Macro compromise for D70

[paul]

C J Campbell wrote:

> "paul" wrote:

>>
>>What distinguishes that as a micro lense then? My 28-200 zoom includes a
>>60mm possibility but no matter the zoom it'll only get 1.3 ft close.

>
>
> Very close focusing down to 8 3/4 inches. By itself I can get 1:2.38 object
> to focal plane ratio which is a little better than the 1:2.8 it gets with 35
> mm film. A 1:2.38 ratio means that a 23.8 mm dot will be 10 mm on the CCD. I
> can focus close enough that a 2 inch square will just fit horizontally on
> the CCD... It is like scanning the object at 1200 dpi.

Amazing! On my old pocket digicam I could focus to 7 inches &
photographed a mm scale then used that scale to measure field photos I
had shot at the same distance. My D70 with a 200mm zoom scales about
2-3/4" wide.

> Fitting extension tubes to the lens would enable even more close focusing
> to 1:1 or better.
>
> BTW, have you tried using a scanner for some of your photomacrography?
> Scanners can create very high resolution 1:1 images, albeit depth of field
> is shallow. You can arrange all manner of objects, even drape the background
> with different kinds of cloth, and the scanner will act just like an 8x14
> view camera with macro lens.

Yes I have:
<http://www.edgehill.net/grasses/melica/junkyard-melic-scans/index.htm>
It is pretty cool and easy. I think that was about 1200dpi I don't
recall. Um, no those were done holding an old slide projector lense
against the lense of a pocket digicam. That only focused at about 1/4
inch from the subject! Here's a scanner image (big file, sorry):
<http://www.edgehill.net/nodding-brome/nodding-brome0a.jpg>

[C J Campbell]

"Rita Ä Berkowitz" <ritaberk2O04@aol.com `> wrote in message
news:10tjl5t8fmhr4ea@news.supernews.com...

> C J Campbell wrote:

> >>
> >> Macro focusing. The current 60mm Micro Nikkor focuses to 8 3/4
> >> inches, giving a 1:1 reproduction ratio.

> >
> > Actually, it only gives you 1:2.8 on 35 mm film, or 1:2.375 on the
> > D70. To get 1:1 you still need extension tubes.

>
> I always thought the 60mm gave you 1:1 on 35mm film and slightly more on

the

> D70?
>
> [url]http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=5&productNr=1987[/url]

You are, of course, absolutely correct. I am a complete idiot who left the
limit switch on while making his measurements. I think I'll just crawl into
a hole now. I should know better than to write this stuff when tired.

Okay, at closest focusing distance I can fit just 7/8" on the 1" screen,
making it slightly larger than 1:1.

[C J Campbell]

"C J Campbell" <christophercampbellNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:O-GdnQ9sjpwQUUTcRVn-vg@wavecable.com...

>
> "paul" <paul@not.net> wrote in message
> news:6pudnSWF5Zd9BkTcRVn-qw@speakeasy.net...

> > C J Campbell wrote:

> > >
> > > I use the 60 mm Micro as a normal lens. It works very well and makes
> > > especially nice portraits.

> >
> >
> > What distinguishes that as a micro lense then? My 28-200 zoom includes a
> > 60mm possibility but no matter the zoom it'll only get 1.3 ft close.

>
> Very close focusing down to 8 3/4 inches. By itself I can get 1:2.38

object

> to focal plane ratio which is a little better than the 1:2.8 it gets with

35

> mm film. A 1:2.38 ratio means that a 23.8 mm dot will be 10 mm on the CCD.

I

> can focus close enough that a 2 inch square will just fit horizontally on
> the CCD, but only 2/3 of it vertically. (I actually tested this against a
> ruler; the 60 mm Micro Nikkor gives you a little more magnification than

it

> does on a film camera.) It is like scanning the object at 1200 dpi.

Fitting

> extension tubes to the lens would enable even more close focusing to 1:1

or

> better.
>
> BTW, have you tried using a scanner for some of your photomacrography?
> Scanners can create very high resolution 1:1 images, albeit depth of field
> is shallow. You can arrange all manner of objects, even drape the

background

> with different kinds of cloth, and the scanner will act just like an 8x14
> view camera with macro lens.

OK, Paul, a little bit of a correction. The Micro lens does a little better
than 1:1 if you don't leave the stupid limit switch on. You can fill the 1
inch sensor with an object that is only 7/8 inch across.

[Phil Stripling]

"C J Campbell" <christophercampbellNOSPAM@hotmail.com> writes:

> "Phil Stripling" <phil_stripling@cieux.zzn.com> wrote in message
> news:3qzmzqryo1.fsf@shell4.tdl.com...

> > paul <paul@not.net> writes:
> >

> > > What distinguishes that as a micro lense then? My 28-200 zoom includes a
> > > 60mm possibility but no matter the zoom it'll only get 1.3 ft close.

