Extreme Macro Photography on a budget
So, you like the idea of doing macro photography, but you think you can’t afford it? Think again - with less than £1 worth of equipment, a little bit of sweat and tears (and blood, if you, like me, are a bit on the clumsy side), and you can build yourself a surprisingly good macro lens. Don’t believe me? Well, have a look at the article, and think again!
Of course, as I’m using a Pringles can to make this lens, you also have the opportunity to pause for a snack. Now that’s the type of DIY projects I like.
So you want to take pictures of things up close, do you? You have gone tired of all the regular ways of doing so? Ready for bellows and reversing rings, but can’t afford them? Have no fear, there is a far cheaper way to get a reasonably good result!
Also, Before we go any further… Need I say that you do all of this on your own risk? If you chop a finger off, ruin a lens or your camera body, it’s your own fault, and your own problem. Just be really careful, and you should be fine.
Cannibalising lens covers
This project takes base in cannibalising a few of the lens- and body covers that most of us have laying around. These are great, seeing as they are already created to connect to the camera - the easiest way to get the correct bayonet fittings to attach stuff to your camera body and lenses!
Obviously, the covers are solid, which is no good to us. So, in order to get them into an useful state, I attacked them with a Dremel tool.
Such a grind…
Carefully chopping the fronts out of a camera body cover and a lens cover takes quite a bit of time, not least because I wanted to do it as neatly as possible. When you are done, remember to matte the cut by using emory paper (sanding paper): You want to make sure it doesn’t reflect light.
Pringles box to the rescue
What you make the actual distance tube out of is relatively unimportant, as long as it is completely light-proof. I decided to use a pringles tube because I have done projects in the past with them, so I knew that they were approximately the right size. It turned out, in fact, that it was exactly the right size. Nifty.
After removing the top and decantering all the lovely crisps into a bowl (nope, I’m not affiliated with Pringles. And the jury is still out if the crisps type have any impact on the photo quality of the end product), it was time to attack the bottom of the tube…
Sparks! Oh, the pretty sparks!
Cutting out the bottom of the pringles can caused a lot of pretty sparks, so I couldn’t resist the temptation of taking a few shots. Ladies: sorry about the unwashed hair, beard stubbles, messy room, and general colour mismatching of this photo. If this turns you on, marriage proposals go on an ePostcard to the address at the bottom of the article.
So… Why the lens cover?
There was no logistical reason for why I decided to cut holes in both the body and the lens cover, other than that I thought it might come in handy later. With the final design, it turned out to not be necessary. It did, however, come in quite handy: The lens cover cap works as a flare-reducing hood, and it helps protect the electrical contacts built into the lens. In addition, it makes it easier to grab on to the lens as it is stuck in the tube.
Chalk that one up to luck rather than than planning, but cut a hole in a lens cover as well, because it makes your life easier, and it reduces the chance of putting one of your lenses out of commission. I don’t know about you, but I prefer to keep my lenses in one piece. I’m not that rich: I’m writing an “on the cheap” guide.
Sticky situation
So, once the pringles tube had a big hole in the bottom, I set out to attaching the body cover and the Pringles tube. Any strong glue should do. I suspect a hot-glue gun would probably be best, but I was out of glue sticks, so decided to use epoxy glue instead. Anything to make the two pieces stick firmly to each other. If the glue you use sets translucent, you may want to take a black felt-tip pen and colour it dark, to prevent light leaks.
Firmly attached
After the epoxy glue had set, I had to try to see if it fitted on my Canon 20D. Sure enough, it was a perfect fit.
Professionality aside, I gladly admit to doing a minor victory dance at this point.
A snug fit - banishing light
My idea was to use black felt to block out the light leaks from outside the lens.
The particular lens I decided to use for this project is the cheapest Canon standard lenses, namely the Canon 50mm f/1.8 MKII. It is just the right size, and despite being cheap as chips, it has a couple of tricks up its sleeve - more about that in a minute. Ideally, using an older lens would be a better idea - especially if it has manual aperture controls.
By wrapping black fabric (in my case, a t-shirt I didn’t really like anymore) tightly around the lens, I managed to block out all superfluous light.
Textile Hack
I’ll gladly admit that getting it right took a couple of tries, but eventually I found exactly how much fabric was needed. To hold the bundle together, I decided to tape it all together.
After this, the lens fitted snugly in the Pringles container. Not only did it not fall out, it slides quite easily, so if you need to move it, you can just push or pull it to where you need it. Once you let go, it stays put. This is actually quite important, as it’s part of the focussing strategy: You don’t focus using focus rings, but by moving the lens closer or further away from whatever you are photographing.
Finally: Taking photos!
Right, everything has come together, and now it is time to do the fun stuff: Take pictures!
Depth of field in Macro photography
You’ll probably find that, essentially, you have no depth of field at all. In macro- and microphotography, moving an item half a millimetre forward or backward from the lens changes things dramatically. Of course, you’ll learn soon enough to draw this to your advantage, but there is actually something you can do to increase your depth of field, if only a little: Stop down the lens.
Obviously, with all of Canon’s newer lenses (actually, as far as I am aware, the whole EF and EF-S series) have electronically controlled aperture. Normally, that’s great, because you can select what aperture you want with the thumb wheel or via the camera’s menu system, instead of having to do it with a wheel on the lens itself.
