Super Macro with the 60mm lens

[Ardy]

Hi All, just read this thread from DP review of a guy doing super macro with 1.4 or 2.0 + extension tubes to do super macro.
I am considering this to option up my macro photography where most of my pics are getting a little repetitive.
Look at this guys shots. The proof is in the pudding...: Micro Four Thirds Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review
Any thoughts or anyone doing any of this UW?
regards
Ardy

 

[tursiops]

Hi All, just read this thread from DP review of a guy doing super macro with 1.4 or 2.0 + extension tubes to do super macro.
I am considering this to option up my macro photography where most of my pics are getting a little repetitive.
Look at this guys shots. The proof is in the pudding...: Micro Four Thirds Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review
Any thoughts or anyone doing any of this UW?
regards
Ardy

Interesting. I wonder what the edge-to-edge sharpness is, and what kind of port you would need.

 

[Ardy]

Hi Tursiops, The port would be an issue but the quality of the shots is such that I wouldn't worry too much about edge to edge, due to the impact of them and the interest UW photography would add.
Macro and particularly muck diving added so much to my interest in UW photography, this might be a similar jump assuming my old eyes can cope!

 

[Barmaglot]

If you want to shoot supermacro underwater, the typical solution is close-up lenses rather than extension tubes. Both limit how far you can focus, but close-up lenses can be attached and detached during a dive, whereas tubes stay with you for the duration. Also, while tubes are cheaper, you will need to buy a port extension to accommodate them, and this can get expensive too.

I use a Weefine WFL05S lens in front of a Sony 90mm; this gives me roughly 2.3x maximum magnification, but working distance is very short and focusing is a pain in the butt. In all honesty, while I carry that lens with me most times I do a macro dive, I don't actually use it very often. Here are a few sample shots.

 

[Ardy]

Hi Barmaglot, I am aware of close up wet lenses although I don't use them. The big differences are in the quality of the images and the much greater super focus you get with them. If you click on that link and look at the quality of his stuff you may be as amazed as I was. I venture to suggest you could never get shots like that with wet lenses. Happy to be proven wrong.

 

[Ardy]

Interesting. I wonder what the edge-to-edge sharpness is, and what kind of port you would need.

Hi T, just went back and looked and they are pretty sharp edge to edge. Particularly when compared to wet lenses. I have asked if I can post one of his images here.

 

[tursiops]

Particularly when compared to wet lenses.

Not sure how you are making this statement....he hasn't used his system u/w for comparison.

I'm also not understanding how his extension tubes defeat the physics that determine standoff distance and DOF.

 

[Ardy]

Just look at the images and do your own comparison.

 

[Barmaglot]

I'm also not understanding how his extension tubes defeat the physics that determine standoff distance and DOF.

For standoff distance, he's using a teleconverter in addition to the tubes, and for DoF, he's doing focus stacking. Replicating this underwater would be... difficult, and it requires a completely static subject.

 

[tursiops]

For standoff distance, he's using a teleconverter in addition to the tubes, and for DoF, he's doing focus stacking. Replicating this underwater would be... difficult, and it requires a completely static subject.

I had missed the focus stacking. Not going to happen.