fetzler Loc: North West PA

I have been experimenting with macros with greater than 1 x magnification. I have a D-7200 and 85mm micro-nikkor. Also have an old Sigma 50mm macro lens. All this equipment works great to 1:1 ratio.
To achieve greater than 1:1 , I have attempted to use a macro lens plus extension tubes (62mm). The results were rather poor (blurry). I read somewhere this may be due to diffraction. Lens was set to either f8 or f11.
I also used the macro lens with cheap plus lenses and the chromatic aberrations were awful. (This appears to be case of you get what you pay for.)
Next I used the macro lens with a Raynox 250 and the results a pretty good. I attach a image of a museum specimen the magnification is about 3x on the sensor. Camera is tripod mounted. This is a stack using helicon software.
I would like to know what your experiences are and what you consider the best way to achieve higher magnifications?

EnglishBrenda Loc: Kent, England

I am thinking that it would be worth the effort to practise more with your macro lens and the tubes, perhaps start by just using one tube and gradually build up to using all 3 which should give you about 2:1. I think this system would be better than the other options you mention but lots of practise is necessary, I am still practising but there are some in this section who use tubes all the time with perfectly focused shots of the tiniest critters, Tinusbum is one of those and well worth following.

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

You are probably doing something wrong, Nikon macro lenses are usually considered some of the finest of lenses. You can also try a greater than 1:1 macro by reversing a WA lens. I've shot macro in many ways and usually find some level of success with each. For today probably the best images would come from very careful Focus stacking with a fairly open aperture (say a stop or two down from wide open only) to avoid diffraction. But beware the DoF of each image will be extremely shallow. The main issue I've found for me with > 1x is how to light the subject when you many have only 5mm between the subject and the front of the lens! Good luck!

Mark Sturtevant Loc: Grand Blanc, MI

This is of great interest to me. Stacking is far and away the best way to get sharp results for these kinds of pictures, but that is not for everyone or every subject.

I have tried using two or more extension tubes with my Canon 100mm macro, and I too find that the images can be soft, especially when I push the magnification. I have kept the aperture large-ish (f/10, f11). Perhaps with wider aperture it would be better but the dof is soooo thin! I was considering the effect to be from diffraction where the aperture is 'effectively' small, even though the dof at f/10 f/11 still seems very shallow. I would like to learn more about this problem.

Mounting just one thinner extension tube on the macro seems 'acceptable' in terms of image sharpness. I can then do the rest with cropping. But one wishes to have more pixels on the subject.

Mounting my Raynox 150 is also acceptable, and I have come around to preferring it. Those Raynox lenses are sure a good tool, and you can't beat the convenience in the field. Clip it on, use it, take it off and store it when you don't need it. Much easier than fussing with extension tubes in the field!

I have been playing with a simple 50mm on helical extension tubes, and get 'acceptable' results on a good day, but not always. The magnification goes way higher than what I can expect with the macro on extension tubes or the Raynox. I posted one picture with this lens in my last recent post. The one of the young plant hopper. One downside with that lens is it is hard to find the subject since you can't easily zoom out, find the critter, and then zoom in. So I generally use it in staged shots at the kitchen table.

Of course there are the commercial super macros. Those win since they are designed for this sort of thing.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

IMO, bellows are better than tubes. I would be using a very GOOD enlarger lens mounted in reverse. You could also use the marco lens in reverse - but the smaller profile of most enlarger lenses allows for a better lighting scheme.

..

agillot

since you like experimentation , try the 50 mm lens in reverse , you buy a adapter on ebay for $ 5.00 [ lens filter tread size ].it s called a reversing ring .do a google search on that method .you need to work at f16 or 22 for depth of field , so , you need a lot of light .the results will amaze you .i use a old pentax 50mm f1.7 .

Mark Sturtevant Loc: Grand Blanc, MI

Bellows offer many advantages. One being a quick way to offer variable magnification. Also they probably have very little problem with internal reflections. A downside might be that it is difficult to use in the field without a tripod. But if shooting from a fixed position is what you want, then bellows should be very handy. I have never tried them, however.

The lighting challenge is indeed significant if you are using an external flash directly mounted onto the hot shoe and the lens design is long. I know this problem well, and had to experiment endlessly with ways to get good diffusion past a 50mm on tubes and even the 100mm macro. Flash heads mounted on the lens or mounted on flexible wands is a very good solution to that issue. Right now I use a dual flash on wands and it is much, much easier. The added bonus with mounting lightweight flash heads on wands is that I can switch to a different lens without disrupting the lighting.

sippyjug104 Loc: Missouri

Here's a Flickr site that I go to for inspiration for "What I want to be when I grow up" macro photography in addition to the great advice and support that I get here. https://www.flickr.com/photos/johnhallmen

What I like about John Hallmen's site is that he has a section that shows all of his different macro photography gear setups. Because we share the same passion, I thought that you might enjoy seeing it as well.

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

MOST of the forum members who have replied on your thread have actually posted viable macro-photographs, but a few replies are from photographers who have NEVER posted macro-photographs.
By clicking on an UHH member's name (in blue underlined), you can view all of the photographs posted by any UHH member. Proof (macro competency) is in the pudding (acceptable macro-photographs).

Mark Sturtevant Loc: Grand Blanc, MI

I would gladly take and weigh good advice from anyone who has a great depth of experience in photography. The principles of macro-photography are after all not greatly separate from other avenues of photography.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

EnglishBrenda Loc: Kent, England

Well said Douglass, you echo my exact thoughts but I wasn't brave enough to say it.

martinfisherphoto Loc: Lake Placid Florida

The Raynox 250 is extremely sharp and gives stellar results. I've used it with and without a full set of extension tubes. You haven't mentioned what type of flash and diffuser you use. If set up correctly your lighting will take your macro photography to another level. Yes, macro is possible with out using a flash, but if you want Great results you need to add this to your gear. The softness you speak of is most likely the result of camera shake, even if using a tripod. Send a pm and maybe I can help you achieve what your hoping to accomplish.

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

I concur. I personally use a Raynox 150, which I recommend for macro lenses 105-mm and longer. I recommend the Raynox 250 for macro lenses shorter than 105-mm.
http://www.raynox.co.jp/english/dcr/dcr150/indexdcr150eg.htm

EnglishBrenda Loc: Kent, England

Just a point but my 150 Raynox is not designed to fit my 150mm macro lens, I think the 250mm fits the longer lenses.