There is a decrease in quality inherent to teleconverters, but there are a lot of shots you just can't get without the extra reach. My close-up images have been published many time with no problems, so the image degradation isn't too bad.

I try to take down a 2-3x teleconverter set up on most dives, lately pushing to even higher magnification. If you try a set up like this, the best thing is to find a nice, quiet boring area that no one else wants to dive, reasonably shallow so you have light, but not too shallow so you have swells. Then just practice, practice, practice on any fish. It's amazing how interesting many normal fish look at such high magnfication.

Hi, just see...
i got something to add.
Nikon 105VR + x2TC + X1.4TC = 300mm

Nemo Eggs...

Amir

Click to view attachment

nice shot Mike ,you must have been up their ass with a +4 and 60mm
good one
Jez

good evening
Last sunday i was looking for a solution with the sigma 50 mm and a tamron 2x converter
In Holland most off the time , the vis. is very poor, so we need a close working distance for macro.
The sigma works great but.......... I also have a tamron 90 mm.
The test last weekend, seaslugs with the 50 mm and converter , nice shots but not as sharp as I wanted.

Tonight playing with my cam , i used the tamron 90 mm and a diopter + 1 , I have the same working distance but I think the pictures are sharper.

Any one else testing the 50 mm and 2 x converter ??????
greetings
Fotoduiker

I think the sigma 50mm have the same issue as the 60mm from nikon, working distance reduce so much that you going to end crushing things with your port if you are not carefull. That´s why must people use >100mm to this kind of thing.

As you can read here, there are people using 3X TC´s and combos of 2X+1.4X and diopters and stuff, I dare to say with a 50mm or 60mm that is almost close to impossible.

That said, I find good diopters as 4T, 6T and 500D more usefull for supermacro than TC´s if you have to choose between one or another, of course a TC+diopter is always an interesting combo challenge producing amazing results.

I always found this post very useful, so I`m going to add some tests that I made recently using Nikon D50, Sensor: Standard DX size (23.7 x 15.6 mm), Nikkor 105mm lens, Nikon 4T diopter and Kenko 2X Teleplus Pro 300 Teleconverter. Also I did some basic maths trying to understand myself the magnification provided with this combo. So here it is:

This is the 105 by itself:

Click to view attachment

I took this as a base pic to establish 1:1 magnification.

Then I add a 4T diopter:

Click to view attachment

As we can see it covers near 17mm, so magnification provided is 1.4:1

Adding a 2X to the 105mm we have this:

Click to view attachment

See that it covers close to 12mm, providing magnification of 2:1, prooving that the multiplier works equal for the focal lenght as for the magnification factor.

If we put this three together, we going to obtain this:

Click to view attachment

Covering 8mm I dare to say that magnification provided is 3:1

I also did some test with the Sigma 17-70mm macro:

Here`s the lens by itself:

Click to view attachment

Wich provides 1:2.3

And adding the 2X TC we get really close to 1:1

Click to view attachment

This is not intend to be a cientific post ,so I know I could use a tripod and other things to provide a more accurate result, but I think this help.

You also lose light with an extension tube due to the Bellows Factor...

I have nothing to say on this topic, aside from I kept getting the creeps seeing a certain name on the Last Post on a stickied subject. So I am remedying that situation.

I think this pinned thread should have a link to a recent one on UW magnifiers in the Beginners Forum. There is some good info there on calculating magnification, with examples.

Since I am a new member, I am not able to start a new topic... but this is close enough and the posters obviously have the knowledge.
My question has to do with macro-photography. It is rather general, but please bear with me. My wife is a marine biologist and conducts regular photo surveys of coral reefs. So far, we have been using a Canon 20D with the Ikelite housing and DS-200 strobe. The setup was adequate for her needs which -- essentially -- required taking pics of algae or corals at a distance of approximately 1 meter.
But our needs are evolving and we now require much more detail. I just got a 5D body and have been agonizing over the choice of an adequate lens for macro photo. In a nutshell, it seems that the Canon 100mm f2.5 Macro lens is the best fit. I am not crazy about the Canon 50mm Macro/Lifesize combo because it reportedly has a tendency to hunt at certain focal lengths.
The requirements are to be able to take pictures of algae or corals with the maximum detail possible (corals identification can require getting down to the corallite level). In your opinion, is the above combo adequate? I would prefer a 60mm Macro, but it only exists in the EF-S version. The 100mm is quite bulky, but the reviews generally report that this is a very good lens.
Reading this forum, I am starting to wonder if we would not be better off with a non-macro lens equipped with a doubler....
Any comments and pearls of wisdom or experience would be welcome :-)

Frederic

with a 50/60 the subject at 1:1 will be nearly on the front port, the 105/100 macros get a little more working distance, 4 or 5 inches.

