NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Lens Talk => Topic started by: John Koerner on April 01, 2016, 07:00:44
-
How many of you are into reverse-macro photography?
When I used Canon, they had the MP-E 65mm for greater-than 1:1 macro.
I am trying to learn how to maximize simple, all-manual primes as macro lenses, reversed.
Here are some efforts with the Nikkor AiS 20mm, reversed:
This is natural light.
-
This is with a flash and diffuser.
-
That's pretty cool!
-
i am also a bug lover :o :o :o
unfortunately they are not yet in season now. they will be in a few more days so i am going to put new pictures here!
-
Nice, but ou have to work with rather short object - lens distance.
Why not use a dedicated macro lens??
-
Not too found of adding new names for old concepts ... It is immaterial whether one gets beyond life-size 1:1 by reversing a lens or not. In my book, all are photomacrography anyway. Or, the all too often misapplied term 'macro' photography. The term 'reverse-macro' is at best confusing.
Nice crab spider, by the way.
-
The first one is impressive, esp the smooth gradients and the symmetry in the sharp parts complemented by the rose backdrop. Well done!
-
Pink spiders look cool.
Can you tell us more about the camera used and how you reversed the 20mm?
Thanks!
-
That's pretty cool!
Thanks ;D
i am also a bug lover :o :o :o
unfortunately they are not yet in season now. they will be in a few more days so i am going to put new pictures here!
Great, please do 8)
Nice, but ou have to work with rather short object - lens distance.
Why not use a dedicated macro lens??
Thanks.
Dedicated macro lenses are only 1:1, these shots were taken at 2:1 (twice as close as a standard macro lens can achieve).
There are no "dedicated lenses" that Nikon has to get this done, except by reversing standard primes, as the title suggests (or using bellows), both of which require extremely-close shooting.
This spider would appear very small if I used a standard macro, as it is about the size of ½ a grain of rice. You could never see any detail with a standard macro lens.
The first one is impressive, esp the smooth gradients and the symmetry in the sharp parts complemented by the rose backdrop. Well done!
I like the first one better as well, it was taken in natural light. (I am a natural light junkie, and prefer it to flash-shooting.)
Thanks,
Pink spiders look cool.
Can you tell us more about the camera used and how you reversed the 20mm?
Thanks!
Sure.
I used a Nikon D810 + Nikon NIKKOR 28mm f/2.8 (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/36925-USA/Nikon_1420_Wide_Angle_28mm_f_2_8.html) (reversed with Nikon BR-2A Reversing Ring (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/37171-REG/Nikon_2657_BR_2A_Lens_Reversing_Ring.html) for 2.1x magnification) on both shots.
I also used a Really Right Stuff TVC-33 Tripod (http://www.reallyrightstuff.com/TVC-33-Versa-series-3-3-sections-leg) and a Really Right Stuff BH-55 LR Ballhead (http://www.reallyrightstuff.com/BH-55-Ballhead) on both shots for support.
On the first shot, I stacked it using 12 images gained with a Really Right Stuff B150-B Macro Focusing Rail (http://www.reallyrightstuff.com/B150-B-Macro-focusing-rail) and a Nikon MC-36A Multi-Function Remote Cord (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/892745-REG/Nikon_27032_MC_36_Multi_Function_Remote_Cord.html) (Natural Light, no flash)
On the second shot, I took only 1 image, using a Nikon SB-700 AF Speedlight (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/734997-USA/Nikon_4808_SB_700_Speedlight_Shoe_Mount.html) supported on a Wimberley F-2 Macro Bracket (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/240878-REG/Wimberley_F_2_Combo_2_Macro_Combo.html), attached to my camera by way of a Really Right Stuff BD810 L-Bracket (http://www.reallyrightstuff.com/BD810-L-L-Plate-for-Nikon-D810). The Wimberly Bracket allows you to use your flash off-camera and position it, and point it down, close to your subject. I connected my flash to the camera with a Nikon SC-28 TTL Coiled Remote Cord (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/300477-REG/Nikon_4765_SC_28_TTL_Remote_Cord.html). And finally, I tried to diffuse the harsh light of a bare flash with a Vello FlexFrame Softbox (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1159310-REG/vello_fd_1600_flexframe_softbox_for_portable.html).
Hope this clarifies :)
Jack
-
Jack, you seem to be the Jack of this particular trade as your photos clearly illustrated! :)
Thanks a bunch for the detailed explanation!
