Nikon 105mm Macro VR with Raynox DCR-250

[Bruce Williams]

Keith - Thanks for clarifying the maths - very helpful. I'm not sure that even 2.94:1 would justify the cost/problems of using 136mm of extension tubes. Haven't ruled it out but will look elsewhere first.

Yes you certainly get impressive magnification with that set-up. I'm curious (with your reverse lens set-up) how you handle iris control so that you get a bright image for focusing and shut down to shoot? Bear in mind I would be shooting moving (but tiny) insects in the field (typically on fences).

Malcolm - I've seen the flash brackets priced at 99 EUR on eBay.it and on the Agno's website for 110 EUR.

I'm very pleased with the SB-R1 too.

However if at any time in the future you were looking for something more flexible, you might be more interested in the simpler and cheaper Manfrotto MN330B macro flash bracket. At c.£40 I would probably go for this one myself, see here: Manfrotto 330B Macro Flash Bracket (MN330B) - Warehouse Express

Bruce

[mickmassie]

As I understand it, the Raynox DCR250 is just a 4 diopter closeup lens. It needs a 62mm clip-on adapter for the 105mm, and sits a bit in front of the camera lens. I use a Marumi 200 (5 diopter) closeup lens on the front of my 105mm lens if I am feeling ambitious, just like adding a filter. The R1-C1 adapter just fits on the Marumi closeup lens, and for most subjects gives the right lighting effect where you want the light(s) tight in to the subject. If I want angled light, I use the RB200s off to the side.

I have never tried extension tubes plus the close-up adapter, but I am generally shooting live (moving) subjects, so anything beyond about 1:2 is very difficult to handle.

M.

[mickmassie]

Just to make clear, I am using a Marumi Achromat double lens close-up lens, not the single lens. Single element close-up lenses are less than half the price, but are not worth trying. I think the +3 version is probably more useful than the +5, but for static subjects the +5 is maybe better. M.

[pressld2]

Bruce, your setup is almost identical to mine, the only difference being the lens - I have the Sigma 150mm.

I know we're back to extra glass but have you considered a teleconverter? Using 68mm extension tubes, then a 1.4x TC, then the lens I can get down to just over 8mm - a touch under 3:1...



Working distance for this was 17cm.

As your 105mm with the tubes is giving you better magnification to start with you might get over 3:1 with a 1.4x TC and could be approaching 4:1 with a 1.7x or 2.0x.

Dave P.

[mickmassie]

I don't think you can use a teleconverter with the Nikon 105mm. The back element sticks out too far.

I too use a 1.4x with the Sigma 150mm. This gives a 210mm f4 lens without extension tubes and close to 1:2 with a useable working distance. The problem with using extension tubes as well is that you need a lot of extension to make much difference with such a long focal length. A given length of extension tubes give a greater multiplier effect with a short focal length lens.

The 1.4x plus 150mm is a good combination for telephoto macro for outdoor insects. I have tried it with a Canon 500D (+2) closeup-lens too, but that is just too much magnification for 'live' subjects. The viewfinder image is very poor at such magnifications. The +2 close-up works very well with the 150mm lens if you don't need infinity focussing, and you can hang the SB-R200s off the front.

M.

[Maccattack1]

I have the 105 Vr and use the 1.7 converter with it without any problems , as I mainly shoot dragons dont usually need the converter .

Malcolm

[squishy]

just to give you some idea, this photo was taken on my fujifilm s9600/DCR 250 at 300mm, where the macro ratio was previously 1:4.9 @300mm. this is resized to 45% and cropped to 80%.



the length of that fly was about 2mm

[mickmassie]

[quote=Maccattack1;479728]I have the 105 Vr and use the 1.7 converter with it without any problems , as I mainly shoot dragons dont usually need the converter .


I stand corrected, thanks. I thought that I'd read somewhere that the 105mm VR did not work with a teleconverter. I know that a lot of Nikon lenses do not.
I hadn't thought to try it.

M.

[pressld2]

I think it depends on which TC, Mick. I know my 80-400 is not compatible with any of Nikon's current TCs for the reason you gave above - glass hits glass when you try to connect them - but it works okay with a Kenko Pro 300.

Dave P.

[Bruce Williams]

Thanks for the suggestions guys - a lot more for me to think about .

I like the idea of a teleconverter (thanks Dave) if it will retain auto iris control - wide open for focusing and shutting down on shutter release. I'm not too concerned about loosing a stop (or so) so I'll definitely look into this approach.

Malcolm - which 1.7X teleconverter do you use with your 105mm VR?

Mick - I have a single lens 3X Marumi digital filter and you're right, results are ok but not really that good. I hadn't thought of trying the double lens but it's on my list of possibles now.

Adam - you're getting some excellent results with your set-up - that's very good detail on a 2mm subject.

Just to recap the "why" I'm looking for more magnification:

I almost exclusively hand-hold (leaning on fences, gates etc) at up to ~2:1 (just a tad under). I typically use this magnification on very small insects (say 1-3mm). If they're any larger I dispense with some or all of the extension tubes and just use the 105mm lens. I always use manual flash (SB-R1 unit) when I have the extension tubes on. Manual everything at around 1/200s @ f/16.

I'm seeking extra magnification to add a bit more detail to these very small animals. The difference between 1:1 and 2:1 with a 2mm leafhopper or barkfly nymph is amazing - and being so small the limited dof goes a long way. What I don't want to do of course is gain magnification at the expense of image quality (accepting diffraction limit implications).

Bruce