# Macro Photography for $10?



## xenxes

Edit:

Testing the following when I get a chance:

(1) extender tube ($10); 
(2) diopters ($10); 
(3) reversing lens adapter ($4); and 
(4) lens coupling ring ($2). 

Will see how each does. Lol that's $26 out of my real macro lens budget.



Original Post:
----

Entry DSLR here, been using a T3i since last May. Blew my first lens budget on a telephoto, but have been wanting to take macro shots 

So I came across a DIY extension tube from a pringle can, but not wanting to work with power tools, I did a little more searching and found this Fotodiox Macro Extension Tube for $10 (they have Nikon/Sony versions too). You lose autofocus and aperture control, but I can always do those manually.

Going to test it out with some fish/shrimp shots in 2 days. Anyone else have experience with extension tubes?


----------



## Nubster

They work great. There are no optics involved so you get images just as good as the lens you are using is able to produce.


----------



## zainey_04

Another great option is to get a reversing ring. It cost the same and the results are incredible too. 


- Zain


----------



## Wasserpest

xenxes said:


> You lose autofocus and aperture control, but I can always do those manually.
> 
> Going to test it out with some fish/shrimp shots in 2 days. Anyone else have experience with extension tubes?


I do... The fact that you lose autofocus isn't a big deal, you focus by moving the camera back and forth when shooting macros.

The real drawback is this: Since the depth of field/focus is so abysmal, macros come out best when you step down your aperture. Since you have to do this BEFORE you push the trigger, what you see is what you get, and it isn't much. If you close the aperture to say F11, you hardly see anything in the VF, especially if it isn't lit very well to start with.

Another drawback is the distance between your lens and the object... very small. You could use a telephoto lens, but then you get into heavy vignetting, I mean, a tunnel vision of your image.

For $10 it's definitely worth it. After all, if 1 out of 50 images turns out well - success. It's not like you are wasting film. :wink:

Like Zain mentioned, you can get a reversal ring (for ex like $3.30 from Suntekstore) which allows you to combine two lenses for some extreme close-ups. I put an old F1.8 Zeiss prime lens in front of my kit or telephoto lens. Since you still have one lens connected to the camera you have full control of autofocus (useless) and aperture (that helps). On the downside, distance between object and lens... well there isn't any.

A third way is to screw a closeup lens (diopter) into the filter threads on your existing lens. The Canon kit lens itself is already pretty macro capable, add a 4x diopter and you get very close, don't lose that much light, and have full control over all functions. There is a slight image degradation due to the optics, but not a big deal if you step down in aperture just a bit.

All three methods are definitely fun to play with. And if you realize that extreme macro is your calling, then you invest about 100X that amount in a proper macro lens. Oh boy, I should write a book about this stuff.


----------



## xenxes

That's awesome wasser! TY for the advice. 

The diopter method sounds promising, I think 10x magnification is enough for my uses with the kit lens. I think I'll grab this set for $10. 

Do you have a link for the reversal ring? Is this what you're talking about? That's just for reversing 1 lens, so.. I'd need two, or another connector to combine 2 lenses together? Or does 1 fit in between the two lenses?

Also I noticed the rings / diopters came in different mms, does this mean if I buy the 52mm one I need to adjust my 18-55 kit to 52? 

And yes you should write a book (or at least a guide) 

*edit: was reading your thread, you found a EF 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro Lens for $80?!


----------



## Wasserpest

xenxes said:


> That's awesome wasser! TY for the advice.


You are welcome!



xenxes said:


> The diopter method sounds promising, I think 10x magnification is enough for my uses with the kit lens. I think I'll grab this set for $10.


I think 10x is a bit much... I guess it depends what you want to use it for. I have a set of 1, 2, 3 and 4x and the 4x is ok to use for close-ups of fish/shrimp/flowers and such.



xenxes said:


> Do you have a link for the reversal ring? Is this what you're talking about? That's just for reversing 1 lens, so.. I'd need two, or another connector to combine 2 lenses together? Or does 1 fit in between the two lenses?
> 
> Also I noticed the rings / diopters came in different mms, does this mean if I buy the 52mm one I need to adjust my 18-55 kit to 52?


