# Macro Help Please



## retro72 (Jan 19, 2005)

Hi all

I have a Nikon D40 and want to take macro shots of watches (what else is there :blink: ). What do I need? A lens, an extension tube or a macro lens kit ( 3 lens mounts). Ive asked everyone for Jessop vouchers for christmas, so if a lens, what would be suitable for my camera? Ive not had it that long, so know bugger all about apetures and what have you.

Thanks in advance


----------



## tranber70 (Mar 24, 2007)

Hi,

I have an Olympus.

I feel the best solution is to buy a macro lens from yur brand, i.e. Nikon, but one can find it a little bit expensive.

So personnally, I use my old lenses with extension tubes from Olympus.

I am loosing all the automatic system but it is not a problem for macro pics and I found the result not so bad for a very cheap investment. The ones I found were around 15/20 euros.

Hoping to have help yu a little bit,

Bertrand


----------



## chris l (Aug 5, 2005)

retro72 said:


> Hi all
> 
> I have a Nikon D40 and want to take macro shots of watches (what else is there :blink: ). What do I need? A lens, an extension tube or a macro lens kit ( 3 lens mounts). Ive asked everyone for Jessop vouchers for christmas, so if a lens, what would be suitable for my camera? Ive not had it that long, so know bugger all about apetures and what have you.
> 
> Thanks in advance


The aperture is the hole in the lens through which the light passes on the way in to make the picture. The smaller the hole, the longer the time needed (shutter speed), and the greater the range of things in focus, from close up to far away. The aperture is adjustable and defined as 'f' numbers. Smaller number is a bigger aperture. 3.5 is bigger than 5.6 etc. Each click halves the size of the hole. 5.6 is half of 3.5 so it needs double the time.

For historical reasons the aperture number range increase by peculiar numbers... 2.8 4 5.6 8 11 16.22 etc.

Closeups.... well... the cheapest way is tubes. Usually they come as a set of three, of differing lengths, the longest has the most effect, and they can be stacked for even more effect.

Basically they shift the focusing range of the lens; instead, for example, of focusing from 20cm to infinity, a tube may enable the lens to focus from 10cm to 1metre. The longer the tub, the closer the focusing range.

The cheaper tubes have no contacts between the camera and the lens. This means no autofocus, and the lens aperture stays wide open.

To focus you either adjust manually or move the camera backwards and forwards.

These tubes are under a tenner. See 350125235445.

'Proper' Nikon tubes with full automation, so that the lens focuses and stops down, are expensive! Used ones can be found on the 'bay ~ Â£60.

Then there are macro lenses. These are designed so that they will correctly render at closed distances, where most conventional designs lose quality. To enable a lens to focus from macro to infinity is not easy. Hence the cost.

Also there are 'close up' filters, these are convex (magnifying) lenses that screw into the front filter thread of your lens. Again, they come in varying strengths, 1/2/3, with increasing effects. Again they can be stacked. See 220329270072.

For Nikon, the older manual focus specialist macro lenses are worth considering, the 'Macro Nikkors'. I used these as a Medical Photographer for years, and they are superb. See 220332058794.

The advantage of front mounted filter/lenses and/or of a dedicated macro lens if that the lens may be used at less than full aperture; lenses give best performance when slightly stopped down. Also you get control over/more 'depth of field', which is minimal at close distances.

Use a tripod; little table top tripods are cheap and effective.

'You pays your money and you makes your choice'


----------



## retro72 (Jan 19, 2005)

wow, that was some essay and very helpful. Thanks for the effort and the links


----------



## chris l (Aug 5, 2005)

You're in luck (or not); I used to teach photography!

Still working on getting good closeups with my new Nikon (D50).. first impressions are that the image is much sharper than my Panasonic; very Nikon.. lots of contrast and colour. Too much colour in macro mode. And I really, really miss the image stabilisation of the Panasonic, you lose one or two speeds handheld. Back to 1/focal length as a minimum... just like proper cameras.

Outdoors is another matter - the Nikon is amazing!

Anyway, I'm still getting this into working order, before customising it... shot as a fine .jpeg in ordinary auto mode, as macro gives too much colour... still had to reduce colour saturation and contrast...

Getting there...










(Forgot to mention bellows for closeups... similar to tubes only much more magnification..)


----------



## retro72 (Jan 19, 2005)

Tubes, bellows the list is endless. I think I will try a tube for now as the bellows are from hong kong on the bay, so will wait till after christmas. Thanks for the help. Will try and get some good pics for you to rip apart


----------



## langtoftlad (Mar 31, 2007)

chris l said:


> You're in luck (or not); I used to teach photography!
> 
> Anyway, I'm still getting this into working order, before customising it... shot as a fine .jpeg in ordinary auto mode, as macro gives too much colour... still had to reduce colour saturation and contrast...
> 
> Getting there...


My question added is what lighting did you use... surely not just daylight?


----------



## chris l (Aug 5, 2005)

langtoftlad said:


> chris l said:
> 
> 
> > You're in luck (or not); I used to teach photography!
> ...


Very slack... just an anglepoise... on my desktop...

I should, at least, have hung a white sheet (net curtain/ tracing paper etc) between the light and the watch...


----------