Lou,

Thank you for the feedback. A rather important point, as a matter of fact :-)... So yes, I will be looking at the Nikon 105mm micro w/VR. I saw somewhere else in this forum that the VR actually works quite well underwater.

As a footnote, let me add that we are switching to Nikon for the new gear. The D300 to be more specific. I contemplated the soon-to-come D90, but there will be no Ikelite housing for it for a while, whereas the housing for the D300 exists. The D300 has Live View and great ISO. The Live View was a must for me... I tried taking some close-ups with the Canon 20D underwater and framing anything through the viewfinder is a little too much of a challenge for me... I also prefer Nikon's lens line for macro photo. For general purpose photo, I went with Ken Rockwell's advice and got the 18-200mm VR lens. All in all, this is amazing equipment.

Cheers,

Frederic

Oh... one more thing... Does anybody manufacture a ring macro flash for underwater? That would be a wonderful gadget!

Frederic

with duel strobe placed right beside the lens port you dont need a ring flash. if you go with ikelite the i-ttl works perfectly.

I've been reeding this topic and I believe I still need some help.

I have a Nikon 60 mm macro (on a d200), do I buy a (2x or 3x) TC (or should it be an extension tube) and (4x or 6x) a diopter to get the largest ratio ?

Also TC are multiplying the f's we know that, but is it important for underwater macro photography since we all are using powerful strobes at very close distances ??

Thanks

It's from the film days, but Inon do: http://inonamerica.com/products.php?produc...=1&subcat=1

Athena do an UW ring flash too:

http://www.athena-opt.com/ringflashe.htm

Hi Kermidos,

Extension tubes are a bit out dated and cumbersome underwater. I think that you would need about 180mm of extension tube to get the same effects as the 3X T/C.

A 2X or 3X T/C will definately lose you some FStops, about F5.6 or F8, but I have seen pics from units a helluva lot bigger than the 60mm micro with 3X T/C attached in the pages of this forum, so I'm guessing that the lighting can be controlled with correct placement more so than power.

Now this diopter stuff still scares the shit outa me. I really wish that someone with the "smarts" would step in here and once and for all give a decent 'reading' as to how we select and use these "critters from space". . . . .

Now I know that the 60mm micro has a short focusing distance, and a diopter works by shortening the minimum focusing distance, and if you intend to use a diopter with the 60mm micro to shorten the already short minumum focusing point, some say that the short point will be inside the port and that will be too short. But how short is too short? I have used the 60mm micro with Nexus wet diopter before and used a slightly shorter focusing point and not the full short focusing port with good results. I know that the shorter than full short focusing point gives good results because the pics from the shorter than full short set-up are definately different in magnification than images that haven't been shortened by the wet diopter. Now, I don't have any images from the full short minimum focusing port because I didn't have anything that was short enough to fit inside the port and be photographed at the full short minimum focusing distance. Anyway, I would probably come up short using the wet diopter because I would no longer have the full short minimum focusing point because the short thing that I had placed inside the port for the full short minimum focusing distance of the 60mm micro with wet diopter to take a picture of would be behind the wet diopter and in front of the 60mm micro, so again, I'm guessing that I would come up short. . . .

It really would be nice for someone to step in and give all the readers a decent working 'paper' on the selection and use of wet/internal diopters. . . .

Bruce...

Thank you Bruce for your prompt reply,

I see that we both have the same setup (Nexus flat port, Nikon 60mm macro lens and the wet diopter).

Here comes the questions;

I will purchase the 3x Kenko TC (do you have suggestions for other brands ?), would you say, it is worth buying a 105 macro vr ( I read in an article that it has an underwater AF problem) and use with the Kenko TC (hoping that Nexus has the port extension)?

And is it worth buying the new nikon 60 mm macro.

Thank you in advance

Kerim

Hi Kerim,

Honestly mate, I know very little on this subject and that is why I continually ask people who have this 'knowledge' to step in so I can learn also.
I think that you could learn a lot from James Wiseman's thread on the Tamron 70 -200mm F2.8 macro lens.
If I were running full frame, this is the way that I would go.
I don't own the new 105mm Micro but if I had the money, I would get one "in a heartbeat." I haven't heard any valid or repeated concerns with this lens.
I have tried the wet diopters with my own 105mm Micro 'D series' lens and cannot get it to work. Focus becomes a serious issue. I have finally found one of Nikon's 3T internal close-up lenses and it works superbly. This is the way I will continue to work in the future.

