Very first macro using tubes...

JAG

I got an early Christmas gift from hubby (plus part of it was from a dgrin gift certificate from b&h photo for winning one of the DSS challenges). I bought a set of Kenko macro tubes. Today I played around with them because I didn't have a clue to how to use them.

These are SOOC and no pp editing was done. I have realized since seeing them on my computer screen...that I have some dirt or dust on my lens. Other than that. I played with lighting and some aperature settings.

I used manual focus because I couldn't get the auto focus to stay focused. I used a tripod on all shots but leaned it into the objects so that the lens was only inches from the objects. I am totally still learning about lens and tubes so I will put the info I know and hopefully it will be enough for you experts to give me some imput on what I can do to make them better (other than cleaning the lens).:D

So here is what I came up with...

1.Nikon D300, iso 400, 1/250, f20.0, I used all 3 tubes on my nikon 55mm and the exif says 55mm( 82mm 35mm). If anyone can tell me why its listed this way and what it means I would appreciate it. zoom 1:1, 0EV, auto white balance. Off camera flash with one hotlight to right. I noticed that I had to put the light and flash very close to the subjects. It will be interesting to try this outdoors (when the snow melts and bugs come out).


2 This one was taken with the same lens as above but with the following changes...f8.0, 52mm(78mm 35mm)


3. This one was taken with my sigma 55mm-200mm lens, 1/160, f25.0, iso 800, 66mm(99mm 35mm),


I had gone through some of the lessons that Brian has up at the top of this board and I had found the suggestion he made about me moving in and out of the focal point works great!

Candid Arts

JAG wrote:

1.Nikon D300, iso 400, 1/250, f20.0, I used all 3 tubes on my nikon 55mm and the exif says 55mm( 82mm 35mm). If anyone can tell me why its listed this way and what it means I would appreciate it.

It says 55mm (82mm 35mm) because the D300 is not a FF (Full Frame) body, it has a crop factor of 1.5x. So your 55mm lens on a 1.5x crop body camera equates to a 82mm lens on a 35mm, FF, body (55mm x 1.5 = 82mm).

Make sense?

P.S. I really like the #2 shot.

Lord Vetinari

Looks like a very successfull first go with the tubes

You're seeing dust on the sensor not the lens- shooting at small apertures shows it up.

What does that lens set at 55mm register in the EXIF without the ext tubes ?

Brian V.

Skippy

JAG wrote:

I got an early Christmas gift from hubby (plus part of it was from a dgrin gift certificate from b&h photo for winning one of the DSS challenges). I bought a set of Kenko macro tubes. Today I played around with them because I didn't have a clue to how to use them.

These are SOOC and no pp editing was done. I have realized since seeing them on my computer screen...that I have some dirt or dust on my lens. Other than that. I played with lighting and some aperature settings.

I used manual focus because I couldn't get the auto focus to stay focused. I used a tripod on all shots but leaned it into the objects so that the lens was only inches from the objects. I am totally still learning about lens and tubes so I will put the info I know and hopefully it will be enough for you experts to give me some imput on what I can do to make them better (other than cleaning the lens).:D

So here is what I came up with...

1.Nikon D300, iso 400, 1/250, f20.0, I used all 3 tubes on my nikon 55mm and the exif says 55mm( 82mm 35mm). If anyone can tell me why its listed this way and what it means I would appreciate it. zoom 1:1, 0EV, auto white balance. Off camera flash with one hotlight to right. I noticed that I had to put the light and flash very close to the subjects. It will be interesting to try this outdoors (when the snow melts and bugs come out).

2 This one was taken with the same lens as above but with the following changes...f8.0, 52mm(78mm 35mm)

3. This one was taken with my sigma 55mm-200mm lens, 1/160, f25.0, iso 800, 66mm(99mm 35mm),

I had gone through some of the lessons that Brian has up at the top of this board and I had found the suggestion he made about me moving in and out of the focal point works great!

Hmmmmmm I get the feeling your just a tad excited JAG
It is like getting smacked with the WOW stick when you get to see
for the first time things up much closer than you have ever been able to shoot before.

The problem is you get to see sooooooo much up close that you are more than aware of the dust on your sensor, and at first don't believe what your seeing...... yup shows up more than you thought it would.

You've gotten excellent results from your new KENKO's
You will find that you have to stick to MANUAL Mode as the AUTO Focus will just keep hunting when your doing Extreme Macros.