There is a trick you can use to stop down lenses, however. Mind you, this is probably a bad, bad thing to do, and it may break your lenses. Having said that, I have been doing this for years, and it seems to work fine, without any adverse effect.
Stopping down a lens is done by putting the lens on the camera, and setting the camera to either manual aperture (A or Av) or fully manual (M). Select the aperture you want. Then, press and hold the aperture preview button. If you don’t know where that button is, it is probably the one near the bottom of your lens, on the side. The one that you never use. Yes, that one. Press it, hold it, and then take the lens off the camera exactly like you would normally do
If you have done it right, you are now holding the lens, which should still be stopped down. It should look approximately like in the picture with the red circle.
Focussing
Focussing is a serious challenge with microphotography, and it can be bitterly frustrating: The slightest movement throws the object completely out of focus, and even finding your object again can be a nightmare.
My only advice: Try it slowly. Wave your object in front of the lens, and then try focusing it by holding it in your hand, looking through the viewfinder. Once you get the hang of it, understanding how it works, you can try and set it up in a static setup: You are going to want to use a remote release button or the camera’s self timer to reduce shutter shake, so make sure everything is sturdily set up!
Exposure
The internal light-meter is actually a good starting point - it isn’t always accurate, but it gives you an idea. The great thing with digital SLRs, of course, is that you can try and err as much as you like. And trust me, there will be a lot of that while you try and figure out macro photography.
Taking the photo
As mentioned briefly earlier, you’ll want to hold the camera perfectly still. Use the self-timer or use a remote shutter lead to make sure everything is perfectly still.
The photo below is off a simple Bic ballpoint pen (it was the first thing I had to reach).
It is by no means a great macro photo, but it does give an impression of how big things get. That is an un-cropped photo, by the way: I have the photographs below in all their 8 megapixel glory.
The reason for the glare in this photo is that the inside of the Pringles tube was still metallic. The light was bouncing around on the inside of the tube, causing it to look very fuzzy.
Ballpoint pen - Canon 50mm f/1.8 stopped down to f/16, shutter time approx. 10 seconds, ISO 100. Not cropped. (see bigger version)
Ballpoint pen - Canon 50mm f/1.8 stopped down to f/4.0, shutter time approx. 0.3 seconds, ISO 100. Slightly cropped. (see bigger version)
Further improving the system
The first change I made to my initial design was to add a layer of black paper inside the Pringles box. Ideally, black felt or another completely light-eating surface would be better, but felt costs money, and I decided to keep this project as cheap as possible.
Photos taken with the system
During my further experimentation, I decided to have a go at a pack of matches that was conveniently within an arm’s length:
Match head (see bigger version)
Burning match (see bigger version)
Burnt match (see bigger version)
Postscript
I hope this article has inspired you to build a macro lens of your own. It is a tremendous amount of fun, and in the process you are likely to learn a lot about photography and optics: Which, in turn, will improve your overall photography performance. You can’t lose!
Any comments or questions are welcomed with open arms. E-mail me on hajejan@kamps.org.
Also, I have recently decided to turn Photocritic into a proper ‘grassroots photography’ site - low-cost photography hacking and other fun projects. If you have any suggestions for the photo blog, or if you want to contribute an article or two, just get in touch, and we can see what we can do!
Have you read my Macro book?
I am rather proud of the fact that I have written a book about macro photography. It looks like that →
Hang on, did I just say a book? Sorry about that. All modesty aside, it's the book on macro photography. It's got a huge chapter on equipment, tons of info about the various styles and topics, a chapter on lighting, and even a chapter on digital darkroom stuff especially for macro photography.
Seriously, this book is 288 pages long, and it's got everything you ever wanted to know. And loads you probably didn't want to know, but that might come in useful anyway.
Get your copy of the book from Amazon.com or Amazon.co.uk today! If you prefer, you can buy a signed copy directly from me from this page.
Do you like this article? Tell the world using one of these:
[
Digg
|
Facebook
| 
del.icio.us
| 
Stumble Upon ]
reddit_url='http://www.photocritic.org/macro-photography-on-a-budget/'
Categories: Do It Yourself | Macro | PC articles
Tags: Canon | Pringles
This entry is © Haje Jan Kamps / Photocritic.org, and was posted on Saturday, December 10th, 2005. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
here
#1 - December 10th, 2005 at 20:46
I’d be interested to see a diagram added to this. I’m having trouble figuring it out just from the few photos you have. Thanks!
#2 - December 11th, 2005 at 02:30
Very nice. Try old tennis ball tins as a robust alternative to the Pringles can- Slazenger make them out of mild steel.
Another very useful tip is to look for an old microscope stage. Secondhand microscopes are sometimes avilable online, sometimes are sold off by colleges / schools. The microscope itself can be useful, but the stage is fantastic for making minute incremental adjustments to object position when focussing and composing. (The “stage” of a microscope is the little ajustable platform which the slide sits on to be viewed. It can be fine ajusted through three dimensions).
#3 - December 11th, 2005 at 04:23
Great little example here!
Can you do something with setting up your own cheap lights next please? :)
#4 - December 11th, 2005 at 12:14
Great Idea!
Maybe you could use some plumbing pipes instead of Pringle Cans to make it work in wet conditions ;)
Thanks very much!
