Mega macro- >1:1 solutions?

[mrjames]

Hi all, recently I have been experimenting with some extreme macro after getting bored of just vanilla 1:1, my maths is a bit rusty but I calculated that I was getting around 6.5:1 out of the setup in the end

So I thought i'd share my findings with you, and try to get some insights from you lot on here about some issues I uncovered along the way


The lens I am using is the sigma 150mm macro (not sure if I regret swapping it for the canon- now tempted again by the 100mm IS)

I shot lots with my 100mm, but i'm not having soo much fun with the 150- the working distance feels too long, the perspective seems flatter, and it has noticably less depth of field (means I have to focus stack because f11 is never enough). IS could be useful for >1:1 macro but i'd really have to experiment with that before I could say if it was. It is also a lot heavier, and a bit longer than the canon lens. It also has pretty poor ergonomics as the focus ring is too far forward to use comfortably...



The sigma lens is semi-useable at f18, sharp=ish at f16 and considerably sharper at f11. It has a working distance of 20cm at 1:1 (to front of lens element)

Here is a shot at 1:1

100% crops showing effects of diffraction

now for the interesting bit

 

[mrjames]

Extension tubes:

I have been using a full set of extension tubes on the lens, which gives me a bit more extension (but not all that much- 1:1 magnification is gained when the length of extension is the same as the focal length of the lens, so in this case with 65mm extension, the magnification is now 1.4:1) and the trade off is light loss, 2 stops I think. I'm using strobes so the effect on shutter speed is not a problem, my flash works a little harder but it can still deliver the goods up to f22. The problem is that f11 is now the equivalent of f22, this means that i'm suffering from the effects of diffraction if I shoot a small aperture, but there is no depth of field if I shoot a larger aperture (f5.6). There is a trade off between softness due to diffraction, and the perceived sharpness due to having more pixels on the subject, and increased depth of field; so in use the lens is still acceptable at f11 (f22), but considerably sharper at f8 (f16)- but there is less depth of field, focus stacking is the only way to get depth of field and sharpness. The working distance drops to 16.5cm- overall a nice cheap way to extend shooting ability, but the trade off's seems too great, I'm not sure that extension tubes are the best way to extend a macro lens, they work better with non macro lenses to give a cheap introduction into macro photography

150mm macro with 3 extension tubes

Using Tubes With Non-Macro Lenses

When used with a 50mm lens you can get slightly more than 1:1 at a MFD of 10cm- perfectly useable, and when stopped down every bit as sharp as a proper macro lens,.
Magnification is 1:1 when the extension is the same as the focal length of the lens, so because we have 64mm we have slightly over 1:1)

50mm on full extension

28mm: when used with 2 tubes you can get good results, 3 tubes puts the plane of focus impossibly close, literally on the front element, but possibly useable in a studio set-up, probably not worth it though

2 tubes 28

 

[mrjames]

Lens Reversal:

With reversed lenses, the wider the lens the higher the magnification. Reversing the 50mm will allow you to focus closer, but it's nothing approaching 1:1. Not recommended

reversed 50 (if you stopped the lens down, it would be much much sharper)

reversed 50 on tubes

reverse that 28 and you get good macro at a MFD of 5cm, put it on the tubes and you can get higher mag at the same working distance

reversed 28

reversed 28 on tubes

 

[mrjames]

Reversed Lens In Front of Lens

here is where things get real interesting. When you stack lenses the resultant magnification is the focal length of the main lens at infinity divided by the reversed lens. So with a reversed 50 in front of the 150mm macro we get a cool 3:1 at a measly working distance of 3.5cm). Turn the lens to it's 1:1 macro setting and you can add 1 to that ratio making it 4:1 with about 2cm of working distance

4:1 50mm reversed in front of 150



Put the tubes on as well, and working distance drops to 2.5cm with the macro lens at infinity. Turn to 1:1 and you'll be getting 6.5:1- very difficult to use though

150 reversed 50, tubes

 

[mrjames]

and here are some shots I took with the setup, mostly straight out of camera- You get a slight amount of magnification control by sing the focus ring on the main lens

using the 28mm reversed in front of the 150 gives a massive magnification of about 6:1. Although it vignettes heavily, so only the centre portion will be available, an f2 lens would counteract this I think. When used on the tubes I managed to get the queens nose to fill the frame, although it was uselessly soft as even with the camera locked down on a tripod I could not get a sharp shot, I dread to think what the effective apperture was at that magnification, f64? 7:1?

