Best lens for macro electronic components

[Zucca]

Thanks to TiN for his excellent guides:

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/how-to-make-decent-photographs-for-forum-postsarticlespublications/
https://xdevs.com/guide/hwphoto/

anyway I would like to know what are the macro lenses you use for shooting electronics components/circuits.
Yes I know the right light is the key to success, but I am now shopping for a new macro lens and before I pull the trigger I would like to know what you guys are using.

Ah my new horse is a Canon R6, so I am looking at the RF Macro lens, but I am open to everything.

What do you suggest?

EDIT: First on my list
Venus Optics Laowa 100mm f/2.8 2X Ultra Macro with Canon AF version
https://www.venuslens.net/product/laowa-100mm-f-2-8-2x-macro-apo/ref/515/

[Kleinstein]

If the purpose if the pictures is more for documenting / finding faults one may not even need a dedicated macro lense. A "normal (e.g. 100 mm)" lens and additional conversion lenses to put in front may be good enough and much cheaper.  A main down-side of the cheap way is often chromatic aberations and some lack of compfort (e.g. actual aperture and focal distance is not what is seen on the lense). This may be an issue for artistic pictures, but less for fault finding.  Good (bright) light is also important, as one may use a relatively small aperture (e.g. 1/16) to get more depth of field.

For macro shots I use a Sigma 105 mm DG Macro HSM with a Nikon D5300.
For electronics pictures the focal length is a bit on the long side as one may need quite some distance - for insects this is nice.

[alm]

In my opinion comfort features like being able to go from high magnification to lower are very useful. For example taking an overview shot of a large PCB and then a close-up of a dry joint. Or autofocusfor low magnification work. Autofocus is useless at 1:1. Linear distortion might also be important.

My absolute favourite lens for documenting electronics is the Nikon Micro-Nikkor 70-180mm. The short end is just short enough to capture a 19" rack enclosure in one frame, while the long focal length and high 1:1.33 magnification ratio allow for capturing small details without worrying about shadows. Unfortunately, this lens is discontinued and I'm not aware about any current real zoom macro lens, as opposed to a regular telezoom that marketing slapped a macro badge on.

I don't think you need a 2:1 lens for electronics. A 1:1 already let's you fill the frame with a piece of a pcb the size of your thumbnail. The majority of shots will be at much smaller magnification.

How big are the pcbs you're working on and how big is your space? I've had to climb on chairs to fit a large pcb in my frame. I'm wondering if something like a 60-70mm macro lens wouldn't work better. What current lenses do you have? What focal lengths do you use for electronics pictures?

[Zucca]

Thanks for all the comments.
I should add I have a 20-70mm f2.8L and I need something to get closer than that.

I don't think you need a 2:1 lens for electronics. A 1:1 already let's you fill the frame with a piece of a pcb the size of your thumbnail. The majority of shots will be at much smaller magnification.

True but if I pull the trigger I would like something to cover me if I need to get a details of a cold joint.

[mawyatt]

If cost is a concern look to the Raynox DCR-125 and 250 add on Lenses, these are very usefully and work well, and should do a decent job with your Canon 20-70mm. We used these often and they also work well as a "tube" lens working with infinity type microscope lenses for getting down to detailed chip images. BTW be sure to get the necessary "ring" adapters for the lenses you would like to use with the Raynox.

Dedicated macro lens are usually very good, especially the ones from the camera body OEM, but can be somewhat expensive. Recall the Venus Optics did receive some good reviews.

A couple important things to consider when working at macro levels, the subject to lens distance is important because the further the lens front surface the better because of getting "quality" lighting around the subject. Others are vignetting and image edge distortion and focus.

Also consider a sturdy tripod, rather than trying handheld, our experience with image stabilization at macro and below levels has't been good.

Caution: Quality images fo electronics can become addictive, if you get "bit" prepare to open your wallet, and a deep study into optics 

Don't ask how we know this

We can elaborate on our progress and developments from ~2000 if interested, but don't want to clutter up the thread.

Anyway, you have a fun journey ahead enjoy

Best,

[Zucca]

If cost is a concern look to the Raynox DCR-125 and 250 add on Lenses

Many thanks for the suggestions, the Raynox looks good:

https://www.closeuphotography.com/135-componon-s-vs-raynox-dcr-250/2020/2/25/135mm-tube-lens-test-part-2-componon-s-56135-vs-raynox-125mm

[mawyatt]

Hats off, you found one of the best sites around for lens evaluation, was going to point you to Robert's site if you showed an interest in such. Be sure to check out the AmScope 4X for $18 he found, really good little 4X lens for the $.

