Super close macro?

bluestringer · 01-21-2013, 12:51 PM

Originally posted by audiobomber

Are you sure you don't mean cm instead of mm?

Oops..........yes you are correct. Never was good withe metric measurements. Nevermind.

FrancisK7 · 01-21-2013, 01:30 PM

How do you manage to get pictures like that with a fly? I'm lucky to get good results because the subject is stationary so I can use a tripod. With a Raynox the subjects need to be at 45.2mm from the lens. Getting sharp results so close, even stacking manually, must be very diffcult.

bluestringer · 01-21-2013, 02:00 PM

Originally posted by FrancisK7

How do you manage to get pictures like that with a fly? I'm lucky to get good results because the subject is stationary so I can use a tripod. With a Raynox the subjects need to be at 45.2mm from the lens. Getting sharp results so close, even stacking manually, must be very diffcult.

With the 100 f4 macro and 68mm of tubes I can focus between about 3 inches and 6 inches. Using the ring flash with 1/180 shutter speed and apertures between f8-f16. I use catch in focus and move my body and camera into the subject trying to get my center point on the area I want focus, camera fires when it gets focus. Using a tripod for insects just doesn't work for me, I'm moving around too much. The ring flash is what really helped me to get better macro images.

FrancisK7 · 01-21-2013, 02:04 PM

Originally posted by bluestringer

With the 100 f4 macro and 68mm of tubes I can focus between about 3 inches and 6 inches. Using the ring flash with 1/180 shutter speed and apertures between f8-f16. I use catch in focus and move my body and camera into the subject trying to get my center point on the area I want focus, camera fires when it gets focus. Using a tripod for insects just doesn't work for me, I'm moving around too much. The ring flash is what really helped me to get better macro images.

Very good information, thank you. I don't exactly understand the physics of it but using a system like the Raynox forces you to work 45mm away.

Was this fly picture a stack or a single exposure?

audiobomber · 01-21-2013, 02:34 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by FrancisK7

Very good information, thank you. I don't exactly understand the physics of it but using a system like the Raynox forces you to work 45mm away.

Was this fly picture a stack or a single exposure?

Note that a 100mm f4 macro with 68mm extension tubes gives a maximum magnification of 1.2:1, which is only 20% higher than your D FA macro on its own. With a Raynox 250 on your lens, you're getting about 3:1 IIRC, so it's no wonder you have to contend with short subject distances and miniscule DOF.

Here's a page that will help you figure out magnifications:
www.peterforsell.com

FrancisK7 · 01-21-2013, 02:44 PM

Dan, if I use a telephoto with a reversed small prime at the end, is the quality of one piece more important than the other?

I could use something like the 300mm f/4 with the DA21?

Then the question becomes, for that money, would I get better quality with a microscope?

audiobomber · 01-21-2013, 03:09 PM

Originally posted by FrancisK7

Dan, if I use a telephoto with a reversed small prime at the end, is the quality of one piece more important than the other?

I could use something like the 300mm f/4 with the DA21?

Then the question becomes, for that money, would I get better quality with a microscope?

The quality of both lenses is important. A DA 21mm will not work. You need a lens with an aperture ring so you can set it to wide open. There are many inexpensive 28mm lenses from third party manufacturers that are quite high quality. Third party 24mm lenses usually cost significantly more and have more aberrations. Going below 24mm is feasible but much more costly.

As I mentioned, I know nothing about microscopy. Stone G's comments in this thread don't seem too positive. Another potential solution would be to combine two macro systems:
extension tubes +reversed short prime lens sounds promising,
extension tubes + macro lens + Raynox,
extension tubes + lens + reversed lens

Beware, you're on your way to smaller subject distances and even more miniscule DOF. Good luck, this is real specialty stuff.

FrancisK7 · 01-21-2013, 03:16 PM

Yeah, I figured about that. I'll need a rail for sure then.

Now that I understand what lens stacking means, I just have to find a 28mm that matches my criteria (IQ, Price). The mount doesn't matter since I'm not using it. Makes sense now

Something like this and Pentax 300mm would work well. I'm getting a D800 soon so makes sense to get it in F mount.

Allison · 01-21-2013, 07:33 PM - **1 Like**

I haven't yet needed more magnification than my macros and some extension tubes, so I am not experienced in the lens stacking, but I understand it. Just remember that since you don't need autofocus and you do need an aperture ring, there are some good quality glass options out there that aren't too expensive.

As far as rails go, of course, that $600 one is beyond sweet...but until you are ready to jump in that far, look at the cowboy student ones on amazon and the flashpoint ones on adorama. I know there are a few people on the forums who have had success with them. I have a coyboy studio one that I got for Christmas and so far I have been very happy.