#5 - December 11th, 2005 at 13:02
Awesome idea. I’ve always wanted to try macro but couldn’t afford the equipment. Now all I need is a little time to work on it….
#6 - December 11th, 2005 at 13:02
This is wonderful stuff. I’ve got random lenses lying all about the place and nothing much to do with them. I’ll be giving this a try with my 35mm dv camera adapter.
#7 - December 11th, 2005 at 16:05
Excellent work, but where can I find cheap lense and body covers? All I have are the two that came with my camera.
BTW, your matchhead ‘bigger version’ link is pointing to the burning match.
#8 - December 11th, 2005 at 16:36
wow, what a creative and genius idea!
It is definately worth subscribing to this blog.
#9 - December 12th, 2005 at 13:21
having studies photography deeply without NEVER using photoshop or likely tools EVER (i actually learned to retouch by hand on the negative/chrome with a tiny brush …) and having shot lots of large- format negs (yes, the good old bellows camera), there is one simple trick to figure out exposure with the help of a ruler and the mm- number of the lens:
a 50mm lens defines itself of being in focus at infinity (thats the little 8 in horizontal) when it is (well) 50mm away from the film- plane (nowadays the chip-plane; usually marked in good cameras by the white stripe painted on top of the cams …)
when you use a pringles-can (or any ohter tube; wether longer or shorter, it will only increase/decrease the makro-effect) you have to compensate for the loss of light, which is defined by 2 to the distance; which works just like the f-stops ….
so, if for example, you go with a 50mm (close to a 5.6 f-stop) to an extension of about 30cm (close to an f32) … well you do the math (5.6, 8, 11, 16, 22, 32) thats 6 stops of compensation or overexposure.
since all lenses (in large format) are defined by being focused to infinity at their focal length in contrast to the object, anything closer to it will result in having a longer way of light, thus loosing light (since light has to travel longer througt this black tube), therefor loosing brightness, therefor in need for a longer exposure ….
#10 - December 13th, 2005 at 11:25
It seems a superb idea if it works. I think it is worth trying.
However, there is a concern that it might destory sencor with nasty dusts on it.
What do you think?
I’ve just been to the camera workshop to clean my censor by technician because I had lots of small black dust dots created from changing lenses even I was very caful about them.
#11 - December 13th, 2005 at 11:33
“2 to the distance” is nonsense, you mean distance to the 2nd power. and no, light does absolutely not “lose brightness” (much less ‘loose’ it) over distance. (not in a way that matters here.) what’s at work here is something very different: imagine you shine a spotlight at a wall. as you increase the distance, you increase the illuminated area, which has a width, but also a height, and is always illuminated by the same overall amount of light; thus the brightness of any fixed size area is inversely proportional not to the distance, but to the distance to the 2nd power. however, as soon as you focus or disperese the light with a lens, half of that isn’t true any longer. for example, you could stick a lens on the end of the pringles tube that projects the entire frame perfectly onto the film/sensor. this way you wouldn’t lose any light at all. the distance of the tube doesn’t matter whatsoever. it would be pointless though, as you’d get the same picture as if you hadn’t used the tube at all to begin with. what the tube does is this: it makes only a fraction of the entire frame fall onto the film/sensor. hence the magnification, but obviously the film/sensor now only gets a fraction of the available light, and we need to let the light in for a longer time span to compensate for that.
so in the end the f-stop tip is quite nice because the math checks out. but the explanation of why this is so was bogus.
now i’d also like to lift the mystery of the paradoxical utterance “anything
closer to it will result in having a longer way of light”, but i’m completely lost there.
#12 - December 13th, 2005 at 14:40
Pretty impressive! I guess this is basically like the Canon extender tubes, just Extreme and without electronics.
I don’t regret spending the money on the 100mm f/2.8 macro though, which is my favorite lens that I own. I recommend it!
#13 - December 13th, 2005 at 15:17
Nice hack!
SON: Yes, this can produce very nasty sensor dust if you do not clean the inside of the can completely. Greasy crumbs will not come off the sensor with a blower and your camera will need professional cleaning if you do not clean the can well. A damp cloth should do the trick (on the can, NOT your sensor!), just be sure to pay special attention to the bottom corners of the can where all the crumbs collect.
nex: Yikes man, ease up! Not everyone speaks perfect English, and explaining a concept like the inverse square law can be difficult if English is your second language. Aside from that, thank you for clarifying that point for everyone.
hajejan: Your trick for setting the aperture is not a “reccomended” method (not that there really *is* one), but at worst the “ERR 99″ or “ERR 01″ it may produce on the camera can be cleared up by turning the camera off and back on.
Good luck and happpy hacking!
#14 - December 13th, 2005 at 15:22
This is a very interesting article with excellent results (Considering the budget). I’m sure it will be very helpful to enthusiastic photographers out there that can’t afford expensive lenses.
#15 - December 13th, 2005 at 17:21
Hi Haje,
very nice, good trick very nice pictures. I cannot resist not to try it myself!
LOoking forward for your next invention!
Arnaud
#16 - December 13th, 2005 at 17:43
This is fantastic! I love macro photography but cringe at the prices of macro lenses. I’ll have to try this sometime soon!
