Macro Photography, next stage? Raynox?

wilt

wilt

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,698
Name
Steven
Edit My Images
No
I love messing about taking shots of bugs out my back garden.
I've a Nikon 105mm 2.8G macro lens, but i find it's still not close enough.
I did try reversing a 50mm on the end of the 105mm but it was almost impossible to use.
I've kenko tubes, would these help much?
What would you suggest is the next stage in getting closer? I don't want to spend a fortune as i'm currently not working.
Could i put a Raynox on the end of my macro lens? Would it be any better?

Thanks in advance
 
Try the Kenko tubes.

I've got a Canon 100mm and a couple of tubes. For me the next stage is lighting. With 1:1 and a 25mm tube even on full frame I can get plenty close enough, but I want to be able to stop down more and it is the lighting that allows that.
 
"This gives you a 2.68:1 macro lens, with a working distance of between 12.02 cm and 12.5 cm depending on your focus"
Crikey, big improvement on magnification.
 
Fwiw, I have no personal experience with Nikon 105mm so I don't know the filter diameter (ie if a Raynox would fit). But I've used raynox plenty on 50-200 zoom and it works a treat. Inexpensive way into more magnification as you preserve all the electronic controls.
 
Think about if/why this is going to be any easier to use than the 50mm reversed in front of the 105mm. As they both give ~2:1, I would have thought they would be very similar to use.
 
It gave me images like this
th_DSC_6434_zpssmkn0pqg.jpg
 
nass said:
Fwiw, I have no personal experience with Nikon 105mm so I don't know the filter diameter (ie if a Raynox would fit). But I've used raynox plenty on 50-200 zoom and it works a treat. Inexpensive way into more magnification as you preserve all the electronic controls.
Click to expand...

It's 62mm if memory serves me correctly.
 
If you are serious about getting high magnifications then it need not cost the earth.

The setup I use is shown here, forgetting the ring flash, the remainder was bought 'used' and quite cheaply.

The focusing rail (the wooden jobbie) was a DIY project.

You could try reversing your 105mm directly onto the camera or purchase a used 28mm lens specifically for the purpose and reverse that.

A reversing ring is a very cheap method of obtaining high magnification.

When reversing a lens all 'auto' functions are lost of course.

Another alternative is a set of auto extension tubes.

AND...there is always Raynox, I would recommend the 150 over the 250, as I have found the 150 much easier to use.
The Raynox thread into its adapter is only 43mm, so I not too sure how you would get on putting it onto a 62mm,
you 'may' suffer from vignetting.

17025993221_a1946d3fd1_c by Dave in Wales, on Flickr

image by Dave in Wales, on Flickr

image by Dave in Wales, on Flickr

My 'very' first shot with this 'combo'...A Pin Head.
Not too special I'm afraid, and as you can see DOF is minimal.
image by Dave in Wales, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
wilt said:
It gave me images like this
th_DSC_6434_zpssmkn0pqg.jpg
Click to expand...
I'd expect some vignetting but not that much and it's certainly more than I've had using the same technique. Are you using an FX or DX body?
The Raynox will clip straight onto a 62mm thread (I used mine on my RX10 a few days ago so I know) but that is the largest it fits onto and you will get vignetting but I don't know how much on the 105mm. On my RX10 there's still a bit of vignetting at 200mm equiv.
 
I sometimes use my Raynox DCR250 no top of my Sigma 105mm if I want to get that bit closer, it gives excellent results!
 
The Raynox should fit on your Macro lens, mine fits onto a a 70-300 VR which is 67mm filter size. They are easy to attach, takes seconds and you are up and running.
Only used mine once and it takes some getting used to (well it did for me) but some of the images I have seen taken with the lens is pretty remarkable, unlike mine :(


[url=https://flic.kr/p/FkB97F]Stigma [/URL]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top