|
|
Extension rings for macro
I wish to buy a set of rings to give macro capability to my camera.
I have a Nikon D50 body married to a Tamron AF LD 28-200 lens. My question to all you knowledgeable people is this: would a Kenko Automatic Extension Tube Set DG for Nikon AF be suitable and would all the functions on the D50 be enabled? Thank you in advance. Gerrit - Oz |
Extension rings for macro
Gerrit wrote:
I wish to buy a set of rings to give macro capability to my camera. I have a Nikon D50 body married to a Tamron AF LD 28-200 lens. My question to all you knowledgeable people is this: would a Kenko Automatic Extension Tube Set DG for Nikon AF be suitable and would all the functions on the D50 be enabled? Thank you in advance. Gerrit - Oz All functions should work. You'd lose AF ability with screw-driven lenses, but with the electronic contacts, still have AF with AF-s lenses. Not that this matters much, as you'd probably want to use manual focus with macro anyway. How much are the Kenko tubes BTW? Just that almost any brand (Nikkor and third party Tamron/Sigma/Tokina - and others?) make extremely good dedicated macro lenses, some of which - especially the non-nikkors - might be able to be picked up used for not much more than extension tubes. |
Extension rings for macro
|
Extension rings for macro
Ghetta Klew wrote:
On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 17:58:32 -0800, (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote: "Gerrit" wrote: I wish to buy a set of rings to give macro capability to my camera. I have a Nikon D50 body married to a Tamron AF LD 28-200 lens. My question to all you knowledgeable people is this: would a Kenko Automatic Extension Tube Set DG for Nikon AF be suitable and would all the functions on the D50 be enabled? Kenko Automatic Extension tubes will work on your D50. Just be aware that your lens was never designed to work well at close focusing distances, and hence your results may not be as sharp as they could be. Doesn't matter. Because he'll be using a DSLR for macro photography. That means the DOF will always be so shallow that it won't matter what part is in focus, because the rest of the subject will never be in focus enough for a decent photograph. Yes, you're all clueless. The OP "Gerrit" should ignore this advice - as it's wrong. If he wants to investigate further, then he should look for information on the relationship between depth of field, resolution, and diffraction on sites such as: http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/ |
Extension rings for macro
"Bruce" wrote in message ... On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 08:00:33 +0800, "Gerrit" wrote: I wish to buy a set of rings to give macro capability to my camera. I have a Nikon D50 body married to a Tamron AF LD 28-200 lens. My question to all you knowledgeable people is this: would a Kenko Automatic Extension Tube Set DG for Nikon AF be suitable and would all the functions on the D50 be enabled? Yes, this should work. But the lens will not be capable of producing good, sharp results with the extension tubes. A dedicated macro lens would give much better results. The above is correct, but ***sometimes*** some combinations of a ***good*** zoom and an achromat (a 2-element close-up lens attached to the front of the lens), when used at some FLs, and with the lens stopped down quite a bit (and either on a tripod or with flash to make that possible) can produce good sharpness with a zoom for taking macro photos. With the Tamron, playing with its zoom range, focus, and aperture settings ***may*** produce a combination with a not-too-strong achromat that is reasonably sharp for the OP's purposes - but a dedicated macro lens would be an easier (and likely better) solution. BTW, if an auto diaphragm is not needed, old enlarger lenses adapted to tubes or a bellows can be an inexpensive way to making sharp close-up images... --DR |
Extension rings for macro
* Gerrit wrote :
I wish to buy a set of rings to give macro capability to my camera. I have a Nikon D50 body married to a Tamron AF LD 28-200 lens. My question to all you knowledgeable people is this: would a Kenko Automatic Extension Tube Set DG for Nikon AF be suitable and would all the functions on the D50 be enabled? G'day mate. My take on it is this. A 28-200 lens with extension tubes will allow you to focus much closer than the lens can do without, but it won't be macro sort of magnifications. I don't think you'll be able to achieve 1:1 lifesize. A commonly recommended cheap macro kit is something like a 50mm prime lens with a full set of extension tubes (about 68mm). That will give you 1:1 magnification, true macro. Not sure about Nikkor, but I know the Canon 50mm f/1.8 is very reasonably priced a around AU$100-$150. Personally, I wouldn't buy the tubes and 50mm lens, though. Well, actually I did do this originally. What I mean to say is I wouldn't do that if I had my time again. I'd just get a true macro lens first up. Something around 100mm focal length. I have the Canon 100mm f/2.8, but have experience with the Sigma 105mm and the Tamron 90mm. Both are excellent and cheaper than the Canon. I'm sure you'd find the same with Nikkors. That focal length is a good balance of affordability and working distance. These true macro lenses give you 1:1 magnification at minimum focus distance and are much easier to use than the extension tubes plus normal lens. Plus, if and when you do get hooked on macro, if you buy the extension tubes then, on lenses around 100mm focal length you can get 2:1 magnification. Next time we'll talk about lighting :) -- Troy Piggins |
