Macro photography advice wanted

[kljucd1]

Hi,

I bought a Pentax *ist DS with a 18-125mm lense. I started playing around with it and have decided that macro photography is just too much fun. Anyway, I am new to it and would like some advice from the experts we have here at IIS.

First, what is the best lense, for my camera, and on a budget, for macro photography.

Second, do these Macro Closeup (http://cgi.ebay.com.au/Macro-Close-Up-Lens-for-Pentax-K110D-K100D-K10D_W0QQitemZ190169128834QQihZ009Q QcategoryZ30042QQssPageNameZWDVWQQr dZ1QQcmdZViewItem) Lenses actually work as I really do have to crop quite a bit to get as closeup as in the pictures below.

Finally, I have attached a few of my recent attempts. They have been cropped and the contrast increased by a small amount. Based on these photo's are there any other suggestions/advice about settings or things to look out for.

Thanks in advanced.

Regards

Daniel...

[rally]

Daniel,

Macro is technically where the size of object being imaged and the size of the projected image on the CCD/film surface is at least 1:1
ie same size or larger.
This means that a cockroach for example might fill the frame.
"Macro" tends to be incorrectly used generically for magnified close up shots.

The ebay macro adapter lenses do work but generally they are of cheap construction to say compared to an chromatically corrected doublet like the Canon 500D macro converter or the Olympus MCON-35 (they are what I use)
Those ebay ones are probably uncoated or maybe single coated and just a single lens element.
But they will work but may give you problems.

There are various sizes (diameters) of these and other brands have equivalent adapters. Almost all of the different brands of macro adapter lenses will work on any brand of camera or lens, just make sure its not too small in diameter to fit or cause vignetting.
Whats the filter size of your camera lens.

Ideally you want to prevent internal reflections between your primary lens and the adapter lens - so multicoated doublets are much much better.
You probably won't use less than +3 diopters.

A macro lens is designed differently to an ordinary lens (plenty to read on the net about it) and these usually give the best results, but can be quite expensive. (my preference for use)
Some telephoto zooms just happen to have the right physical and optical properties to work really well for quasi macro and with macro adapters - they allow you to shoot butterflies and dragonflies and other skittish critters that don't allow you to get too close.

Since you are magnifying the object and introducing more glass you lose some light, but once you get down to macro magnifications you will find that in order to get any useful depth of field you will need to stop down - by as many stops as your setup will allow you before you hit the diffraction limit.
The depth of field wide open could be less than 0.5mm so a spiders eyes are in focus - everything else gets blurry.
Even at f22 it may not necessarily get that good that any more than half the spider is in focus.
Thats where macro stacking (same as astro) can be useful but in order to gain an increase in depth of field rather than noise reduction.
Here's an article http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/e10/mcon-35.html
Once you stop down you lose more light and so stability becomes an issue - so get a tripod, focussing with macro is often better accomplished by moving the whole camera and lens assembly, many macro photographers use a small rack for this purpose. It sits on the tripod between the camera.
Also you may want a tiny little tripod for shooting objects at ground level

Just make sure that you keep an eye where the front lens element is - its quite easy to poke the lens into the subject with some lenses - thats how close you can get.

Flash - once you get into it, a flash becomes an essential tool - in fact the best setups have two flashes to reduce shadowing, or use a circular ring flash.
There are now cheaper LED ring lights available, these screw onto the front of the lens
Flash overcomes the problem of a stopped down lens and poor lighting and increases the speed at which you can tolerate your subject moving - like freezing the wings of an insect.

Suggestions - use a Flash - preferably a double flash - cheap flashes can be made to work quite well.

Oh and finally the use of extension tubes - these fit between the lens and camera on DSLRs (not sure what yours is) - some lenses can allow them some cannot so check first.

Hope that helps for starters

Rally

[iceman]

Excellent advice, Rally! Cheers.

[kljucd1]

:welcome:

Thanks for that man, that is a lot of very useful information. Based on what you have said I am already seeing that there is some missing information in the ebay item descriptions.

Oh well, I will continue to practise with the lens that I have until I can afford to buy something worthwhile.

Thanks again!!!:):):)

Daniel...