150, reversed 28, on tubes






None of the combo's were particularly wieldy, i'd say the 150 with a reversed 50 was the best in terms of useability and magnification. An f2 or faster 28mm lens would have allowed me to shoot without vignetting, a 35mm f2 would be the perfect lens for reversal shooting in front of the 150.

Focussing is such an issue that I think it is probably easier and would give higher quality results if you were to shoot on a lower mag and then crop in- make sure the focus is bang on, this is a lot easier at lower magnification, are you going to make 30" prints anyway? A high megapixel body would be beneficial here for crop-ability.


A 2x teleconverter would double the magnification at the same working distance, or would double the working distance at the same mag, at the expense of image quality- I have never used a teleconverter for macro so I am unable to comment on how well it works. A 2x TC would work well in front of the 150+50 to give some more useable working distance, although likely the penalty would be impossibly shallow depth of field. I wish my lens could be permanently stopped down to f8 so I had more depth of field in the viewfinder, but still close down further to f16 when the shutter is pressed

another option i'd like to hear some insight about is using multiple sets of extension tubes

finally we have the ultimate macro lens, the MPE-65, capable of 5:1 magnification, it seems like the real deal- but how is the working distance



In terms of lighting, it seems flash is the only way- but i'm having trouble with the flash bumping the subject when the working distance is so tiny. I'm thinking of looking into a macro ring flash setup



SO the result of this is that >1:1 magnification is doable without stepping up to the mpe-65, although the pitfalls involved are making me question whether or not it is a worthwhile investment, perhaps the mpe would solve all my current super macro issues, from what i've read the working distance at 1x mag is 10cm, half that of the sigma, at 5x the working distance is 40mm, twice what I get from my diy kit


I could be missing something really obvious here, is there a better way to get high mag, and still retain control over the lens, without it being too heavy, and without spending £700?





to summarise:
reversing- wider lens, more magnification with less working distance, put the setup on tubes to decrease working distance in favour of more magnification

to keep automatic apperture control/ETTL, you want to use a lens reversed in front of another lens, the ratio between the 2 lenses sets the magnification. The front lens should be a fast prime, the rear lens can be a slow tele.

 

[mrjames]

I only have access to prime lenses which is limiting as 'zoom' controls the magnification, I'd really like to hear about someone's experiences with a reversed wide-normal zoom vs a tele zoom with a fast prime reversed
the 18-55 would be fantastic reversed as long as you have a special reversing ring which allows aperture control
http://orionmystery.blogspot.com/2010/10/poor-mans-mpe65-dmf-supermacro.html

i'd love to see how it compares against a 70-200 with a reversed 50mm


so it seems the best options for >1:1 macro are
70-200 with reversed 50mm
reversed 18-55
mpe-65
2x teleconverter on 1:1 macro lens, with extension tubes



here is a list of all the working distances of the set-ups tested above


150mm macro- 20cm 1:1

150mm macro + tubes- 16.5cm 1.4:1

150mm macro + reversed 50mm- 4cm 4:1

150mm macro + reversed 28mm- 4cm 6:1

150mm macro + tubes +reversed 50mm- 2.5cm 5:1?

150mm macro + tubes + reversed 28- 2.5cm 7:1?


50mm + tubes- 5cm 1.4:1

28mm + tubes- 0cm 3:1


Reversed 50mm- 10cm 0.7:1

Reversed 28mm- 5cm 1.5:1


Reversed 50mm + tubes- 5cm 1.5:1

Reversed 28mm + tubes- 5cm 3:1

 

[Craikeybaby]

Interesting thread!

