are lens interchangeable between film and DSLR

Forums › Digital Imaging › are lens interchangeable between film and DSLR

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8

167 posts

Master Geek

#533613 15-Oct-2011 10:13

The 50mm f1.8 works well with extension tubes to deliver good quality macro shots. It was the setup I used before I bought a dedicated macro.

timmmay: I used a Tamron macro lens on a Nikon and wasn't impressed, really poor focus.

It probably wasn't the SP90 you used then. I've found Micro Nikors to be the best, but not everyone can afford them. The Tamron SP90 is the best "bang for the buck" macro.

timmmay

20579 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#533655 15-Oct-2011 12:24

I don't know what model it was, but it was a Tamron 90mm F2.8 macro lens.

Dynamike

167 posts

Master Geek

#533698 15-Oct-2011 14:18

timmmay: I don't know what model it was, but it was a Tamron 90mm F2.8 macro lens.

I gather Tamron only make the one 90mm f2.8, so I'm stumped as to why you had a bad experience with it? They used to make a 90mm f2.5, but I never tried that particular lens as it was only a 1:2 macro. I usually steer clear of the third party lenses, but the SP90 has been the exception for me.

timmmay

20579 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#533723 15-Oct-2011 15:21

There's variation between lenses. I won't use an off brand lens again, i've had too much bad luck with them, especially Sigma primes. Photographing weddings you don't get a second chance so you need the best equipment.

silverbirch

275 posts

Ultimate Geek

#533963 16-Oct-2011 16:00

timmmay:
You mean a macro lens? I use extension tubes, they're smaller and lighter, though not as effective or easy to use. I'll get a macro lens one day, .

just curious - but is the sort of thing you are referring to?
http://www.trademe.co.nz/a.asp?id=414071902&cc=61&pid=154204177&hbc=24&ct=link#qna
Thanks

"Dance among the moonbeams, feel the magic in the air".

Registered Linux user #386597 http://counter.li.org/

Dynamike

167 posts

Master Geek

#533997 16-Oct-2011 17:16

You really need automatic extension tubes so that the lens and camera can talk to each other. The cheap manual tubes (as in your link) only work in full manual mode and you can't stop down the aperture to increase the depth of field, which is necessary in macro photography.

Tubes like the set in this link are better
http://www.trademe.co.nz/electronics-photography/camera-accessories/lenses/canon/auction-414120292.htm

timmmay

20579 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#534002 16-Oct-2011 17:20

silverbirch:
timmmay:
You mean a macro lens? I use extension tubes, they're smaller and lighter, though not as effective or easy to use. I'll get a macro lens one day, .

just curious - but is the sort of thing you are referring to?
http://www.trademe.co.nz/a.asp?id=414071902&cc=61&pid=154204177&hbc=24&ct=link#qna
Thanks

Yep. Kenko extension tubes.

Samsung

Shop now on Samsung phones, tablets, TVs and more (affiliate link).

Disrespective

1925 posts

Uber Geek

#534022 16-Oct-2011 17:50

Dynamike: You really need automatic extension tubes so that the lens and camera can talk to each other. The cheap manual tubes (as in your link) only work in full manual mode and you can't stop down the aperture to increase the depth of field, which is necessary in macro photography.

This is only the case for cheaper/newer lenses which do not have an aperture ring on themselves.

In many cases if you're using extension tubes you'll be running macro shots in full manual anyway so you get full control.

The only benefit from auto tubes is ttl metering. AF is a waste of time more often than not (especially if you're stacking the macro tubes together).

I prefer to use bellows than tubes as it lets me adapt the length (magnification ratio) much faster, but do use automatic tubes when i'm doing macro outside of the studio and lighting can be variable.

timmmay

20579 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#534026 16-Oct-2011 17:58

Kenko extension tubes have electrical contacts, so the camera body can tell the lens to stop down to whatever aperture you want. With macro photos I find i'm almost always in manual focus anyway.

Dynamike

167 posts

Master Geek

#534033 16-Oct-2011 18:13

Disrespective: This is only the case for cheaper/newer lenses which do not have an aperture ring on themselves.

Yep... if the aperture can be stopped down manually on the lens then the basic tubes work okay. I do that with a Super-Takumar 55mm f1.8 and a set of manual tubes . I don't know if you can manually close the aperture on the Canon 50mm f1.8 or not. Being able to use aperture priority for macro's does make life easier. I always use manual focus for macro's as autofocus defeats what I'm trying to achieve.

timmmay

20579 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#534184 17-Oct-2011 09:54

Neither the Canon 50 F1.8 nor the the Nikon 50 F1.8 G have an aperture ring. Not many modern lenses do.

Dynamike

167 posts

Master Geek

#534239 17-Oct-2011 12:05

timmmay: Neither the Canon 50 F1.8 nor the the Nikon 50 F1.8 G have an aperture ring. Not many modern lenses do.

That solves it then... auto tubes are what's needed for the Canon 50mm 1.8.

I've done macro nature photography for 31 years, specialising in the tiny NZ native orchids. All my photos are taken in the natural environment, so with the rare and endangered species I only get one chance to get it right. I nearly always use the following camera settings:

Manual focus.
Spot or Centre Weighted metering.
Aperture Priority.
Auto bracketing + and - 0.5 stops.
Exposure compensation if the light meter is struggling to get the correct expose.
Remote shutter release.
A sturdy tripod as shutter speeds are regularly in the 1 to 30 second range when aiming for maximum depth of field in a dark forest. I always use natural light, I never use a flash.

timmmay

20579 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#534250 17-Oct-2011 12:34

Half a stop bracketing is pretty low, if you shoot RAW you can easily recover that in either direction with virtually no quality loss.

Exposure compensation isn't something that you use as a last resort, it's something that you really need to set for each shot. There are some good articles about EC online.

Sounds like a good setup though :) Are the photos for stock, or just a hobby?

Dynamike

167 posts

Master Geek

#534320 17-Oct-2011 15:15

Everyone develops their own technique I guess. For what I do, any more than half a stop either side is usually too much. The flowers average 10mm across and have extremely delicate shades of colour and translucent areas which require precise exposure. Under-expose slightly and you lose detail, over-expose slightly and the highlights burn out. I've found recovering from the RAW isn't as good getting it right on the camera.

It's just a hobby, but I regularly get requests to buy photos. However, I just give them away. DoC is using quite a number of them on information boards, they're in some books, Te Ara Encyclopedia of NZ, a couple of Museums including Te Papa, Forest & Bird occasionally use them, saw them on a TV3 News item once, and I built a website on native orchids.

Jaxson

8042 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#534322 17-Oct-2011 15:19

Dynamike: I built a website on native orchids.

A good one at that too

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8