#17 - December 13th, 2005 at 17:51
Looks like a great way to find a wife ;-)
Personally, I’d have bought the 350D rather than the 20D and then I’d have enough cash left over for a Canon 100mm Macro lens too. I think the results would be so much better, but of course a real Macro lens won’t nag you like a good wife can :-(
#18 - December 13th, 2005 at 20:59
Great work. Intriguing, I am not an avid photographer and yet I still think it would be fun to try this out.
I wouldn’t worry about the mismatched colours and unshaven face, a sense of humour is good and you’ve got one. ;-)
#19 - December 13th, 2005 at 23:48
Given the price of nice old view cameras, it would appear that if the premise is to get high quality macro shots on the cheap, a good alternative would be to use a 4×5 and rack the bellows out. I’ve done some really
sharp stuff with a 1940’s Graphic View, racked to the max. Very innovative solution if you are into “miniature cameras” though
#20 - December 14th, 2005 at 00:30
Fantastic Idea !!!
I have just finished building mine.
My pictures are nowhere near as good as yours but I’m very happy with the results so far. I just need some more light as my bedrom is not very well lit.
I found it very difficult to focus in the beginning, I have an EOS 300D and first tried it with a 28-80mm lens on 28mm, it was nearly impossible to focus as the lens needed to be very close to the subject. As I moved the zoom to 80mm it got much better and I got some nice shots with it. Next, I tried it with a 75-300mm and I think I found the perfect one :-). I found the usable areas were around 75mm~150mm with 75 magnifying more and 150 less.
I will take some more shots tomorrow.
Thanks a lot for this and thank slashdot for pointing me to this !!
Well Done
Bruno
#21 - December 14th, 2005 at 01:48
Here is a very simple version of this technique, but it will only work at night!! Make sure it is very dark around you. Take your lense off the camera, turn it around backwardds, hold it up to the camera in postion - a little ackward maybe. Have an assistant illuminate your subject with a small flashlight, adjust your distance to focus, and take the pix.
Can be tricky and may not be photo-perfect shots, but can create some interesting ones none-the-less with nothing but film or battery invested.
As above, probably not a good thing for keeping a digital sensor clean. And, of course, attempt only at your own risk.
#22 - December 14th, 2005 at 16:57
dennis: When a digital sensor takes a photo, it becomes charged with electricity, which actually sucks dust towards it. So it’s actually a much bigger problem than dust simply falling on it. Taking photos as you described will seriously dirty the sensor which will, at the bare minimum, be expensive to clean, and could damage your camera. Please don’t take photos without a lens attached!
You can, however, make a reverse mount that won’t screw up your sensor, by cutting the middle out of a body cap and glueing a lens filter on backwards. Stick the body cap on the camera and the front of the lens on the filter. This also allows you to shoot in normal lighting, you don’t have to worry about light-leaks. Put black tape around the join to stop the light shining through the glue.
#23 - December 14th, 2005 at 18:41
Funny and working! Excellent idea, congrats.
But should you want the “real thing”, this is a comprenhesive list/database of what is/was available.
http://www.macrolenses.de
Cheers,
Klaus
#24 - December 15th, 2005 at 23:34
Very neat!
I build one of these and have been playing around with it with some very pleasing results. Can’t wait to try it with a lens larger than 50mm so the subject can be more than about a centimeter away from the tube >_
#25 - December 16th, 2005 at 04:45
Too Much work for somthing that Canon SD500 7.1 MP can do so well.
I have some incredible pictures I have taken. Let me know if you want to see them :)
#26 - December 16th, 2005 at 06:59
So, this is a very cheap extension tube. This is not a macro lens. Clever use of a pringles can.
Also available for cheap macro is a reversing ring that allows you to put a normal (50mm or so) lens backwards onto the front element of a telephoto (longer than 50mm or so) to get big magnification of your subject.
#27 - December 16th, 2005 at 18:05
You gotta be kidding me… Create cheap macro lens out of a pringles can, just add pringles can and (expensive) macro lens. I would try that but I’m too busy grinding up this filet mignon to make hamburger helper.
#28 - December 16th, 2005 at 18:32
another inexpensive way to do macro is to reverse mount the lens,
reversing a lens can even get much more magnification than a specialized macro lens.
a 50mm reversed gives you 1X magnification (subject is actual size on the sensor)
a 28mm reversed gives you even more magnification
to reverse mount a lens for Nikon you need a Nikon BR-2A lens reversing mount
http://www.adorama.com/NKBR2A.html?searchinfo=nikon%20br2&item_no=1
or to reverse mount one lens on another (stacking) a lens all you need is a 52mm male threaded macro coupling ring (only $8) and step down filter ring (52-77mm) (depending on the lens combination)
http://www.adorama.com/MCMCR5252.html?searchinfo=macro%20coupling&item_no=3
old manual fixed lenses work great reversed
when stacking lenses you keep the reversed lens wide open, so the faster the lens the less vignetting there will be.
