Alternatives to Buying a Dedicated Macro Lens for your DSLR
If you want to experiment with taking Macro images but don’t have the budget to be able to afford a dedicated Macro lens for your DSLR there are a number of other Macro lens alternatives worth considering.
Each alternative has their own advantages and disadvantages in terms of price, portability and image quality - but it’s amazing at what can be achieved on a budget to give you a taste of the world of macro photography.
Close Up Lenses
Close up lenses (or supplementary lenses) are perhaps the cheapest alternative of getting into Macro Photography on a budget. These small lenses screw into the filter thread of your camera’s existing lens and allow the lens to focus closer than it’s normal minimum focal length. In doing so they allow you to fill more of the frame with your subject.
These lenses often come sold in a set of 3 and are labeled as +1, +2 and +3 etc (with +3 being the largest magnification). The ones pictured above are made by Bower and are +1 +2 +4 Close Up Lenses Set.
The positives of Close Up Lenses are their price and portability. They also allow you to retain all of the auto features of your lens (metering, focus, aperture control etc). The downside is that the loss of quality of image (you lose infinity focus and you’re also introducing an extra element to shoot through) can be more significant than some of the other methods.
For some examples of what can be achieved with close-up lenses check out this thread in our forums.
Extension Tubes
An extension tube is a tube that sits between your lens and DSLR. This lengthening in distance between the image sensor in your camera and the lens allows you to focus closer than the normal minimum focusing distance of the lens and as a result you can get in nice and close to your subject and make it bigger in your frame. They are usually sold in sets (of different length tubes which can often be added together to give you a long tube).
The one pictured above is a Kenko Extension Tube.
The ‘cost’ of using an extension tube is that less light gets to your image sensor meaning you need to make adjustments in your camera’s settings (wider apertures, slower shutter speed or higher ISO) to get the same exposure. Also you may in some cases lose auto functions on your lens (check before you buy as some manufacturers allow you to retain Auto Exposure and Focus while others require you to shoot in manual mode).
Extension tubes cost more and are larger than Close Up lenses (you again lose infinity focus) but can give excellent results - especially as they don’t introduce any extra elements to have to shoot through (they are just hollow tubes with no glass in them).
I just read a good little review of extension tubes which might be helpful. There are also a couple of threads on extension tubes in our forum here and here.
There are other options - for example reversing rings (to allow you to fit a lens on your camera backwards) but the above two methods are those that I have tried. Of course I ended up investing in a dedicated macro lens because I enjoyed macro photography so much (I got a Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Lens which I’m very happy with but I’m constantly amazed by the shots that other DPS members are getting with their cheaper options.
I’d love to hear from members as to what kind of Macro gear they use. Do you have a dedicated macro lens or do you use one of the alternatives above - or another one again?
Read more posts like 'Alternatives to Buying a Dedicated Macro Lens for your DSLR'
Digital Photography School is Digg proof thanks to caching by WP Super Cache!
January 24th, 2008 at 12:43 am
I recently picked up a set of closeup “filters” for about $40. A relative of mine was trying to sell some jewelry on eBay and wanted some closer shots, so I thought it’d be fun to try. I couldn’t believe the quality of the shots I was able to get with just my D40 and these cheap lenses. For what I use them for, these work fantastic, and I have no intention of picking up a dedicated macro lens. Here are some of my sample shots:
http://picasaweb.google.com/marcusdiddle/20071120MacroTest
January 24th, 2008 at 12:46 am
I have a Raynox DCR 250 close-up lens that I can add on almost any lens. You don’t have to screw it to your lens and it can adapt to any filter diameter from 52 to 67mm. And it gives great results.
January 24th, 2008 at 12:48 am
reverse lens anyone?
http://www.flickr.com/groups/technique/discuss/36406/
January 24th, 2008 at 12:50 am
The close-up lens are a good cheap alternative. While there is some loss in quality they still make good images and allow you learn more about macro photography before you jump to a true macro lens.
One major downside is that you are now required to move very close to subject and this may disturb insects and block some light.
With extension tubes a good fast lens helps as the tube cause a decrease in light and therefore may affect auot focus. Not a big issue if you are not trying to capture fleeting insects as I prepare manual focus when I can.
I highly recommend the Tamron 90mm f2.8 macro lens.
I like the effeect created by reversing a 50mm lens, cost only a few dollars for the ring to connect to your camera.
If you check out my blog I wrote an article with using the 50mm lens reversed and you will see the types of images that you are able to achieve.
http://niels-henriksen.blogspot.com/2007/09/reversing-50mm-lens-for-macro-work.html
Niels Henriksen
January 24th, 2008 at 12:55 am
You can also go super-cheap and super sloppy - just use lenses you probably already own and do a ‘poor man’s macro’. The way I do this is to take a Canon 50mm prime f/1.8 (the ‘plastic fantastic’) and affix it backwards onto the stock 18-55mm lens that came with my Canon 20D. I’m not sure exactly what focal length this gives, you lose a lot of depth of field, and you end up placing the lens about half an inch away from the subject, but it’s really easy and really cheap!