Basically you screw the second lens to the filter thread of the first lens, so the front ends of both lenses face each other. The canon kit lens as well as the 55-250 have 58mm diameter. The prime lens I use for the reversal has a 49mm diameter, so I bought this reversal ring. Makes sense? 
It is possible to just reverse one lens with the ring you linked to, but then you lose the aperture control, so kinda same issues as with the extension tubes.



xenxes said:


> *edit: was reading your thread, you found a EF 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro Lens for $80?!


No... not sure, I have a 1.8/50 (nifty fifty) which was $80.

BTW for anyone else considering the extension tubes Meritline has them for $8 at the moment. Not sure if these are the same that Amazon has.


----------



## xenxes

Ah, "coupler ring," got it  And I want 58mm diameter diopters for the Canon (52mm is Nikon). 

Lol I was just looking at that exact tube on Meritline. The one review says it works for the 18-55 kit lens, it's different, but a tube is a tube. If a pringle can works I'm sure any will.

Here's a 15% discount for Suntekstore: 1012948853. $0.45 off! $2.53 for the coupler ring.

Around $20 total for 3 ways of taking macro shots, not bad at all! I'll post some results when I get them.


----------



## Wasserpest

Yeah, those extension tubes will work with all lenses, since they go between the camera body and the lens mount. It's just a double whammy: You lose light by using them, and then you have trouble focusing or even seeing your subject if you step down the aperture to get a little bit more DOF.

BTW I haven't read about the pringle can, but I would suggest to spend the $10 for the extension tubes instead. Using this sort of extension to hold between your cam and the lens sounds like a surefire way to get dust (oil, chips) on your sensor.

I see you are a slickdealer too


----------



## zainey_04

I own both reversing rings and coupler rings and I would have to say a reversing ring is a better option. Sure you get to keep the aperture with the coupler, but that's only if you're second lens has a manual aperture ring. If your second lens has auto aperture then you're stuck holding it open with you're finger no matter what option you choose. Another reason I don't like coupler rings is most of the time they are a pain in the butt to remove from the lens ( at least the one I have ). With a reversing ring you can get real close to the object with out having a huge lens in the way. If you want I can upload pictures of how both set ups look on the camera and comparison shots from both methods.


- Zain


----------



## Wasserpest

The Zeiss lens I use has a switch/slider to keep the aperture locked open, but I see what you mean. I think there are ways to lock the little pin in a way that it stays open. 

When you take macro shots like that, stepping down becomes crucial to get a bit more DOF. With enough flash power F11 or 16 isn't a problem. The problem is that you don't see your subject if you preset your lens to that aperture.

Cheap enough to try both options, and see what suits you better. Eventually, a nice macro lens is the best solution.


----------



## Geniusdudekiran

Not to just barge in here, but does anyone have any experience with this: http://www.amazon.com/Raynox-RADCR-0150-DCR-150-Snap-On-Macro/dp/B0007KS7D0/ref=pd_cp_p_0 ?

Ideally I was looking for a dedicated macro lens for <$200...


----------



## xenxes

Geniusdudekiran said:


> Not to just barge in here, but does anyone have any experience with this: http://www.amazon.com/Raynox-RADCR-0150-DCR-150-Snap-On-Macro/dp/B0007KS7D0/ref=pd_cp_p_0 ?
> 
> Ideally I was looking for a dedicated macro lens for <$200...


That looks like an overpriced diopter attachment. I ended up grabbing this diopter set for $10. You would be very hard pressed to find a real macro lens for <$200. Cheapest Canon I've found is listed at $262 right now, and it has very slow AF, no IS or USM (but not very important). Does anyone know if there's cheaper Sigma or Pentax lenses around?

