|
Hey guys, noob macro question: what kind of Raynox macroconverter/lens can fit on my 18-55 Sony OSS lens (49mm)?
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2010 21:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 18:58 |
|
|
Autism Sundae posted:Hey guys, noob macro question: what kind of Raynox macroconverter/lens can fit on my 18-55 Sony OSS lens (49mm)? DCR-150 or 250 should work, with a 49>52 step up adapter Bouillon Rube fucked around with this message at 04:22 on Sep 25, 2010 |
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2010 04:19
|
|
|
Not 1:1 but close enough.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2010 06:30
|
|
|
well, I'm not going to win any awards but...  FretforyourLatte fucked around with this message at 02:52 on Oct 6, 2010 |
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2010 00:55
|
|
|
Studebaker Hawk posted:
This is incredible!
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2010 01:01
|
|
|
What is regarded as the best bang for the buck for a really cheap (<$50) setup? I know it's been discussed in the thread a bit and I've tried to find the answers elsewhere but it doesn't seem like there's any clear answer.. -Extension Tubes + a reversed prime (like this youtube video posted earlier)? -Lens Coupler (to mount say, a 50mm backwards on a 18-55mm kit lens)? -Raynox DCR-150/250? -1x/2x/4x/10x filters? Of course I'd love to grab a real macro lens someday but for now I'd just like to find a decent cheap option to have fun with. If it helps I've got the following already: 18-55mm kit, 50mm, 30mm.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2010 01:11
|
|
|
Jook posted:What is regarded as the best bang for the buck for a really cheap (<$50) setup? I know it's been discussed in the thread a bit and I've tried to find the answers elsewhere but it doesn't seem like there's any clear answer.. I don't know about BEST but this is what I have attatched to my kit lens: http://cgi.ebay.com/58mm-WIDE-ANGLE-LENS-Canon-Rebel-XS-XSi-XTi-XT-T1i-/190377964983?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item2c536935b7 It screws on the end and you can unscrew the wide angle part, just leaving the macro. See my post above for an example shot. For sure it's not amazing, especially after seeing everyone else's images here, but it will let you get in close to play around with some macro for extremely cheap.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2010 01:40
|
|
|
Jook posted:What is regarded as the best bang for the buck for a really cheap (<$50) setup? I know it's been discussed in the thread a bit and I've tried to find the answers elsewhere but it doesn't seem like there's any clear answer.. I'd say the Raynox DCR's will be your best bet in that price range.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2010 02:22
|
|
|
Spent a couple hours today shooting butterflies. What I expected to be a fun, interesting day of photography, turned out to be me sweating rear end, running around in a greenhouse trying to get a loving butterfly to land on something interesting. Of like 200 shots, I got maybe 4 I think are keepers... 
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2010 05:29
|
|
|
Elemeno^P posted:Spent a couple hours today shooting butterflies. What I expected to be a fun, interesting day of photography, turned out to be me sweating rear end, running around in a greenhouse trying to get a loving butterfly to land on something interesting. Well congrats because that image is fantastic. If you want to put it into perspective, one very well done photo in a short day is pretty good. To all of you spending money on filters and such... after looking online I was able to snag a Canon EF25 (extension tube) from a guy on a forum for $50 including shipping. I'd argue they're a better value for a slightly higher price and work really well with teles you might have. Oprah Haza fucked around with this message at 03:32 on Oct 5, 2010 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2010 03:08
|
|
|
Well I ended up going the super cheap route.. I grabbed some $11 extension tubes from Amazon (link). Having a lot of fun with them.. Of course there's no AF/aperture control, but that's easily remedied. Here's a shot I took with the tubes -- these flowers were ~2 inches across at best:  Click here for the full 1024x683 image. Still I think I'd like to keep experimenting.. anyone have experience using older non EF macro lenses? An older Takumar macro lens with an m42->EF adapter for example? I can already tell I'm probably going to end up spending enough just messing around to regret not just getting a Canon 100mm 2.8 macro from the start..
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2010 06:32
|
|
|
I have no idea what he's doing, but it surprised me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2010 06:56
|
|
|
Cyberbob posted:I have no idea what he's doing, but it surprised me. His proboscis is out and he's attempting to drink nectar from the "flower" he landed on.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2010 14:58
|
|
|
I've actually been having this internal battle on which lens to buy... this might help me. I have two questions: First question: I am almost dead set on purchasing the 100mm 2.8 Macro L canon lens, but when I see pictures from people with reversed lenses I am completely blown away. Can anyone tell me how the 100mm Macro lens really compares to these reversed lenses? What are the advantages/disadvantages of each? Second question: Let's say I want to reverse a lens, I figure I should go with a prime (cheapest prime then is the nifty fifty). What reverse mount can I use for the Canon's 50mm 1.8? This pairs itself up with the nifty fifty, but I am unsure if it is as good as the two reverse mounts previously listed (Raynox 150/250). Can anyone help? I'm really incompetent when it comes to figuring out mm ring sizes 
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2010 19:15
|
|
|
Abnegatus posted:I've actually been having this internal battle on which lens to buy... this might help me. I have two questions: I would actually suggest saving your money and buying either the canon 100mm non L or the sigma 150mm (ps I have one for sale). Both of these lenses are superb and I believe that IS is largely unnecessary for macro, as well as ~half the price. IS would be handy for portraits, etc in lower light conditions but I would say save the money for other things (lenses, flashes, etc)
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2010 19:42
|
|
|
Jook posted:What is regarded as the best bang for the buck for a really cheap (<$50) setup? I know it's been discussed in the thread a bit and I've tried to find the answers elsewhere but it doesn't seem like there's any clear answer.. Jook posted:Still I think I'd like to keep experimenting.. anyone have experience using older non EF macro lenses? An older Takumar macro lens with an m42->EF adapter for example? I can already tell I'm probably going to end up spending enough just messing around to regret not just getting a Canon 100mm 2.8 macro from the start..
