Three ways to do macros with a DSLR

1. A dedicated macro lens.
2. An add-on (screw on) positive lens for the main lens.
3. A reversing ring to use with normal lenses.

I figure a dedicate macro lens is the best, but has anyone compared
the three methods?
-Rich

"Rich" wrote in message
...
1. A dedicated macro lens.
2. An add-on (screw on) positive lens for the main lens.
3. A reversing ring to use with normal lenses.

I figure a dedicate macro lens is the best, but has anyone compared
the three methods?

Buy a camera and try it! I have dedicated macro lenses, a bellows, reversing
rings, a series of bellows mount lenses, and a ring to mount a short prime
in front of a tele prime. All work, they are just better. I can get to about
15:1 with my toys.

"Rich" wrote:
1. A dedicated macro lens.
2. An add-on (screw on) positive lens for the main lens.
3. A reversing ring to use with normal lenses.

Note that 2 and 3 are variations of each other, i.e. one is using a second
lens as a closeup lens. Even fast normal lenses are pretty small diameter
compared to a 58mm closeup lens, so closeup lenses are a lot easier to use.

4. Extension tubes with a normal lens.

I figure a dedicate macro lens is the best, but has anyone compared
the three methods?

There was an article on a medium format site that claimed that the dedicated
two (or more) element add-on closeup lenses were actually very good, a close
second to dedicated macro lenses, with extension tubes with normal lenses
not being quite as good. A good real macro lens will be quite flat field and
low distortion, so if you are shooting stamps or paper money or the like,
you'll probably be much happier with a real macro lens. Methods 2, 3, and 4
can get pretty funky around the edges. Fine for bugs, though.

Note, however, that the above assumed most of one's lenses were primes. Zoom
lenses with closeup lenses, extension tubes, or a reversed normal lens may
be problematic.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

Rich wrote:
1. A dedicated macro lens.

A. With a focusing mount
1. Simple close focus mount
2. Corrected for near focus and flat field

B. Without a focusing mount
1. enlarging lense
2. copy lense

2. An add-on (screw on) positive lens for the main lens.

A. Inexpensive single element diopter (least recommended)

B. Expensive multi-element diopter
1. Most expensive: Canon
2. Just expensive: Nikon

C. A common 50mm lense mounted with a male to male filter
thread coupler is a "highly corrected" +20 diopter,
while a 100mm lense is a +10 diopter.

3. A reversing ring to use with normal lenses.

A. Also useful with enlarging lenses

4. Bellows, used with 1, 2 or 3 above, is versatile but fragile.

5. Extension tubes are less versatile and less fragile than bellows.

I figure a dedicate macro lens is the best, but has anyone compared
the three methods?

It is *far* more complicated than just listing three options and
saying one is better. It depends on what is being photographed,
and on the environment and the desired results. A kit typically
used for "macro" images of postage stamps is probably not highly
recommended for getting macro images of the heat sensing areas
on the head of a rattlesnake.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 13:40:03 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
wrote:


"Rich" wrote:
1. A dedicated macro lens.
2. An add-on (screw on) positive lens for the main lens.
3. A reversing ring to use with normal lenses.

Note that 2 and 3 are variations of each other, i.e. one is using a second
lens as a closeup lens. Even fast normal lenses are pretty small diameter
compared to a 58mm closeup lens, so closeup lenses are a lot easier to use.

4. Extension tubes with a normal lens.

I figure a dedicate macro lens is the best, but has anyone compared
the three methods?

There was an article on a medium format site that claimed that the dedicated
two (or more) element add-on closeup lenses were actually very good, a close
second to dedicated macro lenses, with extension tubes with normal lenses
not being quite as good. A good real macro lens will be quite flat field and
low distortion, so if you are shooting stamps or paper money or the like,
you'll probably be much happier with a real macro lens. Methods 2, 3, and 4
can get pretty funky around the edges. Fine for bugs, though.

