[mickeyobe]

I found out what diopter means.

Though, in quality, are extension tubes better than reverse ring, especially regarding the focus zone?

How about Raynox cdr-250 vs extension tubes? Did any tried both?

YJD,

Extension tubes have 2 or more sections giving you a selection of different magnifications.

A reverse ring only has 1 section but you will probably achieve higher quality with a reverse ring.
Indeed, all macro devices should be used with the lens reversed.

I think a bellows will give you the greatest versatility as it has not just 2 or 3 or 4 settings but an infinite number that will give you much greater magnification and framing capability than a set of extension tubes. It is a little more cumbersome to use but the results are worth it. If you get a bellows try to get one with an attached scale showing extension and magnification.

Focussing for Macro, which is always done with the lens wide open, is easier if the lens can be stopped down and opened up automatically but stopping the aperture down manually is a very fast and simple step. My first SLR, an Exacta only had a manually stopped down lens and it never presented a problem.

I think you could very well start with a reverse ring, which you should use regardless, until you you decide what other device you prefer. Then you can use the reverse ring on the tubes or the bellows for maximum quality so it would not be a wasted purchase.

Remember, your depth of field will always be extremely narrow and will diminish with increased magnification.

Regardless of what you use a good sturdy tripod is essential. Also a cable release or the camera's self timer should be used to avoid camera movement.

The entire macro process is much, much simpler than it used to be thanks to through the lens metering. Just imagine measuring your extension and calculating your exposure for each picture.

Mickey

[YJD]

Thank you very much you all... I remember one of the many reason I bought a Pentax, it was because of this forum and all the individual giving so nicely professional advice (not like another forum I'm thinking about).

I think I will test hand held reverse lens this weekend (i won't guess the sharpest pictures, but it will allow me to test drive it). If I do like it, I'll get a reverse ring.

Then I'll see either extension tubes or the Raynox which a lot of people love when they start playing with it (read that in different forums).

Have a good weekend guys!

[cardinal43]

You'll see my reflection on the ant's ass.

That ant said..."if you get any closer, introduce yourself."

I won't mind using a 105mm but do you know any of them that are cheap and good?

Anyway, does any body as experience with the Raynox in order to compare the solutions?

I have used most of the macro options on here. In the end it all depends on what you are shooting IMO... If it is stationary objects then a bellows unit is the most accurate/adjustable option.
The rev ring probably has the highest Mag but the shallowest DOF.

For me the simplest and cheaper option is the raynox 250 with the DA 50-200 and almost any other lens you have.

There are folks doing some really nice macros with it (do a search on here) They are getting results that spank mine. But you get the idea. For 45 bucks it is a decent piece of glass that is usable on many different lenses. The real advantage for me is that I can be taking a shot of a bug... and a hummingbird lands on a flower in the garden... all I have to do is clip the raynox off and the DA 50-200 is ready to go. Other than a dedicated macro lens... it is the only option that can do that.

This is a test shot I did for someone to show what it could do. It is at 110mm on the lens so it could have got closer.


And it works with the fast 50's too. Here is an artsy flower shot with the 250 on a S-M-C tak 50 1.4

[Moo]

Apart from the clip-mount thing, is the Raynox any different to any other macro/close-up lens/"filter"?

[Moo]

Another option, that doesn't seem to have been mentioned yet, is a ring to connect one lens,reversed, in front of a normally-mounted lens, using the filter threads.

[YJD]

I'm back!

I tried to manually reverse my lens. I tried with all of them and the best one is my 50mm f1.4. Though it is very are to manage the light. My internal flash just gives too much light (setting up could have helped but I don't know how to do that.
If you want to see what are my good shot, just visit my blog or directly click here.

I think I might be buying a Raynox, people are so happy with it, but is it better to manage the lighting?

Thank you all.

[RioRico]

Some thoughts on macro-ality:

* I have never liked diopter lenses or other add-on lenses, just as I don't care to put two lenses nose-to nose (fast lens on camera body --> male-male thread adapter --> fast lens reversed) because the extra air-to-glass interfaces tend to increase reflections and optical bothers. Some of the Raynox photos posted look pretty good, which I attribute to user skill.

* Short prime 'macro' lenses, like a cheap AMC 28/2.8 in my possession, are IMHO rather useless. Either they aren't very 'macro' or they require getting REAL close to your subject, but at least you usually get pretty fair DOF. Longer lenses let you work further from the subject; get too long, and you're either shaking or you're on a tripod, or a rifle stock (see below).

* Extension rings (ERs) are cheap and handy. I recently ordered 2 sets, was shipped 4 sets, and I've had great fun affixing the extra pieces to lens casings that would be otherwise very difficult to mount on my K20D. But using rings can be clumsy, especially when you want to change magnification. So, GO BELLOWS!

