I'd quite like to take a few macro shots of my baby daughter.
Not super-magnified "hair on the leg of a flea" stuff, just the usual (cliched) close up shots of ickle hands, feet etc.

What do I need to get decent results but not spend a lot?

Are "close up" filters up to the task?

What lens do you have? Will your kit lens not do the job?

The bog standard 18-55 focusses pretty close, try it out at the 55 end.

Close up filters are probably the cheapest option. Optically not the best, but allow full use of cam functions, and no loss of light.

A lens reversing ring will allow some proper close up stuff, but then you've got no aperture control/exposure info of the lens, and your delicate rear element is exposed (!). Not all dijical cams will support this method; lower-end Nikon DSLRs might not allow this.

Standard lens and extension tubes will facilitate really close up photography, although again there is the lens/cam interface issue. Loses a fair bit of light.

Close-up bellows attachments enable great control of level of magnification, but are pretty expensive and specialised. Again, the lens/cam interface problem strikes again.

Dedicated Macro lens is the most convenient solution, and will allow full control of aperture and exposure info, but cost loads. A decent s/h one can be had for £2-300 or so possibly. No loss of light.

Combinations of these various solutions can bring ridiculous levels of magnification, but proper macrography is a specialist art.

Close-up filters are probably your best bet for what you describe. Be careful with lighting; such filters are inferior to expensive lens optics, and more prone to flare/abberation. Some may produce slight unwelcome distortion; expensive ones are less prone to these issues.

HTH.

I've got a Raynox DCR 250 which i'm pretty happy with.

Oh, and bear in mind anything less than the TOTR 50mm 1.4 will produce inferior results. It's all about the bokeh…

😉

Just looked through some pics:

With the kit 18-55 on a D40, I can get close enough that I can't fit all of an ISCG mount in the frame (looking at macro pics of a damaged frame). Even tiny-tiny hands the diameter of a BB shell would fill most of the frame.

Do you need to get closer? Have you tried the lens you have?

What lens do you have? Will your kit lens not do the job?

The bog standard 18-55 focusses pretty close, try it out at the 55 end.
+1

if +1 is an option – i'e you're happy with the lens you have the, next question would be
do you have software that would allow you to crop in tight?

or, as you suggest – get a close up filter – I'd suggest geting a decent one though.. (not, technically, the best option – cheaper ones can be like bottle bottoms – but quickest and easiest..)
Have a look around here….
I've linked to at one on spec, without knowing the thread size on your lens, budget etc..
Cheaper are available..
HTH

Graham, I have some magnification filters you can borrow, should fit on the standard 18-55 lens from a Nikon…

E-mail in profile.

What do I need to get decent results but not spend a lot?

I would suggest that you're not going to get decent shots without spending a lot. Like everything you have to spend money and not sppending money will get not decent shots..Talkemada speaketh sense. 😉

Right, should probably have offered a few more details really:

Camera: Nikon D80

Available lenses:
18-70mm f3.5-4.5G kit lens (67mm thread, 0.38m closest focus)
50mm f1.8 (52mm thread, 0.45m closest focus)
70-300mm f4-5.6 G (62mm thread)

(plus a 10-20 which I guess is no good for macro)

Does that help any?

I know there are reversing rings available for the 50mm.

I think close up filters may be my best bet.
I understand the arguments about getting what you pay for, but MrsGrahamS is taking a years maternity, so right now we have other spending priorities!

hmmm. I've had pretty good results from the poor man's macro setups described above.

e.g.

Reversing rings, extension tubes, bellows. Some work better than others. Now bear in mind this is all based on a Canon setup so there may be some differences. My best results have been with a reversing ring, some extension tubes and an old 50mm f1.8 analogue lens off ebay which had a manual aperture lever. Cost me about twenty quid in total.

Focussing is done the old fashioned way, by moving nearer or further from the subject. You do near more light than normal if there's plenty of movement going on but not much and the depth of field is tiny, you need to take pictures as close to a 90 degree angle as you can. The extension tubes come in sections so you can add or remove as you see fit.