BTW guess where Robert got the idea of using Silicon Wafers as Test subjects

Here's another site you might like, where the World Class macro folks hang out!!

https://www.photomacrography.net/index.htm

Best,

[Kleinstein]

An add on lens usually works best with a relatively long focal length lense to start with.  The extra lense reduces the combined focal length to maybe half to 2/3. The part that is needed is the distance from the sensor to the lense. To get closer focussing one needs more distance there. The other alterternative to use a more normal lense for shorter focussing is adding an tube extension: this can work too, but may loose some automatic functions and the lense distortion can become significant when using the lense at a shorter distance. Though simpler at first glance the extension tubes can be more tricky than an add on lense.

For really close macros a full size sensor is not really needed. The relative large absolute aperture size reduces the depth of field. One may crop the final picture anyway quite a bit.
Vignetting is usually relatively easy to corret and can be reduced with cropping.

For hand help pictures in addition to holding the direction, there comes the need to keep the distance steady so that the focus can follow. Changing the distance between the time the AF operates and the picture is actually taken becomes a new source for focussing errors one usually does not care very much with longer distances. With real close ups the DOF can be less than 1 mm and a correct focus thus very important. So a good stand could be an option for static pictures.

[alm]

True but if I pull the trigger I would like something to cover me if I need to get a details of a cold joint.

Keep in mind that going beyond 1:1 requires special equipment and technique regarding lighting (very little working distance, yet you need lots of light), a very stable camera support that can get the camera exactly where you want it to be, and quite possibly software and hardware to do focus stacking to deal with the miniscule depth of field. Just keeping your subject in focus is a challenge! I'd focus (no pun intended) on magnification below 1:1, which unless you're into IC decapping is generally the more interesting range for electronics.

If cost is a concern look to the Raynox DCR-125 and 250 add on Lenses, these are very usefully and work well, and should do a decent job with your Canon 20-70mm.

Will they mount on the 20-70 (24-70?)'s large filter threads?

[Cubdriver]

I'm shooting with a 5D IV, so I'm using an EF mount lens.  The one I use most for gear shots, especially the close-ups, is the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L IS macro.  You could probably use it on the Rx with an adapter.  IMO it gives very good results, and find it spends a lot of time on the camera just for general usage.  I throw the EF 24-105 f/4L on for wider shots.



I typically shoot on a stable tripod using LED lights above and behind to get decent light levels, and with apertures between f/16 and f/22 to get decent depth of field.  This often requires shutter speeds in the neighborhood of 1/4~1 second, so stable support is a must, and a remote shutter release helps, too.  I also use a Manfrotto 410 geared head on the tripod for ease of positioning of the camera - makes it easy to get fine adjustments for accurate framing.


-Pat

[Zucca]

Similar setup here Pat...
Manfrotto are a must!

I used the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L IS macro a lot but I am looking for a x2, just because sometime I need to go beyond the 1:1 barrier.
Moreover the Laowa 100mm f/2.8 2X is much cheaper. And since I am on a tripod anyway for macro I do not need too much IS.

[Cubdriver]

If you want crazy close, the MP-E 65mm goes 1:1 to 5:1.  That one is definitely a challenge to use, and a focus rail is a necessity









Above displays taken with the 100mm for size reference:


-Pat

[mawyatt]

Here's another site for more exotic close up lenses.

https://coinimaging.com/

Best,

[Zucca]

Those pics are stellar!
2:1 is just for 1%, 99% I will stay 1:1.

No need to go 5:1, but you are temping me!

[spostma]

A superb macro lens that was used in 9600DPI dia scanners:
https://www.closeuphotography.com/minolta-dimage-scan-elite-5400-lens/


A comment on http://extreme-macro.co.uk/extreme-macro-closeup-lenses/ said interestingly:

A far cheaper solution is to get hold of a damaged pair of 10x50 binoculars and use its objective lens, which typically is c. 51 mm diameter and c. 200mm focal length (+5D)
Glue it into an appropriate 52mm step-up or step-down ring (e.g. Kood) but with the original INNER face that was towards the eyepiece NOW facing outwards.
It should be that way round because that was the correction for which the objective lens was originally computed.
You'll find the image quality and flatness off field are very close to those of the original prime lens.
You can make a "hood" by glueing a 20 mm wide ring of thin cardboard around the exposed part of the objective and painting the inside black.


