Macro + Wide Angle + large DOF: how?

[count_chocula]

<p>Hi Folks,<br>

<br />I take macro pics of insects, fungi, etc in tropical forests whenever I get the chance. I have a Nikon D7000, 105mm Nikkor Macro, a not-much-used Gitzo carbon fiber explorer tripod, and am about to pick up an R1 flash setup (since I'm not using the tripod much). But...<br>

<br />I've been really wanting to expand my macro shots. Instead of just focusing on a small subject to the exclusion of everything else, I've been wanting to include more of its surroundings, while not losing the macro nature of the shot (i.e. keep the small subject up close and in focus, though perhaps not quite as up close as before). I imagine, for example, a shot of an insect on a leaf, where you can really see the insect quite well, but you also get the rainforest and big trees in the background, and perhaps in focus as well.</p>

<p>This is obviously not an easy shot to pull off (hence my query here). It involves a combination of up-close focus, relatively wide angle, and large DOF. What do you think the most likely way to pull this off would be?</p>

<p>Are there any wide-angle lenses that allow very close focusing, and also allow a very small aperture to increase DOF? Another option might be extreme DOF stacking.</p>

<p>Any thoughts would be much appreciated!</p>

<p>Thanks,<br>

Allie</p>

[JosvanEekelen]

<p>The combination of a wide angle lens and a (short) extension tube may be the first experiment. I did some shots last week with a (Canon) 20-35 mm lens + a 12 mm extension tube. Results were not spectacular, I guess I'll have to do a bit more testing. AFAIK the shortest macro lenses have a focal length of 40 or 50 mm.</p>

 

[paul_de_ley]

<p>Allie what you're thinking of is a macro lens that would manage to combine hyperfocality with significant magnification of a subject in the forefront at very close range. Unfortunately no such lenses exist for camera systems with APS-C or full frame sensor sizes. Sony makes true 1:1 macro lenses for its alpha and nex mounts that are 30mm in focal length, and Pentax makes one at 35mm focal length, but those are still not wide enough to produce sufficient DOF. At wider angles you'll get extreme foreshortening of the maximum focus distance, and even if you find a short macro lens that closes down to apertures tighter than f32, then you'll probably get substantial deterioration of sharpness due to diffraction.</p>

<p>The same limitations won't necessarily apply to cameras with smaller sized sensors however, so perhaps there might be ways to get the desired effects and reasonably good image quality by experimenting with (for example) Pentax Q or Nikon 1 camera bodies and adapted wide-angle HD CCTV lenses with manual iris controls and CS mount. Some of those claim to stop down to f360(!) so perhaps diffraction wouldn't set in when stopped down for unusually short hyperfocal distances (by 35mm standards).</p>

[count_chocula]

<p>Thanks for your replies, Jos & Paul. Sounds like this will be a project; I'll keep my eyes open for some of these suggested solutions, and I'll keep thinking creatively.<br>

<br /> It does seem that there's a 40mm Nikkor (http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Products/Product/Camera-Lenses/AF-S-DX-Micro-NIKKOR-40mm-f%252F2.8G.html), but I wouldn't really call that "wide angle". It'd be nice to find something around 18mm or so.<br /> <br /> Regarding the foreshortening of the maximum focus distance, do you mean that, with wide angle lenses, they'll have a hard time focusing at infinity, when also focusing up close? If so, and especially given that f32 might lead to diffraction and hence blurry macros, do you think DOF image stacking might be an option? Just snap one pic focused up close, and another far away? And if SLR's aren't the way to go here, i really like canon point and shoots for their ability to run the CHDK firmware that you can program to do things like DOF stacking. Don't know if there's a canon that would fit the bill though.</p>

[paul_de_ley]

<p>Oops - I should have written: Using even a very short extension tube, with lenses at wider angles you'll get extreme foreshortening of the maximum focus distance. <br>

<br>

DOF stacking is certainly worth a try to get around that, probably it'll be a good idea to take at least 4 or 5 shots at different focus distances and for each of those distances you might try with a wide aperture shot as well as an f16 or f22 shot. That way you can experiment more with different combinations of shots and hopefully minimize any artefacts that the DOF stacking algorithm(s) might come up with.</p>

[funkag]

<p>Tokina made a 35mm f2.8 macro lens in Canon and Nikon mount. It focuses 1:1. I have it for my Canon and it works pretty well. <a href="/photo/17584211">Here</a> is a shot I took with it - I like it to show a little more of the plant sometimes when working in macro. Some of the ultrawide zooms also focus pretty darn close - <a href="/photo/17790153">Here</a> is a shot at my Tokina 11-16mm's closest limit.<br>