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2010 19:52
|
|
|
Studebaker Hawk posted:You can do cool stuff with a reversing ring but a macro lens is 1000 times easier. First of all, electronically being able to set aperture and use Av/Tv is invaluable. The times I was using a reversing ring and had to mount lens, select stop, press DOF preview and then reverse was a huge PITA. Do you know if the magnification on the 100mm Macro 2.8 is at all comparable with the reversed lenses? Would I be able to take pictures somewhat like this suave sob? My reasoning for the L 100mm is that I typically don't use any telephoto lenses as my general "walk around" lens (also, I would like to use this one for portraits). For my telephoto needs I am looking to get the 70-200 2.8 IS L lens, but I am also looking at the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L... I don't want a lenses that overlap as I feel it would somewhat be a waste of money (and I'm not entirely sure what the canon 2x teleconverter would do to image quality on the 70-200 2.8); as it is though I am not sure what to choose. This problem (choosing between telephoto lenses) is directly interfering with my choice on whether or not to buy the 100mm macro outright (as it would overlap with another L series lens). But I really want to do amazing macro shots like Thomas Shahan, and I don't know if that is even possible with the 100mm. Also, what is this madness about mounting a lens ON TOP of another lens? Pastry Mistakes fucked around with this message at 20:56 on Oct 10, 2010 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2010 20:10
|
|
|
Abnegatus posted:Do you know if the magnification on the 100mm Macro 2.8 is at all comparable with the reversed lenses? Would I be able to take pictures somewhat like this suave sob? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqRn3at0H60 Studebaker Hawk fucked around with this message at 22:35 on Oct 10, 2010 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2010 22:27
|
|
|
That guy is my hero but I can't help but hate him. Everytime I'm actually happy with the quality of my pics, someone somewhere posts a link to his work and  Enough whining, here's a shot taken this summer: 
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2010 00:33
|
|
|
seravid posted:That guy is my hero but I can't help but hate him. Everytime I'm actually happy with the quality of my pics, someone somewhere posts a link to his work and That's really nice - and I don't think his are that much more amazing than yours. It looks like he does some sort of +Vibrance +contrast/blacks post that makes the critter look more detailed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2010 01:28
|
|
|
Studebaker Hawk posted:It looks like he actually just uses extension tubes and a reversed 28mm according to his video here which makes me feel bad about having an MP-E 65mm and taking worse photos I fricking wish Nikon had a lens comparable to the MP-E 65mm. I still want to know how the hell that guy gets such magnification from reversing tubes. I've got 60mm worth of tubes that I use with my 50 f1.8 and get 1.7:1 (I've calculated it) Not only that, but the lighting needs to be brighter than the sun for me to be able to see anything deeper than f5 or so, which I don't need to tell you; comes down to a fraction of a mm of focal plane when you're that small, so I need to see what I'm doing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2010 01:28
|
|
|
Testing out my new macro lens (Tamron 95mm f/2.8). Pink shadows by subx2000, on Flickr  Rolling the dice by subx2000, on Flickr  The three rings by subx2000, on Flickr  Mmm Jerky by subx2000, on Flickr Any advice/critiques? The biggest problem I have currently, I think, is a crappy tripod. It's not very stable, and you can tell that there was very slight vibrations going on in the original sized images. I also realize the rings being cut off at the bottom of the photo sucks, it was the best one I had though. The jerky was just for fun, I was about to eat that piece of jerky and decided to take a picture. subx fucked around with this message at 02:31 on Oct 12, 2010 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2010 02:28
|
|
|
seravid posted:That guy is my hero but I can't help but hate him. Everytime I'm actually happy with the quality of my pics, someone somewhere posts a link to his work and This is fantastic by the way
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2010 09:12
|
|
|
subx posted:Any advice/critiques? The biggest problem I have currently, I think, is a crappy tripod. It's not very stable, and you can tell that there was very slight vibrations going on in the original sized images. Turn on exposure delay mode when you shoot static stuff if you don't have a release. It'll raise the mirror and wait a couple of seconds for vibrations to subside before popping the shutter, which can be handy if your support's not up to snuff. Don't forget to turn it off afterwards or you'll go crazy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2010 10:46
|
|
|
I've got a t2i and 100mm 2.8 macro. I'd like to get a ring flash/light of some kind, and came across this on b&h- Sunpak Ring Light Anyone have experience with this? Reviews suggest it isn't terribly powerful, but seems like it might work to get another stop or two without having to go to a crappy ISO. Also seems like it could be useful for macro video. Any other suggestions for a 3rd party ring flash,, probably <$200? Also, I'm sure this has been covered, but the Kenko extension tubes are good?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2010 18:34