I am sure it will mean a lot to us who don't know how to create such photos but might want to try :)
-
"There are no "dedicated lenses" that Nikon has to get this done [to arrive at 2:1] , except by reversing standard primes"
You overlook the existence of the Macro-Nikkors. Or stacking lenses. Or using dedicated photomacrographic optics by third parties. Or adapting special lenses such as the Olympus OM range. Or using inexpensive cine lenses. Or enlarger lenses. Or microscope optics. Or relay systems. And so on.
Photomacrography can be played with many cards.
-
You overlook the existence of the Macro-Nikkors. Or stacking lenses. Or using dedicated photomacrographic optics by third parties. Or adapting special lenses such as the Olympus OM range. Or using inexpensive cine lenses. Or enlarger lenses. Or microscope optics. Or relay systems. And so on.
I didn't "overlook" them, I said Nikon doesn't have any dedicated macro lenses that achieve 2:1 and they don't.
Most of what you mention are not Nikon solutions, and even the Nikkor microscope optics require extremely-close focusing.
Lens-stacking is not a "dedicated lens," either.
The thrust of the original question was "how close" I had to be ... and "why didn't I just use a dedicated macro lens?"
I explained that Nikon's dedicated macro lenses are only 1:1, which isn't enough.
Canon has a 1x-5x solution lens in the MP-E 65, where Nikon does not.
Nikon's solutions include reverse-ring, or bellows, or (yes) microscope optics. If Nikon has a 2:1 (or greater) dedicated macro lens, then I don't know of it.
Photomacrography can be played with many cards.
True.
I just created a thread to discuss reverse-ring solutions and images, not to imply that "there is no other way" to shoot macro images ::)
Is it possible for you to just enjoy the images, or offer some of your own, and not to try to find fault with everything I say?
Thanks,
Jack
-
This is 16X direct capture with a designated lens for photomacrography The lens is not reversed. It is a Nikkor.
Compound Eye House Fly
-
Jack, you seem to be the Jack of this particular trade as your photos clearly illustrated! :)
Thanks a bunch for the detailed explanation!
I am sure it will mean a lot to us who don't know how to create such photos but might want to try :)
I just enjoy macro images and am still learning myself ;D
I have never tried reverse-ring macro shooting, until recently, and am starting to get the hang of it.
Canon had a great solution for very-close macro images, the MP-E 65mm (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/183199-USA/Canon_2540A002_Macro_Photo_MP_E_65mm.html). This was a very convenient lens to have, as it goes from standard (1:1) all the way up to 5x that, in one lens solution. This is very convenient for field use, whereas most of Nikon's solutions (bellows, microscope optics) require a studio platform and can't really be taken on a hike.
Reverse-rings added to standard primes are fairly-flexible solutions, that can be taken on a hike out in the field.
This is why I am attempting to use these small, manual lenses: their portability and flexibility ... you can take a regular photo (e.g., landscape) ... and then flip the lens over and get a super-close macro shot :D
Cheers
-
Look into the Olympus OM range. They have two very interesting lenses, viz. 20/2 and 38/2.8. both can easily be adapted to other brands simply by swapping the bayonet mount. The lenses are very compact and produce excellent quality images. Not the cheapest approach, but saves a lot of hassle.
For high magnifications there is no way to avoid extensive lengths of bellows or similar. Doing > 5X under field conditions verges on madness as you hardly can observe your target and the limited field of view and even more minuscule depth of field give no clue to the actual environment anyway.
The 38 mm Olympus is doable up to around 5X with an added extension tube, though. but count on many misses and few keepers.
This is my sample of the 38/2.8 adapted for Nikon. It has a bespoke extension tube (modified from Olympus) with CPU contacts to allow full metering with any Nikon camera. I have also fitted a narrow lens shade to cut off stray light which otherwise is a hassle and easily contaminates image contrast.
-
Nice, but ou have to work with rather short object - lens distance.
Why not use a dedicated macro lens??
Here is an example of what I meant by greater than 1:1.
The following image is a full 1:1 macro image, taken with a "dedicated macro lens," the Voigtländer 125mm f2.5 Apo-Lanthar.
(It is actually a stacked shot of 5 images).
-
Now, here is a shot of the same spider, on the same leaf, taken at 2:1 (with a 20mm lens, reversed).
-
Standard 1:1 macro lenses can't get you as close as you sometimes need to be.
(In truth, I should have taken more images to stack, as more of the spider would be in focus.)
-
Look into the Olympus OM range. They have two very interesting lenses, viz. 20/2 and 38/2.8. both can easily be adapted to other brands simply by swapping the bayonet mount. The lenses are very compact and produce excellent quality images. Not the cheapest approach, but saves a lot of hassle.