Some companies did make super thin (8mm or so) extension rings back in the day that worked with wide angle lenses. I know there is a Nikon version that was meant to be used with their Ai and Ais 20mm f3.5. I don't know if you can use it on the D7000, though. </p>

[harold_gough]

<p>DOF depends on aperture and magnification, irrespective of focal length. Working distance does vary with designs of lenses and a long WD is advantageous in close-ups and macro. On m4/3, I find a 35mm macro lens has to get too close to the subject and disturbs e.g. insects. I use a 105mm as my standard macro but have found a 65mm quite useful.</p>

[jim_foley4]

<p>One word... focusstackedpanoramicmacrophotography<br>

Well if it was written in German it would be one word ;-)</p>

 

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>Photos with the same absolute magnification have the same depth of field, regardless of focal length. You can rationalize this by thinking you have to move closer with a short lens and further with a longer lens to get the same magnification on the film plane. The shorter the focal length, the more background you will include, relative to the main subject, but it won't necessarily be in focus.</p>

<p>Perhaps what the OP wants to accomplish is to exaggerate an object in the foreground, which is exactly what a wide angle lens will do, provided you can focus close enough on a small object.</p>

<p>The best way to focus closer with a non-macro lens is by using extension tubes. An auxiliary (closeup) lens won't get you really close, and degrades the image quality more than would an extension tube. If you want a greater depth of field than stopping down will accomplish, you might experiment with "focus stacking", where you use software to combine images focused at different distances.</p>

<p>Most people prefer longer lenses for closeups for precisely the opposite effect - less background, less DOF to isolate the subject. There's no reason you can't break that "rule" to suit yourself. Go for it!</p>

[count_chocula]

<p>Thanks for everyone's great responses. @Edward - yep, I do take most macro shots to blur the background as you mention. And yes, now I'm looking to do something a little different.</p>

<p>Regarding adding extension tubes to a wide-angle lens: wouldn't that effectively change the focal length, thereby reducing the angle of view (AOV), and thus kind of compromising the whole point of this exercise, ie macro + wide angle background?</p>

<p>I wonder if there might be other creative solutions that could involve multiple lenses, even multiple cameras, stitching together images digitally...</p>

[Glenn McCreery]

<p>As Harold and Edward explain, depth of field is a function only of magnification for the same f number. However, this is for the same format size. If you want extended DOF for a high magnification macro photo, use a high quality small format size camera. Rather than use my Canon 5 DII with a 105mm macro lens, I use my compact (and waterproof) Pentax WG-3 in macro mode if I want extended DOF. The extended DOF is quite noticeable, although the image quality is not quite up to that of the Canon. DOF is approximately proportional to the inverse of the format size according to the rather thorough Wikipedia article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field (a very good article if you don't mind a few equations), which I quote below (m is magnification, c is circle of confusion diameter, and l is the characteristic dimension of the format, i.e. diagonal length):</p>

<p>"DOF vs. Format size............... One approach is to assume that essentially the same picture is taken with each format and enlarged to produce the same size final image, so the subject distance remains the same, the focal length is adjusted to maintain the same angle of view, and to a first approximation, magnification is in direct proportion to some characteristic dimension of each format. If both pictures are enlarged to give the same size final images with the same sharpness criteria, the circle of confusion is also in direct proportion to the format size. Thus if <img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/2/d/b/2db95e8e1a9267b7a1188556b2013b33.png" alt="l" /> is the characteristic dimension of the format,</p>

<dl><dd><img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/3/8/f/38f2722eab5603ca9a13dc722bc56f36.png" alt="\frac {m_2} {m_1} = \frac {c_2} {c_1} = \frac {l_2} {l_1}." /></dd></dl>

<p>With the same <em>f</em>-number, the DOF ratio is then</p>

<dl><dd><img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/3/1/b/31bfceeaa855740e06c8d3858c3a1401.png" alt=" \frac {\mathrm{DOF}_2} {\mathrm{DOF}_1} \approx \frac {c_2} {c_1} \left ( \frac {m_1} {m_2} \right )^2 = \frac {l_2} {l_1} \left ( \frac {l_1} {l_2} \right )^2 = \frac {l_1} {l_2} \,," /></dd></dl>

<p>so the DOF ratio is in inverse proportion to the format size."</p>

[harold_gough]

<p>Take a look here:</p>

 

 

 

<a title="http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=17069" href="wlmailhtml:{90FAD406-C679-4201-8C41-F5A85EDCACC7}mid://00000002/!x-usc:http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=17069">http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=17069</a>

 

<a title="http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=17847" href="wlmailhtml:{90FAD406-C679-4201-8C41-F5A85EDCACC7}mid://00000002/!x-usc:http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=17847">http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=17847</a>

 

http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4569

 

 

 

<p></p>

<p> </p>