[Sharnbrook]

Hi Daniel and Others,

Here are my 2 cents worth. I suppose that for starters, Dollars are going to be a consideration. (When aren't they?) Whilst I can't speak with any authority in respect of Pentax * ist DS cameras, if this is the same, or has the same type of configuration as the K 100D, then I would suggest trying extension tubes as a starter. They are cheap, (around $25) contain no glass, so can safely be bought second hand, and even if they are not automatic, it doesn't really matter that much, IMHO. An even cheaper alternative is to buy a reversing ring (less than $15), which will enable you to use your existing lens "back to front", and this will give you macro ability. A reversing ring has a male thread of the same diameter as the filter ring on the front of the lens, and a standard Pentax body fitting, the same as your lens bayonet. The lens is then reversed on the camera, by screwing the adaptor to the front of the lens, reversing it, and fixing to the camera with the bayonet fitting. It won't be automatic, but that doesn't matter at this stage, it has only cost a few bucks.

You might be able to buy automatic extension tubes for your camera, which could cost up to $200 (or more) they certainly can be bought for the Canon EOS system.

Another alternative (at least for the EOS) is to buy an adaptor for your camera that will enable you to use non Pentax lenses with your Pentax body. With the EOS (I keep mentioning this for 2 reasons, a; I have an EOS 300D, and b; many other Forum readers also have EOS cameras, so it would be particularly relevant to other readers) you can use Pentax or Nikon lenses with a cheap adaptor purchased for less than $20, and couple it with a dedicated 25+year old Macro lens. These can be picked up for anything from $25 to $100, depending on the manufacture and spec of the lens. Again, it will be manual only.

Now a word or two on manual set up. All, or nearly all, the macro shots I take are done by switching off the auto focus, setting the shutter to 1/200 sec, and the lens to f11, and using diffused flash. The diffuser by the way is home made using kitchen paper, and a plastic butter tub, lined with aluminum foil. VERY hi-tech!!, albeit reasonably priced. ;)

I don't use a tripod either, as it takes too long to achieve focus when taking shots of insects on leaves, blowing in the breeze. However, I do use a pole to support the camera, and lean in and out to achieve focus. It takes some practice, but in a few sessions you can become quite adept.

Using an f-stop higher than say 14 or 16 tends to produce soft images, (as Rally says, you reach the diffraction limit), so I try to limit the aperture to f 14 or lower.

I'm not knocking any of the matters raised by Rally, but adding to what he suggests by saying what I have found workable, in my experience. As I have said, I have an EOS 300D, together with a Canon 100mm macro lens, and auto extension tubes (plus lots of other lenses and gizmos). I also have an old Nikon 105mm manual Micro lens and an adaptor for the EOS, and I have got some superb shots with this set up, but a fair amount of trial and error is required initially. Keep in mind that not all cameras will allow retro fitting of other lenses, the EOS system is very forgiving in this respect, but I do not know whether the Pentax will accomodate Nikon, Canon, Minolta etc etc lenses.

My prices may or may not be current. Check on EBay, in the Trading Post, at Camera Fairs and look for the Photographic Trader in your newsagent. I'm sure you will find something to suit.

If you want any further info, shots of my set-up etc, just PM me. Happy to help. :)

[kljucd1]

Hi Sharnbrook,

Thanks for all of your suggestions!!

Regarding your idea about reversing the lens, so you take the lens off and put an adapter at the front of the lens. You then turn the lens around and reattach it, backwards, to the camera??

I tried holding the lens, by hand, in reverse against the front of the camera and then brought the camera up to my PC screen and it was definately magnified by a lot. Can I ask, how does this go with focus and also lighting as I noticed it was very dark?:confuse3:

Also, regarding the diffuse flash, got any pictures you want to post?:D

I will certainly be looking into your other suggestion about adapters that will allow older, and cheaper, lenses to fit. If all else fails then I will just have to do what I was expecting that I would have to do and buy a ready made and purpose built lens for a pentax.:rolleyes:

Thanks

Daniel...:):):)

[Sharnbrook]

Daniel,

Butter tub flash diffuser.

Step 1, Eat the butter
Step 2, Wash the tub out
Step 3, Mark the outline of your flash head on the bottom of the tub, and with a sharp knife, make a cut out that is a tight fit over the flash head
Step 4, Line the inside of the tub with crumpled aluminium foil (Crumpled to avoid hot spots in the flash output)
Step 5, Using a double thickness of white kitchen paper, create a diffuser over the front (top) of the tub, and fix it with sellotape. Kitchen paper is reasonably tough, cheap to replace, and white enough not to create an unacceptable colour cast.

I took this opportunity to replace the paper on my diffuser, so I could show you the steps, but it was still in acceptable condition after about 15 months use.

Please forgive the fact that I didn't stop down to get good depth of field, but as my flash was being used as a model, I was too lazy to do anything about it, like getting out a tripod. I think it's fairly self explanatory.