Extension rings for macro
"Troy Piggins" wrote in message ... * Gerrit wrote : I wish to buy a set of rings to give macro capability to my camera. I have a Nikon D50 body married to a Tamron AF LD 28-200 lens. My question to all you knowledgeable people is this: would a Kenko Automatic Extension Tube Set DG for Nikon AF be suitable and would all the functions on the D50 be enabled? G'day mate. My take on it is this. A 28-200 lens with extension tubes will allow you to focus much closer than the lens can do without, but it won't be macro sort of magnifications. I don't think you'll be able to achieve 1:1 lifesize. With a 28mm or longer extension tube, you should be able to get to 1:1 at 28mm. You may not like the results, though. Wide angle lenses are especially poor at close focus. Another approach is closeup lenses. The single-element ones are OK (if you don't mind CA), but on a good lens, the apochromatic (multi-element) ones can be very good. I have a 67mm Kenko apochromatic 2-diopter (or "500") that performs very well on the Canon 70-200/4.0 IS and the 5D2. It's not 1:1, but it's OK for flowers and things that are 3x5" and larger. The subject ends up at 500mm from the sensor plane, and I can adjust magnification with the zoom. (With closeup lenses, the longer the lens, the greater the magnification. Extension tubes are the opposite.) But holding the subject within the range the lens can focus is a pain. See below. A commonly recommended cheap macro kit is something like a 50mm prime lens with a full set of extension tubes (about 68mm). That will give you 1:1 magnification, true macro. Not sure about Nikkor, but I know the Canon 50mm f/1.8 is very reasonably priced a around AU$100-$150. Personally, I wouldn't buy the tubes and 50mm lens, though. Well, actually I did do this originally. What I mean to say is I wouldn't do that if I had my time again. I'd just get a true macro lens first up. Agreed. Completely. The reason, though, is not only quality. With extension tubes and/or closeup lenses, the range one can focus over is extremely narrow. With a real macro lens, you just aim at the thing you are thinking of shooting and the AF grabs it. Want a different magnification? Move in closer or back off. With zoom + tubes and/or closeup lenses you have to stay the exact same distance away. This is, of course, not a problem with stationary subjects and a tripod (if you have a macro rail), but a friggin bear handheld. Something around 100mm focal length. I have the Canon 100mm f/2.8, but have experience with the Sigma 105mm and the Tamron 90mm. Both are excellent and cheaper than the Canon. I'm sure you'd find the same with Nikkors. That focal length is a good balance of affordability and working distance. These true macro lenses give you 1:1 magnification at minimum focus distance and are much easier to use than the extension tubes plus normal lens. There's a new Tamron 60/2.0 macro lens for APS-C cameras only. The f/2.0 makes focusing easier, and the 60mm focal length gives you similar compositions/perspectives you'd get with a 100mm lens on FF. (Actually, it is better than a 100mm on FF, since you get a magnification effect due to the crop (or due to the finer pixel pitch for people who perversely insist on that distinction)). This guy should also be a good portrait lens on APS-C. -- David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan |
Extension rings for macro
* David J. Littleboy wrote :
"Troy Piggins" wrote in message ... [---=| Quote block shrinked by t-prot: 8 lines snipped |=---] G'day mate. My take on it is this. A 28-200 lens with extension tubes will allow you to focus much closer than the lens can do without, but it won't be macro sort of magnifications. I don't think you'll be able to achieve 1:1 lifesize. With a 28mm or longer extension tube, you should be able to get to 1:1 at 28mm. You may not like the results, though. Wide angle lenses are especially poor at close focus. Another approach is closeup lenses. The single-element ones are OK (if you don't mind CA), but on a good lens, the apochromatic (multi-element) ones can be very good. I have a 67mm Kenko apochromatic 2-diopter (or "500") that performs very well on the Canon 70-200/4.0 IS and the 5D2. It's not 1:1, but it's OK for flowers and things that are 3x5" and larger. The subject ends up at 500mm from the sensor plane, and I can adjust magnification with the zoom. (With closeup lenses, the longer the lens, the greater the magnification. Extension tubes are the opposite.) But holding the subject within the range the lens can focus is a pain. See below. A commonly