And a lot of information on achromatic add-on macro lenses:
https://www.angelfire.com/ca/erker/closeups.html
https://www.ohse.de/uwe/articles/oly-converters.html
http://fuzzcraft.com/achromats.html

[Zucca]

New candidate for my purchase, Laowa 90mm f/2.8 2x Ultra Macro APO which is RF compatible and has sort of IS in it, nice!

https://www.venuslens.net/product/laowa-90mm-f-2-8-2x-macro-apo/

https://dustinabbott.net/2022/06/laowa-90mm-f2-8-apo-2x-macro-review/

[mawyatt]

A superb macro lens that was used in 9600DPI dia scanners:
https://www.closeuphotography.com/minolta-dimage-scan-elite-5400-lens/

Yes indeed!! We have the Minolta DI-5400 lens from long ago before the craze started, also acquired long ago a Printing Nikkor PN105 F2.8A that was used to reproduce 35mm motion picture film from the master that was sent out to the theaters!! Another good one if you can find such is the Lomo 3.7X and Canon 35mm Bellows lens, some of the old lenses are really good from 1 to 5X, then the microscope infinity type from Mitutoyo take over.

Here's the PN105 on a custom machined lens fixture attached to a Nikon D800E (also gets attached to a D850 or Z7), the fixtures mounted onto a custom THK Linear Rail for focus stacking. Everything is operated from custom controllers and such.

Best,

[magic]

If cost is a concern look to the Raynox DCR-125 and 250 add on Lenses, these are very usefully and work well, and should do a decent job with your Canon 20-70mm.

Will they mount on the 20-70 (24-70?)'s large filter threads?

Mechanically, you need a step-down ring to 43mm filter thread, that should be doable. Don't use the included universal adapter even if it fits, it's weak plastic junk prone to breaking and dropping the Raynox on whatever you are photographing.

Optically, cut a 35mm hole in a piece of paper (actual diameter measured on actual lenses, I own both of them), hold in front of the lens, see if it vignettes. At the wide end it surely will.

[mawyatt]

Here's a small example of some of the focus stacking equipment developed over the years, and some of the necessary lightning strobes. These strobes were positioned by the "C Stands" to get the proper lighting, which at higher magnifications requires massive amounts of light. The focus stacking fixtures are for vertical and horizontal use, and some have X, Y,  & Z for Stack and Stitch efforts, automated controllers based upon the Trinamic Devices were developed for stacking and S&S efforts.

This is the kind of effort required when your imaging chips that get blown up very large, sometimes covering a large wall. We started these efforts back in 2000 using the usual shooting thru a microscope, but soon realized the limitations and decided to develop our own lens, fixtures and controllers. Quite an undertaking back then and evolved into these type of fixtures and setups.

One very difficult obstacle that showed up was flip chip solder balls. When these are new and not oxidized, the surface is like a tiny 40~100um polished spherical mirror that reflects everything from everywhere!! Another was the perspective change when stacking and especially when S&S when you are trying to line up 19 tiles, each tile stacked with 300~400 individual image (yes 6,000~8,000 images) to render a final image of 30,000 by 25,000 pixels!! Because chips have precise features that must line up perfectly when stacking and especially when stitching, this calls for a different type lens design called "Telecentric", where the apparent magnification doesn't depend on distance to subject. This is just scratching the surface tho, lots of interesting challenges encountered!!

Anyway, fun stuff indeed!!

Best,

[mawyatt]

Couple more images of the focus stacking setup rails.

Best,

[mawyatt]

Mechanically, you need a step-down ring to 43mm filter thread, that should be doable. Don't use the included universal adapter even if it fits, it's weak plastic junk prone to breaking and dropping the Raynox on whatever you are photographing.

Yes exactly!! Why we mentioned earlier "If cost is a concern look to the Raynox DCR-125 and 250 add on Lenses, these are very usefully and work well, and should do a decent job with your Canon 20-70mm. We used these often and they also work well as a "tube" lens working with infinity type microscope lenses for getting down to detailed chip images. BTW be sure to get the necessary "ring" adapters for the lenses you would like to use with the Raynox."