So far I got the (1) extender tube ($10); (2) diopters ($10); (3) reversing lens adapter ($4); and (4) lens coupling ring ($2). Will see how each does. Lol that's $26 out of my real macro lens budget.

And yes Zain I want to see pics


----------



## zainey_04

Here's how the reversing ring and coupling rings look on the camera. 

18-55mm attached by reversing ring








Here are some pictures taken with this setup



























70-200mm coupled to a 18-55mm








I didn't take many pictures with this setup because I don't like it much. I'll have to look for some that I have. 

- Zain


----------



## Geniusdudekiran

xenxes said:


> Does anyone know if there's cheaper Sigma or Pentax lenses around?


+1. I would be super interested.


----------



## xenxes

Zain what was wrong with the coupled setup? How did the images come out? I have the same 18-55 kit lens, and the cheap 75-300 telephoto, or was it 55-250 (don't remember I rarely use it). Which one do you use as the base? Did you try switching them?

I read there was a way around the auto aperture:



> The "DOF Preview" trick is a way to force the lens to adjust to a specific aperture. On many or most canon cameras (possibly other brands as well, but I only have canon) there's a button on the body call "DOF Preview". It's usually located on the front side of the camera near the lens mount.
> 
> The real purpose of the button is to test what your depth of field will be at a given aperture before taking a shot. When you have a lens attached to the camera, it will be all the way open to the widest aperture (F/2.8, F/4, etc) until right when you take the shot. For example, if you're about the take a picture and have the aperture at F/11, the lens stays open to F/4 or whatever its max is until right when the mirror drops so that the viewfinder is brighter and it can focus easier since its letting more light to the sensor.
> 
> The trick to force it is to set your aperture to whatever you want for macro, hold down the DOF preview button, then detach the lens while still holding it down. This way it stays closed to whatever you set. Also, when your aperture reads "00" on the camera, that isn't the real aperture, thats just what the canons say when they have a lens attached which isn't electronically connected to the camera.


----------



## Nubster

xenxes said:


> . Does anyone know if there's cheaper Sigma or Pentax lenses around?





Geniusdudekiran said:


> +1. I would be super interested.


Not likely. Macro lenses are just expensive by their nature. Even used expect to pay $300+ for even third party lenses. Of course there are deals to be had and older lenses can be found for good deals. They might not have the technology the newer lenses have, but there's a good chance the optics are better.


----------



## xenxes

I found a Canon Quantaray 50mm f/2.8 Macro AF lens on CL for $150. From searching, "Quantaray" seems a store rebranded Sigma 50mm f/2.8 Macro.

I'm hesitating because it's not a "real Sigma." Some say they use poorer quality components of the Sigma and rebrand these for stores... any ideas? Good deal or no?


----------



## Wasserpest

It depends what you want to photograph. If it is something like stamps and coins, it might work. Quantaray is a store brand (Ritz Camera) and you can't really be sure what the optics are like.

If you want to shoot fish, shrimp, insects & spiders, the focal length is a bit on the short side. A 100mm lens (even for a crop sensor) would be better, since it would add a bit of distance between your object and the front of the lens.


----------



## xenxes

Thank you I'll hold off, the 100m macro with IS I've been eyeing is around $800 :/


----------



## Nubster

Consider the Tamron 90mm Macro. It's just slightly shorter but has excellent optics and plenty of working distance and can be found used for $350 or less.


----------



## Wasserpest

xenxes said:


> Thank you I'll hold off, the 100m macro with IS I've been eyeing is around $800 :/


Yep, the 2.8L is sweet. If you want the very best, that's pretty much the (expensive) ticket. You pay for the quality/size, which includes a very hefty weight as well. These days I prefer lighter plastic over fine steel, it just doesn't pull as hard on your neck.

But hey, back to our $10 macros... :fish:


----------



## Geniusdudekiran

What about the 50mm canon? $270 shipped?


----------



## Wasserpest

When you shoot macros with a 50mm lens, the distance between lens and subject becomes an issue, both to capture skittish subjects (insects, fish, whatnot) and to light properly. The closer you get to your subject, the more likely you will throw shadows, flash might fire right over it unless to take it off camera, etc.