Here’s a view of what the setup looks like:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/aaronth/127814370/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/aaronth/155329310/
Here’s a sample of what you can do with it:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/aaronth/155329495/
January 24th, 2008 at 1:02 am
I use the Canon 100 f/2.8 Macro lens which I love.
I am thinking of getting an extension tube for use when I’m traveling. I usually don’t take my Macro lens with me if I’m flying and space in my backpack is an issue. An extension tube will give me some macro capability - without taking up as much space in my pack.
Thanks for the info
Patty
January 24th, 2008 at 1:49 am
I have a set of close up lenses by Hoya 52mm 1+ 2+ 4+ that I bought about 30 years ago when I was shooting with my old Nikon FTN with the Photomic finder and I still use them today with my D50 and D40, they were well worth the money, no idea what they cost today.
January 24th, 2008 at 2:01 am
Buy a macro or stay out of macro. Might sound arrogant, but hey… it’s something like “buy a tripod or stay out of 30 second exposures”.
January 24th, 2008 at 2:25 am
I’m awaiting my Raynox DCR-250 that Spica mentioned above… seems like a good cheap option as well and I’ve seen some excellent photos others have taken with it already.
January 24th, 2008 at 2:30 am
Klaidas, I don’t agree with that at all, there are viable alternatives to a number of things in photography for those that can’t afford the so called “proper” equipment… in fact I’ve seen better shots taken with some of these alternatives and DIY ideas than with equipment created for those purposes - whether it be macro or fisheye or lighting even… it’s not the lens that makes the photographer, although it can help ;)
Oh and you don’t have to buy a tripod… tables, chairs, counters, fence posts, etc… can be handy alternatives… I have a couple tripods, and I don’t always use them - if I can set it on something close and avoid tripod setup hassle then I will!
January 24th, 2008 at 4:01 am
Canon 500D is a good way to get closeup w/o a ton of cash.
January 24th, 2008 at 4:14 am
Huh! I have an extension tube for my dad’s old (non-digital) SLR, and I always wondered what it was for!
January 24th, 2008 at 5:08 am
Thanks for the great information. I fell in love with macro photography when I owned my first digital camera, the Sony Cybershot, and have been longing for macro after the purchase of my Nikon D40. I really want a dedicated macro lens, but can’t afford it right now, or, the ones that are affordable really don’t give that great of a magnification, which to me is what Macro is all about! I’ll have to give some of the cheaper alternatives a try.
January 24th, 2008 at 6:02 am
My wife got me a set of 4 close up lenses (+1, +2, +4 and +10) for Christmas and I absolutely love them. It’s amazing how much more detail you can get in shots and how it effects your depth of field. I’m sure it’s not the same as having a dedicated macro lens, but for $20 or $30 you can’t beat the cost to results ratio. I think that at least 2 of the last 3 photo assignment shots I’ve posted have been using one of the lenses, including this weeks: http://digital-photography-school.com/forum/showpost.php?p=96223&postcount=468
January 24th, 2008 at 7:28 am
Jason, yes, I understand. But usually a tripod is much easier to setup than just using a table (though I have used tables and chairs for longer exposures too).
If you have an interesting macro idea, and have the skills/luck to convert that idea to a picture, a dedicated macro lens would help a lot. I usually prefer saving up/leasing for photography equipment (well, and any other equipment, mostly), which is pretty expensive. The only exception was Canon’s f/1.8 nifty fifty :]
January 24th, 2008 at 9:14 am
I just purchased the Hoya 1x,2x,4x set for Christmas. They are very handy if you don’t want to spend the money on macro lenses or are confined for space in your bag then they are an excellent way to go.
I bought the 52mm filters for my 52mm Nikkor lens and it works quite well.
January 24th, 2008 at 11:48 am
At one point, I was tempted to get the EF-S 60mm macro, but I decided I couldn’t justify the expense. For now, I just stick a lens backward on the camera.
January 24th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
Great post Darren,
If you just want to experiment with macro photography a non dedicated lens or extension tubes are the right way to go.
of course you can always go DIY.
- udi
January 24th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
There is flexible approach to the idea of extension tubes: it’s a bellows, put between the camera and a lens. The latter can be your standard lens, a cheap short tele prime or a dedicated lens like my Pentax SMCP Bellows 100mm f/4.0.
The lens was 80 euros and the bellows another 25; together a fairly cheap way to have maximum flexibility in distance to the subject and magnification.
Fully extended the exposure times go up, but Pentax users have stabilisation available anytime, so this works perfectly!
January 25th, 2008 at 1:01 am
I still think that a real macro lens is the only way to go.
no cheap thrills here. Tamron 90mm f2.8 macro 1:1 is one of my fav. lenses. very sharp.