Best,

[jpanhalt]

I hope this is not too far OT.  Way back in the 70's, I had a real Nikon F.  Then got a macro lens for it (can't give the exact one) and used it for documentation and comparing immunoprecipitin bands.  Used B&W negatives.  It was fantastic.  In fact, since it was my personal camera and lens, I rarely took that lens off even when that particular project was done.

I am not into $>5K equipment (2022 equivalent) anymore, but find the Z50 attractive.  It comes in a kit with a 16-50mm lens.  Any opinions on that lens' macro abilities.  The cheapest Z-macro seems to be the MC50/f2.8 at $650.

Edit: Spell check didn't like "immunoprecipitin."  That's what they are.

[mawyatt]

You don't have to spend a lot of $ to get some decent macro images, the final rendering is 90% behind the camera and 10% equipment

The 1st image is with the $18 mentioned AmScope 4X lens, think the 2nd image was with a clone 5X that cost $250.

Best,

[jpanhalt]

I failed to mention that as a retired pathologist I have several microscopes.  I made an adapter for my CoolPix 990  to my binocular/dissecting Nikon microscope.  It works too.  I want something simpler, uses modern memory, takes less space, and has more uses. 60 years of junk accumulated over a career takes up a lot of space.  I am trying to cut back to save my hiers the pain.

[mawyatt]

Will they mount on the 20-70 (24-70?)'s large filter threads?

You need to get "ring" adapters which will mount the Raynox to the front of your lens. As mentioned by magic, don't rely on the plastic spring loaded grabber supplied, get a proper set of ring adapters, they aren't expensive.

Best,

[mawyatt]

I hope this is not too far OT.  Way back in the 70's, I had a real Nikon F.  Then got a macro lens for it (can't give the exact one) and used it for documentation and comparing immunoprecipitin bands.  Used B&W negatives.  It was fantastic.  In fact, since it was my personal camera and lens, I rarely took that lens off even when that particular project was done.

I am not into $>5K equipment (2022 equivalent) anymore, but find the Z50 attractive.  It comes in a kit with a 16-50mm lens.  Any opinions on that lens' macro abilities.  The cheapest Z-macro seems to be the MC50/f2.8 at $650.

Edit: Spell check didn't like "immunoprecipitin."  That's what they are.

Nikon has a long history of supplying superb "kit" lenses, so wouldn't expect the newer Z type to be any different.

Best,

[TimFox]

My personal camera used to document electronic assemblies is a medium-weight Pentax (minority taste) K-70 DSLR (crop format) with a Pentax 35 mm f/2.8 "HD DA Lim Macro" macro lens.
For higher resolution (when needed) I have a 50 mm f/2.8 macro lens that covers the full-frame format of my heavier Pentax K1-II DSLR.  I have an older 100 mm f/3.5 macro lens which is not quite as good, but allows me more room from the camera to the object.
Note that the depth-of-field under macro conditions is inherently shallower than what you may be used to with "normal" conditions.  A tripod to hold the camera is useful to allow smaller apertures (higher f number) if your object has depth to increase the depth-of-field.

[mawyatt]

Here's some images of an early setup trying to get absolute uniform lighting across the chip which had solder balls. When all the strobes fired at once, neighbors could see the light leaking out of the house and thought we were creating lightning inside

Note the double light tents for diffusion and the blue boxes are for vibration isolation, found that the RubberMaid type acted as a LPF, and the optical table rides on Sorbathane feet to help with vibration.

Also added a couple of the custom lenses used.

Yes all this is a deep deep rabbit hole

Best,

[TimFox]

I avoid vibration by using my concrete front porch, but you are quite right about the importance of lighting for macro use.
I intend to get one of those foldable light tents when I get back from my next road trip--have you tried them?

[mawyatt]

This sits on a concrete slab house foundation which rug is on with a foam pad. At the levels we were working we could "see" a door closing, car driving down street, people walking round, or airplane flying over!!

Those tents shown are foldable types, one small and one large. They work well but "eat" lots of light!! Forget usual Speedlights for lighting, we melted a few, get mains powered strobes with quick recycle time.