* Bellows provide the most flexibility in macro work, both to use many different kinds of lenses, and to fine-tune the focus and magnification. I find that one or two sets of ERs, and the appropriate lens-reversal adapters, make the bellows a universal tool. Why the ERs? Depending on the weight of the lens used, they can be added to either end of the bellows to achieve balance and stability.

* You can put almost ANY sort of lens on a bellows. With a reversal ring, you can use any non-Pentax lens with a front thread. With M39 and M42 adapters, you can use any of the scads of flat-field enlarger and projector lenses cheaply available. Lenses from view cams, folders, miscellaneous optical systems -- if you can plug it into the front standard, give it a go!

* Yes, with a bellows you lose all the focus and aperture automation. So you're free to uses lenses that were never automated. Right now I'm playing with the front element of a 305/7 Turner-Reich anastigmat from a 8x10 view cam, circa 1912. Yes, it wants to sit about 12 inches out. Yes, the entire lens assembly (front and rear elements, and shutter) weighs a ton (almost a kilo, actually), and that's why I just use the 290g front element. Yes, it's wide-open and soft. I guess I need to make some aperture discs.

* Back in the day, I put a 400mm Tamron on a bellows on my beloved Olympus Pen-FT, a 35mm half-frame SLR with the same crop factor as my current K20D. I think I used a 2X telextender also, giving me an effective FL of 1200mm. The entire rig was a bit shaky, so I got a rifle-stock camera holder. I looked like I was carrying a bazooka, but I could safely shoot closeups of rattlesnakes from 12 feet. You can buy a similar Zenit rig, the Fotosniper, complete with long lens and sometimes the M42 camera too, for a couple hundred bucks. Avoid police.

* Bellows plus a long long lens makes for a specialized (and unwieldy) kit. Bellows plus a (fast) lens in the 85-135mm range is handy for handheld shooting. Bellows plus a couple enlarger lenses (say, 75-100-135mm) gives you a cheap flexible kit that's usable from infinity to the infinitesimal. I like bellows.

* Finally: various macro-zoom and other long 'macro' lenses. Expensive macro lenses are designed for close-up work. Cheap macro lenses just have a long focus range. I have not tried expensive macro lenses. I have tried cheap macro-zooms, with less-than-sparkling results. I now use a Vivitar 90/2.8 "Auto Telephoto Macro" M42 that focuses quite close, giving 1:1 reproduction. (At infinity, the lens extends 3.5 inches; a closest focus, it's 8 inches long!) One of these days I'll post some images.

[fiveo]

I am also a beginner and interested in macro. I have been looking for a Vivitar 105 but I'm not going to pay the inflated prices that they are bringing right now. I didn't want to wait for a good deal to start doing macro so I bought a Pheonix 100mm f/3.5 1:1 macro lens from the marketplace for $100.00 to use for now. It looks like a piece of cheap junk but it takes awesome pictures. These lenses are easy to find in the various versions, Vivitar/Phoenix/Promaster. They are all the same lens. If you want a cheap dedicated macro lens without messing with adapters or bellows this is a good option.

[QUOTE=RioRico;307163]Some thoughts on macro-ality:

* I have never liked diopter lenses or other add-on lenses, just as I don't care to put two lenses nose-to nose (fast lens on camera body --> male-male thread adapter --> fast lens reversed) because the extra air-to-glass interfaces tend to increase reflections and optical bothers. Some of the Raynox photos posted look pretty good, which I attribute to user skill.


Hey RioRico, I just do not get what the issue is with the 'Air' on the raynox or other 2 diopter macro adaptors. Honestly I have the Vivitar 105 and use it exclusively on my K100d now, but before I got the vivi I used the raynox on the DA 50-200 and did just fine with it.
Just recently the k100 went in for service, so I grabbed the old Fuji P&S s6000 and put the raynox on it for old times sake. This is what I got the other day.
And the second one is from a long time ago with the same s6000 raynox 250...

Is there some user skill involved? Absolutely there is. Mighty Mike on here does amazing work with the raynox. But noone buys the vivitar 105 or tamron 90mm macro and immediately starts getting great shots. In fact I think the clip-on raynox may be easier than some of the other options mentioned. Ext. tubes eat up light pretty fast and the reversed lenses take some time to master also. I think for someone just beginnig to try macro the raynox is a good learning option. Everything you learn about macro DOF, focus and light/flash options will be useful of they go on and buy a dedicated macro later.