Kenko is the teleconverter of choice. However, the Tamron is 'supposed' to be from the same factory...

When I started chasing super macro, I found a few Wetpixel members VERY friendly and helpful. Read the thread that you are in very carefully for your questions and then contact those members for your answers.

I have heard mixed reports about the new 'G series' 60mm Micro. I will be trying to buy it for the IF value of the thing, alone...

HTH, . . . . and please re-read my opening line.

Bruce

I am picking up some new stuff tomorrow....a 70-200VR topside lens, an SB-900 flash and 2 Kenko TCs (1.2x and 2x). I too am keen to try them on my 105VR this week in Lembeh. I may also slap a Inon wet diopter to the front of my Athena port on top of this. My question is how do you customize your focus gears to work with the added length of TCs? Do I just slap it to manual focus and move the rig forwards and back to obtain focus? I can't imagine AF would work well......would it??

I did some analysis with wet diopters during recent trip to Raja Ampat. Images and observations for magnification beyond 1:1 at:

http://stephenfrink.blogspot.com/2008/11/wet-diopter.html

This is a baby goby on 4.5:1 on film days:


This is his dad on the same setup:


These pictures are only 8 x 5.33 mm!!!
They would look like 6.75:1 on my D300 (but would still be technically 4.5:1).
I heard cases of a few guys who tried to go past 1:1 and simply didn't make it.
I use Kenko Pro300 3x TC and Kenko AF ETs. But I have to lock everything in the max magnification and hunt for the subjects.
I also have the specification for the ports on Sea&Sea system for up to 6.25:1 magnification if you want.

I just finished a series of small articles on supermacro on my home page.
If the guys at the UWPhoto Resources site wants to use it or link it, feel free to do it.
I tried to use the most updated and correct info available on equipment and the most precise technical info.

Hi all,

I ve purchased 1+, 2+, 4+ filters on top of my Nikon 60mm Macro Lens (Old Model).
You will see the results below.
Final shot was taken by adding up all three filters and woody's wet lens on the Nexus Macro port ;


1 - 60 mm macro

2- 60 mm macro + 1+

3- 60 mm macro + 2+

4- 60 mm macro + 2+ 1+

5- 60 mm macro + 4+

6- 60 mm macro + 4+ 1+

7- 60 mm macro + 4+ 2+

8- 60 mm macro + 4+ 2+ 1+

9- 60 mm macro + woody

10- 60 mm macro + 4+ 2+ 1+ woody

I hope this answers some of the questions.

Kerim Sabuncuoglu
Istanbul

Does anyone have any experience with the Nikon 28-200mm f/3.5-5.6 AF-G lens?

Others than woody wet lens, do any one here have expericene with inon or UN wet lens????? (i mean attach to the port)

Hi there,

After reading the above threats I have a question:

- If I use my canon 100 with a 1.4 teleconverter and a canon 500D close up lens, will the camera be able to focus automatically or will I need to focus manually?

Cheers

Daniel

Hi there,
I wanna to buy a 2.0x teleconvertor for my AF-S Nikkor 60mm and AF-S VR Nikkor 105mm. Nikon has got a TC-20E II/III teleconvertor (http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/lens/af/teleconverters/af-s_tc-20e_3/index.htm) but the website stated that auto-focus cannot be used for the 105mm. The 60mm is not listed in the compatible lenses listing. Does this means that the teleconvertor cannot be used for this lens? This teleconvertor is quite expensive (USD450-500) so I do not want something that cannot be auto-focus or not worked with either lens.

Is there any other compatible teleconvertor for these AF-S lenses. I know that the Kenko 2.0X teleconvertor cannot be used. Pls help to advise. Many Thanks.

Happy bubbles,
Jovin-

I use a Nikon AF-105-VR almost exclusively. It has a 6-7" working distance (Distance from the end of the lens) to get 1:1. A subsee adapter will give 2.25:1 at a workind distance of about 3", somewhat less if you back up just a bit.

Here is a Bubble Coral Shrimp at more than 1:1. It is full frame. (I am not sure of the actual magnification but it is better than 1:1.) What is nice about this shot is that it is still a shot of the critter and the environment,

Thanks Tom. Nice shot! I have a Nexus CL-100 wet mount close-up lens that works fine with the 105mm when shooting objects that do not move much but limits the distance when I'm shooting skittish fish, like goby and blenny. That's why I'm thinking of getting the teleconvertor (double the magnification w/o limiting the lens distance from the object).