----------



## houseofcards

As Wasserpest mentioned it really depends on what you want to photograph to determine which macro is best. A 100mm is probably more important when photographing insects since they are extremely skittish. Fish in your home aren't as bad (although some could be) since they can only go so far instead their glass home. A 50 - 60mm macro is actual a very practical lens to own since it's wide enough and small enough to carry around and take a variety of shots with. These three different type of shots were all taken with a Canon 60mm macro:


----------



## Geniusdudekiran

Would it be harder to take good macro pictures on the 50mm macro than my T2i kit lens (18-55mm)? Cause it's already pretty hard.


----------



## Nubster

Just like any lens or camera, you still have to know what you are doing to get great shots, though the right tools will make it a bit easier.


----------



## houseofcards

Geniusdudekiran said:


> Would it be harder to take good macro pictures on the 50mm macro than my T2i kit lens (18-55mm)? Cause it's already pretty hard.


If you mean by macro the ability to get more detail up close, than yes a 50mm macro will make it easier. Your kit lens will not have the magnification that most macro lens have and sometimes also not the ability to focus close to the subject. I'm not sure what the magnification is on the 50mm, but on the 60mm and 100mm it's 1x, which basically means what fills the sensor is life size. Your kit lens is probably like 0.3x, which of course is considerably smaller than life size.


----------



## xenxes

> Although designated and classified as a macro lens, the Canon EF 50mm f/2.5 Macro Lens natively offers only 1:2 (.5x) magnification (vs. 1:1 (1x) in most true macro lenses). Coupled with the expensive (it costs about as much as the lens itself) optional accessory Canon Life Size Converter EF, the Canon EF 50mm f/2.5 Macro Lens can focus down to 1:1 lifesize.


Save up for the 100mm imo. The one without IS goes for around $400-500? We should move the thread to the new photography forum


----------



## Wasserpest

Moved!

I did some looking around and that Tamron 90mm lens looks pretty good for macros, portraits and other things. Would be perfect if it had IS... I might get one of those and replace my 1.8/50.


----------



## zainey_04

xenxes said:


> Zain what was wrong with the coupled setup? How did the images come out? I have the same 18-55 kit lens, and the cheap 75-300 telephoto, or was it 55-250 (don't remember I rarely use it). Which one do you use as the base? Did you try switching them?
> 
> I read there was a way around the auto aperture:


There isn't actually anything wrong with the coupled set up. It was just to cumbersome for me. Because I don't have a prim 50mm lens, I had to manually focus and zoom both lenses to find the sweet spot for what I wanted to shoot. The set up it self isn't actually terrible if you have a prim lens. That's why I prefer the reversing ring. And for shooting fish I find it easier to reverse your 75-300mm lens. This lets you get Macro shots with out having be be right on top of the object, but a reversed 18-50mm let's you get real close. Also remember With a reversed lens the magnification is also reversed. 50mm = far away and at 18mm you'll be real close. 


- Zain


----------



## xenxes

Ah.. I don't have a prime lens either, but I suddenly have the urge to get multiple coupling rings and tie 4 lenses together. Thanks for the heads up, I got some of the cheap toys in the mail today, will set up the tripod when I get home for some fish/shrimp shots.


----------



## Nubster

I just ordered some reversing rings. One for my 50mm and one for my 30mm. I figure for a total of $5 shipped, it will be fun to play with. If for some reason it doesn't work out, I'm not out a load of money.

Next I might try a coupling ring. I'd be curious to see how another lens coupled to my macro would work.