These are just my opinions... I already posted a fly and flower shot in this thread above with the raynox on a K100, so here are the two shots I mentioned from the P&S
s6000 and raynox 250

[vrmp]

You said that getting focus with +3 closeup is hard.
Unfortunatly, all other options are even harder! I think, the first you need is just practice. It's possible to get pretty good results with closeup lens on the top on standard zoom.

Try to work with and without autofocus. Try to undestand relations between DOF, focal length and closeup factor. Make pictures. Avoid anything without Auto Aperture (cheap extension tubes, bellows, reverse adapters - you are not ready for them).

[flyer]

Sure, it would be possible. But the depth of focus will be even more razor-thin.

How large things get blown up is more a function of the macro ratio (lens focal length : extension length ratio) and the big difference would be that with shorter focal length lenses, you have to have the end of the lens physically much closer to your subject to get the same framing, and the closer a subject is to your lens the more thin the DOF is. The extra length of the 105 versus a 50 allowed me a bit more "wiggle room" in the focusing.

To get the same size ratio with the 50-1.4 as you would get with the 105mm, you would get about the same depth of field. The closer distance gets offset by the shorter focal length.

[YJD]

VRMP, where can I find information about the relations between DOF, focal length and closeup factor? I'm interesting to find out.

I have been using my 18-55 lens kit, which as macro function, and took some good pictures (at least for me), but the macro isn't as close as I would like it to be. Here are some example, look at my site for more:

I was about at 1 feet away from that dragonfly.

I did leave everything in Auto except the focus. I think I'm doing not so bad with manual focus.

[barondla]

There are many different ways to shoot macro. Most have been mentioned. Love macro. Have macro lenses, reversing rings, lens stacking rings, closeup "filters" (including dual element), extension tubes, teleconverters, and bellows. Use them all.
For bug photography the most used are the: 105 and 200 macro lenses, extension tubes, and dual element closeup filters. Most moving bugs are very skittish and unwilling to let you get close. You want good magnification - but from a greater distance. You won't get good working distance with reversed lenses, your 18-55 with extension or closeup filter. I would do as Igilligan said. Take your 50-200, put a closeup filter, like the Raynox, on it and fire away. If the Raynox is dual element it can be very good quality. The catch is you need a different closeup filter for 50mm lenses than a 200mm. There are special 2 element closeup filters designed for telephotos (like your 50-200). They work much better. The quality of these can be very, very good. I use them on the Pentax 6x7 a lot. See what the Raynox is designed to work with. If not them check out Nikon, Sigma (called AML) and Canon. They all make them. If not the right screw thread size use an adapter ring.
Bellows are nice but painfully slow to use with moving bugs. No open aperture viewing to help focus. Mostly used indoors for "studio" setups. They are capable more magnification than is useful outdoors most of the time. Rarely use my bellows.
Extension tubes are nice. Use my 25mm a lot. This makes a 50mm very high magnification but moves you too close for skittish bugs. Takes a lot more extension tube length to do much with a 200mm lens. About 4-8"!
Usually use extension tubes to get a little more magnification with macro lenses (past 1:1). Also use when stacking lenses since most combos will severly vignette without it.
Best book I have ever seen on Macro is the famous John Shaw's CLOSEUPS IN NATURE. Easy to read and it makes sense. Get it.
thanks
barondla

Check out POINT & SHOOT CONTEST #9 WINNERS in P&S forum. Enter #10. Any type camera except slr. Any brand. Any subject. Enter now.

[nanok]

i am currently trying to figure out how cheap i can stay, doing some macro at least (as my lba is rampant and i have to keep it in check). the following are my atempts with a ridiculously cheap setup: a cheap m42 135/2.8 lens (yashinon), extension tubes (m42, dirt cheap), and an m42-pentaxk converter (as i have quite a few m42 lenses, the price of this one is not really added).

the problems, in short: it is hard to focus near 1/1 (this will be true for any macro setup, i think, and with some practice you get the hang of it), the long focal means nice working distance, nice bokeh, but also very shallow dof (maybe 50mm would be a better compromise? will have to try). the whole setup is big, the 135 is naturally quite heavy, and the pentaxk adapter has some play (hmm), this makes it a lot more "fun" than i planned. last but not least: this is not a macro lens, so the focus plane is not really plane (it's curved), it can be a pain for macro (see the butterflyes). maybe reversing the lens would work better (almost certainly), but i need bellows for that, to have some control. another trick which most people don't know (?) is to use enlarger lenses (you will of course need an adapter, and maybe bellows, as they tend to have no focusing built in), the funny thing is that they tend to be very cheap these days, because of the digital age (i have yet to try one, though, been planning to for years).

enough talk, have a look here, for some (clumsy) examples of what one can get with as-cheap-as-it-gets a setup

macro, 2nd run