Best,

[Someone]

A couple important things to consider when working at macro levels, the subject to lens distance is important because the further the lens front surface the better because of getting "quality" lighting around the subject. Others are vignetting and image edge distortion and focus.

Hitting all the key points! One option (not mentioned yet?) for occasional use, reverse mount a cheap manual focus (+manual iris all the better) lens. Yes it will have tiny working distance, lots of distortion, and a curved focal plane, but it can do impressive magnification on the cheap.

[mawyatt]

Yes, very effective technique!! Another similar technique that uses "regular" lens to achieve macro levels is lens stacking. Here a shorter Focal Length lens is mounted on the front of a longer FL lens, the effective magnification is the FL ratio.

Best,

[Zucca]

mawyatt your setup reminds me that there is always a bigger fish out there.

Let me collect the jaw on the floor now...

[magic]

I failed to mention that as a retired pathologist I have several microscopes.  I made an adapter for my CoolPix 990  to my binocular/dissecting Nikon microscope.  It works too.  I want something simpler, uses modern memory, takes less space, and has more uses. 60 years of junk accumulated over a career takes up a lot of space.  I am trying to cut back to save my hiers the pain.

I haven't tried it, but I'm skeptical regarding the ability of APS/FF cameras to pick up eyepiece images like a compact. Even some larger compacts vignette.

The alternative is dedicated photographic eyepieces for the scope which (AFAIK) mount on the camera in place of the lens or direct projection of primary image onto the sensor. The latter requires fully color-corrected objectives, in addition to suitable mechanical adapters.

I am not into $>5K equipment (2022 equivalent) anymore, but find the Z50 attractive.  It comes in a kit with a 16-50mm lens.  Any opinions on that lens' macro abilities.  The cheapest Z-macro seems to be the MC50/f2.8 at $650.

Well, yes, Z is a new system There should be an option to adapt Nikon DSRL lenses onto it that you may consider.

Regarding the kit, I'm sure there are reviews out there and there are official specs. Nikon says 20cm minimum focusing distance, and likely that's at 16mm and 50mm is worse. FWIW, photographyblog.com says maximum magnification is 0.2x.

[magic]

Yes, very effective technique!! Another similar technique that uses "regular" lens to achieve macro levels is lens stacking. Here a shorter Focal Length lens is mounted on the front of a longer FL lens, the effective magnification is the FL ratio.

I forgot to mention that this principle also applies to those closeup addon lenses like Raynox. If the main lens is focused at infinity, magnification is exactly the FL ratio. If the main lens can focus closer, it may be somewhat more but usually not much more.

It follows that even with the shorter 125mm Raynox, it takes at least some 100mm for unity magnification.

[nctnico]

Ofcourse you can buy all kinds of fancy cameras and lenses if photography is your hobby and for higher magnifications you can't go around a good lense. But before spending money, check your smartphone. Much to my surprise my Samsung phone (not the cheapest model though) works surprisingly well where it comes to taking pictures of electronics. Sometimes I even use it as a magnifier. As has been said: lighting is 90% of taking a good picture.

[olkipukki]

Yes I know the right light is the key to success, but I am now shopping for a new macro lens and before I pull the trigger I would like to know what you guys are using.

I'm using AF-S VR Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED* with Helicon Remote** and Focus***

In general, a change camera body/brand is very expensive move, so I would probably end up buying D850 eventually at a right time rather than switching to a mirrorless one.

* https://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/f-mount/specialpurpose/micro/af-s_vr_micro-nikkor_105mmf_28_if/
** https://www.heliconsoft.com/heliconsoft-products/helicon-remote/
*** https://www.heliconsoft.com/heliconsoft-products/helicon-focus/

[mawyatt]

mawyatt your setup reminds me that there is always a bigger fish out there.

Let me collect the jaw on the floor now...

The setup has evolved into a smaller area (3m by 2m by 3m), but still rather complex with up to 8 strobes on C Stands, single light tent, and a large foam cup diffuser (these white foam cups work very well as diffusers and don't introduce any color shifts).

Best,

[mawyatt]

Ofcourse you can buy all kinds of fancy cameras and lenses if photography is your hobby and for higher magnifications you can't go around a good lense. But before spending money, check your smartphone. Much to my surprise my Samsung phone (not the cheapest model though) works surprisingly well where it comes to taking pictures of electronics. Sometimes I even use it as a magnifier. As has been said: lighting is 90% of taking a good picture.

