Macro compromise for D70

[paul]

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.

Telephoto lenses tend to be pretty good at macro though the extreme tele
lenses only get like 5 feet from a subject whereas I was looking at a
wide angle that gets up to a foot away... however I don't know if that's
already 'zoomed out' optically that it wouldn't really look close up.

I really would like a little converter I could screw on the end of the
lense & I thought I saw such a thing for $150 recently but now that I
look again, all I see is extenders that add about an inch to the lense
length to increase macro ability.

More notes about what lenses I'm looking at here:
[url]http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photography[/url]
though what I've said above should explain what I'm getting at for these
purposes. I might consider owning two lenses for wide & tele but a
special macro lense is just too much. What other sort of general purpose
lense is going to give the best closeups? I'm thinking about an image
stabilization telephoto zoom and it seems that'd be handy for close ups
though it has occurred to me that a wide angle probably lets in more
light & would allow me to shoot fast moving insects whereas a big long
slow tele zoomed way in is going to be impossible to get that kind of
action. At least I'd be able to get flowers in low light with stabilization.

[Rita Ä Berkowitz]

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

[paul]

Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:

> paul wrote:
>

>>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.

I looked at the camera info on that file, it's taken at max zoom f7.2 &
1/200 sec without bumping the ISO up. Your lense looks like
<http://www.nikonians.org/html/resources/nikon_articles/nikkor/af/28-105/28-105_1.html>
which is f4.5 at 100mm & mine is f5.6 at 200mm. That little bit extra
f-stop seems to make a difference with the depth of field.

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.

[Buster]

The cheapest way is with diopters. They are small lenses that screw on
the end of the lens and allow it to focus closer. They're ok, but not
very flat field. The best, cheap, way is to use an extension tube.
This goes between the body and the lens and basically shifts
everything out about an inch. Fully coupled tubes run about 100-150
US$. There is no glass, so no image degradation. However, you lose
infinity focus while they are attached, so it is strictly for closeup.
A 25mm tube usually allows a 50 mm lens to focus to 1:1 (lifesize).
With the 1.5x magnifaction factor of most D-SLRS, you are shooting
larger than life-size.
Buster

[mike nelson]

I've had good success with the Nikon diopters (about $48 at places like
Adorama). They work best on telescoping lenses in the 200mm range, and give
1:2 or so image sizes. Stay away from the cheap diopters.

Mike


"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.

>
> Telephoto lenses tend to be pretty good at macro though the extreme tele
> lenses only get like 5 feet from a subject whereas I was looking at a
> wide angle that gets up to a foot away... however I don't know if that's
> already 'zoomed out' optically that it wouldn't really look close up.
>
> I really would like a little converter I could screw on the end of the
> lense & I thought I saw such a thing for $150 recently but now that I
> look again, all I see is extenders that add about an inch to the lense
> length to increase macro ability.
>
> More notes about what lenses I'm looking at here:
> [url]http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photography[/url]
> though what I've said above should explain what I'm getting at for these
> purposes. I might consider owning two lenses for wide & tele but a
> special macro lense is just too much. What other sort of general purpose
> lense is going to give the best closeups? I'm thinking about an image
> stabilization telephoto zoom and it seems that'd be handy for close ups
> though it has occurred to me that a wide angle probably lets in more
> light & would allow me to shoot fast moving insects whereas a big long
> slow tele zoomed way in is going to be impossible to get that kind of
> action. At least I'd be able to get flowers in low light with

stabilization.

[paul]

mike nelson wrote:

> I've had good success with the Nikon diopters (about $48 at places like
> Adorama). They work best on telescoping lenses in the 200mm range, and give
> 1:2 or so image sizes. Stay away from the cheap diopters.

OK thanks guys for the correct terminology to search. Do you know if
these diopters mess up autofocus and/or metering?

[paul]

Buster wrote:

> ...The best, cheap, way is to use an extension tube.
> This goes between the body and the lens and basically shifts
> everything out about an inch. Fully coupled tubes run about 100-150
> US$. There is no glass, so no image degradation. However, you lose
> infinity focus while they are attached, so it is strictly for closeup.
> A 25mm tube usually allows a 50 mm lens to focus to 1:1 (lifesize).
> With the 1.5x magnifaction factor of most D-SLRS, you are shooting
> larger than life-size.

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?

[mike nelson]

these diopters have no effect on autofocus or metering...one of the nice
things about them. btw, also recommend the book: Closeups in Nature by John
Shaw--very enlightening on lots of different ways to do macro photography.
btw, if you have a 50-100 mm lens, you might try reversing it for high
magnification, albeit close focus.

Mike


"paul" <paul@not.net> wrote in message
news:t96dnRRnatTl5UTcRVn-1w@speakeasy.net...

> mike nelson wrote:
>

> > I've had good success with the Nikon diopters (about $48 at places like
> > Adorama). They work best on telescoping lenses in the 200mm range, and

give

> > 1:2 or so image sizes. Stay away from the cheap diopters.

>
>
> OK thanks guys for the correct terminology to search. Do you know if
> these diopters mess up autofocus and/or metering?

[paul]

Reversing it? You mean put it on backward?

mike nelson wrote:

> these diopters have no effect on autofocus or metering...one of the nice
> things about them. btw, also recommend the book: Closeups in Nature by John
> Shaw--very enlightening on lots of different ways to do macro photography.
> btw, if you have a 50-100 mm lens, you might try reversing it for high
> magnification, albeit close focus.
>
> Mike
>
>
> "paul" <paul@not.net> wrote in message
> news:t96dnRRnatTl5UTcRVn-1w@speakeasy.net...
>

>>mike nelson wrote:
>>
>>

>>>I've had good success with the Nikon diopters (about $48 at places like
>>>Adorama). They work best on telescoping lenses in the 200mm range, and

>
> give
>

>>>1:2 or so image sizes. Stay away from the cheap diopters.