[ving]

macro... my favourite type of photography :)

i cant really add much to whats been said but i have both a dedicated macro lens and i have tried reverse macro.

if kyou have a 50mm lens hanging around or if you dont then get one for portraits (they are really cheap for the old ones I got an old pentax m42 50mm f1.4 for $20) i would highly recommend the lens reversal method....
generally speaking the moment you reverse a lens you loose all auto control on it. aperture is set manually (i set mine to f16 most of the time) as is shutter speed. ideally you want to use a flash (even teh pop-up will do till you get another one) to help keep the shutter speed up as at this magnification there isnt much light getting to the chip. focus you have absolutely no control over at all, it is set to one distance and you have to move the camera back and forth till you get the right focus (which still shows as a little green light in my d40). as with all animals including humans, aim for the eyes. its important to get those eye in focus... your DOF is going to be really small but still quite workable as you can see in the attached pictures the first 2 are not cropped at all and the second 2 are a bit cropped.
here is a link to how to reverse attach a lens: http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showpost.php?p=31617&postcount=1

dedicated macro lenses are a different kettle of fish. having used both types (dedicated macro and lens reversal) i can say the advantage to a actual macro lens is the ability to focus. IMO focusing should still be done manually though as it will more acurately focus on the area wanted than auto as the light, as stated before is reduced at this sort of magnification. once again use a flash where you can to keep teh shutter speed up :)
there are some really good tutes on macro photography on teh web, just google them.

[kljucd1]

Hi guys,

I made a lightbox for some photography for my brother's website a little while ago, it worked well but more importantly, it was fun. So, I think I am going to give the diffuse flash a go as well.

Thanks also Ving, between the comments made by both of you I think that even if the photos turn out crap that it will still be good to have a go at the reverse lens.

If I can come up with anything worthwhile I will post it here.

Thanks again guys

Daniel...

[leon]

Hi Guys, yep, one can spend heaps on macro lenses, and what ever is needed to get that perfect image of some thing small, or close up.

Although I am not really into this sort of photography, i have sometimes tried my hand at it.

The two images below were taken with the humble Canon IXUS 50, and the camera was hand held while taking these images, on the macro setting.

Not a bad result for such a small point and shoot camera.

leon

[kljucd1]

Hi,

The pink flower is fantastic, especially with the shadows. Good one!!

Daniel...

[kljucd1]

Hi,

Well...using the suggestions raised in the previous messages and the link provided in your message Ving, I have managed to take some macro pictures.

First of all I would just like to say that my camera is actually pretty funny/dodgy to look at right now and I will post a picture of it when I get another camera (who would have known that blue tak can hold on that well :lol:.)

What do you guys think of my pictures taken using reverse lens, held on by blue tak, and also using a diffuse flash. The flower is about 20mm in real life.

[ving]

those flowers look really good. you seem to have gotten the hang of it pretty quick. the last one really show the DOF you are working with (ie, not much at all).

blutak? thats high tech! i used rubberbands! :P

[kljucd1]

Hi,

So I finally got hold of another camera and can present to you FRANKENCAMERA!!!!:scared::scared:

I remembered that I had an old SLR hanging around, which is broken, but the lens was still good. The macro function is crap, but still good for reverse lens.

The white plastic ring is the original cap that comes with the camera (don't use it anyway) and it has the centre cut out of it.

[ving]

frankencamera indeed!
butit works a charm hey :D

good on ya mate :)

[kljucd1]

Hi,

Yep!! it works really good, except when your taking photo's outside and the wind keeps on moving the thing your taking a picture of :rolleyes:.

Regards

Daniel...

[tnbk00]

Not sure if this will fit on ur *ist DS but I highly recommend extension rings such as these
http://cgi.ebay.com.au/Extension-Tube-Macro-Ring-for-Pentax-dslr-K100D-K10D_W0QQitemZ160177604218QQihZ006Q QcategoryZ30067QQssPageNameZWDVWQQr dZ1QQcmdZViewItem

I have found the best way to use them is use a zoom lens and the zoom becomes the focus....you need to try it to understand what i mean. Extension rings or tubes for cameras basically mean that you can focus on things that are 1cm away etc.


my 2c worth

Daniel

[kljucd1]

Hi Dan,

Don't suppose you have some examples of pics you have taken using one of these??

Thanks

Daniel

[Sharnbrook]

I know I'm not Dan, but as I have already posted some detail on macro, I attach the following. Very boring, but it does show the field of view from each of the various combinations

a) Taken with the Canon 100mm f 2.8 on its own

b) Taken with the 50mm Takumar reversed on the EOS with an adaptor

c) The Canon 100mm with a stack of 3 auto extension tubes

d) The Takumar reversed on the extension tubes. See photo in next thread

All shots were hand held with the 300D, taken with flash and at 1/200 sec at f11. ISO was 200.