In our case this evolution of chip imaging helped us win chip development programs. Most images were of chips we developed (many still proprietary) and helped win a $50M chip development that had ~1 billion devices (not a memory chip).

So more of a challenge rather than a hobby that we invested ~$35K (mostly out of pocket), and the ROI was quite good indeed!!

Best, 

[mawyatt]

Well, yes, Z is a new system There should be an option to adapt Nikon DSRL lenses onto it that you may consider.

Regarding the kit, I'm sure there are reviews out there and there are official specs. Nikon says 20cm minimum focusing distance, and likely that's at 16mm and 50mm is worse. FWIW, photographyblog.com says maximum magnification is 0.2x.

The new Nikon Z mount has an adapter that allows older F mount lens to work with the Z camera body. Newer F mount lens have AF support, and maybe VR support. Some 3rd party F mount lenses may not work tho, but still can be used manually. Optically the Z mount has many advantages over the older F mount, like larger opening and positioning lens back end closer to sensor since they don't need to clear the flip-up mirror of the DSLR.

Regarding the Raynox, yes they can be thought of as stacked lens with 125mm and 208mm FL and likely work well with a typical 105mm lens. Speaking of 105mm, we found a copy of the famous Carl Zeiss 105mm optical design that is superb, it's all manual like the original, but the fundamental optical characteristics are outstanding. They go by Rokinon and other names. If you ever get into stacking with infinite objectives we found some "jewels in the rough" tube lenses on eBay that are very old types and cheap.

Best,

[Zucca]

** https://www.heliconsoft.com/heliconsoft-products/helicon-remote/
*** https://www.heliconsoft.com/heliconsoft-products/helicon-focus/

Heliconsoft is amazing! Thanks to pointing that out!

uuuuuuuuuu holy smokes....

https://www.heliconsoft.com/helicon-remote-stackshot/

[mawyatt]

Zerene is another stacking program, they have a nice tutorial on such.

http://zerenesystems.com/cms/stacker

The author is also associated with this site, where you can find all sorts of details on image stacking, lenses, cameras and equipment.

https://www.photomacrography.net/index.htm

Best,

[armandine2]

I have just ordered myself a Laowa 65mm F2.8 macro for my Fuji mirrorless camera - so I'm getting into this focus bracketing and stacking concept.

The X-Pro 2 I have does not have the automatic focus bracketing mode - will see how the Laowa goes with it soon 

[edited to add a YouTube link]

[Conrad Hoffman]

The Nikon Z 105 mm MC lens is great but only goes to 1:1. Within its range it may be one of the best lenses ever built. The newer Z lenses are designed for the large mount and usually have large rear elements to properly direct rays to the sensor. Though you can buy them, extension tubes aren't an optimal solution because the lenses were designed for maximum performance a specific distance from the sensor. Not sure if tubes or aux lenses are the better solution. I usually go to home-machined adapters and specialty lenses to go close. That would be microscope objectives, reversed enlarging lenses or something like the older Nikon Measuring Microscope Objectives. Not a Canon guy so can't make recommendations on that, but there's no shortage of good choices.

IMO, focus stacking is todays secret weapon and has raised the image quality bar by a lot. I use the Affinity photo editor, which has a good stacking feature built in. It's inexpensive and does about everything a person would want to do.

[metebalci]

Any macro lens from a reputable manufacturer would work. I have Sony, Fuji and a large format Nikon and all are great. The actual complexity is to do focus stacking (with automated rails or in camera features), using correct parameters for focus stacking and setting up lights. >=5x magnification is also possible with a custom setup and microscopy lenses but that would probably be unnecessary for electronic components (if not photographing the inside of the components). Another alternative is to use a stereo microscope but focus stacking is not simple (automated focusing stereo microscope is quite expensive). Another very different alternative is to use a view camera and tilt the focus plane to PCB and have a single photo where only the PCB will be in focus.

[armandine2]

Any macro lens from a reputable manufacturer would work.

would ? or will

just spent an hour getting my first picture - its Grimm  but help is out there

... turns out that there are lots of settings on modern cameras -

Menu; Set-up; Button/Dial Setting; shoot without lens

...you are on a learning curve 

[EPAIII]

A little bit of optics 101.

