Getting more than 1:1 macro from 1:1 lenses

yes. these are 100% crops. But still visible that all those converters harm image quality. That's why I preffered the Canon 100-400, which is a zoom, topside over the 70-200 + converter. I think the Kenko x1.4 performs better because the others are 2x converters.

Julian

Ok I am trying to wrap my head around all these different options.

Can someone tell me if I am right in the following assumptions:

1) 60mm + 2x Tele = 2:1 at same working distance as 60mm 1:1

2) 105mm + 2x Diopter = 2:1 at same working distance as above.

So depending on the length of the Teleconverter both should be able to fit in the same port ?

So which is a preferable way to go to get 2:1.

Sorry if I've got this all wrong but I find the subject quite confusing.

Is there a primer anywhere on diopters and Teles ?

Confused !

Mark, your assumptions are close but not completely accurate.

60mm + teleconverter = 120mm f/5.6

105 + diopter = ~90mm f/2.8

So the 60mm + teleconverter will have more working distance.

BUT the 105 + diopter will have larger aperature thus AF will work better and the viewfinder will be brighter making MF easier.

Which method is better is somewhat personal prefrence but I would argue that the 105mm + diopter is better.

Which diopter is required to produce 2:1 on the 105 mm? I do not use diopters very much therefore I have no clue. I would think it would have to be a +4 or better.

There are some good calculation scripts in the net (FOV, DOF, reproduction ratios, etc.), but it is not easy to calculate dioptre for 2:1 as some lens data, etc. are required.

I don't have a +4 dioptre but just placed my old Nikonos closeup lens (which is about +4,2) in front of a Canon 100mm macro.

from frame size (width) +4 was not enough to reach 2:1. pics shot with full frame sensor.

100mm macro @1:1 only:

100mm macro @1:1 + nikonos closeup lens:

Julian

here are a few shots using the 105 with a 4t diopter. Full magnification. Whatever the math says, this combo and the added combo of a TC2x can provide nice results. Like Rand says, you just have to keep trying so you can learn the systems quirks.

Joe

One more

the Canon 500D closeup adapter is much better corrected than a single element diopter (Nikon has something similar but maybe not in the selection of sizes)

i have used it topside with and without the Canon 1.4x (which requires a 12.5 extension to make it work) on the 105 macro - for prints up to 13x19 you'd have a very hard time telling either one (or both) is present

my recommendation is:

1 - Kenko TC so you have full focus range (the Kenko pro gets very good recommendations and costs almost as much as the Canon)

2 - if that doesn't get close enough, add the 500D which should still let you focus out to about 3 feet (as i recall)

3 - the Canon 2x with 12.5 extension tube is not terrible, and again you can add the 500d (if you've got the right port extension and can find a focus gear -- do not expect this combination to autofocus -- actually, the 105 doesn't autofucus for macro well in any configuration) - and i'd be suspect of the 3rd party 2x extenders

Chiming in a bit late here, but I shoot a lot with more than 1:1 using the old Nikon 105 macro in film days, and now with the Canon 100 USM macro.

Kenko teleconverters and extension tubes all work fine. A few sample images, all uncropped:

Canon 100+ 3x teleconverter + diopters to achieve approximately 5x magnification:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tonywublog/17...57594174625480/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tonywublog/18...57594174625480/

Canon 100 + 3x teleconverter:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tonywublog/18...57594174625480/

Nikon 105 + 3x teleconverter:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tonywublog/18...57594191585362/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tonywublog/18...57594191585362/

The most difficult challenge with teleconverters is finding the appropriate port extensions and manual focus gears to permit manual focusing. Once you've got that tackled, you just need to keep your hands steady and squint really hard!!!

Chiming in a bit late here, but I shoot a lot with more than 1:1 using the old Nikon 105 macro in film days, and now with the Canon 100 USM macro.

 

Kenko teleconverters and extension tubes all work fine. A few sample images, all uncropped:

 

Canon 100+ 3x teleconverter + diopters to achieve approximately 5x magnification:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tonywublog/17...57594174625480/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tonywublog/18...57594174625480/

 

Canon 100 + 3x teleconverter:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tonywublog/18...57594174625480/

 

Nikon 105 + 3x teleconverter:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tonywublog/18...57594191585362/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tonywublog/18...57594191585362/

 

The most difficult challenge with teleconverters is finding the appropriate port extensions and manual focus gears to permit manual focusing. Once you've got that tackled, you just need to keep your hands steady and squint really hard!!!

Wow!!! Very impressive results in the links and also in your site.

Do you find a significant decrees in quality because of the teleconvertors?

There is a decrease in quality inherent to teleconverters, but there are a lot of shots you just can't get without the extra reach. My close-up images have been published many time with no problems, so the image degradation isn't too bad.

