Best way to get max magnification w/ Nikon

Cambyses

We now have a Nikon 105mm f/2.8 and also found a good deal on a used Nikon R1C1 flash system. So time to get back a bit more into macro photography .

And the question I have at the moment is what would be the best trade-off between maximizing magnification and image quality?

Specifically, besides R1C1, here is what we have:
1) Nikon 105mm f/2.8 which gives us a native 1:1 magnification.
2) Kenko extension tube set (12, 20, and 36mm)
3) Canon 500D close-up filter
4) TC14eII (1.4x) and TC20eIII (2x) teleconverters

And here are some of the alternative configurations I can think of:
1) 105mm w/ 68mm extension tubes; should give us 1.65:1 magnification (68/105 = 0.65)
2) 105mm w/ Canon 500D; should give us 1.42:1 magnification
3) Combination of the above two; if my calculation is correct, this should give us ~2.2:1 magnification. That is because 500D (+2 diopter) reduces the effective focal length of 105mm to 86.8mm and increases its native magnification to 1.42:1. So, thanks to 68mm extension tube, I add (68/86.8) to 1.42 to obtain 2.2.
4) 105mm with either teleconverter: Fortunately, Nikon 105mm is compatible with Nikon teleconverters, though we will loose light and won't have autofocus, both of which should be OK for macro work. With 2x, we should get 2:1 magnification, and with 1.4x we should get 1.4:1 magnification. IQ with the latter would obviously be expected to be better.

I suppose I can think of other possible combinations as well. But, for now, has any of you had experience with any of these configurations? Which one do you think would be the best trade-off between image quality and magnification?

Thanks...

Lord Vetinari

Cambyses wrote: »

We now have a Nikon 105mm f/2.8 and also found a good deal on a used Nikon R1C1 flash system. So time to get back a bit more into macro photography .

And the question I have at the moment is what would be the best trade-off between maximizing magnification and image quality?

Specifically, besides R1C1, here is what we have:
1) Nikon 105mm f/2.8 which gives us a native 1:1 magnification.
2) Kenko extension tube set (12, 20, and 36mm)
3) Canon 500D close-up filter
4) TC14eII (1.4x) and TC20eIII (2x) teleconverters

And here are some of the alternative configurations I can think of:
1) 105mm w/ 68mm extension tubes; should give us 1.65:1 magnification (68/105 = 0.65)
2) 105mm w/ Canon 500D; should give us 1.42:1 magnification
3) Combination of the above two; if my calculation is correct, this should give us ~2.2:1 magnification. That is because 500D (+2 diopter) reduces the effective focal length of 105mm to 86.8mm and increases its native magnification to 1.42:1. So, thanks to 68mm extension tube, I add (68/86.8) to 1.42 to obtain 2.2.
4) 105mm with either teleconverter: Fortunately, Nikon 105mm is compatible with Nikon teleconverters, though we will loose light and won't have autofocus, both of which should be OK for macro work. With 2x, we should get 2:1 magnification, and with 1.4x we should get 1.4:1 magnification. IQ with the latter would obviously be expected to be better.

I suppose I can think of other possible combinations as well. But, for now, has any of you had experience with any of these configurations? Which one do you think would be the best trade-off between image quality and magnification?

Thanks...

Hi.
Not that it really matters but you you will actually get about 2:1 with all the ext tubes and will add about + .2 with the dioptre.
You will probably loose less IQ (if any) using the ext tubes, loose a tiny bit with the dioptre but a fair amount using the TCs.

My own preference in this case is to use ext tubes for up to 2:1 and if you want to go higher either reverse an old 50mm lens on the front or use something like a Raynox msn202 add on lens Using a high power dioptre or reversed 50mm lens will get you to around 3:1 and with the ext tubes around 4:1
Brian V.

Cambyses

Thanks a lot Brian... First, let me start by saying that I have always admired your macro work, and find some of your macro shots simply amazing, and was sad to see you leave that other forum. Though I am glad I can still follow your work here on Dgrin.

Now, regarding magnification, how do you get ~2:1 with extension tubes? My understanding was that the extra magnification from the extension tubes equals the length of tubes divided by the lens focal length, in my case 68/105=0.65. That is why I said 1:65:1. Would love to learn what I may be missing here?

Regarding IQ, I have never tried TC's for macro work yet, but when using Nikon TC's (and particularly 1.4x) for telephoto work, I have been very pleased and have rarely noticed any IQ degradation. This may be quite different with macro shots with much smaller focusing distance and depth of field.

I wish Nikon had something similar to Canon MP-E 65mm/2.8 lens. It is incredible how it can give up to 5:1 magnification on its own.

Lord Vetinari

Cambyses wrote: »

Thanks a lot Brian... First, let me start by saying that I have always admired your macro work, and find some of your macro shots simply amazing, and was sad to see you leave that other forum. Though I am glad I can still follow your work here on Dgrin.

Now, regarding magnification, how do you get ~2:1 with extension tubes? My understanding was that the extra magnification from the extension tubes equals the length of tubes divided by the lens focal length, in my case 68/105=0.65. That is why I said 1:65:1. Would love to learn what I may be missing here?

Regarding IQ, I have never tried TC's for macro work yet, but when using Nikon TC's (and particularly 1.4x) for telephoto work, I have been very pleased and have rarely noticed any IQ degradation. This may be quite different with macro shots with much smaller focusing distance and depth of field.

I wish Nikon had something similar to Canon MP-E 65mm/2.8 lens. It is incredible how it can give up to 5:1 magnification on its own.

Thanks for the kind comments

Re the mag with ext tubes. You do get more mag than you expect mainly because of the focal length of the macro lens shortening at minimum focus ( it approximates to the minimum focus distance/4).
But just try shooting mm scale of a ruler with all the tubes and the lens at min focus then actual mag = sensor width mm/mm shown across photo.

Re TCs, can only say when I tried one the result did not look any better than just cropping a photo by the same amount when I used it with my sigma 105mm but it was fine when used with a normal telephoto. Obviously suck it and see how you like it.
Brian v.

basflt

Cambyses wrote: »

But, for now, has any of you had experience with any of these configurations? Which one do you think would be the best trade-off between image quality and magnification?

Thanks...

i tried the teleconverters and they are usable
the TC20eIII is a fine piece of glass and wont degrade image quality very much ( unlike other brands )

the advantage of TCs is that they dont limit focal distance , which tubes do
when in the field , you can shoot jumpers just as well as dragonfly's , which is not possible with tubes

you should not worry about the light
you dont have a R1C1 for nothing

105mm Nikkor + 2.0TC + R1C1

DeVil

I have tried combination Nikon D7000 + Sigma 150/2.8 macro + AF tubes 92mm (36 + 36 + 20) + Raynox DCR-250

http://www.flickr.com/photos/devil_macro/6950136889/

Here is the result

Cambyses

Thank you so much guys for your helpful comments and of course the wonderful sample shots...

basflt

indeed the Sigma is slightly better then the Nikkor , but that is a choice

basflt

i suggest you try it out
with TC , tubes and a combination of both , it is possible but not easy

as for your flash
for real close up , use the diffusers that came with the set
for longer distance , use papertowel

DeVil

Agree with Bas.
Read about focus stacking, it is a technique that you'll need for a high magnification.