Macro lens with extreme-close focal length

chriselliottart

chriselliottart

New member
Hi all, I have a quick question. I do a lot of work with miniatures - Lego minifig-scale models, to be exact. I own a Nikkor 18-105mm telephoto lens that does pretty well for itself, but unfortunately being a telephoto, flattens the depth between small objects and things behind them, somewhat killing the sense of scale. What I'm looking for is a lens that's capable of really pushing the sense of scale on a small object, and in order to do this, it must be: [A] short, so as to put the object as close to the image sensor as possible and Able to focus VERY close to the tip of the lens, preferably less than an inch away. I own a D7000 and I'm looking for a lens or lens/teleconverter combo that would be able to accomplish this. Does anyone have any suggestions for me? I would prefer a non-prime lens because it affords more options, but I get that the shorter lenses are often only primes.

(in case you're curious what I mean by I work with lego miniatures and want to push the sense of scale, here's a link: 2018 Ampera Edison | Flickr - Photo Sharing! )
 
S

skene

Senior Member
You probably will not find anything that will be able to focus at an inch away...
However you can look into Nikon's offerings 40mm f2.8 and 85mm f3.5.. Both macro lenses, however the 40mm can bring you pretty close. Focuses at approx 5" so you can get pretty close. The 85mm will be able to get you close without being that close.

This I took with my 85mm f3.5.. You can use crop also to get in really close since the image is taken at a 1:1 so you can get pretty close.

 
chriselliottart

chriselliottart

New member
Not yet, I can see the benefit of using them, as they basically allow you to magnify smaller objects. What I'm curious about (and can't seem to find a clear answer on anywhere) is how exactly they play with sense of scale, because it seems mostly like they're used for photographing things like flowers. Obviously, they create some depth via bokeh, but I guess what I'm curious about is whether they can really create the sense of something small actually being massive and heavy, like a real car: http://www.webmastergrade.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Mini-Cooper.jpg
 
chriselliottart

chriselliottart

New member
Yeah, my issue with the 18-105 (though I do love it so) is the fact that it can reach out and touch distant objects, but utterly falls flat on its face when you try to do close-up work.

Question: the extension tubes, they allow you to focus closer, but do they really make small objects seem larger than they are? Because that's what I'm really trying to get at.
 
D

Don Kuykendall_RIP

RIP :(
chriselliottart said:
Not yet, I can see the benefit of using them, as they basically allow you to magnify smaller objects. What I'm curious about (and can't seem to find a clear answer on anywhere) is how exactly they play with sense of scale, because it seems mostly like they're used for photographing things like flowers. Obviously, they create some depth via bokeh, but I guess what I'm curious about is whether they can really create the sense of something small actually being massive and heavy, like a real car: http://www.webmastergrade.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Mini-Cooper.jpg
Click to expand...

I think this has more to do with the background you use. Two ways to achieve the effect

1. Shoot the object on a white background and then shoot the background and take the white background and make it transparent and put it on the background.
2. Put the car in the place you want with the background you want in the correct scale and us focus stacking to have both the object and background in focus. This would give you the feeling it was a full size whatever.
 
4

480sparky

Senior Member
chriselliottart said:
Yeah, my issue with the 18-105 (though I do love it so) is the fact that it can reach out and touch distant objects, but utterly falls flat on its face when you try to do close-up work.

Question: the extension tubes, they allow you to focus closer, but do they really make small objects seem larger than they are? Because that's what I'm really trying to get at.
Click to expand...


When you get into macrophotography, don't get wrapped up in 'close focus'. Getting TOO close is a problem... with lighting. And two lenses with identical minimum focus will produce two very different images.... it's all about magnification or reproduction ratio, not distance.

Extension tubes MAY work, depending on your camera. You might lose the ability to autofocus. But you would need to get tubes with the ability to maintain both the screw-drive focus system (if your lens doesn't have a focus motor in it) as well as the electrical contacts for communication between the lens and camera.
 
chriselliottart

chriselliottart

New member
True, yes. Especially for someone like myself who controls the lighting carefully, I have noticed that issue before. Do you have any recommendations of lenses other than the 40mm?
 
S

skene

Senior Member
Certain lenses do not work with extension tubes.
I'm pretty sure the 18-105 is one of them that does not allow.

Maybe for an inexpensive try at it... Find one of those macro filters that you screw on the end of your lens... Or you can try picking up a cheap manual lens and getting a reversing ring. Both will allow shots to be in a "macro" however when trying to zoom in, it may not be as clear.
 
chriselliottart

chriselliottart

New member
I think the 18-105 requires an electrical connection, but should work with any extender with that feature.

Well, clarity is a concern for me - I don't crop my images smaller than 12inx8in at 300ppi, anything less than that is just useless to me, essentially.
 
G

Geoffc

Senior Member
I think the issue is that you want scale and close up. As you say the telephoto compresses. To create scale you need a wide angle or even ultra wide which don't tend to be macro lenses.

To satisfy my own curiosity I might try a few shots later with my wife's Tokina 11-16mm and the 10.5mm fisheye.
 
G

Geoffc

Senior Member
chriselliottart said:
Hi all, I have a quick question. I do a lot of work with miniatures - Lego minifig-scale models, to be exact. I own a Nikkor 18-105mm telephoto lens that does pretty well for itself, but unfortunately being a telephoto, flattens the depth between small objects and things behind them, somewhat killing the sense of scale. What I'm looking for is a lens that's capable of really pushing the sense of scale on a small object, and in order to do this, it must be: [A] short, so as to put the object as close to the image sensor as possible and Able to focus VERY close to the tip of the lens, preferably less than an inch away. I own a D7000 and I'm looking for a lens or lens/teleconverter combo that would be able to accomplish this. Does anyone have any suggestions for me? I would prefer a non-prime lens because it affords more options, but I get that the shorter lenses are often only primes.

(in case you're curious what I mean by I work with lego miniatures and want to push the sense of scale, here's a link: 2018 Ampera Edison | Flickr - Photo Sharing! )
Click to expand...



I've done a quick and dirty test to try and create what I think you're trying to do. By that I mean it has no artistic merit. I used my D800 in DX crop (15.4mp) mode to get close to the resolution of your D7000. It's a fraction lower but not so much that it affects this. First I tried a 90mm Tamron Macro lens. Yes I can get close but it gives no depth of field that close. I then tried a 10.5mm fisheye which was interesting but I don't think you would want the distortion. I then tried the Tokina 11-16mm DX lens which is where I thought I would end up. The test shown in the images is as follows:

1. Front to back of the screws is approx 16.5" (42cm)
2. The screws are 1" (2.5cm) tall
3. Lens was about 4" (10cm) from the closest screw.
4. The resulting crops are just over 3000 pixels on the longest edge which will give 300dpi 12" prints, which I believe was the aim.
5. These were shot at 16mm, 1/125 sec, F22, ISO 160. I used a studio flash to light it but I don't think that matters.

The same test at 11mm would give more depth but would also cover a much wider area so you may need to crop too much. I think the lower angle creates an illusion of more depth as well. If this does what you are looking for it would have the advantage of providing you with just about the best DX ultrawide for landscapes as well. I hope this is useful and if not it satisfied my curiosity anyway :)

Depth-1.jpgDepth-2.jpg
 
Last edited:
Top