Do I really need a macro lens?

[kevinold]

Hi everyone,

I think one of the first directions I'm going to focus in is macro. I tried taking some photos of a strawberry on my counter top this afternoon with my D40 and 18-55mm lens.

I'm aware that there are macro lenses available, but I've seen a lot of macro photos with 18-55mm lenses on Flickr and would like to do so as well. Also because it'll be a few months before I can buy a macro lens.

The problem I'm having as you can see from the two photos is that not all of the subject is in focus. I've tried everything I can think of. Moving the tripod closer to the subject. Farther. Lighting. More. Less. Tried shooting in Aperture mode with all kinds of stops.

I try and "fill the frame" with the subject and it's only blurry at 18 or 55mm and everything in between. Sometimes I switch back to auto and let it focus the subject and go from there.





Do I really need a macro lens to get the photo so that my subject is in focus? Anything I should read? I know there aren't any magic secrets, but I'm playing with all of the features that the camera has and I'm just not getting it.

Thanks for any help,
Kevin

[baseballboy828]

You can either get a macro lens, or an extension tube, which will allow the lens to focus closer. The tube is hollow and makes your sensor farther from the lens, but has no glass, resulting in no quality loss. The extension tube will require a good tripod to keep the camera steady because the tube makes the camera use slower shutter speeds, but will be less than $100. A good macro lens is nice, but will be expensive. If you're not a macro afficianado, just get the tube. It's cheaper, and will have good results. Also, be sure to get one that works with the AF and AE (Autofocus and Auto-exposure) systems in the camera, otherwise you'll have to focus manually and shoot in manual mode. I believe Kenko's tubes work. Ironically, Nikon's don't.

[Nicole]

The first thing that I noticed with these shots was that you were shooting at f/5.3-5.6. That's bound to get some of the shot out of focus because of the large aperture (for the lens at least). If you want to get more of your shot in focus, I'd suggest using a smaller aperture, like f/8-11. I'd also leave the shutter open longer or use more lighting to try to get the background lighter.

As far as a macro goes, you won't get true macro with the 18-55mm lens, and won't be able to fill the frame with something like a single strawberry. But there are other macro lenses out there that get closer to 1:1 magnification without breaking the bank. I personally think that if you want to make your focus macro, then you should invest in a macro lens. But if it's just a starting point, you might also be interested in trying the macro filters that are pretty cheap, but can get some decent results.

[baseballboy828]

Don't buy a macro filter (diopter). They're terrible. They degrade the image, whereas an extension tube doesn't. Also, do you own good tripod? All camera shake is exaggerated when focusing on something very close, so a good tripod is a must.

[kevinold]

baseballboy828, nicole,

Thanks for your advice. Yeah, I'll probably try the extension tube. Is this the Kenko you're recommending? http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...Extension.html

Nicole, I will try shooting with f/8-11 next time. Also, I'll work on the lighting as well.

Thanks for your help!
Kevin

[porterd2nz]

Originally Posted by baseballboy828

Don't buy a macro filter (diopter). They're terrible. They degrade the image.

While this is true, it is a matter of degree ad what you find acceptable. I bought a set of single element 55mm Close-Up filters and found them surprisingly good within their limitations. There is some cromatic aberation and fringing around the outside edges of the image but the centre remained sharp and clear. And at only ~$30 US, they were a lot cheaper than an extension tube or a full Macro lens.

[Nicole]

Originally Posted by baseballboy828

Don't buy a macro filter (diopter). They're terrible. They degrade the image, whereas an extension tube doesn't. Also, do you own good tripod? All camera shake is exaggerated when focusing on something very close, so a good tripod is a must.

They're also a cheap alternative to spending $100+ when you're on a budget and just starting to play around with macro type stuff. I've had some fun playing with a friend's set, and as Porterd2nz said, if you work with their limitations they can be surprisingly good.

[baseballboy828]

I recommend the kenko extension tubes. The one you linked to looks good. It's not too expensive and it doesn't degrade the lens. The 18-55 has plenty of abberations to begin with, you don't need to get a single-elements diopter and make them even more/stronger.

[kevinold]

Hi porterd2nz,

I'd like to try the cheapest route at first to play around with it. I searched B&H for Nikon diopters and can't find one for the D40. Do you know if they make one? If not, what do you recommend.

Here's the results I got from B&H.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...p=&fi=all&pn=1

Thanks for your help,
Kevin

[kevinold]

baseballboy82,

I might try the diopter first since it's cheap and then step up to the tubes in a month or two. This way I can at least be playing with something and gradually work my way up, even if the results aren't perfect.

Thanks,
Kevin