A macro or close up lens is simply a lens that is at the distance between the subject being photographed and the image plane that provides the desired magnification.

That statement is deliberately vague and here is why. Any lens that is effectively at twice it's focal length from both the subject and the image plane will produce a 1 to 1 sized image. Or, in other words, an actual sized image; a 1X image. So, for example, a lens with a 100mm focal length that is placed (it's effective optical location is placed) 200 mm from the subject and 200 mm from the image plane will produce a 1X image. And if it's location is shifted closer to one of those (subject or image plane) then the other will be in focus at a greater distance. This shifting ends when the lens is at it's focal length from one which brings the focus point for the other to infinity. If you are curious the mathematical relationship for this is:

1/f = (1/Ds) + (1/Dp)
where
f = the focal length
Ds = the distance to the subject
Dp = the distance to the focal plane (image sensor)

What this means is, ANY positive power lens can be used as a macro lens. Any lens what so ever: from a cheap plastic magnifier to the largest telescope objective lens in the world. And it applies to curved mirrors too.

What does this mean in relation to the subject of this thread?

It means that EVERY lens that you presently have in your camera bag can be used as a macro lens. All you need to do is MOUNT THEM somewhat further from the focal plane (image sensor) than their mounting flange presently places them. And this can be done in a number of ways.

One way would be a simple mechanical tube with NO optics in it, just air. Put a male and a female flange on the two ends and you are in business. The length of the tube mattes. Lets say you have that 100 mm fl lens and it has a focus range that allows it to focus on subjects from 1 m (1000 mm) to infinity. The above equation tells us that it would be at 111.11 mm from the focal plane when focused on that subject at the 1 m distance. And the actual image to object size ratio would be about 1/9 or 0.111. Then if we subtract the 100 mm focal length which is where it would be when focused for infinity, we see that it has a mechanical travel range of 11.11 mm when being focused. So adding an 11 mm long extension tube would extend that mechanical travel range to 11 mm to 22.11mm which overlaps just a bit with the range without the extension tube. But with that extension tube that same 100 mm lens could then be focused to 122.11 mm from the image plane which would give us a distance of only 552.3 mm to the subject and the actual image to object size ratio would have increased to 0.221. Comparing that to the above ratio without the extension tube we see that the image size on the sensor has increased by about a factor of 2.

In other words, a simple extension tube that is about equal to the focus distance that was built into the lens has DOUBLED the size of the image we get.

And increasing the length of that simple tube would continue to increase the size of the image.

This is a much better way of increasing the image size/magnification than the stacking of lenses described in a post above. And you don't need to do the math that I used to obtain the example with a 100 mm lens. You can just adjust the focus of the lens to it's two extremes (infinity and the closest it will do) and measure how much the lens moves. That would provide a starting length for an extension tube that would take over where the lens presently stops. Then a second tube twice as long, then three times as long, and four times, etc. until you reach the magnification desired.

One down side of this is that lenses are optimized for a particular distance from the subject or a particular object to image size ratio (same things). When they are used at different distances/magnifications they may not perform as well. Once you reach the point of extending a lens by it's focal length, it may and probably will perform better if it is physically reversed to have it's camera end pointed at the subject and it's subject end pointed to the camera. This would mean mounting it to the extension tube with a filter holding thread. I would suggest that you can experiment with the lenses that you presently have before spending money on new and probably expensive ones just to have the macro capability. Some of your present lenses may provide excellent macro photos.

Another down side is the effective F opening of the lens will increase as it is moved further and further from the focal plane/camera. At twice it's focal length the effective F number will be twice the marked numbers. Of course, more light can compensate for this. And it may help keep the image sharper than it would be at the same F number.

Another way of extending a lens for macro shots is to use a bellows unit. I have one in a cabinet from the days of 35 mm film photography. It worked quite well and provided a large range of magnifications. Be wary of cheap bellows as they may not support the weight of some cameras or lenses well.

[alm]

Many modern objectives have electronic aperture control. Without such control signals, the aperture is fully closed. This adds complications when using bellows or reversing. I'm sure there are solutions, but it might be easier to do with an older objective with a physical aperture ring.

[metebalci]

I think using a bellow is too complicated for just ~1x magnification. A macro lens of the camera brand works very well. Using a bellow is another level, and I dont think just a bellow is a good idea. If one is interested in advanced techniques, I recommend something like cambo actus which makes it possible to use a digital camera sensor with various types of lenses, with a below, and with tilt, shift and swing mechanisms, effectively creating a view camera. Naturally, it is a serious investment.