I found some formulas…
the formula to calculate the equivalent close-up diopter power of a reversed lens is:
diopter power = 1000mm / focal length of reversed lens
so a 28mm lens is the same as +35 diopters
a 50mm is +20 diopters
to calculate the magnification of two stacked lenses:
magnification = focal length prime lens / focal length of reversed lens
so a 28mm lens reversed on a 200mm lens is 7.1X (image is 7 times life size on the sensor)
a 50mm reversed on a 200mm is 4X
much more magnification than a 1X macro lens.
stacking a lens is easier than using a single reversed lens because you can still use the light meter and iTTL flash and you get more working room from the subject
Watch out for Diffraction:
When using extension over 1X the effective f-stop is not what is set on the lens now to calculate the effective f-stop when using extension:
extension Magnification = mm of extension / focal length of lens
Pupillary Magnification Factor (PMF) = exit pupil dia. / entrance pupil dia
effective f-stop = marked f-stop x (magnification/PMF + 1)
so a 3X magnification of a non symmetrical lens (PMF .5) at f32 is actually f 224! and thus very fuzzy or grainy
-adrian
#29 - December 21st, 2005 at 01:41
Why not just reverse a 50mm lens? You’d bound to have one anyway if you are a serious DSLR phtographer :)
Here’s some shots of my own using the BR2A reversing ring with a f1.8 50mm lens. http://peaz.rojakpot.com/gallery/albums/11.aspx
-Ken
#30 - December 27th, 2005 at 17:39
Fantastisch idee! Dit ga ik ook toepassen denk ik…!
Lucas
#31 - January 4th, 2006 at 18:53
Ladies: sorry about the unwashed hair, beard stubbles, messy room, and general colour mismatching of this photo. If this turns you on, marriage proposals go on an ePostcard to the address at the bottom of the article.
Photocritic.org
#32 - January 16th, 2006 at 21:19
very nice! lot more nifty than the one I’ve made….i decided to cut up a tennis ball…provides about…well actually i don’t have a ruler but maybe 30-40mm. probably a touch more now that i’ve got the idea to use the body dust cap to mount it (I was having a little of an issue with how to do that) ya i definitely wouldn’t recommend the tennis ball if you have digital….way too much fuzz to worry about getting on your sensor. the 28-80 lens i’m using with it is wonderful too…more control over focusing and macro level…thanks for the help! excellent site you have here
#33 - January 31st, 2006 at 21:21
what brand (or sort) of epoxy glue did you use?
#34 - February 15th, 2006 at 20:25
Impressive, thanks for the tutorial. You saved me a ton of money just now. I’m not doing the pringles thing, but with your trick for setting the aperture, I can grab a set of (very) cheap extension tubes off Ebay. Sweet. Thanks!
#35 - February 18th, 2006 at 01:28
I have a Nikon E5400 digital camera that can get as close as 0.4 inches from an object for some rather nice macro! Of course, I’m NEVER satisfied and wanted even more.
I’ve found that using a low power objective lens from a Meade 4-inch reflecting telescope–and some optical fiber light guides I made myself–made for even CLOSER macros.
I wish I could attach some pictures of a spider mite I took in the above manner!
#36 - February 18th, 2006 at 05:23
I definatly DEFINATLY plan on doing this really really soon.
#37 - February 21st, 2006 at 01:04
OK, I missed something the first time through:
It looks like you put the lens in REVERSED, not Forward!
This makes it both an Extension Tube AND a reverser, which is different.
I originally thought that this was only an Extension tube.
Which is Correct?
(I normally use extension tubes from kenko, but want MORE!)
PS: I have the body-cap epoxied to the pringles tube, and sprayed the inside with matte-black paint, and am about to mount the lens tonight. I’ll post again with results.
#38 - February 22nd, 2006 at 05:41
to solve your aperture problem, why not just get some old manual lenses off of ebay (mount is irrelevant since it’s backwards in a pringles tube)
old lenses have the aperture control right on the lens (conveniently near the mount, especially useful in this application) you could probably adjust the aperure on the fly without even diassempling the setup
an old canon fd mount or even a nikon or minolta would work in your tube, and have the benefit of costing next to nothing (so if you wreck it, who cares)
#39 - March 24th, 2006 at 17:21
Hmmm, I actually read all the replies, I’m impressed, thats a first for me, so if anyone gets this far then I’m gonna have to say something really important…. I was going to use a rubber tube/pipe to do something roughly the same as this, but the tube would be for (very cheap and nasty) tilt and shifting also! I now have the macro idea so what about light! I am going to build my own LED macro focused light (as opposed to spending ridiculous money on macro flashes!)… Dont really know how yet but I have some LEDs ordered, there is plenty of sites to help you see how its done.. Cheers, I enjoyed reading the replies, its amazing how serious some people get about photography!!
J
#40 - April 3rd, 2006 at 15:08
It’s nice to see other people experimenting with low cost macro setups.
Reversing a lens and an extension tube is certainly a good option for SLR. I just ordered a reversing ring and a set of extension tubes off eBay to use on my first DSLR I just purchased.
For a “point ‘n shoot” camera I use a secondary magnifying lens in front of my regular lens. Rip the optics out of a standard film camera and hold it in front of your digital camera, you get extreme close-ups and the optics are not too bad. However, there is very little DOF since most compact digital cameras don’t offer very small apertures.
If you want to get closer, still shoot into a microscope. I’ve done over a 1000 photos using that technique. The optics are excellent. However, such a setup is not very portable and requires a camera with a small lens.
