[Dewman]

Do I understand this correctly in that one can take a prime lens and by using some sort of adapter, attach it to the camera body and thus have a setup for macro shooting? I would assume that the adapter would screw into the filter threads and the other end would have a bayonet (K) mount.

If my assumption is correct, then it would be strictly a manual focus and apperature setting affair... correct?

Is such a thing possible with a zoom lens as well?

Which focal length would be best for a beginner to try first?

Thanks in advance for any replies.
Dewman

[jatrax]

Yes that is correct. Im on my phone or I would find the link but if you search the forum for "cheap macro" there is an article by member RioRico that explains all about it.

[Dewman]

Yes that is correct. Im on my phone or I would find the link but if you search the forum for "cheap macro" there is an article by member RioRico that explains all about it.

Thanks. That's a very comprehensive article and certainly tells me EVERYTHING I need or wanted to know about the subject.

[stevebrot]

If my assumption is correct, then it would be strictly a manual focus and apperature setting affair... correct?

manual aperture, yes
manual focus, sort of

Moving the focus ring does nothing. Focus is done by moving the camera relative to the subject.


Steve

[Dewman]

Not to belabor the subject, but if I understand this correctly, I could get a tube extender and accomplish the same as the lens reversal, right? Which would be better, in your opinion, keeping in mind that I'm a true newbee in the field of macro photography. I read that one could also remove the glass from a tele-converter and it would serve as a tube extension. Would I be correct in assuming that "more is better," meaning that the longer the tube, the better, within reasonable limits, of course?

Thanks for entertaining my questions.

Dewman
Idaho

[SoftwareArtifex]

A longer extension moves the focus range closer to the image plane, to the point where you may have the subject in contact with the glass trying to focus. More isn't better, you just use what you need to make the picture you want.

[dcBear78]

You still have aperture control with the lens on the camera. My experiments I found it best to leave the one in front wide open. There is little focus ability though and I had to just move the camera to achieve this.

Here is an example I have using an FA77 on camera with an A50 1.7 hand held in front. I chose f11 as I wanted the softer look. This is a tiny flower, about 1cm across and the lens was almost touching it.


Macro Kalanchoe by -dcBear78-

[Steve.Ledger]

I had a dabble in it with the 18-55mm lens on my K-01
Was fun while it lasted.. Novelty wore off quickly though. Luckily the reversing rings are cheap on ebay. Just be careful you don't over tighten the ring as the threads are not very well machined and can grab hold of your lens so tight they're a devil to unscrew.

I had a simple setup with natural light that worked well enough.

K-01 with reversed 18-55mm shooting some cherry tomatoes:








This one is raw sugar granules.

[baro-nite]

Not to belabor the subject, but if I understand this correctly, I could get a tube extender and accomplish the same as the lens reversal, right? Which would be better, in your opinion, keeping in mind that I'm a true newbee in the field of macro photography. I read that one could also remove the glass from a tele-converter and it would serve as a tube extension. Would I be correct in assuming that "more is better," meaning that the longer the tube, the better, within reasonable limits, of course?

There's a guideline that for 1:1 (magnification) and below, use the lens mounted normally with extension. For higher magnifications, reverse the lens and use extension.

Best approach depends on what lenses you already own and what magnifications you're interested in. Lens reversal is a great technique but it's not the most user-friendly: the working distance is small, making lighting tricky (you can easily shadow the subject with the lens), and you lose open-aperture metering (if you stop down the lens much the viewfinder becomes very dark). Also, high-magnification work is tricky for various other reasons.

Still, if you already have one or more lenses with aperture ring, experimenting with extension, reversal, and lens stacking is a fairly cheap way to start. If, however, all your lenses are DA (no aperture ring), you might want to try a Raynox (supplemental lens).

[LesDMess]

Would I be correct in assuming that "more is better," meaning that the longer the tube, the better, within reasonable limits, of course?
Dewman
Idaho

Tubes only go so far so if you need more magnification, you can use bellows.




If you need more magnification then maybe a microscope setup would suit you better.





More magnification may be better but the limits will be your ability to focus as the subject will get darker and depth of field becomes extremely shallow.

[Doundounba]

Lens reversal is a great technique but it's not the most user-friendly: the working distance is small, making lighting tricky (you can easily shadow the subject with the lens), and you lose open-aperture metering (if you stop down the lens much the viewfinder becomes very dark). Also, high-magnification work is tricky for various other reasons.

baro-nite gives good advice here. Don't forget that it's not just about picking the right equipment - you also need to familiarize yourself with the techniques. Shooting high magnification macro is not trivial, and if you go right for the reversed 28mm on a bazillion tubes, you risk antagonizing yourself, so to speak, and simply deciding that macro isn't for you. If you don't want to buy a 1:1 macro lens, or a Raynox, then I'd recommend starting out by reversing a manual 50mm with an aperture ring. This will give you about 1:1. Shooting this will be harder than shooting a regular macro lens at the same magnification, but should provide you with a reasonable entry point into the macro world... And remember to have fun!