> >
> > Macro focusing. The current 60mm Micro Nikkor focuses to 8 3/4 inches,
> > giving a 1:1 reproduction ratio.

>
> Actually, it only gives you 1:2.8 on 35 mm film, or 1:2.375 on the D70. To
> get 1:1 you still need extension tubes.

Hmm. Maybe that's the distinction?

--
Phil Stripling | email to the replyto address is presumed
The Civilized Explorer | spam and read later. email from this URL
[url]http://www.cieux.com/[/url] | [url]http://www.civex.com/[/url] is read daily.

[C J Campbell]

"Phil Stripling" <phil_stripling@cieux.zzn.com> wrote in message
news:3qis6eukey.fsf@shell4.tdl.com...

> "C J Campbell" <christophercampbellNOSPAM@hotmail.com> writes:
>

> > "Phil Stripling" <phil_stripling@cieux.zzn.com> wrote in message
> > news:3qzmzqryo1.fsf@shell4.tdl.com...

> > > paul <paul@not.net> writes:
> > >
> > > > What distinguishes that as a micro lense then? My 28-200 zoom

includes a

> > > > 60mm possibility but no matter the zoom it'll only get 1.3 ft close.
> > >
> > > Macro focusing. The current 60mm Micro Nikkor focuses to 8 3/4 inches,
> > > giving a 1:1 reproduction ratio.

> >
> > Actually, it only gives you 1:2.8 on 35 mm film, or 1:2.375 on the D70.

To

> > get 1:1 you still need extension tubes.

>
> Hmm. Maybe that's the distinction?

No, see the other posts. I really screwed it up. The 60 mm Micro Nikkor
gives you better than 1:1 if you don't stupidly leave the limit switch on
while you are measuring stuff. You can fill the 1 inch sensor with a 7/8
inch object.

[MrB]

Rita,
That picture represents what I would like to be able to shoot. How
"inexpensive" is this lens?
Thanks

"Rita Ä Berkowitz" <ritaberk2O04@aol.com `> wrote in message
news:10tjkota4b12sa8@news.supernews.com...

> paul wrote:

>>
>> What exactly does that mean? Sounds like it will not focus on anything
>> beyond 9.9 inches away. It is supposed to have a very narrow depth of
>> field but I guess that's a given. Sounds not much quality difference
>> from a 'real' macro lense except the incovenience of having to unscrew
>> it for anything over 10 inches away.

>
> Paul, a few things to consider is what you really want the lens to do,
> quality of macro, versatility, and price.
>
> Diopters are very cheap and give mediocre and acceptable results.
>
> The 28-105mm lens I recommended will get you really close to the subject,
> within inches. This is a great inexpensive general all purpose lens if
> you
> just want to carry only one lens.
>
> If you want a true macro lens you should consider the Micro Nikkor 60mm or
> the 105mm. I prefer the 105mm over the 60mm since I don't have to be
> inches
> from the subject to get 1:1. This gives me better control for lighting.
> Here is one of the very first pics I took using the 105mm. The cap of the
> mushroom isn't that much bigger than 0.25" and was shot handheld f/22 with
> flash.
>
> [url]http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2003/eBay/Mush_00.jpg[/url]
>
>
> Rita
>
>
>
>

[paul]

MrB wrote:

> Rita,
> That picture represents what I would like to be able to shoot. How
> "inexpensive" is this lens?
> Thanks
>
> "Rita Ä Berkowitz" <ritaberk2O04@aol.com `> wrote in message
> news:10tjkota4b12sa8@news.supernews.com...
>

>>
>>The 28-105mm lens I recommended will get you really close to the subject,
>>within inches. This is a great inexpensive general all purpose lens if
>>you just want to carry only one lens.
>>
>>
>>[url]http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2003/eBay/Mush_00.jpg[/url]

Here's the relevant info from above:

Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:

> paul wrote:
>

>>I like to do some macro shooting but I really don't want to go out &
>>spend $650 on a special lense, mostly because I wouldn't want to keep
>>switching the way I shoot I do both out in the field. I'm looking for
>>a middle point here & I really don't understand optics enough to have
>>a clue.

>
>
> I use a Micro Nikkor 105mm primarily for my macro work, but you can get
> great results from the Nikkor 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5D IF. I use this

lens when

> I don't want to carry around anything else and it covers a broad spectrum
> with good performance. Here is a shot I took under daylight with no

flash.

>
> [url]http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2003/eBay/Dandelion.jpg[/url]
>
> You can get this lens for around $200 new/used on eBay. Or try B&H.
>
>

[url]http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=165829&is=GREY[/url]

>
> or try
>
> [url]http://makeashorterlink.com/?F5562252A[/url]
>
>
> Rita
>
>
>

[MrB]

Thank you Paul.

"paul" <paul@not.net> wrote in message
news:d-GdnX5-rqCEZ0TcRVn-hg@speakeasy.net...