recommended cheap macro kit is something like a 50mm prime lens with a full set of extension tubes (about 68mm). That will give you 1:1 magnification, true macro. Not sure about Nikkor, but I know the Canon 50mm f/1.8 is very reasonably priced a around AU$100-$150. Personally, I wouldn't buy the tubes and 50mm lens, though. Well, actually I did do this originally. What I mean to say is I wouldn't do that if I had my time again. I'd just get a true macro lens first up. Agreed. Completely. The reason, though, is not only quality. With extension tubes and/or closeup lenses, the range one can focus over is extremely narrow. With a real macro lens, you just aim at the thing you are thinking of shooting and the AF grabs it. Want a different magnification? Move in closer or back off. With zoom + tubes and/or closeup lenses you have to stay the exact same distance away. This is, of course, not a problem with stationary subjects and a tripod (if you have a macro rail), but a friggin bear handheld. Something around 100mm focal length. I have the Canon 100mm f/2.8, but have experience with the Sigma 105mm and the Tamron 90mm. Both are excellent and cheaper than the Canon. I'm sure you'd find the same with Nikkors. That focal length is a good balance of affordability and working distance. These true macro lenses give you 1:1 magnification at minimum focus distance and are much easier to use than the extension tubes plus normal lens. There's a new Tamron 60/2.0 macro lens for APS-C cameras only. The f/2.0 makes focusing easier, and the 60mm focal length gives you similar compositions/perspectives you'd get with a 100mm lens on FF. (Actually, it is better than a 100mm on FF, since you get a magnification effect due to the crop (or due to the finer pixel pitch for people who perversely insist on that distinction)). This guy should also be a good portrait lens on APS-C. All good points, David, and agree completely. -- Troy Piggins |
Extension rings for macro
"Bruce" wrote in message ... On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 09:25:24 -0400, "David Ruether" wrote: "Bruce" wrote in message ... On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 08:00:33 +0800, "Gerrit" wrote: I wish to buy a set of rings to give macro capability to my camera. I have a Nikon D50 body married to a Tamron AF LD 28-200 lens. My question to all you knowledgeable people is this: would a Kenko Automatic Extension Tube Set DG for Nikon AF be suitable and would all the functions on the D50 be enabled? Yes, this should work. But the lens will not be capable of producing good, sharp results with the extension tubes. A dedicated macro lens would give much better results. The above is correct, but ***sometimes*** some combinations of a ***good*** zoom and an achromat (a 2-element close-up lens attached to the front of the lens), when used at some FLs, and with the lens stopped down quite a bit (and either on a tripod or with flash to make that possible) can produce good sharpness with a zoom for taking macro photos. I agree. I usually carry a B+W +1, +2 and +4 dioptre close-up set with me for use only with fixed focal length lenses. But in general, they don't tend to produce good results with 28-200mm lenses, which tend to be at the edge of acceptability at the best of times (with the sole exception of the Kiron 28-200mm). Yes. With the Tamron, playing with its zoom range, focus, and aperture settings ***may*** produce a combination with a not-too-strong achromat that is reasonably sharp for the OP's purposes - Perhaps, if the lens is stopped down to f/8 or f/11. it might be *almost* acceptable. I would say "f11-f16" or more...;-) BTW, I've had excellent results with the Nikkor 200mm f4 (compact version - non-zoom, non-macro, stopped well down) on tele converters and/or with tubes and/or with an achromat on the front. Good for up to 3X on full-frame (it is hard to tell from this small photo, but it is VERY sharp, http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/w.../bugs/b55.jpg). but a dedicated macro lens would be an easier (and likely better) solution. Always! ;-) No disagreement here (at least with a zoom...;-)! 8^) Plus, there are some very cheap used AIS 55mm f/2.8 Micro-Nikkors out there. Watch out for the common oil-on-diaphragm syndrome with these, though... The AF 55 or 60 would be better since the front elements are not as recessed, making lighting less of a problem. BTW, the compact MF 90mm f2.8 Sigma was a very competent macro lens (and I "stole" its close-up lens for use on the 200mm for taking the fly photo, likely with added tele converter and tubes, hand-held with flash [my hands were ***_FAR_*** steadier back then!]). BTW, if an auto diaphragm is not needed, old enlarger lenses adapted to tubes or a bellows can be an inexpensive way to making sharp close-up images... I doubt that many younger photographers, brought up on a diet of program exposure and autofocus, would know where to start. :-( I think you are right......;-) --DR |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:28 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
PhotoBanter.com