1:1 Magnification

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by pcassity, Mar 14, 2010.

  1. I want to use my Sigma 10-20mm 3.5 lens for flower shots and obtain 1:1 (or as close as possible) magnification. I am shooting with a D300. Any suggestions?
  2. You can make it do less or more magnification but my guess is that the 1:1 focus plane for this lens is in between the elements inside the lens (aka: Not possible).
  3. Extension tubes, supplementary lenses, and teleconverters are ways to increase magnification. Extension tubes are hollow tubes that have the effect of moving the lens further away from the camera. Since there are no optics involved, it doesn't decrease image quality. The problem is that you may lose electronic connectivity and lose metering. Your camera is essentially manual at that point. Nikon doesn't make any extension tubes with electrical contacts. Kenko does, but it may not work with the D300. I'm not sure. You can also find bellows equipment that works the same at tubes (but no electronics.)
    Supplementary lenses go on the front of your lens (like a filter) and add magnification. It also decreases image quality. I don't have that Sigma lens, but may in that range don't take front filters due to the rounded front element.
    Teleconverters go on the back and don't work with all lenses. Usually a wide-angle lens like the Sigma has a rear element that protrudes, so it make not work.
    Honestly, I would buy a 1:1 macro lens and forget about using the Sigma 10-20mm unless you want ot make it a project for some reason.
  4. To get 1:1 magnification with a wide angle lens you would have to be working with very short working distances between the subject and the image focal plane, which is inside the camera. Take into account the length of the lens and any tubes, you're getting very close to the subject, which may not be desirable, especially if you want to use flash.
  5. Thanks. I have a very good 60mm macro lens. I am just trying to utilze the 10-15mm range of the sigma for some unusual close up shots of flowers. Although the lens itself is a very good, it is limited in its close focusing ability.
  6. I can understand why you'd want to use an ultra-wide for macro shots; you may be able to achieve fantastically-unique results. I'll second M. Hayward's advice about looking into some extension tubes.
  7. Why would you want 1:1 with that lens? There are more specialized lenses for shooting large magnifications with short focal lengths, but background control isn't usually the reason because 1:1 is really small with DX, less than 1" wide. Thus the background is very easily controlled in other ways.
    If you want to shoot close, says 1:5 to 1:10, with a wide, then you'll need a non-G wide lens and a K1 ring. But this will work better on FX anyway due to a larger angle of view with the same focal length making the extension easier to control.
  8. I think this is a case of 'you can't get there from here'. You would be much better off getting a dedicated macro lens than trying to make do with what you have. Not to mention, even if you could get 1:1 with that lens, then the front element of the lens would be nearly touching the subject.
    For 1:1 I use a 55mm f/2.8 Micro Nikkor with the PK-13 extension ring. The results are breathtaking on both film or digital using my D700. A little known fact to a lot of photographers is you can get a good bit above 1:1 with a lens, especially a wideangle one, by using a reverse adapter. It threads into the filter thread and then bayonets the lens backwards onto the camera. Of course you will have to focus the image moving the camera or the subject (a macro focusing rail is best for this) and you will have to set the aperture manually.
  9. The following statement "Since there are no optics involved, it doesn't decrease image quality" [in reference to using extension tubes] is a common myth, but nevertheless entirely wrong. When as lens is pushed outside the working limits set by its designers, there will be optical degradation. Even the newest super zooms from Nikon show this when they are at their closest limit (typically, strong increase of blue fringing), and adding extension just exacerbates the situation.
    Very few wide-angle lenses really like extension, the Nikkor 20 mm f/3.5 (52mm filter thread) being a noticeable exception. Also, for a number of the shorter lenses (and fisheye lenses), even the narrowest extension ring can bring the focus plane inside the lens assembly - hardly practical for shooting.
    It is possible, however, to eschew the constraints of "G" lenses which lack an aperture ring, by adding a CPU to the extension itself.
  10. The 25mm ZF and 24mm PC-E Nikkor focus very close (the subject will be almost in contact with the front element) without accessories; but the image quality isn't that much to write home about in this situation. It's quite difficult to get light to the subject when working with wide angles for macro. The 45 PC-E virtually sits on top of the subject when you do 1:2... but the nice thing about the PC-E Nikkors is that you can use the tilt to alter the camera position without altering plane of focus, thus bringing in more light from the top in many situations.
    In practice the 60mm AF-S Micro is my shortest lens that I will use for close-ups near the 1:1 macro range. The 45 is used for a bit larger subjects such 1:3 to 1:20. More often I prefer longer lenses for this.
  11. Yes, for special effects it might work, but terrible close working distance. 60 you have is great. I agree, you should go other routes, this idea you have needs re-thinking. That being said macro does not have to be expensive. I am still using a very old 1970s Tamron 90mm SP that I bought for my son on clearance for about $60 about 10 years ago. It is not autofocus and it will work fin on the D300 or 200, like I have. You can also purchase some Nikon T series double element close up diopters, they are fin tuned to bring telephoto lenses closer into focus but work wel all around. I have a whole box of macro stuff that works great and I bet I'm into $300 maximum. Cheers, enjoy your work. (sorry my laptop is messed up keeps missing letters)
  12. First, let me thank everyone for your thoughts and advice. Let me clarify what I am trying to do. Maybe 1:1 magnification wasn't the correct way to describe it. What I am trying to achieve is to fill the frame with a flower at around 10 to 12mm. This isn't possible with the Sigma 10-20mm as it is with the Nikon 10-24mm. I understand that 1:1 may not be possible and I may be getting all I can from the lens as it is. I am just trying to utilize the 10-12mm for a unique effect, while at the same time filling the frame or coming as close to filling the frame as possible. I have posted a shot that I took this morning of a daffodil at 10mm. I was approximately 10" away from the flower and that is about as close as you can get and still focus.
  13. You'll get significantly closer with the Nikkor 10-24 AFS.
  14. Well, this is more like 1:5 to 1:10 magnification in which case the practical way to do it is to get another lens :)
    (no, there is no foolproof way of doing this with the 10-20, some sort of diopter lens or similar might work, but would probably introduce unwanted effects)
  15. Thanks Oskar. If I can't do it, I can't do it. I knew the focusing limitations of this lens before I bought it. I purchased it for
    home interiors interiors and it is absolutely perfect for that. I saw some wide angle flower shots at full frame 15mm In a
    magazine and was trying to replicate some of those unique shots.
  16. May be someone should clarify what 1:1 means. I sure want to know.
  17. 1:1 means the image projected on the sensor is the same size as the object in real life. So a 36mm wide object would fill a 35mm sensor.
    Pat - if you were 10" from the front element then it sounds like you have room for an extension tube.
  18. So however you can fill the sensor, or film, you have 1:1? I can fill the sensor with many other lenses too. May be 1:1 applies only to objects that are physically smaller than sensor size.
  19. You have probably noticed many are encouraging you to use a longer lens. Its because everything gets easier. You get more distance between the lens and the subject, hence more light on the subject. Because all wide angle lens (for SLRs) are retrofocus, there are more lens elements in the path; thus less with the telephoto designs. And more telephoto lens have built in macro settings, I get great close ups with my 70-300 Nikkor, but it can't compete with the 105mm 2.8 macro lens, which does go to 1:1, and example shot of a daffodil is attached. Taken handheld.
  20. An example taken with a zoom Nikkor 70-300mm f/4-5.6 quasi-macro 1:4, is here.
  21. mizore