To add a bit more to this thread. I've experimented a little with extension tubes and Canon macro lenses. My observations (above water) are:

The 60mm EFS lens is excellent on full frame Cameras with a 12mm extension tube added. Adding more (the 25mm extension tube for example) results in degraded image quality. This appears to be because the lens is of internal focus type and actually shifts focal length when focusing and is not optimised to throw an image significantly far from the normal image plane. So its not really usable with more than 12mm of extension.

The 100mm usm is of similar design but seems able to take greater extension - I've tried it with 37mm of extension so far and quality is still excellent. Whilst of similar internal focus design it is of longer focal length so there looks like there is more leeway in variance from the normal image plane.

So essentially, neither of these lenses will operate well if extended significantly which may be useful to know.

FWIW older lenses such as the 60mm micro-Nikkor will operate well with significant extension, but this in itself reduces their usefulness underwater as they have to be more or less fixed in a pre-determined magnification as gearing and porting them is impractical.

I ordered a 2:1 Teleconverter that does autofocus on the AF-105-VR. It should be interesting to compare my results with the Subsee +10. My logic is that you lose a couple of stops with a 2:1 teleconverter but with the Af-105-VR I am typically shooting a couple of stops above F/11.

I'll let you know.

I tried some real world testing on Saturday - the Canon 100mm usm macro combined with 1 x 25mm extension tube and 1 x 12mm extension tube giving a total extension of 37mm. I haven't sorted the RR but will do so. However, looking at the images on a 5D2 I can say that whilst there is greater magnification, the image quality at an indicated f/22 has dropped in comparison to the lens alone (to be expected but this simply confirmed it) and I suspect that interpolating a file taken at 1:1 would yield the same data. IF lenses such as this one do not produce particularly good results when placed further away from the image sensor. I also suspect that shooting the combination through a thick glass port is not helping either.

I did some testing of my new Af-105-VR, Kento 2:1 TC combination on land. One would think that the image would be degraded because the light is spread over 4 times the area by the TC. However, in macro an increase of strobe intensity (actually duration) of two stops gets the combo back to even. I think there is very little image loss due to this.

What I find most interesting is to shoot somewhat behind the minimum focus distance. Essentially I am shooting ar greater that 1:1 but less than 2:1 at an increased working distance. Focus is relatively good even in available light. Just let autofocus do its trick (very difficult to get access to the manual focus ring underwater), then rock a bit. Basically I think I will be able to take high magnification shots of skittish critters at increased working distance. In clear water my two INON Z-240 strobes give me solid lighting at 18-24"

I think I will need a focus light to get proper focus as I try minimum working distance-maximum magnification. I have not tested this yet.

Tom

I just returned from my Cayman trip (full gallery here), and while there tried the new Canon 100mm IS lens with the Kenko Pro 300 3X TC on one dive. AF was only useful in getting the focus in the general area of the subject, and then I had to use MF to fine-tune, but I didn't find that a significant impediment, since that's how I shoot macro normally (I've removed AF function from the shutter button).

While I was reasonably satisfied with the TC results, I wasn't overwhelmed. Here's an example:


I was able to get similar detail and sharpness (seems just slightly sharper) with the 100mm by itself, albeit with far more cropping:


These don't look too different (to me) in terms of detail. The difference is that the first photo represents about half of the original RAW frame, whereas the second only represents about 1/10 of the original frame. With 21 megapixels to work with (5D Mark II camera), severe cropping like that is possible, but the 3X TC (the first photo) definitely has advantages in terms of (a) preserving pixels, and (b) more working distance.

Thus, the primary advantage of this setup seems to me to be the ability to shoot macro subjects and fill more of the frame at more of a distance with less cropping. The 100mm IS by itself (like the old 100mm but with seemingly slightly faster AF) does a great job, but I can envision using the 3X TC in situations where I know I'll be photographing skittish little subjects and need to keep my distance.

My problem is, I feel, that the fine detail in the images is 'softening' and comparing a 1:1 shot with the 100 usm lens alone with one from the extended lens shows that the shot from the extended lens will take less enlargement before the loss of definition in the fine detail becomes apparent. So I don't really think that using extension tubes is actually producing any more information so I might as well crop the 1:1 image instead. For much of my photography, working distance is less of an issue and what I am trying to do is increase the actual in camera magnification whilst retaining AF. I use a Kowalski Xenon as a focus light so AF is generally not a problem even with extension tubes. Has anyone got any suggestons?

Bruce-

My understanding that the 3x really doesn't auto-focus very well but the 2x does. I find that I do need to rock a bit, however but not significently. I agree that the main benefit is more working distance for shooting skittish subjects like a Jawfish with eggs (nice shot)

Tom