For work not so close the AUTO Focus will work.

I'm really happy for you JAG,
welcome to the Wonderful World of MACRO's :ivar

The detail in the finger is quite amazing isn't it,
you don't realize how raised the ridges are on a finger print,
and the patterns found on the skin.

Well Done .... Skippy
.

JAG

Lord Vetinari wrote:

Looks like a very successfull first go with the tubes

You're seeing dust on the sensor not the lens- shooting at small apertures shows it up.

What does that lens set at 55mm register in the EXIF without the ext tubes ?

Brian V.

Ok...your question intrigued me to go do some looking at previous shots without the tubes. Now I am thoughouly confused. Any shots I made that were between 52-55mm without the tubes had the (82mm 35mm) listed after it in the exif.

Now I know that the tubes did make a difference of how close I could get to the object and stay in focus..yet the exif doesn't seem to have changed? Did I set the tubes up wrong? Or does the Nikon D300 not reconize the tubes? Or am I just not understanding this exif stuff at all?

darkdragon

JAG wrote:

Ok...your question intrigued me to go do some looking at previous shots without the tubes. Now I am thoughouly confused. Any shots I made that were between 52-55mm without the tubes had the (82mm 35mm) listed after it in the exif.

Now I know that the tubes did make a difference of how close I could get to the object and stay in focus..yet the exif doesn't seem to have changed? Did I set the tubes up wrong? Or does the Nikon D300 not reconize the tubes? Or am I just not understanding this exif stuff at all?

The Kenko tubes don't register a change at all on the exif. I also think that technically the 55mm lens is still a 55mm lens

For example, I used a full set with 50mm for this shot and if you look at exif it still shows as 50mm: My Shot

Your shots are great, by the way. Mine weren't even close to this sharp when I first got my Kenko tubes.

What kind of lighting are you using in these?

JAG

darkdragon wrote:

The Kenko tubes don't register a change at all on the exif. I also think that technically the 55mm lens is still a 55mm lens

For example, I used a full set with 50mm for this shot and if you look at exif it still shows as 50mm: My Shot

Your shots are great, by the way. Mine weren't even close to this sharp when I first got my Kenko tubes.

What kind of lighting are you using in these?

Ok...thanks for answering my question.

As for my lighting I used 2 sources. One was my sb800 on a free standing right next to the image to the left about 12 inches away. The other was a hotlight with no umbrella to the top right.

Seems alot of light has to be used when shooting macro!

I looked at your shots DD and they are great! I know my lighting for outside will have to be rethought.

darkdragon

JAG wrote:

Ok...thanks for answering my question.

As for my lighting I used 2 sources. One was my sb800 on a free standing right next to the image to the left about 12 inches away. The other was a hotlight with no umbrella to the top right.

Seems alot of light has to be used when shooting macro!

Ah ok, I was going to freak out if you said "just a table lamp"

Thanks for the comments on my shots.
When i do similar shots, i have a 580EXII into an umbrella with sunlight - to get a nice exposure. Definitely takes a lot of light for these shots. I use the Alzo kit.

Another question I had for you - which did you like using better: the prime lens or the zoom lens?

I'm still debating myself on which way I like working. The zoom is really nice to use on a tripod (I use the zoom itself to "move closer" instead of having to move the lens closer physically), but the 50mm prime is so much lighter to carry around and all that.

JAG

darkdragon wrote:

Ah ok, I was going to freak out if you said "just a table lamp"

Thanks for the comments on my shots.
When i do similar shots, i have a 580EXII into an umbrella with sunlight - to get a nice exposure. Definitely takes a lot of light for these shots. I use the Alzo kit.

Another question I had for you - which did you like using better: the prime lens or the zoom lens?

I'm still debating myself on which way I like working. The zoom is really nice to use on a tripod (I use the zoom itself to "move closer" instead of having to move the lens closer physically), but the 50mm prime is so much lighter to carry around and all that.

Well Lisa, Actually my 50mm is a nikon 18mm-50mm...I just used it on the 50 because the tubes seem to be a waste of time on anything below that. But I do prefer the 55mm-200mm best as I have more range to choose from. Not so back breaking per se'.

I am curious and still have a lot to experiment with. But I was wondering how my tameron 200 to 500mm would do? Out side of having to be careful of the obvious weight issues on the tubes.....anyone ever try this and are willing to share the experience?