>>
>>
>>OK thanks guys for the correct terminology to search. Do you know if
>>these diopters mess up autofocus and/or metering?

>
>
>

[C J Campbell]

"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.

[paul]

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.

[Hunt]

In article <mrSdnSuJxpsiGETcRVn-sQ@speakeasy.net>, [email]paul@not.net[/email] says...

>
>Reversing it? You mean put it on backward?
>
>mike nelson wrote:
>

>> these diopters have no effect on autofocus or metering...one of the nice
>> things about them. btw, also recommend the book: Closeups in Nature by

John

>> Shaw--very enlightening on lots of different ways to do macro photography.
>> btw, if you have a 50-100 mm lens, you might try reversing it for high
>> magnification, albeit close focus.
>>
>> Mike
>>
>>
>> "paul" <paul@not.net> wrote in message
>> news:t96dnRRnatTl5UTcRVn-1w@speakeasy.net...
>>

>>>mike nelson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I've had good success with the Nikon diopters (about $48 at places like
>>>>Adorama). They work best on telescoping lenses in the 200mm range, and

>>
>> give
>>

>>>>1:2 or so image sizes. Stay away from the cheap diopters.
>>>
>>>
>>>OK thanks guys for the correct terminology to search. Do you know if
>>>these diopters mess up autofocus and/or metering?

Yes, but with the proper adapter. With older Nikons, you lost metering, and
auto aperture, and this was in the days BEFORE autofocus. I'm not sure if
there are any reversing rings (adapters) that are linked for any of these
functions, but there might be. I'd guess that if there are, you'd need another
attachment on the front (was the rear, before reversing) of the lens, which
would be wired to the reversing ring, and then to the camera's contacts. You
probably could still use your auto-focus indicator, but that may well depend
on the camera and what it needs from the lens to indicate focus. As I have not
tried any of my old macro gear with my D70 yet, I can't comment on what might,
or might not work, regarding the camera's circuitry.

Note: the diopter closeup "filters" are often called Proxars (Hassleblad tm, I
think) or some adaptation of it.

Hunt

[Hunt]

In article <fN6dnR2OuqXA5ETcRVn-jQ@speakeasy.net>, [email]paul@not.net[/email] says...

>
>Buster wrote:
>

>> ...The best, cheap, way is to use an extension tube.
>> This goes between the body and the lens and basically shifts
>> everything out about an inch. Fully coupled tubes run about 100-150
>> US$. There is no glass, so no image degradation. However, you lose
>> infinity focus while they are attached, so it is strictly for closeup.
>> A 25mm tube usually allows a 50 mm lens to focus to 1:1 (lifesize).
>> With the 1.5x magnifaction factor of most D-SLRS, you are shooting
>> larger than life-size.

>
>
>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?

No, it is essentially extending the focusing helix in the lens by moving the
lens groups farther from the film/CCD. After about 100% of focal length
extention, you do get a "bellows factor" that diminishes the light, but,
depending on your metering, you'll probably not need to even account for this.
You can get a variable "extention tube" in the form of a bellows attachment
for many cameras, and probably by after-market mfgrs.

Hunt

[Hunt]

In article <41d9805b$0$441$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com>, [email]mike_nelson@acm.org[/email]
says...

>
>these diopters have no effect on autofocus or metering...one of the nice
>things about them. btw, also recommend the book: Closeups in Nature by John
>Shaw--very enlightening on lots of different ways to do macro photography.
>btw, if you have a 50-100 mm lens, you might try reversing it for high
>magnification, albeit close focus.
>
>Mike
>
>
>"paul" <paul@not.net> wrote in message
>news:t96dnRRnatTl5UTcRVn-1w@speakeasy.net...

>> mike nelson wrote:
>>

>> > I've had good success with the Nikon diopters (about $48 at places like
>> > Adorama). They work best on telescoping lenses in the 200mm range, and

>give

>> > 1:2 or so image sizes. Stay away from the cheap diopters.

>>
>>
>> OK thanks guys for the correct terminology to search. Do you know if
>> these diopters mess up autofocus and/or metering?

Going back to the earlier days of Nikon, one of the top lenses for reversing
was the 35mm f/2.0. I've never had one, but did use my 55mm Micro-Nikkor
reversed on many occasions. There is even a ring that fits the reversed lens
mount (now in the front) and allowed for semi-auto aperture viewing, with a
dual cable release. This ring held the aperture open, then "stopped" it down,
when you fired the shutter via this special cable. Metering was done in "
stopped-down" mode with the old Photomics, as the coupling prong had to be
nudged up to signify f/5.6, and there was no aperture ring attachment to that
prong, when the lens was reversed. My older Nikons metered just fine in those
days.

Hunt

[Phil Stripling]

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. Does your zoom give you 1:1?
--
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.

[paul]

OK I found the item I was looking for.
$140 Canon 500D +2 77mm 2-element close-up diopter
[url]http://www.adorama.com/CA77CU500D.html[/url]
More info:
[url]http://www.earthboundlight.com/phototips/closeup-diopters.html[/url]
[url]http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0005yN[/url]

The descriptions says "changes the closest focusing distance from
infinity to 9.9"

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.

[C J Campbell]

"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.

[C J Campbell]

"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.

[Rita Ä Berkowitz]

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

[Rita Ä Berkowitz]

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]

Rita