Ugly Hedgehog® - Photography Forum
Macro
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Page: 1 2 3 4 next>>
Jun 16, 2019 08:57:01   #
R Crawford
 
I love macro photography. I have been away from it for many years. Back in the old film days (my own darkroom) I was into it big time.

Things are so different now, so I ask the question....

May I have opinions on the various methods?

A: Diopter lens.

B: extension tubes.

C: True macro lens.

Bear in mind my resource pool determines many of my decisions.

| Reply
Jun 16, 2019 09:01:37   #
Screamin Scott
 
I have all of those options but rely on my old macro lens from my film days, a MF 105mm F2.8 Lester Dine macro...( one of 8 macro lenses I own. Macro is my niche)

| Reply
Jun 16, 2019 09:17:54   #
pesfls
 
As to diopters, and I may well be saying something you know well already, make sure to use apo ones or you won’t like the results. They can be a bit hard to find nowadays, unfortunately. Have fun.

| Reply
Jun 16, 2019 09:19:39   #
imagemeister (a regular here)
 
Diopter lens are the most user friendly, no light loss, works best with zooms. Two element versions are best and cost more. Limited focus range, No infinity capability. Best used for lesser magnifications 1:2 and less. Diopter powers Greater than +2 and IQ begins to suffer noticeably. 2 element versions may have limited sizings. MOST travel friendly.

Extension tubes, less friendly - especially to remove and attach, and loose light. Must have electrical pass through connections to retain lens' full functionality. Limited focus range, No infinity capability. Not friendly with zooms. Best used with lesser magnifications - 1:2 or less. Some (more expensive) have helicoid (variable) length for larger focus range.

True macro allows continuous focus range including infinity. Has highest image quality. Looses light. Prime lenses only (no zooms). Magnifications 1:1 or greater. Highest cost.

Teleconverters also allow more magnification with native lenses but there will be IQ loss and light loss, but retain infinity focus.
.

| Reply
Jun 16, 2019 09:23:11   #
jeweler53
 
My order of preference, which is also most to least costly:
A good macro lens
A good prime with extension tubes
Diopter lenses.
If I want to shoot a macro subject, I usually grab one of my macro lenses. The other options are just too "fiddly", especially for outdoor work.
If you don't mind a manual aperture, an enlarger lens on tubes or a bellows is also an inexpensive alternative that works very well.

| Reply
Jun 16, 2019 09:25:24   #
Soul Dr. (a regular here)
 
Extension tubes are the cheapest way to go with pretty good results, depending on which lens you use with them. Best results are with a true macro lens. I use both options. I would stay away from diopter lens, most are not very good.

will

| Reply
Jun 16, 2019 09:36:00   #
dpullum (a regular here)
 
Check out
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/825021-REG/Opteka_OPT10X62_10x_High_Definition_II.html
http://opteka.com/lensesfordigitalcameras.aspx
I compared the specifications, number of elements, to the popular with UHH people that cost much more. "Ya get whatcha pay fur" is a bunch of bunk"... the lower cost Opteka is a screw on and is better spec than the push on expensive one.

I too operate on a squeezed $.

| Reply
Jun 16, 2019 09:38:53   #
Mac (a regular here)
 
R Crawford wrote:
I love macro photography. I have been away from it for many years. Back in the old film days (my own darkroom) I was into it big time.

Things are so different now, so I ask the question....

May I have opinions on the various methods?

A: Diopter lens.

B: extension tubes.

C: True macro lens.

Bear in mind my resource pool determines many of my decisions.


You would do well to ask this in Macro forum section to get answers from the Macro experts.
https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/s-102-1.html

| Reply
Jun 16, 2019 09:43:14   #
RWR (a regular here)
 
R Crawford wrote:
I love macro photography. I have been away from it for many years. Back in the old film days (my own darkroom) I was into it big time.

Things are so different now, so I ask the question....

May I have opinions on the various methods?

A: Diopter lens.

B: extension tubes.

C: True macro lens.

Bear in mind my resource pool determines many of my decisions.

Except for recording on digital rather than on film, what makes you think anything has changed?

| Reply
Jun 16, 2019 09:44:11   #
Screamin Scott
 
What camera do you have ?

| Reply
Jun 16, 2019 09:48:50   #
JD750 (a regular here)
 
R Crawford wrote:
I love macro photography. I have been away from it for many years. Back in the old film days (my own darkroom) I was into it big time.

Things are so different now, so I ask the question....

May I have opinions on the various methods?

A: Diopter lens.

B: extension tubes.

C: True macro lens.

Bear in mind my resource pool determines many of my decisions.


FYI There are Macro forums here on UHH. You might want to consider posting those questions there.

True Macro Photography Forum:
https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/s-102-1.html

Close Up Photography:
https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/s-113-1.html

| Reply
Jun 16, 2019 10:02:20   #
russelray
 
My first choice is a my Tamron 90mm macro lens.
My second choice is my Tamron 90mm macro lens.
My third choice is my Tamron 90mm macro lens.

Been there, done that for all the other possibilities. Was not happy.

| Reply
Jun 16, 2019 10:30:24   #
bleirer (a regular here)
 
This brand is at adorama, etc. Very low cost way to get the lens electronics passed to the camera. Made of lightweight aluminum and you are not wowed by the quality, but does the job. You lose f stops the more you extend of course, and magnify any aberrations the lens has, so not a permanent solution compared to quality macro lens.

http://www.meikestore.com/category/extension-tubes/685.html

| Reply
Jun 16, 2019 10:35:10   #
Soul Dr. (a regular here)
 
dpullum wrote:
Check out
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/825021-REG/Opteka_OPT10X62_10x_High_Definition_II.html
http://opteka.com/lensesfordigitalcameras.aspx
I compared the specifications, number of elements, to the popular with UHH people that cost much more. "Ya get whatcha pay fur" is a bunch of bunk"... the lower cost Opteka is a screw on and is better spec than the push on expensive one.

I too operate on a squeezed $.


The specs may sound good. But these cheap diopters don't do very well in actual use. I know, I have tried some of them. And you do get what you pay for.

will

| Reply
Jun 16, 2019 11:02:52   #
rjaywallace (a regular here)
 
imagemeister wrote:
Diopter lens are the most user friendly, no light loss, works best with zooms. Two element versions are best and cost more. Limited focus range, No infinity capability. Best used for lesser magnifications 1:2 and less. Diopter powers Greater than +2 and IQ begins to suffer noticeably. 2 element versions may have limited sizings. MOST travel friendly.

Extension tubes, less friendly - especially to remove and attach, and loose light. Must have electrical pass through connections to retain lens' full functionality. Limited focus range, No infinity capability. Not friendly with zooms. Best used with lesser magnifications - 1:2 or less. Some (more expensive) have helicoid (variable) length for larger focus range.

True macro allows continuous focus range including infinity. Has highest image quality. Looses light. Prime lenses only (no zooms). Magnifications 1:1 or greater. Highest cost.

Teleconverters also allow more magnification with native lenses but there will be IQ loss and light loss, but retain infinity focus
Diopter lens are the most user friendly, no light ... (show quote)

Very good summary, Larry!

| Reply
Page: 1 2 3 4 next>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2019 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.