Note, however, that the above assumed most of one's lenses were primes. Zoom
lenses with closeup lenses, extension tubes, or a reversed normal lens may
be problematic.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan



Thanks for the info.
Now here's the kicker. Does anyone make achromatic screw-on close-up
lenses? I can fabricate them easily enough with step down/up rings
and achromatic lenses of known high quality, but I was wondering if
there is any image degradation that is caused by these lenses given
their (general) lack of coatings and lack of chromatic correction?
Some of what I've seen with various methods of achieving closer focus
introduce things like chromatic aberration, spherical aberration, etc.
I need 58mm (or thereabout, I don't anticipate using the entire image)
lenses.
Thanks!
-Rich

On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 19:51:46 -0900, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

Rich wrote:
1. A dedicated macro lens.

A. With a focusing mount
1. Simple close focus mount
2. Corrected for near focus and flat field

B. Without a focusing mount
1. enlarging lense
2. copy lense

2. An add-on (screw on) positive lens for the main lens.

A. Inexpensive single element diopter (least recommended)

B. Expensive multi-element diopter
1. Most expensive: Canon
2. Just expensive: Nikon

C. A common 50mm lense mounted with a male to male filter
thread coupler is a "highly corrected" +20 diopter,
while a 100mm lense is a +10 diopter.

3. A reversing ring to use with normal lenses.

A. Also useful with enlarging lenses

4. Bellows, used with 1, 2 or 3 above, is versatile but fragile.

5. Extension tubes are less versatile and less fragile than bellows.

I figure a dedicate macro lens is the best, but has anyone compared
the three methods?

It is *far* more complicated than just listing three options and
saying one is better. It depends on what is being photographed,
and on the environment and the desired results. A kit typically
used for "macro" images of postage stamps is probably not highly
recommended for getting macro images of the heat sensing areas
on the head of a rattlesnake.

For that I'd recommend a Questar long distance microscope
which is essentially a mirror lens telescope of high quality optimized
for distances of between 2 and 10 feet rather than infinity!
-Rich

Rich wrote:
1. A dedicated macro lens.
2. An add-on (screw on) positive lens for the main lens.
3. A reversing ring to use with normal lenses.

I figure a dedicate macro lens is the best, but has anyone compared
the three methods?
-Rich

Many years ago I built a slide copier from cardboard tubes which telescoped
inside each other and a 50mm enlarging lens. The results were as good as I
later got from a dedicated slide copier costing many more bucks than the
home made one.

--
www.photosbydouglas.com
www.weprint2canvas.com
If you really must write,use my
name at an above domain.

"Rich" wrote:

Now here's the kicker. Does anyone make achromatic screw-on close-up
lenses?

Both Canon and Nikon. The Canon 250D and 500D are the Canon versions, but
they're only available in two sizes, and are pricey. The 250D maps infinity
focus to 25 cm, the 500D maps infinity to 50 cm, and they can be stacked.
Since all but one of my 645 lenses have 58mm threads, the 58mm 250D and a
couple of single-element closeup lenses were all I needed.

I can fabricate them easily enough with step down/up rings
and achromatic lenses of known high quality, but I was wondering if
there is any image degradation that is caused by these lenses given
their (general) lack of coatings and lack of chromatic correction?

In all honesty, I couldn't tell the difference between the 250D and the
single-element closeup lenses.

Some of what I've seen with various methods of achieving closer focus
introduce things like chromatic aberration, spherical aberration, etc.
I need 58mm (or thereabout, I don't anticipate using the entire image)
lenses.

I'd recommend getting a couple of the single-element lenses and seeing how
they work. My bet is that you'll be pleasantly surprised.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

"Rich" wrote in message
...
1. A dedicated macro lens.

-- easiest to use.

2. An add-on (screw on) positive lens for the main lens.

-- you can get better mag factor as the reversed lens act like a loupe for
your setup.

3. A reversing ring to use with normal lenses.

- very hard to use. as your viewfinder will become very dimmed .
tried photographing a walking centipede once with this and I end up using no
1 to snap it

=bob=

Rich writes:

Thanks for the info.
Now here's the kicker. Does anyone make achromatic screw-on close-up
lenses?

Yes. Canon's 250D and 500D closeup lenses are achromats (I suspect that
the "D" in the name means "doublet"). They're even 58 mm diameter.

Some other manufacturers also produce achromatic closeup lenses (e.g.
try Heliopan, B+W, maybe Hoya). They will be several times the price of
a single-element CU lens of the same size and diopter rating.

Dave