----------



## xenxes

Okay, here are some results, I'll edit my first post with findings later. No I didn't use a tripod, it was just too cumbersome for fast-moving objects. I steadied my hands as best as I could and took a lot of photos (held down the button):

*Thai Fairy Shrimp*









For reference, this is with stock 18-55 no attachments









With 10x magnification diopter on 18-55 Canon kit lens









With reversing ring and 18-55









With extension tube and 18-55









I don't remember with what, or what that is, random shot from my fairy shrimp jar, looks alien (creeepy) 

*Snails*









Baby ramshorn, spec of dust in my 1/2 gal cube









Another one, can see innards









Size of a blue whale compared to the others, aka. adult Pearl Mystery

*Cherry Shrimp*









With 18-55 and 10x diopter; shrimp was far away









With extension tube and 55-250 telephoto + 4x dipoter (find it much easier to adjust depth and can reach most areas of the tank). Can someone tell me what those white spores patches are? Gross.









Ugh she's standing in it now! Can see the algae on the rocks, pretty cool

Sequence of 3 shots that all turned out good (first is probably my favorite shot):
























Did not realize I had so much algae









Last one of a blood-red color

*Fish*









Otocinclus









Male Betta









Panda Platy, sorry for the green poo.. omg are those more eggs I see!?

Pictures of Platy Mutts (most are Pandas, I only took pics of the unique ones).. these were really fast and hard to take pics of.
































Almost all-black and patterned purple are my favorite; does the last one look sick on the side?


----------



## Wasserpest

Yay. Macros! :fish:

That last Cherry shrimp pic turned out nice. Did you try with the aperture a bit stepped down? That should increase the sharpness a bit.


----------



## zainey_04

Wow great results. Were you using a flash for any of these? The white spores are what seem to be snail eggs. 


- Zain


----------



## xenxes

Wasserpest said:


> Yay. Macros! :fish:
> 
> That last Cherry shrimp pic turned out nice. Did you try with the aperture a bit stepped down? That should increase the sharpness a bit.


I would say 90% of the passable shots were still a little blurry / soft, I tried in adjusting aperture priority to step down, then holding down the DOF preview button while removing the lens. 

F5.6 Handheld:









F8 Tripod:









All the F11s came out very blurry even with tripod. The lens was too long and would shake when I took a picture  Flash might have helped. I also need a shutter release cable.

Still, the telephoto gives me great DOF without any aperture tweaking, for moving subjects. The 18-55 is much more difficult.



zainey_04 said:


> Wow great results. Were you using a flash for any of these? The white spores are what seem to be snail eggs.
> 
> 
> - Zain


Snail eggs  

Did not use flash at all, they seem to take in too much light, again I probably didn't do the manual aperture right. Used Photoshop to compensate for shadow.


----------



## Wasserpest

I often use flash when doing these extreme macro things. Here are some examples from playing with the two lens setup: the Canon (kit) lens on the camera, with an old Zeiss prime lens (1.8/50) in reverse on front of that.

The key image is taken with f9, no flash, showing the tiny DOF you get. The coin image with f29, resulting in some diffraction which can be countered with some sharpening in post processing. And the internals of an Orchid just for fun.


----------



## h4n

nice comparasion xenxes!


----------



## Geniusdudekiran

Wasserpest said:


> I often use flash when doing these extreme macro things. Here are some examples from playing with the two lens setup: the Canon (kit) lens on the camera, with an old Zeiss prime lens (1.8/50) in reverse on front of that.
> 
> The key image is taken with f9, no flash, showing the tiny DOF you get. The coin image with f29, resulting in some diffraction which can be countered with some sharpening in post processing. And the internals of an Orchid just for fun.


I thought the last image was a laser diode very close up. lol


----------



## michmane

A bit low-tech, but anyone try Easy-Macro? http://www.easy-macro.com/


----------



## Chizpa305

darn I want a good camera!!!.... One step at a time... one step at a time...


----------



## xenxes

michmane said:


> A bit low-tech, but anyone try Easy-Macro? http://www.easy-macro.com/


Yeah that's just a diopter, I think diwu has one for his iPhone, it works pretty well. At low enough resolution like 800x600 for forum postings, there isn't a huge difference between DSLR vs. Phone cam with enough post effects (most times built into the phone).


----------