I try to take down a 2-3x teleconverter set up on most dives, lately pushing to even higher magnification. If you try a set up like this, the best thing is to find a nice, quiet boring area that no one else wants to dive, reasonably shallow so you have light, but not too shallow so you have swells. Then just practice, practice, practice on any fish. It's amazing how interesting many normal fish look at such high magnfication.

Hi, just see...

i got something to add.

Nikon 105VR + x2TC + X1.4TC = 300mm

Nemo Eggs...

Amir

However, i do find that the filters do work with a 60mm, this is an example of 60mm with a +4. True, i had to get right on them to get this full frame but..it worked...luckily they were turned this way

nice shot Mike ,you must have been up their ass with a +4 and 60mm

good one

Jez

good evening

Last sunday i was looking for a solution with the sigma 50 mm and a tamron 2x converter

In Holland most off the time , the vis. is very poor, so we need a close working distance for macro.

The sigma works great but.......... I also have a tamron 90 mm.

The test last weekend, seaslugs with the 50 mm and converter , nice shots but not as sharp as I wanted.

Tonight playing with my cam , i used the tamron 90 mm and a diopter + 1 , I have the same working distance but I think the pictures are sharper.

Any one else testing the 50 mm and 2 x converter ??????

greetings

Fotoduiker

I think the sigma 50mm have the same issue as the 60mm from nikon, working distance reduce so much that you going to end crushing things with your port if you are not carefull. That´s why must people use >100mm to this kind of thing.

As you can read here, there are people using 3X TC´s and combos of 2X+1.4X and diopters and stuff, I dare to say with a 50mm or 60mm that is almost close to impossible.

That said, I find good diopters as 4T, 6T and 500D more usefull for supermacro than TC´s if you have to choose between one or another, of course a TC+diopter is always an interesting combo challenge producing amazing results.

I always found this post very useful, so I`m going to add some tests that I made recently using Nikon D50, Sensor: Standard DX size (23.7 x 15.6 mm), Nikkor 105mm lens, Nikon 4T diopter and Kenko 2X Teleplus Pro 300 Teleconverter. Also I did some basic maths trying to understand myself the magnification provided with this combo. So here it is:

This is the 105 by itself:

I took this as a base pic to establish 1:1 magnification.

Then I add a 4T diopter:

As we can see it covers near 17mm, so magnification provided is 1.4:1

Adding a 2X to the 105mm we have this:

See that it covers close to 12mm, providing magnification of 2:1, prooving that the multiplier works equal for the focal lenght as for the magnification factor.

If we put this three together, we going to obtain this:

Covering 8mm I dare to say that magnification provided is 3:1

I also did some test with the Sigma 17-70mm macro:

Here`s the lens by itself:

Wich provides 1:2.3

And adding the 2X TC we get really close to 1:1

This is not intend to be a cientific post ,so I know I could use a tripod and other things to provide a more accurate result, but I think this help.

You also lose light with an extension tube due to the Bellows Factor...

The extension tubes will allows closer focusing resulting in higher magnification, this without loss of opticall quality but the drawback is proximity, you end up being much closer so use only with longer focal lenght.

I have nothing to say on this topic, aside from I kept getting the creeps seeing a certain name on the Last Post on a stickied subject. So I am remedying that situation.

I think this pinned thread should have a link to a recent one on UW magnifiers in the Beginners Forum. There is some good info there on calculating magnification, with examples.

Since I am a new member, I am not able to start a new topic... but this is close enough and the posters obviously have the knowledge.

My question has to do with macro-photography. It is rather general, but please bear with me. My wife is a marine biologist and conducts regular photo surveys of coral reefs. So far, we have been using a Canon 20D with the Ikelite housing and DS-200 strobe. The setup was adequate for her needs which -- essentially -- required taking pics of algae or corals at a distance of approximately 1 meter.

But our needs are evolving and we now require much more detail. I just got a 5D body and have been agonizing over the choice of an adequate lens for macro photo. In a nutshell, it seems that the Canon 100mm f2.5 Macro lens is the best fit. I am not crazy about the Canon 50mm Macro/Lifesize combo because it reportedly has a tendency to hunt at certain focal lengths.

The requirements are to be able to take pictures of algae or corals with the maximum detail possible (corals identification can require getting down to the corallite level). In your opinion, is the above combo adequate? I would prefer a 60mm Macro, but it only exists in the EF-S version. The 100mm is quite bulky, but the reviews generally report that this is a very good lens.

Reading this forum, I am starting to wonder if we would not be better off with a non-macro lens equipped with a doubler....

Any comments and pearls of wisdom or experience would be welcome :-)

Frederic