    mizore A Gringa in Nicaragua

    The reversal ring can give some interesting closeups, but the depth of field is really shallow. This is more than one to one, taken with a reversed Nikkor 24mm f/2.8 lens, and is an uncropped frame of the knot in a Chinese brush cord.
  22. So however you can fill the sensor, or film, you have 1:1?
    No. You have 1:1 when the real life object and the image projected on the sensor are the exact same in size. If an object is 15mm wide in real life, it's 15mm wide on the sensor.
  23. A crop sensor is roughly 15x22mm in size. At 1:1 magnification you will be filling the entire frame with an in-focus object which is 15x22mm -- about the size of a small postage stamp. Can you imagine how close you'd have to be to your subject to accomplish that with a 10mm focal length? Or even 20mm? At 1:2 magnification, you'd fill the frame with a properly focused 30x44mm object. Filling the frame with an entire flower like a tulip only requires about 1:3 magnification.
    If you're looking for more info on macro photography, the best recommendation I can give is to read John Shaw's book "Close-Ups In Nature." It's the bible for macro photography.
  24. IMO 1:1 shot with mentioned lens is not possible technicaly. Even if you do not care of lighting and image quolity. In 35mm photography 1:1 is usually achieved by F100mm and F60mm macro lenses designed for this. There are few F35mm lenses with macro capability but they seldom allow for more then 1:2 ratio. As you move along to F28mm and F24mm, using extention tubes or billows, the ratio gets progresivelly 1:3 - 1:4 - 1:5 while distance between the subject and your front element gets 25mm - 15mm - 7mm - 0mm together with major deterioration of image quolity. Trying this may be interesting creative attempt but probably of no technical value where 1:1 magnification has meaning.
    1:1 magnification shot has nothing to do with filling frame/sensor. It means that photographing an subject, say, of 10mm in diameter, such as small coin, you obtain an image of same size as projected on your sensor/film. This has meaning and value in some techical applications such as numismatic or post-stamp photography for catalogue or such. Trying to take photo of a flower defined as 1:1 shot is basically meaningless because the exact dimentions of the flower is of no importance and you still want some DOF to it.
  25. I use my Canon EF24 2.8 with a 25mm extension tube and get slightly more than 1:1, but the focusing distance is so close - maybe 1/2 an inch. Last week I actually touched my subject and got pollen on the lens element. Had to clean it well after that. I'm much more careful now.
    DS Meador
  26. Is depth of field related to the type of magnifying technique used at all?
    Specifically I'm wondering if there are any advantages in terms of depth of field to tubes/reverse ring/dedicated macro lens, or whether it is simply a function of focal length/focus distance/f-stop?
  27. I didn't believe the nay-sayers so I tried it myself. I hooked up a 12mm extension tube to my Canon EF-S 10-22mm. Results: not good. To focus a wide angle lens with extension tubes, you have to get way too close to the subject (even zoomed to 22mm), so that you more than have to fill the frame with the subject. And at that close of range, the required zoom to 22mm does not result in the fun distortion that you'd expect from the wide angle lens.
    I'd send a shot, but the depth of focus was horrible and I only got a tiny bit that was in focus.
    So your options are teleconverter or diopter. Each will degrade image quality, however when you figure the optics from a wide angle lens aren't the sharpest for very close photography, it won't matter too much.
    I've never tried diopters, but I've found that teleconverters barely result in better images than just plain blowing up to 50-100% and cropping. So cropping might give you the best bang for your wide-angle buck.
    Or, use your macro lens, then photoshop a wierd perspective from your wide angle to the background of the resulting pic ;-).
    Kay, now I'm off to clean the pollen off my lens.
  28. We should have a close up FAQ :)
    Maybe there is one somewhere...
    Specifically I'm wondering if there are any advantages in terms of depth of field to tubes/reverse ring/dedicated macro lens, or whether it is simply a function of focal length/focus distance/f-stop?​
    DOF is a function of focal length, focus distance and f-stop. There is a good webpage explaining it all, but I've lsot the URL...
    All magnification is essentially about focal length and extension to put in the simplest terms. Things like diopters just modify the focal length, so the extension is suitably longer.
  29. mizore