I haven't done much macro yet, so can't answer any questions, but it does provide some food for thought.

 

[lucyb]

Fantastic write up! Really interesting and potentially rather useful. Thanks!

 

[stormcrow]

Purely by coincidence I had brought my sigma 150mm and extension tubes out of the mothballs today as I’d found this willing subject on the window ledge so I thought I’d have a little play.

My only regret in having a Nikon setup is that they do not have a lens like the MPE-65, I’d love to have something with that magnification.

What did you use to reverse the 50mm are there any particular adaptors better than others?

 

[mrjames]

Purely by coincidence I had brought my sigma 150mm and extension tubes out of the mothballs today as I’d found this willing subject on the window ledge so I thought I’d have a little play.



My only regret in having a Nikon setup is that they do not have a lens like the MPE-65, I’d love to have something with that magnification.

What did you use to reverse the 50mm are there any particular adaptors better than others?

WOW great shot!


Handily the lens hood on the 50mm fits perfectly over the front of the sigma so I wasn't using a reversing ring
with the 28mm and the 50 on tubes I just held it in front of the lens, I don't think i'd bother getting a reversing ring for the 28mm, and the 50mm sits so snugly in front of the sigma because the inside of the hood is flocked so it fits really well

I would expect that all reversing adaptors are similar as it is only a coupler to connect the 2 lenses filter rings together. I'm sure even a plastic one would be fine

here is a picture of the setup, sorry for iphone quality

 

[stormcrow]

WOW great shot!


Handily the lens hood on the 50mm fits perfectly over the front of the sigma so I wasn't using a reversing ring
with the 28mm and the 50 on tubes I just held it in front of the lens, I don't think i'd bother getting a reversing ring for the 28mm, and the 50mm sits so snugly in front of the sigma because the inside of the hood is flocked so it fits really well

I would expect that all reversing adaptors are similar as it is only a coupler to connect the 2 lenses filter rings together. I'm sure even a plastic one would be fine

Thanks for the info and the inspiration to play with macro again.
I have just ordered myself a reverse adapter for my 50mm so I will have a little play with that at the weekend.

 

[srichards]

Hmm. If you need to get that close and that magnification I think a microscope might be what is needed

Very interesting to see how you can push things with just using ordinary macro and non macro lenses with extension tubes etc.

 

[mrjames]

Thanks for the info and the inspiration to play with macro again.
I have just ordered myself a reverse adapter for my 50mm so I will have a little play with that at the weekend.

Excellent- i'll be interested to see what else is willing to sacrifice itself for your macro pleasure

How was your fly shot lit by the way- the lighting is really soft, were you using strobes?

Hmm. If you need to get that close and that magnification I think a microscope might be what is needed

Very interesting to see how you can push things with just using ordinary macro and non macro lenses with extension tubes etc.

ha ha i'd love to connect my camera to a microscope and get some 100x images, I miss biology

 

[stormcrow]

Excellent- i'll be interested to see what else is willing to sacrifice itself for your macro pleasure

How was your fly shot lit by the way- the lighting is really soft, were you using strobes?

It was lit very simply with 2 SB-900's on their side and a white canvas laid over the top to reflect the light down onto the fly.

Here is another I did after I read your post I tried my 50mm with the extension tubes attached. As it is my first go with that combination I'm pretty happy with the results. Focus distance was much more of an issue though and as you can see the lighting is harsher on this one as I found it more difficult to position the flashes due to how close I was and I forgot to bounce the light off the canvas.

 

[Nez]

Real interesting read.

As someone who pretty much always has a full set of tubes attached to a macro lens I can understand that urge to want to get more magnification.
I have tried a reversed 50,full tubes,sigma 105 and found on my a200 it's just a recipe for eye problems as the viewfinder just isn't up to it.

I suspect an mpe65 would be more convenience for attaining the higher mag
But for me it would mean a whole new system change.