I am jealous of you getting a D800! I am still holding out hope that we will see the FF from Pentax in 2013. You might want a rail when you get the D800 since the FF sensor is going to give you a shallower DOF.

Not a Number · 01-22-2013, 12:15 AM - **1 Like**

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/130066-how-cal...tion-rate.html

Bob from Aus · 01-22-2013, 02:00 PM

Originally posted by Stone G.

Yep, very simple: Two cardboard tubes, one sliding inside the other; a polarizing filter on top and an LED-lamp/or a flash/or a 45 degree tilted mirror at the bottom.

Thanks - very clever

FrancisK7 · 01-28-2013, 11:22 AM

Ok, the Stackshot is on its way. I couldn't resist. It's an addiction. DON'T JUDGE ME!!!

PS. Could I reverse my DA35 Macro at the end of a 300mm?

Allison · 02-17-2013, 09:25 PM

Originally posted by FrancisK7

Ok, the Stackshot is on its way. I couldn't resist. It's an addiction. DON'T JUDGE ME!!!

PS. Could I reverse my DA35 Macro at the end of a 300mm?

I am jealous of the stackshot...

But onto your question, no. You can't use the da35 macro because it doesn't have an aperture ring.

Pascal78 · 02-18-2013, 08:42 AM

Usualy, for flies and small flying insects, 180mm (or now the 150mm sigma) are prefered. It would be the maximum, as you also loose depth of field by increase the focal (at same aperture), that is why 300mm are not often used for macro. So 50mm for things that does not moove, 100mm for all around macro, and 150-180 for flying things.

01-21-2013, 03:16 PM	#53
FrancisK7 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Montreal Photos: Gallery Posts: 474 Original Poster	Yeah, I figured about that. I'll need a rail for sure then. Now that I understand what lens stacking means, I just have to find a 28mm that matches my criteria (IQ, Price). The mount doesn't matter since I'm not using it. Makes sense now Something like this and Pentax 300mm would work well. I'm getting a D800 soon so makes sense to get it in F mount. Last edited by FrancisK7; 01-21-2013 at 03:27 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
For Sale - Sold: Super-Macro-Takumar 1:4/50 50mm macro (price Reduced)	bobrapp	Sold Items	7	12-29-2012 09:18 PM
Macro Close-up Macro	moste72	Post Your Photos!	8	07-10-2012 06:50 AM
Nature 5 pics from recent work - close up and true macro	margriet	Post Your Photos!	9	06-21-2012 05:13 AM
Zoom Lens into Macro using close up diopter?	Gsmp	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	5	03-03-2011 10:20 PM
super close macro	trev99	Pentax DSLR Discussion	23	02-01-2007 02:28 PM

01-21-2013, 12:51 PM	#46
bluestringer Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: Cotton fields of South Georgia Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,748	Originally posted by audiobomber Are you sure you don't mean cm instead of mm? Oops..........yes you are correct. Never was good withe metric measurements. Nevermind.

01-21-2013, 01:30 PM	#47
FrancisK7 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Montreal Photos: Gallery Posts: 474 Original Poster	How do you manage to get pictures like that with a fly? I'm lucky to get good results because the subject is stationary so I can use a tripod. With a Raynox the subjects need to be at 45.2mm from the lens. Getting sharp results so close, even stacking manually, must be very diffcult.

01-21-2013, 02:00 PM	#48
bluestringer Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: Cotton fields of South Georgia Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,748	Originally posted by FrancisK7 How do you manage to get pictures like that with a fly? I'm lucky to get good results because the subject is stationary so I can use a tripod. With a Raynox the subjects need to be at 45.2mm from the lens. Getting sharp results so close, even stacking manually, must be very diffcult. With the 100 f4 macro and 68mm of tubes I can focus between about 3 inches and 6 inches. Using the ring flash with 1/180 shutter speed and apertures between f8-f16. I use catch in focus and move my body and camera into the subject trying to get my center point on the area I want focus, camera fires when it gets focus. Using a tripod for insects just doesn't work for me, I'm moving around too much. The ring flash is what really helped me to get better macro images.

01-21-2013, 02:04 PM	#49
FrancisK7 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Montreal Photos: Gallery Posts: 474 Original Poster	Originally posted by bluestringer With the 100 f4 macro and 68mm of tubes I can focus between about 3 inches and 6 inches. Using the ring flash with 1/180 shutter speed and apertures between f8-f16. I use catch in focus and move my body and camera into the subject trying to get my center point on the area I want focus, camera fires when it gets focus. Using a tripod for insects just doesn't work for me, I'm moving around too much. The ring flash is what really helped me to get better macro images. Very good information, thank you. I don't exactly understand the physics of it but using a system like the Raynox forces you to work 45mm away. Was this fly picture a stack or a single exposure?