> MrB wrote:
>

>> Rita,
>> That picture represents what I would like to be able to shoot. How
>> "inexpensive" is this lens?
>> Thanks
>>
>> "Rita Ä Berkowitz" <ritaberk2O04@aol.com `> wrote in message
>> news:10tjkota4b12sa8@news.supernews.com...
>>

>>>
>>>The 28-105mm lens I recommended will get you really close to the subject,
>>>within inches. This is a great inexpensive general all purpose lens if
>>>you just want to carry only one lens.
>>>
>>>
>>>[url]http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2003/eBay/Mush_00.jpg[/url]

>
>
> Here's the relevant info from above:
>
> Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:
>

> > paul wrote:
> >

> >>I like to do some macro shooting but I really don't want to go out &
> >>spend $650 on a special lense, mostly because I wouldn't want to keep
> >>switching the way I shoot I do both out in the field. I'm looking for
> >>a middle point here & I really don't understand optics enough to have
> >>a clue.

> >
> >
> > I use a Micro Nikkor 105mm primarily for my macro work, but you can get
> > great results from the Nikkor 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5D IF. I use this

> lens when

> > I don't want to carry around anything else and it covers a broad
> > spectrum
> > with good performance. Here is a shot I took under daylight with no

> flash.

> >
> > [url]http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2003/eBay/Dandelion.jpg[/url]
> >
> > You can get this lens for around $200 new/used on eBay. Or try B&H.
> >
> >

> [url]http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=165829&is=GREY[/url]

> >
> > or try
> >
> > [url]http://makeashorterlink.com/?F5562252A[/url]
> >
> >
> > Rita
> >
> >
> >

[AustinMN]

paul wrote:

> I really don't understand how these extension tubes work, is it increasing
> a 50mm lense to a 75mm lense? I've already got 75mm capability but can
> only get 1.3 ft close.
>
> Do these ruin the autofocus and metering? Do they cut down on the light?

A lens focuses by moving the optical center of the lens closer or farther
from the film or sensor. The lens moves closer to the sensor in order to
focus farther away and farther from the sensor in order to focus closer.
Extension tubes provide some additional close-focusing range by moving the
lens away from the sensor. The amount of additional close-focusing depends
on the focal length of the lens. My longest extension tube was able to
(theoretically) move the point of close focus on my 24mm lens inside the
front element of the lens!

Light loss from using extension tubes depends on the magnification. At 1:1
(life size on the film/sensor) is generally a one stop loss. It goes up
from there.

As far as loss of autofocus, that depends on the extension tube(s) used.

Austin

[Randy Howard]

In article <o-adnaiabtHZIEXcRVn-pg@speakeasy.net>, [email]paul@not.net[/email] says...

> I just looked back at some of my macros & they tended to be f5.6 at 1/60
> using 200mm & took me many shots to get one that's not shaky. Maybe I
> just need to think about technique more & push the ISO a bit or at least
> pay attention to the settings.

Maybe you should consider using a tripod for macro work.

[Randy Howard]

In article <nc6dnYAYC9ADDUTcRVn-hg@wavecable.com>,
[email]christophercampbellNOSPAM@hotmail.com[/email] says...

>
> "paul" <paul@not.net> wrote in message
> news:ueudnbYGy5S7NEXcRVn-sw@speakeasy.net...

> > I like to do some macro shooting but I really don't want to go out &
> > spend $650 on a special lense, mostly because I wouldn't want to keep
> > switching the way I shoot I do both out in the field. I'm looking for a
> > middle point here & I really don't understand optics enough to have a

> clue.
>
> I use the 60 mm Micro as a normal lens. It works very well and makes
> especially nice portraits.

You do not find it to be too sharp for a portrait lens? Or do you
manually soft-focus it?

[C J Campbell]

"Randy Howard" <randyhoward@FOOverizonBAR.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c44f1b6af61534a989d84@news.verizon.net.. .

> In article <nc6dnYAYC9ADDUTcRVn-hg@wavecable.com>,
> [email]christophercampbellNOSPAM@hotmail.com[/email] says...

> >
> > "paul" <paul@not.net> wrote in message
> > news:ueudnbYGy5S7NEXcRVn-sw@speakeasy.net...

> > > I like to do some macro shooting but I really don't want to go out &
> > > spend $650 on a special lense, mostly because I wouldn't want to keep
> > > switching the way I shoot I do both out in the field. I'm looking for

a

> > > middle point here & I really don't understand optics enough to have a

> > clue.
> >
> > I use the 60 mm Micro as a normal lens. It works very well and makes
> > especially nice portraits.

>
> You do not find it to be too sharp for a portrait lens? Or do you
> manually soft-focus it?
>

It is too sharp for a portrait lens, but I digitally soften it in Photoshop.
OTOH, when I am photographing airplanes those rivets really stand out.