The stainless steel rule shows .5mm divisions, so the field of view is approximately, a) 22mm: b) 23mm: c) 11mm: & d) 10mm.

The next post shows the set up with the reversed Takumar, and tubes

[kljucd1]

Hi,

Cool shots. Note the burrs at the top of the ruler in shot c!!

Thanks

Daniel...:):)

[tnbk00]

Here you go!

[Sharnbrook]

Now for the shot of the Takumar set up on the tubes.

Starting at the top, there is an (out of focus) diaphragm activation pin for the Takumar. This has to be manually activated to stop down the diaphragm to f11, or whatever you have chosen. If you set the lens manually to f11, you won't be able to see anything through the viewfinder, so you won't be able to focus. So, set the lens to Auto, and the diaphragm will be open at f1.8, (or 1.4, or 2.0, or whatever), and there will be adequate light to focus. Then, just before you trip the shutter, press the pin in, and the lens will stop down to whatever you have set. You will need at least one additional arm, preferably with at least 2 double length fingers to accomplish this, but it is possible, even hand held, as I have shown, but you can expect more OOF shots than usual. It's easier on a tripod, but using a tripod for insects etc is a real pain, though it's OK for stainless steel rulers, stamps, coins etc.

Next down is the reversed Takumar, which speaks for itself.

Below that is a filter without the glass. What the hell is that for you may well ask? The answer is that as I couldn't get the optional double length fingers, I had to position the lens diaphragm pin as close to my ordinary finger as possible, so that I could reach it. So I use the glassless filter as a spacer ring, and screwed the Tak onto it until the pin was in the correct location for my finger, and put a drop of Loctite in to ensure it located correctly every time.

Next the filter screws into the reversing ring, which in this case is in 2 parts. The reversing ring itself is a male 49mm ring that fits into the front of the Takumar lens (or in this case the glassless filter spacer), and the other end is a female 58mm ring into which screws the EOS adaptor, which has a male 58mm ring on the front. This is so I can use my Canon lenses in reverse should I wish to do so, most of them being 58mm filters.

Then there are the extension tubes, but you have seen them (or the Pentax ones) on eBay. BTW, those seem to be excellent value for money, providing they fit your camera, you can't possibly go wrong for less than $20 or so, can you?

My ext tubes are automatic, but of course they are only auto when coupled with a Canon auto lens, so if I use them with any of the other options, I have to do everything manually.

This has been very long winded, but it does explain everything, I hope. If you have any further questions, just ask.

[kljucd1]

Hi,

Thanks for that, the nutri grain is pretty interesting to look at, it looks like you have fried them!!...You don't fry them do you??:shrug::lol:

They certainly have some magnification.

Thanks

Daniel...

[kljucd1]

Hi,

Mike, very interesting, especially because I just bought one of those Takumar lenses. The extention tubes have been mentioned a few times in this thread, so I think I am convinced that I should take a look at getting some.

Thanks again

Daniel...

[tnbk00]

The extension rings i got were cheap as......good way to try them out. We also have a more expensive set, and have found that they are better, cause the different lengths click on like a lens clicks on to the camera body. The cheap ones screw together.....not as good, but good enough to experiment.

[tnbk00]

Oh an no the weren't fried. The had been in the microwave and boiled over the bowl so i chucked them in the bin.......i was wandering round the house looking for something to take pics of and voila.......mega close up nutrigrains........

Funny thing about that pic is that I had it printed in a3. People would look at it and not be able to tell what the hell it was....general first assumption was that it was some internal part of somebody.....

[tnbk00]

Some more extension ring pics

[kljucd1]

:lol: I thought the thumbnail version looked like sausage!!

That second shot is really cool.

Thanks

Daniel...

[kljucd1]

Hi,

Took this tonight, pretty good considering I had a very unco-operative cat to deal with...sorry kittie!:D

What do you think?

Daniel...

[tnbk00]

Nice pic....I like photo's of eyes.....cause u can see the photographer in the reflection :)

[ving]

love the grainies shot! :lol:

[Sharnbrook]

Eye took a self portrait.

;)

[ving]

eye eye captain!

[kljucd1]

Hi,

Cool!! There is a lot of detail in your shot Mike.

Daniel...

[ving]

since we are posting eyes... :P

[kljucd1]

Hi,

:scared: Is that a dog???

[ving]

its my cat, Isabella :D

[kljucd1]

Hi,

Oh well, I was almost right :shrug:. Still a freaky picture though, no offense to the cat or anything:)

Daniel...