HELP. Getting closer than 1:1 with Nikkor AF-S 105mm f/2.8G VR

[stephiie_jayne]

<p>Thanks for all your help.<br>

So do we think I should buy a 24mm lens and reverse it on bellows unit? Or a 50/55mm Lens? Which will give me the best close up with good sharpness?<br>

And what is the bellows unit called?<br>

Thank you!</p>

[sem_svizec]

<blockquote>

<p>So I'll repeat - <em>Reversing rings are meant to be used in conjunction with a bellows.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Certainly, when working at home or such. Continuous adjustment of magnification is a big plus. But as a "travel" option, just the BR-2A with a set of extension tubes and a WA lens is an option that works. Focus by moving the camera only (lens is mostly best set to close focus, in case it has CRC or such; ideally, the reversed lens should be focussed to the sensor plane, and the object should be at the "flange distance" position). There is also an intermediate option of continuously adjustable extension tubes, which also means an intermediate extension range, but it is relatively rare. <br>

Using a reversed lens without extension is clearly not by the book, but I've seen lots of great handheld bug shots made like this. Though I don't do this on regular basis, I did check that it works. It takes a bit of practice to master and it is not foolproof, but it is not so difficult either. M mode only, because Nikon meters with chipped lenses only, but it should be possible to get some sort of metering by chipping the BR-2A (mind: the default TTL-BL flash mode will not work well because it requires AF distance from the lens; use spot metering or set flash power manually). No auto aperture for easier aiming unfortunately, because aperture coupling is mechanical (on some other systems it is possible to hack a wired connection between the camera and the reversed lens).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Bulky as it may be, a bellows unit is really the only sensible option for magnifications of 4x and above.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There are also microscope objectives.</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>Seriously, is <em>ANYONE</em> actually using reversed lenses, with or without bellows, hand-held, in the field with moving critters at greater than 2 to 1?</p>

<p>Compose and focus at eg f2.8, shift aperture ring round with the other hand to f22/32 and take the shot, without you, or the bug, moving more than 0.5mm? Yeah, right. </p>

<p>Sure, fixed on a sturdy tripod with a focusing rail and a dozy, cold bug on a windless day OK, but all by hand......unrealistic. The VF is black for a start!</p>

<p>Has anyone actually looked through a macro lens focused at 1:1 set @ f32 and tried the DoF Preview button outside in normal daylight? Now whilst pressing the button in, move the camera towards or away from said crawling bug, see anything helpful? Are you still in focus? Who knows?</p>

<p>....and you've only had to push a little button, not reach around the front of the lens and move a ring to an unknown place.</p>

<p>Unless you happen to have a LOT of ambient light, like a mobile 500w spot, you're doomed.</p>

<p>I'm not saying it can't be done, if you take 100 frames the odds are that a few will be good, but that isn't good technique, that's chimps typing Shakespeare.</p>

[sem_svizec]

<p>Here's one guy for instance... click "Information" on the right for his technique<br>

http://blog.mdsign.nl/<br>

It is certainly difficult to get critters pose for you at roughly the same spot just a couple of inches away from the camera, but it is not impossible. Even those that move way too fast for proper aiming may be captured with moderate spray-and-prey if one can anticipate where exactly they are going to pass by. <br>

For aiming one can use a powerful LED flashlight (hardly visible in the shots) attached to the camera or flash bracket, or one can learn to operate the aperture lever with a finger. "Handheld" also involves a certain support technique here. </p>

[Albins images]

<p>Also (like Sem) answering Mike Halliwell's question.. "Yes".<br /><img src="https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3105/2577990225_5a60e04b21_m.jpg" alt="" /><br>

20/3.5 reversed on D200 with diffused flash.</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>Nice Ant!</p>

<p>What aperture and working distance is that Albin? The EXIF's all gone....not that aperture would show!</p>

<p>OK, so what you're saying is that after aiming, and then shutting down the aperture, the VF goes black, and you think you're still pointing at the ant and nothing has moved <strong>at-all</strong> whilst only supported by your hands? ..........or is this the good one from 150 trials? Not that that's wrong, it's a <em><strong>major</strong></em> advantage of digital over film...:-)</p>

<p>The link Sem listed admits 1 in 50 success. Quite a few of them are stacked as-well. Oddly some of those amazing pics show EXIF as being an 86mm lens? Weird or what?</p>

<p>To quote myself... </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I'm not saying it can't be done<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>...but it's certainly not the easiest, most practical way to get to x4 ...and going back the OP's question (!), go get a Canon.</p>

[Albins images]

<p>Thanks! :-)<br />I think the image is from 2008. I usually close the aperture to something between 11 and 16. And leave it closed.. So I have to wait until my eye gets used to the dark. Then the success rate is actually not bad! As in: one in ten or so is sharp. That is not much worse than with any other hand-held approach.<br /> <img src="https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3022/2577990861_8ce5932db6_m.jpg" alt="" width="240" height="158" /><br>

By the way, enlargements hand-held like this go up to 2,5:1 or so, no 4x, practically..</p>

[sem_svizec]

<blockquote>

<p>Oddly some of those amazing pics show EXIF as being an 86mm lens? </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Maybe that's programmed into the chip for the reversal adapter?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>So I have to wait until my eye gets used to the dark. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Here's one advantage of the OVF. An EVF would show only noise in such conditions, needs more light to become remotely useful. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>By the way, enlargements hand-held like this go up to 2,5:1 or so, no 4x</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You can get more magnification, and less DoF, if you insert extension tubes, and even more with bellows (longer extension). I found my first reversed-lens bug, this lacewing head must be around 5x-8x using a set of extension tubes, quality sucks because the reversed lens is one of the worst for this work, the 18-200VR :)<br>

<a href="https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/DFakQgcUV1Q1aeG4YCOEp6B4ZYAUVQ2jmEIBu15UzD4?feat=directlink">https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/DFakQgcUV1Q1aeG4YCOEp6B4ZYAUVQ2jmEIBu15UzD4?feat=directlink</a></p>

[Albins images]

O that is pretty good Sem! The softness is also a result of

diffraction.

 

Thank you all in this thread - it really makes me want to do

some extreme close ups again!

[sem_svizec]

<blockquote>

<p>The softness is also a result of diffraction.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, partially. But it appears that primes have notably less softness issues with such abuse than zooms (I mean, the sensor being placed much closed than the designated min focus distance). BR once suggested using a close-up achromat before a reversed 35-70 zoom to compensate for this, instead of extension. <br>

Best suited among wide-angles are lenses with a short min focus distance which happen to have good resolution up close and on extension tubes. Notice this is not something which is normally tested in lens reviews, where resolution is measured at longer distances. It is not difficult to find that the resolution on extension tubes is often subject to considerable degradation at wider apertures.<br>

Macro lenses seem natural candidates, however there is an evident lack of wide-angle macros (needed to get high magnification without a very long extension). Then, there are (or used used to be) special macro primes for higher magnifications, designed for use on bellows, but they tend to be very expensive collectibles nowadays. Some folks use enlarger lenses for this. And certain low-magnification "super-long"-working-distance microscope objectives are a viable alternative mainly for focus stacking (no stopping-down of aperture by default); some designed to be used alone on 160mm or 210mm of extension (bellows), others on top of a telephoto lens set to inf focus. </p>