01-21-2013, 02:34 PM - 1 Like	#50
audiobomber Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Sudbury, Ontario Photos: Albums Posts: 6,806	Originally posted by FrancisK7 Very good information, thank you. I don't exactly understand the physics of it but using a system like the Raynox forces you to work 45mm away. Was this fly picture a stack or a single exposure? Note that a 100mm f4 macro with 68mm extension tubes gives a maximum magnification of 1.2:1, which is only 20% higher than your D FA macro on its own. With a Raynox 250 on your lens, you're getting about 3:1 IIRC, so it's no wonder you have to contend with short subject distances and miniscule DOF. Here's a page that will help you figure out magnifications: www.peterforsell.com

01-21-2013, 02:44 PM	#51
FrancisK7 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Montreal Photos: Gallery Posts: 474 Original Poster	Dan, if I use a telephoto with a reversed small prime at the end, is the quality of one piece more important than the other? I could use something like the 300mm f/4 with the DA21? Then the question becomes, for that money, would I get better quality with a microscope?

01-21-2013, 03:09 PM	#52
audiobomber Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Sudbury, Ontario Photos: Albums Posts: 6,806	Originally posted by FrancisK7 Dan, if I use a telephoto with a reversed small prime at the end, is the quality of one piece more important than the other? I could use something like the 300mm f/4 with the DA21? Then the question becomes, for that money, would I get better quality with a microscope? The quality of both lenses is important. A DA 21mm will not work. You need a lens with an aperture ring so you can set it to wide open. There are many inexpensive 28mm lenses from third party manufacturers that are quite high quality. Third party 24mm lenses usually cost significantly more and have more aberrations. Going below 24mm is feasible but much more costly. As I mentioned, I know nothing about microscopy. Stone G's comments in this thread don't seem too positive. Another potential solution would be to combine two macro systems: extension tubes +reversed short prime lens sounds promising, extension tubes + macro lens + Raynox, extension tubes + lens + reversed lens Beware, you're on your way to smaller subject distances and even more miniscule DOF. Good luck, this is real specialty stuff.

01-21-2013, 07:33 PM - 1 Like	#54
Allison Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Pittsburgh, PA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 667	I haven't yet needed more magnification than my macros and some extension tubes, so I am not experienced in the lens stacking, but I understand it. Just remember that since you don't need autofocus and you do need an aperture ring, there are some good quality glass options out there that aren't too expensive. As far as rails go, of course, that $600 one is beyond sweet...but until you are ready to jump in that far, look at the cowboy student ones on amazon and the flashpoint ones on adorama. I know there are a few people on the forums who have had success with them. I have a coyboy studio one that I got for Christmas and so far I have been very happy. I am jealous of you getting a D800! I am still holding out hope that we will see the FF from Pentax in 2013. You might want a rail when you get the D800 since the FF sensor is going to give you a shallower DOF.

01-22-2013, 12:15 AM - 1 Like	#55
Not a Number Moderator Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: Venice, CA Posts: 10,526	https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/130066-how-cal...tion-rate.html

01-22-2013, 02:00 PM	#56
Bob from Aus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,094	Originally posted by Stone G. Yep, very simple: Two cardboard tubes, one sliding inside the other; a polarizing filter on top and an LED-lamp/or a flash/or a 45 degree tilted mirror at the bottom. Thanks - very clever

01-28-2013, 11:22 AM	#57
FrancisK7 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Montreal Photos: Gallery Posts: 474 Original Poster	Ok, the Stackshot is on its way. I couldn't resist. It's an addiction. DON'T JUDGE ME!!! PS. Could I reverse my DA35 Macro at the end of a 300mm?

02-17-2013, 09:25 PM	#58
Allison Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Pittsburgh, PA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 667	Originally posted by FrancisK7 Ok, the Stackshot is on its way. I couldn't resist. It's an addiction. DON'T JUDGE ME!!! PS. Could I reverse my DA35 Macro at the end of a 300mm? I am jealous of the stackshot... But onto your question, no. You can't use the da35 macro because it doesn't have an aperture ring.

02-18-2013, 08:42 AM	#59
Pascal78 New Member Join Date: Feb 2013 Posts: 2	Usualy, for flies and small flying insects, 180mm (or now the 150mm sigma) are prefered. It would be the maximum, as you also loose depth of field by increase the focal (at same aperture), that is why 300mm are not often used for macro. So 50mm for things that does not moove, 100mm for all around macro, and 150-180 for flying things.