    mizore A Gringa in Nicaragua

    The solution for the lens reversal shallow depth of field would be to use a macro focusing rail and a focus stacker program. I've been tempted but I'm not that hard core.
    I've got a 24-85 Nikkor lens that will do 1:2 (object half life size on the sensor), and for most flowers, that's adequate. One to one or higher is good for insects, but without a focusing rail and very controlled lights, using something like a focus stacker program is quite difficult. I've seen examples of these and they're rather amazing in a three-d model sort of way.
    I have a dedicated macro lens that goes down to one to one (105mm VR AFS). If you really want to do macros, something in that range to 200mm range (Nikon's longest macro) is useful.
    If you're trying to get in focus from close up of something tiny like a gnat or even a grasshopper to background, you will need focus stacking software and a focusing rail. I can visualize something that could be quite stunning done with this, but it would be more software than straight photography.
    Rule seems to be the higher the magnification, the shallower the depth of field.
  30. So have you seen the new lenses that Sigma announced?
    From the announcment:
    The Sigma 8-16mm F4.5-5.6 DC HSM is the first ultra-wide zoom lens with a minimum focal length of 8mm, designed specifically for APS-C size image sensors. This lens has an equivalent angle of view of a 12-24mm lens when used on digital cameras with an APS-C size image sensor. The wide-angle of view from 121.2 degrees* produces striking images with exaggerated perspective, enabling photographers to emphasize the subject.​
  31. How about trying this starting with a bit longer prime and an extension tube or a strong diopter? These attachments shrink the effective FL, so you just might get the desired angle of view and a reasonable working distance.
  32. Neither of those attachments shrinks the effective focal length.
    Extension tubes shift the focus point closer to the camera by moving the optics farther away, which allows you to focus on things closer than you'd otherwise be able to (at the expense of losing infinity focus), which increases their apparent size. Diopters have the same effect, but do so by refocusing the light before it enters the lens' main optics. Extension tubes work better on shorter focal lengths (up to 100mm or so), while diopters work better on longer focal lengths. Teleconverters increase the effective focal length without changing the minimum focus distance, effectively giving you a longer lens without the typical extended focusing distance.
    And on an unrelated note, I can't wait to see some professional reviews of that new Sigma ultrawide!
  33. To get to a 1:1 reproduction ratio, you need an extension tube equal to the focal length of the lens that you using. I believe that Nikon makes 8 and 11mm extensions that will work on your D300, but remember to check the compatibily of the tube. Some old tubes can damage the electrical contacts on the body since they were not there when the tube was designed.
    Either 8 or 11mm will get you very close to 1:1, but you may have issues with the focus point moving inside the lens. I have them with an 18-28mm zoom, but never anything as wide as your Sigma.
    I hope that this helps and that you post some of these pictures when you are done!

Share This Page