For high magnifications there is no way to avoid extensive lengths of bellows or similar. Doing > 5X under field conditions verges on madness as you hardly can observe your target and the limited field of view and even more minuscule depth of field give no clue to the actual environment anyway.
The 38 mm Olympus is doable up to around 5X with an added extension tube, though. but count on many misses and few keepers.
This is my sample of the 38/2.8 adapted for Nikon. It has a bespoke extension tube (modified from Olympus) with CPU contacts to allow full metering with any Nikon camera. I have also fitted a narrow lens shade to cut off stray light which otherwise is a hassle and easily contaminates image contrast.
Thanks for the tips :)
-
Here is another device, capable of going to 10X, and if one is unlimited by battery power or card storage, and has ancillary focusing light, and is intent upon doing a mission near impossible, can be used outdoors although I would definitively not recommend this.
The lens is a Canon Macro lens 20 mm f/3.5 on a rig of sturdy extension tubes and a focusing helicoid. Do note there is a filter drawer near the front end of the rig, as I also use this for UV photography.
Depending on the actual shooting conditions and camera in use, I can replace some of the extension with PN-11 to get a tripod mounting ring.
-
An example of photomacrography with the 20 mm Canon lens. A female catkin of Hazel Corylus avellana, captured at 12 X.
-
Excuse me for asking, but have you taken this picture outside? I couldn't see this happening in regards to wind.
-
Illustrating an earlier point, Børge. This is not doable outdoors. At least not with the technique used.
-
Thats good to hear! I thought there were something terrible wrong with my technique :)
-
Thats good to hear! I thought there were something terrible wrong with my technique :)
Yet the 12x flower photo illustrates another problem: getting the flash right.
I am still struggling with this. Bjørn's photo show blown highlights, completely whited-out elements, and somewhat unnatural colors (from the flash), rather than a soft, pastel natural light.
In my first two images, on the preceding page, I was able to omit the blown highlights through my use of diffuser on the flash, but my colors came out wrong, unnatural, and weren't was vivid (in the 2nd photo) as they were in the 1st photo (taken in 100% natural light).
Ultra-macro often requires the use of flash, especially passed 2x-3x magnification. As you mention, the movement of wind/subjects almost demands flash (which changes the light/color).
I know some people who have perfected their flash/diffuser combinations in their extreme macro efforts, achieving an even, natural color, but I am no where near perfecting my own flash techniques yet.
Working on it though 8)
-
this is my setup. pretty simple, just a PB-4 bellows unit with a 20mm on the reverse. i actually find that the 28mm-35mm FL works better for me. the 50mm EL-Nikkor is also a great lens for this. i am currently building a contraption for this :o :o :o
-
Cannot see the problems you allude to. No blown highlights on the 12X image seen on my calibrated monitor ?? Colours are very accurate.
Besides, this is a scan from film. 120-film in fact, as I used a 6x9 camera and the "open flash" technique.
-
Cannot see the problems you allude to. No blown highlights on the 12X image seen on my calibrated monitor ?? Colours are very accurate.
All of the white "dots" are blown highlights to my eye (from the left side of the base, across all petals).
I am assuming those are water drops reflecting light. (in natural light, you can often see through the water drops, and see the plant beneath it, whereas the flash use just turned them into white spots).
Flash almost always changes the color, color-calibrated monitor or not.
To illustrate the point, take any 2 photographs you want, 1 in natural light, the other with a flash, and the colors in the images will look very different.
It takes heavy, heavy diffuser use to create no reflections at all with flash use (I am still trying to get it right :-[)
Besides, this is a scan from film. 120-film in fact, as I used a 6x9 camera and the "open flash" technique.
Thanks for the info.
-
this is my setup. pretty simple, just a PB-4 bellows unit with a 20mm on the reverse. i actually find that the 28mm-35mm FL works better for me. the 50mm EL-Nikkor is also a great lens for this. i am currently building a contraption for this :o :o :o
Very nice.
I am working on a bellows unit/table also.
I am also trying to work on a "field portable" bellows system.
(Still need to get more pieces to the puzzle for both.)
Share some of the images from this, would love to see them :D
-
All of the white "dots" are blown highlights to my eye (from the left side of the base, across all petals).
I am assuming those are water drops reflecting light. (In soft natural light, you can often see through the water drops, and see the plant beneath it, whereas the flash use just turned the water drops into white spots on your image.)
Even without blown highlights, flash almost always changes the color, color-calibrated monitor or not.
