murphle Loc: Wisconsin

Hi all! I've been practicing my macro photography as I'm a photography newbie learning and learning. I find so much useful information here so thanks to everyone! My question today is this: Is there a considerable difference between using a macro lens and using extension tubes?

My bubble picture here was taken with a D750 and kit lens 24-120 f4 using two extension tubes. I find that the actual area of focus is tiny.... like maybe the size of a dime before it begins to drop off and get fuzzy. My aperture was f6.3 which I felt should have given me more dof and because I wasn't using a tripod, I had to keep my shutter speed at 1/100th (was at 92mm), ISO 1600. I certainly didn't want my ISO going any higher..... and it seems that the tubes introduce some noise.

Along the same lines here..... there are a few lenses I could choose from for Macro as far as I see it. The Nikon 105, Sigma 100, Tamron 90 or Tokina 100. I want one that has the rubber seal on the mount for sure.

Hogs! Help me please! Have a great day!

PixelStan77 Loc: Vermont/Chicago

Noise has to do with ISO. Not tubes versus a macro lens. Change your ISO to 400 and the noise will disappear. My preference is for a Nikon Micro Mikkor.I don't think it has a rubber seal.

jeryh Loc: Oxfordshire UK

Try the 150mm F2,8 Macro Sigma. This is one very sharp lens, even better than the 180 F3.5 !

John_F Loc: Minneapolis, MN

What struck me about this photo is how well it displays the hexagonal symmetry of water. The decline in focus around the bubble edges accentuate the crystallography. And the orange-yellow circular glow makes a powerful statement. Very good shot and what noise.

murphle Loc: Wisconsin

Wow, thank you! Ya, the noise is mostly gone because of my Lightroom edit. I was very fortunate to have the sun coming up and just peeking along with zero wind. Great learning experience.

Bugfan Loc: Toronto, Canada

The only problem with tubes is light loss. There are no optics in the tubes so you still get a perfect sharp image but they can cost you dearly in light particularly as your extension increases.

If you have noise it's the camera (probably ISO) not the tubes.

In terms of a macro lens, I have a 60 mm and a 105 mm both Nikon FX lenses. The sixty is used rarely, the working distance is too short for anything living. I use that one mostly to photograph copy, and stationary subjects. The 105 is something else. It was my favourite for a number of years. It has image stabilization that makes it easier to do hand held stuff. And it's a reasonable weight and is razor sharp.

However I also have two Sigma macro lenses, a 150 mm and a 180 mm. Both of these have image stabilizers too and both are equal to the Nikon lenses I own. I got the 180 mm lens initially to increase my reach (working distance) but to my dismay the front element is too large so I can't attach my ring flash or my Nikon macro flash. That then prompted me to also get the 150 mm. When I need flash, which isn't very often in fact, I use the 150. The rest of the time the 180 does an admirable job. I also have a 200 mm macro from Nikon. As macro len ses go it's ok and sharp but it doesn't have an image stabilizer and it's an f4 lens to boot. I used it for a while but found my two Sigma macros do a lot better images.

In terms of DOF, there isn't any as you increase your magnifications. I usually close my aperture all the way down (f32, f40 etc) and that can get me some reasonable depth of field at the cost of light of course. I also use focus stacking sometimes. But one neat trick which saves the day is to not do head on shots. When I do a long insect like a grasshopper I shoot it from the side. That way the entire insect is sharp instead of only the head.

Returning to your original question, yes there is a difference between tubes and a macro lens. The macro lens is designed to focus on a flat plane compared to normal lenses which focus on a curved plane. So you get a different image from a macro lens compared to a normal one. The tubes only magnify, that is, they let you get closer. They do not change the curvature or flatness of the field of the lens.

Because of this I always work with macro lenses for little stuff, and I will sometimes boost my magnification by attaching tubes or a bellows or both to the macro lens. I will not attach them to a normal lens. But then that's me. When I was young and more poor I used to do all kinds of combinations some of which worked surprisingly well. That then taught me what gets me the best images. So do experiment.

The images below are a couple of rain drop images and a small bug. All three were done with a macro lens.

murphle Loc: Wisconsin

Thanks for the information! I love the way that items on the same focal plane are all in focus. I appreciate you taking the time!

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

If you are serious about pursuing macro-photography, please subscribe to the True Macro-Photography Forum at http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/s-102-1.html

As far as macro lenses, any manufacturer's length between 90mm to 105mm would be an excellent choice.
Read more here: Third-Party Macro Lenses Compared at http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-213504-1.html
I personally use a Nikkor 105G, but If I ever have to replace it, I will buy a Sigma 105mm macro lens, with 3-position Focusing Distance selector (which more importantly also controls the Working Distance).

LoneRangeFinder Loc: Left field

Yes. Concur with Nikonian. We are a great group and will give honest appraisals. The focal length of macro lenses varies from a wide angle laowa to a 200..... I'm unaware of anything longer than that. Forget focusing distance when choosing a macro. Minimum working distance is much more relevant. A lot of the choice comes down to the type of macro you do. Most of us in the forum eschew the use of a tripod unless doing some focus stacking on a desktop. Flowers don't fly away; insects do. Join us and tell us what your primary macro interest is...

Gspeed Loc: Rhinebeck, NY

May I just say, if I were a female bug, I would definitely be interested in this guy. Do you know the species?

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

First of all, what a GREAT SHOT. Wish I had thought of that before moving to Florida. Depth is much greater with a micro, it is one disadvantage of extension tubes. I wish to add a lens, that would be the 60mm Nikon auto focus D, you can get them off ebay mint for around 200 to 300 dollars. I still own mine and will not sell it, great lens with outstanding IQ.

CatMarley Loc: North Carolina

Exquisite photo!

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Beaituful!

djb663 Loc: Massachusetts

Please tell us about the bubble... How was it made, etc?

Djedi

Nice shot! I love the crystalline structures, but I agree that a tiny bit more micro-contrast would help the situation. The 24-120 is probably not the best choice here. Just because it is not really corrected for close distances. You definitely need a dedicated macro, but that will not necessarily increase your DOF. Your worst enemy is your lack of a tripod which will help you shoot at slower speeds, smaller apertures, and lower ISO's. This, you already know, will reduce the amount of noise reduction needed and give you better micro contrast to make the frozen structures "pop".
I have a rather inexpensive Tamron 90mm macro. It is an AF, but I rarely use it in AF mode since I usually want to determine EXACTLY what area of my image is focused.
Two days ago I copied a lantern slide of an old drawing for a friend of mine. He nearly fell off his chair when I handed him a 13x19 print of his 1.5"x2" slide. He could not believe the detail and sharpness.