Extension tube for D90?

[Gloor]

Hello,

I've got D90 kit (18-105mm) and I started to love taking photos of things from very close distance like flowers, butterflies etc. I don't have money to by myself a new macro (correct?) lens but I've heard that you can get extension tube for your existing lens and that will do the trick too and will increase the zoom range a lot for such close ups. Is that information correct?

What would be a good kit of those tubes to start with? Is there anything particular I need to look for before purchase? I've tried amazon but there are so many things and it is confusing to me so can I please get your help with it?

Thank you very much in advance for any suggestions.

 

[ComputersaysNo]

I'm not familiar witht that lense & extension tubes. Although you can get very very cheap extension tubes at dealextreme and just try it. Everything will have to be manually adjusted though. (i think it wouldn't work with that lens but for 10$ worth a try?)

My recommendation would be to buy a 50/1.8 and a reverese ring. That way, you can put the 50mm/1.8 backwards on the body and it will work as a macro lense too. A pretty decend low-cost alternative i would say. And if you get the extension tubes too, you can extend that 50mm even further.

Extension tube for 10$ http://www.dealextreme.com/details.dx/sku.12458

Reverse ring for 50mm/1.8 7$ : http://www.dealextreme.com/details.dx/sku.17996

 

[JDDavis]

http://www.amazon.com/Kenko-Auto-Extension-Nikon-Mount/dp/B000JG88JU/ref=wl_it_dp_o?ie=UTF8&coliid=I1JZ00O8SVANH4&colid=3PXZBGKIA2OVA

I plan on trying these with my 50mm and D90 one of these days. I've seen some pretty good shots with it. I'd much rather have a true macro lens and will get one one of these days.

 

[compuwar]

If your lens is a G lens, it won't have a manual aperture, so you'll need tubes with electrical contacts. You're probably better off adding a diopter to the front, they come in a variety of sizes and magnifications, but are cheaper than macros or the Kenko tubes.

Paul

 

[Gloor]

What would one go for in terms of quality?

The kit lens I have is this: 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6G ED AF-S VR DX Nikkor Zoom Lens

Now, do those tubes have some glass in them too or are they just tubes? Because if I get cheap stuff glass then it will compromise the picture quality, right?

What would be the best combination you would suggest for macro like insects, plants etc. ?

Why do we need the tubes when we can get macro lens? Is it to increase the zoom drastically or save money or....?

Depending on your solution I will wait and buy. I would rather get something that is good quality and will last me long then buy cheap solution that will need to be updated after I get more demanding with the shots ))

So, what do you think is best?

And thank you again for all the feedback. You guys are my heroes ))

 

[ComputersaysNo]

The best sollution will be a true macro-lens, no doubt about it. Although i have seen beautiful photo's shot with a Raynox screw-on lens. http://raynox.co.jp/english/digital/d_slr/index.html & http://raynox.co.jp/english/35mmacc/egcm2000.htm

Also keep in mind that working with a macro lens requires often small apertures and longer exposuretimes. I would recommend a tripod too. Due to the way a macrolens is built, depth of fiels is very little.

Tubes have no glas inside, they are just...well tubes. Tubes are low-cost, but limit your possibillities a lot.BUT your lens wil not work with cheap tubes i see, sorry.

Commit yourself to saving up for a real macrolens, for example: http://www.tamron.com/lenses/prod/90mm.asp, Do some research on your lens+Raynox, or go for a 50mm/1.8 and reverse-ring, image quality is very good, but you are limited in your options.

 

[compuwar]

What would one go for in terms of quality?

The kit lens I have is this: 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6G ED AF-S VR DX Nikkor Zoom Lens

Now, do those tubes have some glass in them too or are they just tubes? Because if I get cheap stuff glass then it will compromise the picture quality, right?

What would be the best combination you would suggest for macro like insects, plants etc. ?

Why do we need the tubes when we can get macro lens? Is it to increase the zoom drastically or save money or....?