January 25th, 2008 at 4:24 am
There’s no substitute for a dedicated micro lense like Nikon’s Micro 60mm f 2.8. I had screw on closeup lenses for years and rarely took them out of the box. Now, when I go out to do nature photography, the little 60mm Nikon lens lives in my pack.
January 25th, 2008 at 6:17 am
When I was having Sony DSC-H5 (point and shoot) I used close-up filters and they are great, specially with the longer focal length you get very good bokeh.
These two shots are my favorites which I took from close-up filters.
http://picasaweb.google.com/azeemqais/DetailAndMacro/photo#5153792172978311058
http://picasaweb.google.com/azeemqais/DetailAndMacro/photo#5153792215927984034
Now when I upgraded to Canon EOS 40D, upon Darren’s advise I got Canon 100mm Macro and I am always thankful to him for his valuable suggestions and very informative posts.
January 25th, 2008 at 7:50 am
I have used bellows and tubes but prefer tubes ever since the Exacta VX. Today’s tubes are even better with a Canon EOS the camera does all the work except the fine tuning of focusing is a bear. A hair too much and it’s lost. But you do everything patiently and with care … amazing!
January 25th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
I’m a real fan of the 100mm f/2.8 macro lens. I’ve got the 105mm version from Sigma, and it’s become my favorite lens for all types of shooting. I actually rarely use it as a macro lens and it’s tack sharp and the bokeh is amazing for standard shooting — something you can’t get with extension tubes or close-up filters.
Those things are nice as a cheap alternative to a dedicated macro lens, but the downside to them is that you lose the ability to focus out to infinity with them attached. That’s why the dedicated macro is definitely worth the extra cash.
January 25th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
A true macro lens is always the preferred option (just as the best equipment is always the preferred choice), and I’m sure if everyone who wanted to merely experiment with macro could afford the financial output for a true macro lens, we’d all buy one.
The fact is, many of us are learning here, and trying out new things. These close up lenses allow a new user (or one who isn’t necessarily out to solely shoot macro) to work with up-close shots, getting a reasonable facsimile of a 1:1 or 2:1 shot, without us breaking the bank. When we finally fall in love with shooting close, we can go out and spend the big bucks.
Thank you for this article, and the ensuing replies. It’s good to see everyone’s viewpoints on this one.
January 27th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
I have the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM and LOVE LOVE LOVE it!Here are a couple of my recent favs. :)
flower
ornament
January 29th, 2008 at 2:58 am
I’ve been having a lot of fun with my Nikon BR-2 reversal ring. Although a bit more difficult than a true macro lens, its a fun challenge!
January 31st, 2008 at 1:41 am
I haven’t gotten it right with the reverse lens technique so far. Nevertheless, I’ve bookmarked this page as one of my favorites. I’ll keep trying. Thanks!
February 2nd, 2008 at 2:41 am
After pricing a macro lens for my D70, I decided to purchase another camera. No, not to replace my D70. I purchased a Nikon point’n’shoot camera that has macro capability. As an added benefit, it is small enough that I can take it on extended bike rides. It is now a few years old and I use it primarily for taking pictures of “white board” discussions at the conclusion of business meetings.
I also have some extension tubes and a reversal ring that I bought in 1970 for my Nikon FTN (A film camera… wow, 38 years ago and still works as good as ever… Somehow, I don’t think the D70 will hold value as well as an FTN). I haven’t used them yet, but have great plans…
February 10th, 2008 at 10:40 am
I have a Sigma 17-70mm f2.8 lens that is called a macro lens. I know it isn’t a true macro, as the magnification is not 1:1, and it’s a zoom. But I really like it, and the minimum focusing distance is 0.65 ft. This is what I use for macro photography.
February 20th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Ok, guys, so everybody knows all these alternatives to a real dedicated macro lens, MF or AF: reversed lenses, tubes (MF or AF), bellows, compact digicams, using regular taking lenses or, better, enlerging lenses. And there are zillions of sites describing one, two or all these alternatives. In (almost) all the above alternatives, there is always one or more challenges: narrow depth of field, short working distance and lack of AF.
But I’ve never read, heard or seen the best alternative of all: an enlarging lens (usually a Rodagon or a Schneider)
combined with “somethimg” that makes the entire rig to work AutoFocus, and to give you a very confortable working distance (somewhere between 18 and 25cm), a triple (yes, you read right: triple!) depth of field and a total price under $70.
Yeup,I did build such a rig and, believe me, it is better than any 100mm (90 or 105, or even a 150mm) AF dedicated lens under all these requirements: working distance, AF, price, depth of field and, possibly, resolution, since we’re talking a Rodagon 80mm f/4.
Try it, just try it hard, and you’ll see it…. It is true, it took to me almost one year of work with trials and errors, but finally, i did it.