?( it's 3.5 now)so thinking the ring might help with light issues

 

[MICKEY88]

i was reading someplace( ??) a teleconverter will increase the magnification on a macro lens and wondered if anyone has ever done this...i was trying to find some photos of that and wondered if they would be like the ones where you can see the compound eye parts of a bug or even more magnified.

i also read ( probably the same place i can't remember) that the needed focal length would somehow change as to the sensor...ie for rebel xt size a 60 mm macro lens would be ok, larger sensor needs a 100mm...so i wonder since mine is 100mm would that change the magnification any? not sure why they stipulated the different focal lengths for sensor sizes and it didn't explain just said the rebel sensor size used 60mm etc.

also, what tripod head do you use for macro..right now my tripod has a panning head and it is driving me crazy...actually using a tripod period drives me crazy since i have zero patience for" shorten the legs, lengthen the legs shorten 2 legs lengthen one leg junk" so i can position it where i want to....but i guess it's a necessary evil..figuring a monopod wouldn't be enough support for macro stuff. i am figuring a ball head would be better but wondered about what others use

do you use a macro ring? if i used a telecon. with my lens it would up it to f 4.5 or would it be 4 ?( it's 3.5 now)so thinking the ring might help with light issues

I have this head on 2 of my tripods...

http://cgi.ebay.com/PROFESSIONAL-CAMERA-TRIPOD-GRIP-ACTION-BALL-HEAD-ATH918_W0QQitemZ200069405520QQihZ010QQcategoryZ30095QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem



and this one on my monopod...

http://cgi.ebay.com/PROFESSIONAL-CAMERA-TRIPOD-ACTION-BALL-HEAD-NEW-ATH-H92_W0QQitemZ200069521327QQihZ010QQcategoryZ30095QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

they both do an excellent job, and are fast to change and lock in place..

 

[Groucho]

Are you sure you're not mixing up extension tubes with teleconverters?

You might be able to use TCs for that but I know that extension tubes are fairly commonly used to make (nearly) any lens a macro.

For a tripod head, I use a relatively small Bogen 484RC2, which usually goes for slightly over $50. I bid several times on Anvona heads but just never got one for what I wanted to and got impatient. (I also wasn't pleased that the holster bag I bought from them was junk! But supposedly their support systems are pretty nice.)

I have pan heads on a couple old cheap tripods (with non-removable heads) but I think I much prefer the ball head. If you're photographing still lifes, though, a pan head is probably superior, allowing better control of the axises.

 

[jann1033]

no it was teleconverters..i was looking at them trying to decide between lens and it mentioned you can use them for macro...it increases the magnification but doesn't change the distance you can focus ( well i know it ups the magnification and doesnt change something else) but i have seem some macro photos that are so close you can't really tell what the object is and i wondered if that was what they used for that, which could be fun but not really what i am after...i can't seem to find the exif info for those shots on photography on the net etc so i was hoping someone on here had used them. i may get a gorillap pod and a ball head and wrap it around my tripod..except for the none removable head( which i tried to remove and now it slips more than it did ) the tripod is in great shape and i hate to spend money on something i hate anyway

 

[sk8belle]

I thought I'd resurrect this thread.

 

[handicap18]

Forgot about this thread. I got a new (well new to me) macro lens a few weeks back. Haven't had much chance to use it, but here are a few:

 

[matthew_hull]

Terrific capture, We-Luv-Disney! You have to be fast with these guys.

 

[Lachesis00]

Wow these are some amazing posts!

 

[jann1033]

 

[sk8belle]

Feeling a little prickly today, jann? Hey, someone had to go there. That's amazing detail on that shot. What lens did you use?

 

[jann1033]

Feeling a little prickly today, jann? Hey, someone had to go there. That's amazing detail on that shot. What lens did you use?

guess i'm stuck on these cacti ( oh where is the nose holding smilie for seriously bad jokes when you need it ) i used my phoenix 100mm macro with the 1:1 adapter

 

[Michele]

I found about 8 of these little guys running around on the rail of our deck a while ago. I took the pic with the bottle cap for size comparison. They were so tiny it was hard to get the focus on them. I missed a little in the 1st and 3rd pics.

 

[jann1033]

I found about 8 of these little guys running around on the rail of our deck a while ago. I took the pic with the bottle cap for size comparison. They were so tiny it was hard to get the focus on them. I missed a little in the 1st and 3rd pics.

they look like baby praying mantis??

 

[Michele]

they look like baby praying mantis??

Yes, that's what they were, I forgot to mention that in the post.

 

[cryssi]

Just want to know what you all suggest. I make jewelry and would like to take pics to put online. In the past, I've used the SD400 macro setting, which is fine, but would it be worth investing in a macro lens for the D200? Or just use extension tubes. At this point, I'm not really doing any macro photography, although I think it is really interesting and if I had a lens, I might get some use out of it?

Thanks!

c

 

[handicap18]

I'd say go for getting a macro lens. If you can, find a used one keh.com has some good selections. I got a Tamron 90mm f/2.85 Macro which is crazy sharp and a great lens. There are many many different focal lengths you can get. 24mm, 28mm, 60mm, 90mm, 105mm, 180mm and I'm sure I missed others as well. Prices will vary, the Nikkor lenses are more expensive. It depends really on what your budget is. They definately are a lot of fun once you get using one. I really like mine.

 

[cryssi]

thanks! I'll check it out...

 

[tinksdad]

I agree with Kyle. If you have the D200 then a micro/macro is the way to go. I've heard good things about the I have one of the older 105mm (without VR) and its a blast to use. Sharp, great color and easy to manual focus.

Another thought that will help with jewelry product photos is to have some sort of off camera lighting. A light box or at least some panels is a MUCH better way to get the light you want on the jewelry.

Do a search for the subject and it'll turn up many interesting sites.

 

[jann1033]

don't know nothin bout no Nee-kons but by the time you buy af extension tube( for canon i think they are around 80 or so) you probably would get close to what you'd pay for a used lens so why bother with the extension.. plus you can always use a real lens for non macro

 

[donaldduck1967]