If you want check out some of the resulting photos: http://www.camerondonaldson.com
#41 - April 6th, 2006 at 06:41
Check out Lester Lefkowitz’s book “Manual of Close Up Photography” .
#42 - April 12th, 2006 at 23:01
Okay, so I finally did it. Found the guts and time to start with all this DIY stuff. And found it quite interesting!!!
Well, after two or three hours experimenting with the full-pringles ultra macro, I’ve decided to drop it… it’s too much macro!!! Talking serious, things are quite difficult to focus and light is just a hell of an issue.
So guess what. I cut the pringles tube in two, and found it just PERFECT for all the heavy macro lovers. Light is easier, focus is loads easier too and things get just_that_big. I am hoping to take some insect pictures the following days, so I’ll get back here with results soon.
This site just rocks, dude. Congrats!!!!!!!!!!
#43 - April 20th, 2006 at 10:02
hello
hey that a cool trick in fact home made lense arent any bad as we think, as long you have digital camera i guess. Well my colleagues are testing such development and even tried to develop home made lense…for sale !!!
many thanks for the tips
bye good luck
#44 - April 23rd, 2006 at 19:04
AWESOME! VERY IMPRESSIVE!
#45 - May 8th, 2006 at 11:38
Very cool technique. I’ve seen other hacky reversing methods, but this one seems quite cool. I have an old 50mm SMC Pentax lens that I’m dying to try this with.
#46 - June 8th, 2006 at 16:14
[…] If your photo budget is a bit minimal or you just like making stuff, check out Macro Photography On A Budget. Some of the shots produced with this ‘DIY’ solution are really quite good. The main body of the Photocritic site is also very interesting and definitely worth a look. […]
#47 - June 9th, 2006 at 05:07
Why would you do this? I went and bought the Canon EF 180mm F3.5L for a little under $2,000. Works great!
#48 - June 13th, 2006 at 12:21
Nice hack, but technicially, anything over 10:1 magnification is MICRO, not MACRO photography.
FWIW, the stacking of a lens in front of a telephoto works better, you get to use electronic aperature control, so the viewfinder isn’t so dark, and the metering tends to work better. You can also change the size of the subject in the frame by zooming the primary lens.
#49 - June 19th, 2006 at 22:57
[…] Also - home made macro tube. Made from a pringles tube, using a 50mm f1.8 - the cheapest lens available for a Canon EOS. But the dude has a 20D - NOT the cheapest Canon EOS digital SLR. Oddness, slightly silly, but almost tempting to try… […]
#50 - June 20th, 2006 at 11:22
I like your daring and cunning way.
I have the things requiered lying around. maybe i should go for a try in the workshop.
But how do you figure out how long the slazenger or pringles tube should be?
#51 - June 21st, 2006 at 04:11
Hi
Thanks for publishing this - I love it! Just bought a cheap digital camera with a broken lens (Kodak DC290) which I will attempt to remove and then jerry-rig an SLR lens in its place to do time lapse macro photography. Will submit to Hackaday.com or here if I’m successful.
I have a question/challenge though. Can something similar be done to make an extreme telephoto lens? I’ve always wanted to take photos of the moon/sunset/mountains/birds etc that would require a very powerful telephoto lens. I don’t understand the theory of lenses enough to figure it out but can you use existing lenses in a way that the zoom power increases?
I know you can buy teleconverters that stick in front of existing lenses.
I also know you can use converters on telescopes to do astophotography but I have no telescope.
I am also aware of the magification effect of using the same lens with a smaller sized sensor - see this link for explanation:
(http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/Optical/Focal_Length_Multiplier_01.htm)
I expect to see this effect with my cannibalised digital camera. The camera has a sensor that is much smaller than 35mm film (approximately a quarter of the size) so if I stuck a 300mm lens onto it I’d have a telephoto image on the sensor equivalent to a 35mm sensor with a 1200mm lens. Might have to try it out!
What is the normal distance between the inner end of a 35mm SLR lens and the sensor/film?
Thanks
Benjamin
#52 - July 2nd, 2006 at 17:33
[…] I found some really cool macro pics while surfing this morning. This guy is really getting some close ups… with a pringles can! So, I decided to post a macro. I took this right after I got my first flash extension cord. I set the flash at -3EV and held it on the other side of the leaf. I should really try this again now that I have a sb600 […]
#53 - July 11th, 2006 at 21:08
Great idea!! I have always liked macro photography, it just seems more interesting. I have never done any of my own (am a cowardly wimp) but with your fab invention I will soon be off on macro adventures, hooray :o) Alas, no marrige proposal from me but you have a great sense of humour, its probably the first “how-to” directions I have read and enjoyed. I also have an excuse to buy Pringles now, which is always a bonus!
#54 - July 15th, 2006 at 07:41
nice!! i will definitely try this, especially macro shot lenses are really expensive. but still are using fabrics like that really gonna prevent the light leak? (cuz there might be some minor light leaks that hard to notice. remember, things like this could make a fatal mistake) maybe u can come up with another alternative? also the pringles can might cause these problem too, right? another thing, it maybe helps a lot more if u come up with a diagram.
#55 - July 21st, 2006 at 20:24
Just to clarify what you’re seeing in the assembly pictures…
The pictures are showing a body cap and a lens cap being modifed for the project.
