18-55mm kit lens for macro?

[Terry_Smith]

I have just been trying out the 18-55mm kit lens on a D3300 and have been trying to achieve some decent macro images, but the results aren't great IMO. Here is one of the shots: (i know it isn't exactly extreme macro


55mm, f/5.6, ISO 200, 1/800

Am i right to say the the 18-55mm lens isn't great for macro and isn't too sharp? Or am i doing something wrong (probably!). I used selective focus, a tripod and self-timer.

Any comments would be greatly appreciatied, thanks!

 

[Woj2007]

Hi Terry,

Which version of the 18-55 have you got?

The latest is af-p and I would say that with 25 cm close focus ability and 0.38x reproduction ratio it's great. Plus, it's very sharp.

But then, for close-ups I stop down to f8, set ISO to 100 and use flash to make things sharper.



--
Best,
Wojtek

 

[Terry_Smith]

Hi Terry,

Which version of the 18-55 have you got?

The latest is af-p and I would say that with 25 cm close focus ability and 0.38x reproduction ratio it's great. Plus, it's very sharp.

But then, for close-ups I stop down to f8, set ISO to 100 and use flash to make things sharper.



--
Best,
Wojtek

Sorry about the late reply Woj2007!

It is the AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR II

Very nice image!

Terry

 

[nbirkett]

I have just been trying out the 18-55mm kit lens on a D3300 and have been trying to achieve some decent macro images, but the results aren't great IMO. Here is one of the shots: (i know it isn't exactly extreme macro


55mm, f/5.6, ISO 200, 1/800

Am i right to say the the 18-55mm lens isn't great for macro and isn't too sharp? Or am i doing something wrong (probably!). I used selective focus, a tripod and self-timer.

Any comments would be greatly appreciatied, thanks!

The standard definition of macro is that you have to achieve a 1:1 magnification. None of the 18-55mm lenses are able to achieve that (1:3 at best). You can do close-up work, but not macro. For that, you would need either a dedicated lens or things like extension tubes.

Macro (and close-up) work is technically demanding. The depth of field becomes very short. With your set-up (55mm, f 5.6, minimum focus distance (11"), the depth of field is only 0.18". There is no way to get an entire flower in focus. A dedicated macro lens won't improve the depth of field. Good macro images often use focus stacking methods to improve depth of field.

Achieving good lighting can also be tough. A ring light is commonly used for tight macro work.

Not wanting to be negative. But, true macro is hard.

PS. You might want to edit your original post, if you can - it is linking you to the AF-P 18-55, not the AF-S version.

--
Nick

 

[Cycletourer]

Manual focus?

Nikon specifies that this lens focuses more closely if you set the switch on the side to Manual focus.

Reproduction ratio:

1:2.8 (0.36x) in manual focus.

1:3.3 (0.3x) in autofocus.

Tried stopping down the aperture? (larger f stop number)

I'm sure you'll get better focus than this OP.

 

[nbirkett]

Manual focus?

Nikon specifies that this lens focuses more closely if you set the switch on the side to Manual focus.

Reproduction ratio:

1:2.8 (0.36x) in manual focus.

1:3.3 (0.3x) in autofocus.

I wasn't aware of this. Seems strange but I do see that Nikon does say this.

But, even at a 1:2.8, you don't have 'macro'. Much macro focusing is done by moving the camera rather than using the focus ring.

Tried stopping down the aperture? (larger f stop number)

Sure, that will increase depth of field somewhat but not that much: going to f/16 increases the depth of field from 0.18" to 0.45". And, what happens to the lighting/exposure needs?

 

[Cycletourer]

Manual focus?

Nikon specifies that this lens focuses more closely if you set the switch on the side to Manual focus.

Reproduction ratio:

1:2.8 (0.36x) in manual focus.

1:3.3 (0.3x) in autofocus.

I wasn't aware of this. Seems strange but I do see that Nikon does say this.

But, even at a 1:2.8, you don't have 'macro'. Much macro focusing is done by moving the camera rather than using the focus ring.

Tried stopping down the aperture? (larger f stop number)

Sure, that will increase depth of field somewhat but not that much: going to f/16 increases the depth of field from 0.18" to 0.45". And, what happens to the lighting/exposure needs?

--
Nick

G'day Nick,

the poster has an 18-55 vr2 and wants some tips for close up shots with it.

I'm just trying to offer a couple of suggestions to head them in direction of a more focused shot.

The demo pic appears to be outside where if they try not to make a shadow of themselves, its likely they will have enough light on the right spot to improve the pic.