Depending on your solution I will wait and buy. I would rather get something that is good quality and will last me long then buy cheap solution that will need to be updated after I get more demanding with the shots ))

So, what do you think is best?

And thank you again for all the feedback. You guys are my heroes ))

Macro lenses are the best option. A lot depends on if you need 1:1 or not. For instance, the 35-70mm AF-D provides .5:1 over a zoom range, as do several 3rd party lenses. The longer the focal length of the lens, the more working distance you have, which is important for subjects like insects. You'll pretty much end up with reversing rings if you need better than 1:1, but you'll need the right lenses to do that (such as the 200mm Micro with a 50mm (4x) or 28mm (~6x) reversed. The older 200mm's still aren't cheap though. For serious macro work, you'll want a tripod, focusing rails and a ring flash, adding to the expense and slowing things down a lot.

Paul

 

[Gloor]

Thank you Paul,

that is a bit too complicated for me as I don't know what 1:1 means and if its good to have 1:1 or not. I guess I will find all those things later when my skill improves

 

[OrangeCuse44]

To give you an idea, here are macro shots I took handheld with a D90 and using a $12 reverse ring on the 35mm prime.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jpaphotography/sets/72157623329229843/

Keep in mind using a G lens you have to adjust aperture using your finger by moving the lever back and forth, this is not easy. Additionally, to take these by hand, aperture must be practically wide open to get enough light in for faster shutter speeds, this makes your DOF razor thin. Any shots in doors (the non flower shots) I literally used a desk lamp basically on top of the subject to illuminate it enough to get acceptable results.

This is certainly a finicky way of going about macro and not easy, but the positive side to all this is the expense to you. A few bucks for a reverse ring and you can experiment to see if you even like shooting macro.

 

[compuwar]

Thank you Paul,

that is a bit too complicated for me as I don't know what 1:1 means and if its good to have 1:1 or not. I guess I will find all those things later when my skill improves

Reporduction ratio, basically 1:1 is life-sized, .5:1 is half-sized and 2:1 is twice as large in the image as in real life.

Paul

 

[Gloor]

Reporduction ratio, basically 1:1 is life-sized, .5:1 is half-sized and 2:1 is twice as large in the image as in real life.

Paul

so basically for macro photos I would want 2 and above, right? If an ant is so small then I would need at least 100:1 correct?

 

[Gloor]

Those shots are very nice

To give you an idea, here are macro shots I took handheld with a D90 and using a $12 reverse ring on the 35mm prime.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jpaphotography/sets/72157623329229843/

Keep in mind using a G lens you have to adjust aperture using your finger by moving the lever back and forth, this is not easy. Additionally, to take these by hand, aperture must be practically wide open to get enough light in for faster shutter speeds, this makes your DOF razor thin. Any shots in doors (the non flower shots) I literally used a desk lamp basically on top of the subject to illuminate it enough to get acceptable results.

This is certainly a finicky way of going about macro and not easy, but the positive side to all this is the expense to you. A few bucks for a reverse ring and you can experiment to see if you even like shooting macro.

 

[compuwar]

so basically for macro photos I would want 2 and above, right? If an ant is so small then I would need at least 100:1 correct?

No, not at all...

Here are some quick grab shots to illustrate the issues: You can see how badly focus is done hand-held, which is why serious macro shooters use focusing rails. Normally, I'd shoot off a tripod, but I just wanted to illustrate the size differences.

The first image is from an 80-200mm AF-D f/2.8 @ 200mm using a hot shoe mounted SB800.

The next image is with a 35-70mm AF-D f/2.8 @ 35mm in "macro" mode.

The next image is with a 200mm AIS macro and a ring flash.

The next is with a 60mm AF-D macro with a ring flash.

The final image combines the 60mm macro with three stacked Kenko extension tubes and a ring flash.

These are all shot with a D3x, a crop body will be different.

The Sekonic light meter is about 2cm shorter than an iPhone and about as wide, the light dome is about as big around as a single AA battery, perhaps slightly larger.


Paul