For those who lament not having a macro lens

[desertanimal]

I can't justify the expenditure of a dedicated macro lens. And extension tubes are pricey for my camera, too, if I want something that lets me control aperture. So I decided to experiment with magnifying filters. These photos were all taken on a Nikon D5100 with the standard AF-S Nikkor 18-55mm lens and a 10x magnifying filter. It works for me and the few times I need it. It also gives me something to do for fun in the long winter. The snowflakes were from Nemo, and they were all about 1-2mm in size. Magnifying filter sets are under $15 bucks. You can stack them if you really want to, but you really compromise image quality when you do, so I never have.










Orchid bee on her nest

Stingless bee nest

One of my tarantulas, mid-molt

[Leafmite]

Wow! Great photography. I have a lame camera as well so no help there.

[tropterrarium]

Very nice for the rather low cost approach! Cudos.

For those wondering, why anybody wants to shell out more cash for a real macro lens, have a look at the bumble bee (5th image) in Photobucket, and get the fully enlarged shot. Then look at the red petals that are slightly out of focus to the rear, notice that the side towards the center has a blue edge. That is chromatic aberration. You can also see color halos on the snow flakes. Some of the snow flakes do not look in focus to me.

Other differences for true macro lenses are field flatness, and rectilinear reproduction, i.e., no curving lines along the edge of the frame. In the above images it does not matter too much, but in reproduction photography, that is critical.

On the stingless be image the background blur (aka Bokeh) is quite angular, which is caused by a low number of aperture blades. Better lenses have more blades, making those halos rounder.

But again, given the simple means, those are some nice shots.

[Orquiadicto]

Didn't know there was something like magnifying filters. I've always wanted to do some macro photography, but without having to spend too much money. I think your pictures look great for the purpose. For professional means they are perhaps not good enough, but for us hobbyist, I think they're fine.

[tucker85]

Those are great pictures! I have a set of those filters also and they work very well. A dedicated macro lens is expensive and only useful for specific photographs so the filters are an excellent option.

[nikkik]

Thank you for the great tip! I have already started looking for one of these.

Your photos are beautiful!

[silken]

Well done!

[Paul]

Some neat shots. How did you keep the flakes from melting not to mention isolated instead of getting a clump?

[desertanimal]

Originally Posted by tropterrarium

Very nice for the rather low cost approach! Cudos.

For those wondering, why anybody wants to shell out more cash for a real macro lens, have a look at the bumble bee (5th image) in Photobucket, and get the fully enlarged shot. Then look at the red petals that are slightly out of focus to the rear, notice that the side towards the center has a blue edge. That is chromatic aberration. You can also see color halos on the snow flakes. Some of the snow flakes do not look in focus to me.

Other differences for true macro lenses are field flatness, and rectilinear reproduction, i.e., no curving lines along the edge of the frame. In the above images it does not matter too much, but in reproduction photography, that is critical.

On the stingless be image the background blur (aka Bokeh) is quite angular, which is caused by a low number of aperture blades. Better lenses have more blades, making those halos rounder.

But again, given the simple means, those are some nice shots.

I am very appreciative of the specificity of this response! I have read about things like chromatic aberration and have never really been able to see it because the pointers were not so specific as these! Now I get it! Also the angularity of the blur--I think I can imagine something softer.

Definitely some of the snowflakes are not in focus. I had a bunch, and didn't take care to choose the best examples. Those were shot freehand and the flakes were what landed on my neighbor's car windows. I'd clean them off when they started to get crowded. But it was windy and cold and I was shivering. If you wanted to take printable photos of snowflakes, you should do a whole lot of things differently from what I do when I'm shooting them. It can be very serious!

Mainly, my close-up photography is so that I can see things better. So my out of focus snowflakes don't kill me. I don't want printed photos of those, anyway, because they would bore me. But I have photos of about 100 individual snowflakes and they are all different! And though few are perfectly in focus as hard as I had to crop them, I can see so much that I couldn't with my bare eyes! That's actually why I do photography at all. My fav hobby is photo-ing rattlesnakes (used to live in AZ). Don't need to catch things by hand (my habit, historically) if you can see them up close in a photo later!

I always hope for a photo that really compels me and makes me want to print it out at a nice size, but I rarely get them. And that, I think, is usually not the fault of my lens.

That said, I'd happily brighten up the exposure of that bumblebee in a photo editor (it's unprocessed IIRC) and put it on my wall. The discolored flower petal wouldn't bother me, personally (or maybe it would now that I know it's there???), because I'm really just looking at the bee.

One day, I'll have a macro and nice extension tubes. And better lenses, to boot! I do aspire to it. But not until my credit cards are paid off. Until then, these cheapies have allowed me to get a lot of neat things to look at that I couldn't have without them! I recommend them to anyone who realizes that you're not going to get photos as good as you would with a macro!

Tropterrarium--I will hit you up for critiques of my photos. I have no idea what I'm doing and would like to learn more little by little!

[bethmarie]

Also appreciate the info about magnifying filters. never knew such a thing existed. Can't wait to find them now!