The front of the body cap (the part that covers the camera body opening) is being shaved off with a Dremmel tool to make a hole. The body cap then is being glued onto the bottom of the Pringles can with the edges around the hole glued to the can and the mount (unmodified back side) facing out.
This allows the body cap with attached Pringles can to be mounted onto the camera. The holes in the body cap and can bottom allow the image to enter the camera body from the can and strike the sensor/film. The body cap is seen leaning up against the lens in the left side of the picture “So… Why the Lens Cover?”. It’s also seen glued onto the bottom of the can in the next picture “Sticky Situation” (you can see the flanges on the mount).
The lens cap is also having it’s front shaved off with a Dremmel tool to make a hole in the front. This is then attached to the lens so you have something to grab onto when the cloth wrapped lens is shoved all the way into the tube. The modified lens cap with the hole in the front is serving as a flare protector and a grip that lets you move the lens in and out of the can slightly to fine tune the focus. You can see the lens cap pre- and post-modification in the pictures “Cannibalising Lens Covers” and “Such a grind…”. You can see the modified lens cover attached to the lens in the pictures “So… Why the lens cover?” and “Textile Hack”.
Hope that clarifies things for some.
Great project. My application is motion picture film so I’m eager to see if I can rig up something similar for my Super-16mm camera.
Thanks,
Zebra
#56 - August 1st, 2006 at 15:02
Great idea! Just had to try that one for myself. Bought an old lens (Konica 50mm f/1.8) at the local market and got on with it. Still refining the project but so far it works a treat! Check my blog for test-images and info…DIY is good! Cheap DIY is very good!
#57 - August 12th, 2006 at 07:22
[…] You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your ownsite. […]
#58 - August 21st, 2006 at 12:21
So, you like the idea of doing macro photography, but you think you can’t afford it? Think again - with less than £1 worth of equipment, a little bit of sweat and tears (and blood, if you, like me, are a bit on the clumsy side), and you can build yourself a surprisingly good macro lens. Don’t believe me? Well, have a look at the article, and think again!
Of course, as I’m using a Pringles can to make this lens, you also have the opportunity to pause for a snack. Now that’s the type of DIY projects I like
#59 - November 14th, 2006 at 17:18
Interessando, luogo abbastanza luminoso, penso +5
#60 - December 8th, 2006 at 00:25
I am so turned on.
…maybe a little. But man, that’s awesome.
#61 - December 15th, 2006 at 06:49
This is absoutly friggin incredible. I followed these directions and made a macro lens with an old 1.8 50mm fixed from a old canon film camera. The images are amazing!!! The only thing is that the lens is stuck on a mid-range aperature; f-11 say, and I can’t get it to open up. Any ideas??
#62 - December 31st, 2006 at 07:37
This is a great idea, and really quite simple. Reading the comments, the lens reversing ideas are completely new to me. Great tips… even in the comments!
#63 - January 2nd, 2007 at 03:47
[…] Being featured on Photocritic is something that I’m rather proud of. I’ve been reading the site for just over a year, ever since he posted the DIY Pringles can macro lens. It was one of the first photography blogs I began to read on a regular basis. […]
#64 - February 4th, 2007 at 18:29
[…] Originally Syndicated via RSS from del.icio.us/tag/diy go2WinterSportsResorts + More […]
#65 - February 20th, 2007 at 22:30
I gave a try to your macro lens technique. Thanks a lot for sharing. It worked just great for me. In less than 2 hours and for a couple of bucks I had a very powerfull macro lens up and running. Check my photos out here:
http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=macropringles&w=96544444%40N00
#66 - February 21st, 2007 at 19:34
have you tried this with varying length of tubes?
I’m pretty sure I understand the theory. Is it correct that with decreasing tube length you’ll get less magnification and also increased DOF when using the same lens at the same Fstop.
Is this correct? I’m planning on getting a different pringles can and cutting it maybe half length.
Great project.
#67 - April 2nd, 2007 at 07:34
[…] on my objects, I am nevertheless interested in finding out more about this. Yes, I know about the Pringles can method, but I’d rather not have a macro lens at the expense of losing a few […]
#68 - April 12th, 2007 at 09:54
Ohh…it’s so creative job!!!
cheat, cheap and so simple…
I like your creativity………!!!
thanks 4 the knowledge….I think, i must try too!!!
#69 - April 18th, 2007 at 19:46
We just launched http://www.midatlphoto.com and would like to either put your information on our site or link you site to ours.
If you would be interested please email or give us a call.
Best Regards,
#70 - April 22nd, 2007 at 16:01
[…] Making your own macro lens for a practically nothing! […]
#71 - April 25th, 2007 at 13:44
I had a similar softness and glare when I tried a closeup +4 on my sigma 70-300mm and gave up in the end :-(
#72 - April 26th, 2007 at 20:10
[…] Photocritic » Extreme Macro Photography on a budgetIt’s got a huge chapter on equipment, tons of info about the various styles and topics, a chapter on lighting, and even a chapter on digital darkroom stuff especially for macro photography. […]
#73 - May 7th, 2007 at 20:52
[…] please make a detailed tutorial on how to make that. that is freaking amazingly cool. I used this guys. He is pretty cool, he answered some questions that i had pretty quick which is amazing for some […]
#74 - May 13th, 2007 at 16:05
Back in the good old days of photography (real film, screw mount lenses, etc), I made several macro lenses using various lengths of 2″ (50mm) PVC water pipe. Just like you, I would use the body cap epoxied to one end of the pipe, so as to mount it on the camera, and painted the inside of the tube with flat-black paint… I liked using an enlarger lens on the lens side of the tube, as it tended to have more of a flat-field effect than did a normal camera lens. ….. However, I experimented with all kinds of glass on the lens-side of this macro tube, from old folding cameras, etc. ….. I even made a macro lens by stretching a sheet of aluminum foil over the end of the tube and poking a tiny pin hole. Not as sharp as a glass lens, but surprizingly, it was a lot sharper than I thought it would be! (Plus, you have a tremendous depth-of-field with the pin hole…) Great project! I love to experiement.
#75 - May 25th, 2007 at 14:24
This is an absolutely brilliant idea, I off out to get some tubes and glue right now. I was thinking about hacking together my old broken pentax zoom… but this has given me a better idea. Great Stuff, Cheers !
#76 - June 1st, 2007 at 23:09
Great idea and advice. Going to give it a try any advice for table top lighting on a budget? Great blog I’ve bookmarked.
#77 - June 19th, 2007 at 09:01
Helpful advice I have been scanning things up until now with terrible results as our camera has no macro facility but this sound like a good idea. Thanks.
#78 - June 19th, 2007 at 09:50
[…] Extension tubes; tubes which extend the distance between the lens and the film or camera sensor. This is actually a pretty good option, and if you’re interested in doing it on the cheap, then check out this link on photocritic.org. […]
#79 - June 27th, 2007 at 01:11
Dude,
You’re f***ing brilliant. I’ve never seen anyone else even attempt that stopping down trick–thanks for sharing it!
#80 - July 24th, 2007 at 18:49
[…] technique, which can be found in full detail here, uses one lens mounted backwards in a Pringles can. The can prevents light from entering the lens […]
#81 - August 21st, 2007 at 15:25
I take macro jewelry photography, so I appreciate this article and will experiment. My main problem has always been the loss of light between the lenses and the subject. I take sometimes tiny gems for my website. If anybody would care to look at my pictures and give me any additional insights, I would hugely appreciate it. I am going forward with an advertisement campaign in early September, and need all the comments I can get regarding the quality of the pictures. I can be contacted through the site with comments. http://www.gemsnjewelry.com. Thank you.
#82 - September 5th, 2007 at 22:12
Really amazing, its the most creative and usfull that I found in internet in many time. Really it’s impossible resist to try. I start with a pringles tonight, jejeje. I show you the result in some days.
Thank!
#83 - September 25th, 2007 at 07:41
[…] For information have a look at these links: Pentax K100D - link Kenko Close Up Filters - no link Pentax SLR Lenses - link Raynox DCR 250 - link Macro Photography - link Homebuilt Macro Extension Tube In a Pringles Can - link […]
#84 - November 9th, 2007 at 01:13
I was looking for some basic pointer in macro photography and I genuinely found some of the above information useful … if anything I realised where I was going wrong with the blurred edges on some of close up shots. But Thanks.
#85 - November 17th, 2007 at 16:50
Thanks your tips just rock!
You are a genius!!! You make me save al ot of money!!!
#86 - November 20th, 2007 at 07:18
[…] Extreme Macro Photography on a budget […]
#87 - November 23rd, 2007 at 15:30
[…] on my objects, I am nevertheless interested in finding out more about this. Yes, I know about the Pringles can method, but I’d rather not have a macro lens at the expense of losing a few […]
#88 - December 24th, 2007 at 23:19
Unfortunately, i don’t have a dslr (i wish i did) but i made my own macro lens based on your directions for my Kodak EasyShare DX6490. I used an old Promaster SLR lens of my moms (70~210mm). The telescopic zoom permits different levels of zoom. I adapted the lens to fit my camera by using a paper cup and a paper towel roll, and then covering it with electrical tape. it just slides on the existing lens on the Kodak. It works wonderfully. Thank you!
#89 - March 20th, 2008 at 08:19
Good article. Thank you for sharing.
#90 - March 26th, 2008 at 15:02
[…] Now usually if you wanted to get a macro lens you’d have to go down to your local camera store or give Nikon or Canon a call. However, thanks to the people at photocritic.org, you can use some ingenuity and a pingles can and have yours… […]
#91 - April 7th, 2008 at 19:39
[…] reasons for having a SLR camera. And if you haven’t got a Macro lens - well, why not just make your own out of a Pringles tube? Have you read my Macro […]
#92 - April 21st, 2008 at 09:02
[…] a Pringles can to save on buying the PVC pipe, with decent success!) Check out the following link (PVC Macro Tube) which has a step-by-step guide for showing you how to make one […]
#93 - May 27th, 2008 at 10:51
Thank you so very much for the article. I have now been messing around with this for a few weeks and annoying the aphids, flies, slugs and spiders in my backgarden. I love extreme macro photography and am learning to see hundreds of tiny animals where before I only saw plants.
#94 - June 4th, 2008 at 04:21
I’ve noticed a lot of people commenting on lighting conditions. You may want to consider building a little set. I came across this picture with the explanation. Hope y’all find it usefull!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jeffclow/318985211/