To illustrate the point, take any 2 photographs you want, 1 in natural light, the other with a flash, and the colors in the images will look very different.
It takes heavy, heavy diffuser use to create no reflections at all with flash use (I am still trying to get it right :-[)
Thanks for the info.
-
I se nothing funky with hazel catkin on my monitor. I wouldn't call the highlights "blown". It certainly is well within level of acceptance. But standards may vary.
-
Interesting ... almost looks like an x-ray more than a photograph.
How did you achieve that affect?
-
Its a double exposure.
-
An example of stacking lenses. In this case, without reversing any of them. 105/4 Micro-Nikkor and 105/4 Bellows-Nikkor in combination.
Fly in early spring. 3X (taken from a small jpg, the original file not accessible at present. The original has been printed large)
-
You had mentioned that trick of yours before, Bjørn, but I think it is the first time I see what you can do with it. This is more than excellent.
-
How do you calculate the magnification, other than the object size in relation to image size?
-
How do you calculate the magnification, other than the object size in relation to image size?
Shoot a ruler - read out the covered length of it - divide by appropriate sensor dimension == M (magnification)
For stacked lenses, one frequently sees the formula M= (long focal length)/(short focal length), assuming the longer lens is the master lens mounted to the camera. Sometimes this relationship predicts the true achievable magnification, sometimes it is off and then by a good margin.
It is tempting to use the master lens with automated aperture setting, however, the better result normally is acquired by stopping down the front lens and keeping the rear lens wide open. If this method is adhered to, putting in an E2 or something similar to be able to flip the aperture back to wide open for focusing is beneficial.
-
I thought there was a magic workaround that didnt involve that boring exercise ;)
-
I just edited the previous post to indicate a certain magic might exist, but it is not infallible.
For example: 50 mm lens stacked on 200 mm => M ~ 4 (200/50). Or 4X life size if you prefer that notation.
Whether or not the front lens should be reversed is found by trial and error. It has to do with the matching (or mismatch) of pupils for each lens. By keeping the master lens wide open, vignetting caused by the rear component is mitigated to a large extent.
-
Thanks Bjørn!
-
This is ice crystalline structures at 2X. Actually one would imagine 1:1 because 2*105/4 lenses were combined, but no.
(so much fine detail here I had to compress the jpg quite a bit to make it fit the max.attachment size)
-
How do you calculate the magnification, other than the object size in relation to image size?
You might want to bookmark this series of magnification calculators (http://extreme-macro.co.uk/calculators).
It has everything from bellows, to reverse ring, to lens-stacking calculators (http://extreme-macro.co.uk/coupled-reverse-lens/#calculator).
-
Shooting a ruler is still the simpler approach. Might be more appropriate as well if the optics cannot be modelled as a 'thin' lens with zero internodal space.
-
Bjørn, the ice crystalline structures are bitingly detailed. They just scream with the texture and colors. Lovely!
-
Even this small jpg at normal quality level would be about 6 MB in size ... Had to compress to mediocre quality to make it fit here. So yes, these structures are very rich in detail.
-
This is just a beautiful species of jumper, Habronattus icenoglei (http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/image_tree.php?tsn=880352) ♂, who posed nicely for me to get some natural light images.
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/thumbnails/1/1_thumb_0000001379_large.jpg) (cropped)
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/thumbnails/1/1_thumb_0000001377_large.jpg)
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/thumbnails/1/1_thumb_0000001381_large.jpg)
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/thumbnails/1/1_thumb_0000001378_large.jpg)
These images were taken with a Nikon D810, using the all-manual 20mm f/2.8 Ai-S lens, reversed, on a RRS tripod + macro rail & remote switch. Natural light @ f/16, 2-second shutter, no flash.
Jack
PS: Here is the encounter: (http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/image_encounter_view.php?encounter_id=85) I actually spotted it on a dead tortoise shell while in Joshua Tree, CA and only had my 300mm. I collected it and took these studio shots when I got home :)
-
The first and second picture really stands out. Well executed John!
-
Not sure if anyone ever tried this but an easy way to reverse a lens on a longer lens is to use a HS-7 reversible lens hood. I generally use this "method" to mount a small 50 or 24mm lens on the 200mm f4 for 4x or 8x enlargements
-
The first and second picture really stands out. Well executed John!
Thank you.
-
Not sure if anyone ever tried this but an easy way to reverse a lens on a longer lens is to use a HS-7 reversible lens hood. I generally use this "method" to mount a small 50 or 24mm lens on the 200mm f4 for 4x or 8x enlargements
I have seen others "stack lenses," but can't say I have tried that as yet.