Macro help needed

[kirbinster]

Ok, so I went and picked up a Nikon 105mm micro f/2.8 AF-S VR lens. It takes great regular pictures - but the macro thing has me very puzzled. How do you take a macro picture that is in focus. No the question is not as stupid as it sounds. I took a whole bunch of pictures and they were all less than perfect focus. Then I went to an online depth of field guild an see that at 12" from the subject at f/4 the depth of field is only 0.02" infront and behind the subject -- but things like bugs are thicker than that. So, what trick am I missing to get good shots? Even at f/11 you are only talking about +/- 0.05" to be in focus.

[i speak in math]

f/11 and f/16 will be your friends. Of course, to get that you will need either a long shutter (bad for moving objects like bugs) or some lighting. You have an on-camera flash, right? Here's how I do it.

I set the aperture manually on the lens to f/11 or so. This way, the flash always shoots full power -- the body can't calculate the power since it doesn't know the aperture. Shutter is around 1/180th (or your sync speed) to prevent subject/camera movement. ISO depends on lighting, usually ISO 200 will do. With a flash diffuser for the onboard flash that reaches over the lens, you can get great soft light.





see more here

And here's my secret expensive pro setup:
Start with a generic or name brand drink mix tube from a local store. Look for ones that have the right translucent properties, similar to most flash diffusers. Peel off the label. It doesn't have to be perfect.


Attach to camera with futuristic ring of rubber, that grips and holds it in place above lens. Pop flash and shoot into open end of tube.

[kirbinster]

That second shot is really great. Not sure I know what you mean by a drink mix tube - don't think I have ever seen anything like that -- what product does it actuall come from. So, if you shoot at f/11 or f/16 why are macro lenses typically f/2.8 -- why such expensive glass if you shoot so stopped down?

[i speak in math]

is what I used

f/2.8 is typically expensive glass, but that doesn't mean you have to use f/2.8 or even buy an expensive macro lens. But with f/2.8 you can get cool shots like this:

actually, thats f/2

I use an old smc 50mm f/1.4 with extension tubes for 1:1 magnification. Total cost: $110

+ $5 for the drink mix

[velvet4269]

Believe me, that f/2.8 will come in handy when you're stuck with a low-light situation where you can't use flash: say, the reptile house at your local zoo? I was struggling with the photos for a while, because I wanted so much to NOT use the macro lens (which rarely leaves my camera), and then went "duh" I can use the Macro lens, change my ISO and open it wide up.

It let me get things like these lizards and this snake head.