Macro guidance....occasional needs

[cwood]

I have a Sony Nex5n

My manual choices so far have stuck to Nikon. I have a 50mm 1.8 and a 70-210. I have the kit 18-55 and will be adding a few sigma's likely.

I need macro capabilities sometimes...not as a photography pursuit but for other hobby needs.

What is my best (cheapest) approach for adding a manual macro capability to my setup? I have heard of tubes but not sure if that would suit.

[hoanpham]

Reverse lens is the cheapest macro.

My most simple set up is reverse ring, tubes, and flash

[kansalliskala]

Bellows aren't very expensive either Click here to see on Ebay.
but I don't know about the quality of these

you need a tripod too.

edit: the seller says quality is "Excellent"

[WolverineX]

[hifisapi]

you could buy a set of closeup lenses and use them on your 50mm

[hifisapi]

[Pontus]

The Raynox 150 close up filter is good but it works better with slightly longer lenses.

[GaborF]

Hi Cwood,

Happy to share my learnings, experiences with this subject. Let me know if it helps in any way!

I have a Nikon body as well, and I tested a couple of options - will explain all pro's and con's:

1.
When I got my camera, I have bought a Nikon 55mm 3.5 Micro (Macro) lens - did cost me about $180 used (these were produced around 1970's). These are manual lenses, and I learned photography with this lens - setting the Aperture with the ring, manually.
I have to say I absolutely love it, and in hindsight, I could have gotten this same lens for $100 if I would have checked the Ebay for it. More on this type of lens over here: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/55af.htm

2. Second option is to go with a more "modern" lens, but that will cost you more. While the 40mm 1.8 new Nikon lens have macro, I would likely steer away from it, as 40mm is far too close for you to photograph bugs and small animals, and if you are already at macro photography, probably you will want to do that anyway. That lens would need to get you too close to subject, also shielding the light sometimes, when you go to max magnification. Next on the Nikon modern macro lens list is the 60mm, then 85 and the 105mm respectively. Each mm increases the price and also the handling is better and better with each version.

3. Non-Nikon macro lenses. There are several, and I would suggest if you decide to go for one, try to get one that has magnification ratio of 1:1. Many lenses have less, and you will most likely miss the max magnification you will find on many other websites with peer photos.

4. Macro-rings. There are two versions: With all electronics passed-on - e.g. aperture settings, etc - cheapest costs around $100 or ones without those for manual lenses (then you need to use camera in Manual mode). Those costs $20 - but if you check on the other thread I started about Helios -44, I used that lens with Nikon + smallest 12mm adapter ring for macro - worked really well.

One advice here: use prime lenses, not zooms, if you can. Rings will decrease aperture range as well for lenses.

5. Reverse-adapter ring. You cannot have any setting with it, works really strange, might need to go too close - if you have access to a cheap reverse ring for Nikon, check the lens diameter range to make sure it will fit... then post here what you think. I think that could be more costly and less good as macro-rings, but have not tried it (fear of needing to move lens very close).


In summary:
- dedicated macro lenses are great from Nikon, 105mm is the king, if you are ready to pay the $1000 for it for the VR version (I didnt have that kind of money to spend).
- get a tripod... it will come in handy for your best flower shots.
- getting a flash to help with macro shooting is good, but I missed it due to manual lenses could not activate flash - but decided to take photos in good sunshine only.
- I could make great pictures with the 1970's macro lens - not as versatile as a dedicated Nikon lens though. Unsure about 3rd party lenses.
- I tried to take photos with zoom lens and macro-rings, flash worked, and you can get ok shots with it too - but I can see the quality is better if you have the dedicated manual-focus old Nikkor lenses. The more mm on your zoom, the better, but remember depth of field is much less at this time, as well as focus ranges become shallow - meaning you have less "playground" if applying to zoom lenses.

Hope thats of some help.

G

[GaborF]

An example image of using M42 adapter ring ($15) to fit Helios 44-2 lens ($30) + macro rings ($20) to Nikon. However I think by a very very small amount, an older Nikon 55mm micro lens is a little better (unsure, they are very close)

[visualopsins]

[Aanything]

I'd add the ebc fujinon 3.5/55 macro to the macro normal manual lenses worth mentioning.
I liked the normal manual macro lenses I tried so much for all around use, that I'd suggest getting one of this.

[fermy]

Well, there is really no bad true macro lens, at least I haven't seen one. For Nex I would look for a macro in Canon FD/Minolta MD/Konica AR mounts as those would be cheaper. My favorite ones are Cosina/Soligor/Vivitar 3.5/100 and Sigma 2.8/90. Both are 1:2 natively. I prefer these ones for NEX because they give good working distance, while remaining small and light. Many 50mm macros are small and light, but the working distance is a bit too short, while most 90-100mm macros are big and heavy.

[Oreste]

Used 55mm Micro-Nikkor lenses are abundant and not too expensive.

http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_trksid=p3984.m570.l1313&_nkw=55mm+micro+nikkor&_sacat=0&_from=R40

[peterqd]

[Attila]

[kansalliskala]

[Victor Nguyen]

I got my nikkor 55 f 2.8 for a little bit under $100 and I love it. I also have a kiron 105 f 2.8 for $200 that goes 1:1. I say go with the nikkor 55mm first. great lens. I actually ask this question not too long ago when I first got on this forum

http://forum.mflenses.com/need-recommendation-for-macro-t51867.html

[peterqd]

My 50mm Super-Macro-Takumar is a great lens but it's pretty useless for taking pictures of my bees. I'm thinking of selling it and I may get the 100mm version instead to give me a bit more distance. I may not though - there's nothing a macro lens can do that you can't do with an ordinary lens, apart from focussing very closely, and you can do that with extension rings or a reversing ring.

[RAART]

I just purchased an Olympus OM 50mm F3.5 (ebay: http://www.ebay.ca/itm/290800933553?ssPageName=STRK:MEWNX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1497.l2649) and waiting for it to arrive. Also got a Olympus OM extension tubes (set of 3) locally (will pick them on the weekend)...

Hope that performance will be up to expectations.

I do have Asahi Pentax Bellows II with Bellows-Takumar 100mm F4 which has a great quality and the best I got it for dirt cheap! All together for $20. Can not beat the price/performance ratio.

I do think that is for you the way to go. Just look locally for used set of macro-bellows. Do not worry about brand name...

Some useful info here: http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/olympusom1n2/shared/macro/index.htm

[s58y]

Back in the 1980s, for Macro and closeup shots for "hobby needs" (coins) , I used a Nikon 55mm f/2.8 Macro lens with suitable extension tubes on a Nikon film camera.

Nowadays, I use an Olympus OM bellows and a set of Olympus bellows lenses with a Canon DSLR for macro shots.

[hifisapi]

[eno789]

I can recommend Vivitar 55mm f/2.8 Macro: goes to 1:1 on its own, very sharp, available in various mounts.

[inombrable]

[fermy]

[peterqd]