|
|
|
BetterLekNextTime posted:I've got a t2i and 100mm 2.8 macro. I'd like to get a ring flash/light of some kind, and came across this on b&h- Sunpak Ring Light I actually had a similar question about the 100mm 2.8L. Two questions specifically: 1. I was looking to get either kenko tubes or diopters, but I'm not sure which would be suitable for greater magnification. Can anyone give me a quick rundown? Should I use both? 2. Since the tubes were a possibility for me, I was reminded of tripod mounting rings (because I don't want all the tubes + the lens to create too much stress on the mount). When I found out that the ring mount for the 100mm is almost two hundred dollars.... well, screw that madness. Amazon had a few alternatives with VERY poor ratings. Does anyone know of a good alternative tripod ring mount? Pastry Mistakes fucked around with this message at 21:06 on Nov 5, 2010 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2010 19:39
|
|
|
BetterLekNextTime posted:I've got a t2i and 100mm 2.8 macro. I'd like to get a ring flash/light of some kind, and came across this on b&h- Sunpak Ring Light I think I linked this a couple pages back- I haven't gotten to use it more than twice but like it thus far. Way better than what you are looking at, "adjustable" heads, ETTL-II. Now I just need to DIY some sort of diffuser...
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2010 20:20
|
|
|
Took a photo of some new leaves unfolding
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2010 20:29
|
|
|
How about editing the first post with basic info (and perhaps a FAQ), along with a title change, something like "yes, kenko tubes are a good buy" ?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2010 20:38
|
|
|
Found this stinkbug lounging in our trash can at work and happened to have extension tube handy! All are shot handheld with a 580 EXII bounced off of a sheet of white paper. I forgot to narrow the aperature for the first shot. -_-;  
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2010 22:42
|
|
|
I just got my 100macro L today, I can't wait to use it 
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2010 23:29
|
|
|
I ended up ordering a Dot Line ringflash for my T2i and 100/2.8, and it arrived yesterday. I've never used an external flash before, so I have a lot to learn... like, for example, it doesn't work when you're 6 inches from the subject matter.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2010 17:30
|
|
|
I've been wanting to do some super macro for awhile, but I wanted to get some advice from some people in here before I go out an buy a reversal ring. I've got: 70-200 f2.8 IS 24-70 f.28 50 f1.4 10-22 3.5-4.5 I also have the Canon 500D Close-Up Filter. What kind of focal distance would I be looking at? I'd probably want to go the 70-200 and 10-22 route, since I think that would get me the most magnification. Should I use the close-up filter, or not put it on?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2010 23:38
|
|
|
I'm a newbie when it comes to macro but I finally got to play around with my new Canon 500D close up fliter that I'm pairing with my 70-200 IS II. I know some goons were curious about the combo and while I'm no expert, I'm pretty happy with it.   So far the only disadvantage I can see with using the setup is that when the filter is screwed in, you can only shoot macro. It doesn't work as a telephoto at all. Not too big of a deal if you ask me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2010 01:15
|
|
|
Haggins posted:
Yeah, it removes your ability to infinity focus. But other than that, it's pretty darn fantastic.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2010 03:29
|
|
|
Anti_Social posted:super macro How "super" do you want to go? How much magnification and what kind of subjects? Haggins posted:The lizard is great but I think this one could use a 90º (clockwise) rotation. Here's a couple of shots taken this summer but treated only a few days ago. I feel going through my catalog some months later gives me a different perspective and I often find good shots that I disregarded the first time around.  
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2010 04:04
|
|
|
seravid posted:How "super" do you want to go? How much magnification and what kind of subjects? Well, maybe I shouldn't have said super. I would at least a 5:1, and would like to do insect macros, as well as just trying to get super close on everyday things.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2010 04:10
|
|
|
I'm fairly new to photography and just took an intro course. For my final project I decided to do some low key shots of electronics. Used a Canon T2i with the cheapo EF-S 55-250mm F4-5.6 and Kenko extension tubes. I'm hooked now and have the EF 100mm F2.8 macro on the way. I really want to do insects but it's too cold in NYC right now so I'll have to wait until spring.      
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2010 06:50
|
|
|
I don't remember seeing this, but I just recognized a goon's pictures on the discovery website: http://planetgreen.discovery.com/slideshows/home-garden/insects-up-close-really-really-personal-slideshow.html
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2010 05:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 18:58 |
|
|
Cheap MP-E came up on my RSS this morning, fwiw
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2010 15:00
|
|