About the lenses, the math is like this but a lens is not just a single optical element and it is optimized for a certain use. So a macro lens is designed and measured for being used at ~1x magnification. It might function well in other cases, even might be better at some magnification for some particular case but this would be a side effect, same can be said for the use of a non-macro lens as a macro lens.

[Kleinstein]

Extending the distance from the lens to the sensor can work, but with modern cameras this is also not that easy. Such extensions rings that also transfer the electronic signals are available, but they are not cheap. Even more tricky are systems that have some mechanical control from the camera body to the lense.

The add on lenses are often the cheapest way and the lenses can fit to several cameras via the filter threads. They are not perfect but often good enough to see things. A main downside are often chromatic errors in the from of red / blue fringes. Not very estetic, but less of a problem for reading lables or checking solder joints.
For my first macro pictures I actually used the front lense of an old binocular in front of a compact digital camera. By conincidence it was a near perfect mechanical match.

Anyway a tricky part is getting the focus right. Unless one needs the absolute best resolution (near the diffraction limit) one can often use a relatively small apperture to get at least a little more depth of field. For this one tends to need quite some light.  E.g. I often use a small aperture like F/16 (effective for exposure, actual F/8 geometrical for 1:1). Unless one has a special tilt system the sharp part of the picture is parallel to the sensor. So it helps to take the picture from the right direction - sometimes just cropping half the picture to get a little extra angle.

[armandine2]

Re. Laowa 65mm:...updated, to add a reasonably successful attempt to photograph the 4cm x 8cm schematic diagram which is attached to the battery compartment of my charity shop bought transistor radio.

a big file for me at 1400kB - I had photographed this previously, the improvement is significant, but I didn't note that set up to be sure exactly what comparison to make.

Anyhow fairly happy with the manual focusing on a tripod.

[EPAIII]

Back to basic optics: an add-on lens, in GENERAL, is probably the worst way to go if you want good images. The makers of the add-on usually know nothing of the design of the base lens it will be used with so it can't be optimized for that lens. A one-size-fits-all approach must be taken. I have some add-on lenses for wide angle and tele-photo use and they do work, but they are not as good as a single lens of the same focal length.

Yes, a well designed macro lens, made for your camera, would be best. But they can be expensive. If you can use your lens on some kind of mechanical extension, even a simple extension tube, that, while not as good as a macro lens, may, in most cases be better than using an add-on lens.

And all macro lenses are not equal. They too can have their defects.

Don't any of the photographic magazines or web sites do "shoot-offs" anymore? There used to be comparison tests showing which lens was best. Or is modern gear just too expensive for anyone to buy ten lenses at $1000 each?

[EPAIII]

But wait, here you go!

https://nortonsafe.search.ask.com/web?q=macro%20lens%20comparison&ssdcat=321&lang=en&source=nag&year=2015&locale=en_us&geo=us&version=22.23.10.10&plang=sym:en&buildname=retail&heartbeatid=4ae3d98c-56e4-4df2-adf1-00b1d085e47e&eapenabled=false&env=prod&vendorid=1014930&plid=866&plgid=41&skup=21389648&skum=21376863&skuf=90001202-fa&endpointid=4ae3d98c-56e4-4df2-adf1-00b1d085e47e&lic_type=2&lic_attr=17059858&psn=7jjxx287wjvq&templatecat=sbu_w_1000_5039_n360dsp_retail&schemacat=sbu_w&schemaver=1.0.0.0&olpchannel=retail&osvers=10.0&oslocale=iso:usa&oslang=iso:eng&os=windows&showuninstallsurvey=1&installstatus=updated&vendorsrc=firefox&machinelocation=us&sw=0&3in1=0&npw=0&hp=0&dsp=0&cdest=nag&annot=false&vendorConfigured=ask&o=APN12178&prt=ngc&ver=3.21.0.6&tpr=111&chn=1014930&guid=4ae3d98c-56e4-4df2-adf1-00b1d085e47e&doi=2023-11-26&browser=FireFox&prod=DS&doi=2023-11-26&installSource=nag&cmpgn=oct23&darkMode=false&sameTabLaunch=false