I have a NEX and my daughter has a M43. I'm using a "Marumi Achromat" which is like a filter that screws to the front of an existing lens, preferably onto something around 50mm. It is a high quality piece made in Japan at a great price and I recommend it.
Each of the different ways of doing macro has advantages and disadvantages. In the end, after playing around with various things (still do some of that occasionally, by the way), a macro lens is easier. More expensive but easier and more versatile, since you can shoot a 1:1 macro and immediately go to something at infinity, without having to unscrew something or take off something between camera and lens etc. On the other hand, it's the most expensive way of getting closer.
If you don't mind fiddling with stuff, other ways are cheaper. If you are going to use extra lighting (flash, ring light, some type of jury-rigged LED lights), then extension tubes are a cost-efficient way of going about it (you lose light due to the extension tubes) as you maintain the quality of the lens itself. One thing to remember when shooting macro is that the closer you get to something, the smaller the depth of field is, the smaller the aperture you'll use and the more light you'll need.
The add-on lenses like the Raynox and the Marumi Achromat (which I don't know anything about but it sounds very similar to the Raynox) don't have that problem, but you are adding an extra piece of glass in front of your lens. That means that any problems your lens might have will be magnified - one of the reasons so many use them with nifty-fifty or prime lenses of some sort. If the lens you mount it on is soft, your macro will be worse. I keep thinking about buying one or both of the Raynox lenses to add to my very sharp macro lens, to get even closer than 1:1 (but it's not real high on my list of priorities at the moment).
Another option is to pick up an inexpensive, old, manual, 50mm lens (or wider) and a ring that allows you to attach it reversed to the front of your existing lens. The longer the lens you have mounted on the camera and the wider the lens you have reversed in front of it, the more magnification you get. However, such things require a sturdy tripod and preferably extra light. But you can get some amazing macros with that type of set-up, certainly more than 1:1 magnification.
True macro takes a huge amount of patience, practice and time - not something for quick snaps. It's fun every so often, but I find I'm happiest with macro lenses and using them for both close-up (lots of flowers) and the occasional macro. But having started with a reversing ring and a homemade extension tube (started out in life as a very poor quality 2X teleconverter) and having them on-hand is nice if I want to get crazy magnification. I don't regret starting that way or the very little money I spent on them, though they don't get used much.
I have the extension tubes for my 50mm lens. I find they have very little depth of field for the focal point. Have a macro lens on my wish list. But for an inexpensive toy, they do give me some flexibility, but work better with a very flat surface (like a coin etc). Took this today using the 50mm and the 7mm extension tube. Love the watercolor look, but you can see the limited depth of field in this photo.
i also have extension tubes, and much as i love them ('cos i love shooting macro) they do have their limitations... dof is extremely minimal, and they add weight to the camera which can make it quite unwieldly... a tripod or ability to steady the camera on the ground are kind of critical... and as was mentioned above, there is also the light issue...
here are a couple recent shots using the tubes:
Write a Reply
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
If you don't mind fiddling with stuff, other ways are cheaper. If you are going to use extra lighting (flash, ring light, some type of jury-rigged LED lights), then extension tubes are a cost-efficient way of going about it (you lose light due to the extension tubes) as you maintain the quality of the lens itself. One thing to remember when shooting macro is that the closer you get to something, the smaller the depth of field is, the smaller the aperture you'll use and the more light you'll need.
The add-on lenses like the Raynox and the Marumi Achromat (which I don't know anything about but it sounds very similar to the Raynox) don't have that problem, but you are adding an extra piece of glass in front of your lens. That means that any problems your lens might have will be magnified - one of the reasons so many use them with nifty-fifty or prime lenses of some sort. If the lens you mount it on is soft, your macro will be worse. I keep thinking about buying one or both of the Raynox lenses to add to my very sharp macro lens, to get even closer than 1:1 (but it's not real high on my list of priorities at the moment).
Another option is to pick up an inexpensive, old, manual, 50mm lens (or wider) and a ring that allows you to attach it reversed to the front of your existing lens. The longer the lens you have mounted on the camera and the wider the lens you have reversed in front of it, the more magnification you get. However, such things require a sturdy tripod and preferably extra light. But you can get some amazing macros with that type of set-up, certainly more than 1:1 magnification.
True macro takes a huge amount of patience, practice and time - not something for quick snaps. It's fun every so often, but I find I'm happiest with macro lenses and using them for both close-up (lots of flowers) and the occasional macro. But having started with a reversing ring and a homemade extension tube (started out in life as a very poor quality 2X teleconverter) and having them on-hand is nice if I want to get crazy magnification. I don't regret starting that way or the very little money I spent on them, though they don't get used much.
here are a couple recent shots using the tubes: