Hey! You got macro in my ultra-wide lens

June 24, 2015 1:37 PM

A lot of people were intrigued when Venus announced their 15mm ultra-wide macro lens the other day (sample images and video), but ultra-wide macros are possible with any wide angle or ultra-wide lens and a thin extension tube. Clay Bolt and Paul Harcourt Davies have been doing it (very well) for quite a while. They even authored a beautiful (and inexpensive) 93 page eBook on the subject. More sites for information & inspiration? LearnMacro.com ||| Wide Angle Macro Photography Close-ups with Impact (part 1) ||| Part 2 ||| Part 3 ||| The Art of Wide Angle Macro Photography by Shawn Miller |||

(Disclaimer... I am aware that "macro" is being used in the "close focus" sense of the word. Some will pedantically state that True Macro must exceed 1:1 reproduction ratio)

posted by spock (14 comments total)

I kept thinking 'why are the photos of the lens upside down?' then I realized that they just have a weird logo.
posted by Bee'sWing at 1:48 PM on June 24, 2015

Wow, that looks amazing. The only reason I dust off my DSLR these days is to use my gorgeous, antiquated 100mm macro lens (a belt driven dinosaur, but f/2.8) and a wide-angle macro lens offers intriguing possibilities.

Can you hand-hold for any reasonable exposure times, though, or does it more or less require a mount of some sort?

(And actually, I was going to look up if it came in a Canon mount, but I'm more interested in whether there's an iPhone equivalent.)
posted by RedOrGreen at 1:52 PM on June 24, 2015

Woah, that looks fantastic. Count me among what I suspect will be a large number of people suddenly thinking of dusting off their dSLR.

On exposure time - if you've got decent sample shots of a cat, I reckon it's got to be fairly quick...
posted by ominous_paws at 2:01 PM on June 24, 2015

f/4 is not very fast, but many modern dSLRs have excellent high ISO handling, so it's not as big of an issue as it would have been in the past. Still, hand held can be tricky, especially if the lens is heavy.
posted by selfnoise at 2:07 PM on June 24, 2015

I love it when something like this comes out and I already have all the gear they recommend.
posted by nevercalm at 2:09 PM on June 24, 2015

I dust off my DSLR a couple times a week ifyouknowwhatImean
posted by Greg_Ace at 2:12 PM on June 24, 2015

Can you hand-hold for any reasonable exposure times, though, or does it more or less require a mount of some sort?

Boy I dunno. Wide angle makes hand-holding easier, but macro makes it harder. Doing 1:1 macro with this lens seems like it'd be extremely difficult, with half a cm of working distance (plus all the normal macro challenges like light and DoF). But I'd expect those sample photos could totally be done hand-held. (I'm pretty sure that spider one is actually a really big spider, and not a really macro-ey spider.)

This lens also has some shift capabilities which is just nuts - it's got a little bit of everything. Except autofocus.
posted by aubilenon at 2:31 PM on June 24, 2015

f/4 is not very fast, but many modern dSLRs have excellent high ISO handling, so it's not as big of an issue as it would have been in the past. Still, hand held can be tricky, especially if the lens is heavy.

Most macro shots need to be stopped down. Wide open at f/4, depth of field is 0.88 inches when focused 6 inches away on 35mm film.
posted by Brian Puccio at 3:00 PM on June 24, 2015 [3 favorites]

We are all thinking still photography, but don't forget the video possibilities. One thing you will probably want on your camera (for low-angle/ground use) is either an articulating LCD and Live View, or a 90 degree viewfinder attachment.
posted by spock at 3:13 PM on June 24, 2015

I've never been able to shoot satisfactory natural light macros by hand. Maybe I'm too shakey, but the point of a macro to me is to be razor sharp. I've done ok with a light box, but never natural light with just a hand-held.
posted by bonehead at 3:16 PM on June 24, 2015

Interesting links there, thanks.

I've played around a little with this in micro-4/3 land using "smart" extension tubes which carry the autofocus signals through, pretty much the same as these. They work nicely will all the lenses I've tried, bringing the minimum focal length right in close.

The DOF is sufficiently tricky at large apertures though that i'd suggest getting hold of a macro rail or similar adjustment thingummy and a cable release (or use the self-timer) too to prevent moving the damned thing just as the photo was looking good :-/.
posted by nickzoic at 3:33 AM on June 25, 2015

What is exciting about this new lens is 1:1 macro close focusing on an ultra-wide 15mm lens. With an ultra-wide, even the slimmest extender tubes will often place the focus point too close the the front of the lens, or even inside the lens - not so practical. Davies and Bolt describe the difficulties of using extension tubes in their excellent ebook. The smallest extension tube available, 12 mm, on an ultrawide 20mm Canon prime lens puts the furthest focus distance within a few millimeters of the front glass. I have tried a thin extender (10mm I think) with a Fuji 14mm for APSC and it was even worse. The Venus lens looks interesting then, but I wonder how sharp it will be.
posted by caddis at 7:06 AM on June 25, 2015

I occasionally shoot some macro-ish flower photography and have found that the easiest way to actually get sharp photos with some depth to them is illuminate. Shooting with a wide-open aperture gives you such limited focus that I find it easier to shoot closer to f9 or 12 or so. I use an off-the-camera diffused flash mounted on a mic stand with a boom as I find that easier to move around then most flash stands. Plus they're cheaper. Another trick to getting depth is to stack focus, but I've never been happy with my results doing that. Plus, I'm kind of lazy and don't really do much post and rack-focusing demands a tripod and post work.
posted by misterpatrick at 7:42 AM on June 25, 2015 [1 favorite]

I've had the best success with a ring flash, but that's expensive and produces a very flat illumination. For my purposes, that usually exactly what I want, but it doesn't give a lot of options.
posted by bonehead at 7:45 AM on June 25, 2015