At this level "close up" vs "macro" is merely semantics.

I suspect once they learn to get the best out of what they have, a spark may be ignited to get gear of the next level as funds allow.

If they were asking how to make money from micro/macro shots then perhaps the wonderful specialist knowledge you've acquired and maybe a af 200 f4 macro armed with R1C1 would be the order of the day.

I'm thinking at entry level, a few tips with what they've got and once they have an improved skill set, perhaps if funds are in short supply a Tokina 100mm f/2.8 AT-X M100 AF Pro D Macro Autofocus lens as the next step up.

What do you think?

 

[nbirkett]

G'day Nick,

the poster has an 18-55 vr2 and wants some tips for close up shots with it.

I'm just trying to offer a couple of suggestions to head them in direction of a more focused shot.

The demo pic appears to be outside where if they try not to make a shadow of themselves, its likely they will have enough light on the right spot to improve the pic.

At this level "close up" vs "macro" is merely semantics.

It's definitional rather than semantics (although, this statement might also be semantics ) Macro is about getting life-size (or bigger) image onto the sensor.

I suspect once they learn to get the best out of what they have, a spark may be ignited to get gear of the next level as funds allow.

If they were asking how to make money from micro/macro shots then perhaps the wonderful specialist knowledge you've acquired and maybe a af 200 f4 macro armed with R1C1 would be the order of the day.

I'm thinking at entry level, a few tips with what they've got and once they have an improved skill set, perhaps if funds are in short supply a Tokina 100mm f/2.8 AT-X M100 AF Pro D Macro Autofocus lens as the next step up.

What do you think?

I'm certainly no expert in this area

I agree with what you say. But, managing expectations is important. If the OP is hoping to replicate some of the superb macro shots that get posted in the macro forum, then he is likely to be disappointment with an 18-55mm lens which might lead to abandoning this field of photography. But, as you say, there is no reason that this equipment can't produce nice close-ups. I'm not trying to discourage that goal. Have fun. And, as you say, if the 'bug' bites to get even closer, than is the time to invest in new equipment.

 

[Terry_Smith]

Thanks everyone for the helpful tips and information! Macro is a little more complex than i imagined, but that's not to mean i will give up!

Thanks again and enjoy 2018!

 

[surgeon67]

You can get good true macro shots with that lens, but you will need extension tubes (a good set runs about $130.00). These go between the lens and camera and increase the magnification significantly. A rough guide IIRC is about the same amount of extension as the lens focal length at close focus gets around 1:1 magnification (at least with the lenses I've used, YMMV). So using your lens with the full stack (68mm extension) you'd get a tad over 1:1 at 55mm.

With extension tubes, a few changes occur:

1) no infinity focus

2) Loss of light for exposure (exact amount depends on amount of extension, calculated by inverse square law), but metering should be accurate if you get tubes with electrical contacts, bright sun and/or flash become necessary often

3) As others have noted, autofocus is problematic, but I've found that I get good results using the zoom ring to manually "focus" by changing focal length.

4) depth of field becomes an issue as noted. A small breeze can cause enough movement (as little as a few mm) to frustrate focusing efforts. Wind blocking can help, as can burst mode on the shutter to capture one in focus image out of several taken with the object moving in and out of focus.

5) working distance from your subject decreases with decreasing focal length. With full extension (68mm) the close focus point at the wide focal length of the lens is actually behind the front element of the lens. It's easy to spook critters getting that close.


This was taken with d3400 18-55 at around 40mm, with 68mm extension, f25 ISO100 and flash. It's SOOC, uncropped. The yellow petal towards the bottom of the image with the prominent water drop actual size is about 1.5mm for reference.

 

[bclaff]

... A rough guide IIRC is about the same amount of extension as the lens focal length at close focus gets around 1:1 magnification (at least with the lenses I've used, YMMV). So using your lens with the full stack (68mm extension) you'd get a tad over 1:1 at 55mm.

...

No need for a rough guide; the amount of additional magnification is exactly extension / (focal length)

The tricky part is that focal length at closest focus is usually lower than that at infinity.

I estimate this lens has a focal length of about 51mm (not much of a drop) at closest focus (280mm 1:3.2 which is 0.3125x)

With the full 68mm extension from a set of Kenko tubes you get well over 1:1 (1x)
You get 0.3125 + 68 / 51mm = 1.65x

I don't know how much this lens extends when it focuses but as you note the really issue is Working Distance which I suspect is no greater than 90mm, probably less.