The only point I might add is that the setup I've described may produce too much macro for your liking, but you could always not get the reversing ring, or just get the reversing ring.

aah, ok. Reversing ring first then with your 50mm lens. On the canon you can stop the aperture on an AF lens to the widest DoF by connecting it up manually, setting the aperture to max, press the preview button and then removing the lens with the preview button still pressed. Not sure if Nikon offers the same thing.

The 50mm is an old prime – it still has a proper manual aperture ring on it so that's not an issue.

Do you mean "widest DoF" (ie f22) or "aperture to max" (f1.8)?

Sorry, widest DoF in both cases. the magnification applied through use of the reversing ring, also macro's the DoF, for want of a better description. the wider the better. you can actually experiment if you want by just holding the reversed lens up against the body if you're careful.

GrahamS; does your Nikon allow exposure without a lens? Is it the F-mount, or the newer G-mount? I don't know if the G-mount allows for lensless exposure.

If it does allow this, then a reversing ring is a cheap and very effective option. You can get adapters to convert the rear lens mount to accept a filter.

Provided you're at f8 or smaller aperture close up filters can work OK – best on something that's pretty clear / not working the light too hard to begin with like a 50mm prime. I got OK shots with a 50mm f1.4 Nikkor at F11.

I've got a +4 and a +10 close up filter. You need a preety big f stop to get any depth of field at all and it's not the sharpest (they are hoya and getting a bit old now). I tend to use it on the 50mm f1.8 as that's the right size thread, i used to use it with my 18-70 but that's on the wife's camera now

50mm with +4 at f10 200ISO

No idea what a G-mount is. I thought all Nikons were F-mount?

Only difference I know of is the focus motor drive thing that the cheaper nikons don't have, but the D80 has that.

I just tried taking an exposure with no lens attached and it didn't fire. Is that what you mean?

Oooh mrmichaelwright, nice pic, that looks plenty sharp enough to me!

thanks graham, plenty of PS sharpening added to make it that crisp. It was taken hand held mind

i've had sharper results with multi flash and tripod setup but not got them on line

[EDIT]

I'm talking rubbish again

From 'F onwards they had sprung apertures

No, you mean the 'AI' (Aperture Index) versions, which appeared in the '70s I think. Pre-AI lenses relied on 'stop down' rather than fully-open aperture metering. Older lenses were often converted to AI by the addition of a sleeve on the lens mount which interfaced with a lever on the camera body. The 'F' designation dates from the late '50s, when Nikon introduced it on an SLR body.

I think the G-mount is a new Nikon feature; the same fit as the F-mount, but without the mechanical aperture connection; electronic connection only. IE, only G-type lenses will work properly. Older manual lenses won't work at all, I think.

despite my talking rubbish this website still gives the information http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/nikortek.htm

G is a type of F lens not a mount as such. AF-D has an aperture ring, AF-G does not. AF-S may be either D or G – it refers to the silentwave focus motor IIRC.

EDIT – yep Rockwell it

I'm talking rubbish again

Bastard. I wrote all that out, only for you to EDIT! 😀

Oh well.

G is a type of F lens not a mount as such.

I'm talking bollocks too, it seems!

G — Designation for lenses without an aperture ring, indicated after the f-number in the name. G lenses retain the mechanical diaphragm coupling of other Nikkors, but it must be controlled by the camera body. Only autofocus bodies with command dials are capable of controlling G lenses. Older autofocus bodies will work with G lenses in shutter priority and program modes with full opened aperture.[2][3] Some recent G lenses feature a weatherproofing gasket around the mounting flange. G lenses otherwise have the same characteristics as D lenses.

Oh it's so confusing…

Good lord! A bona fide use for Ken Rockwell!
Never thought I'd see the day.

he certainly seems to polarize opinion

I find his lens reviews very useful if you take them with a pinch of salt

The filters I've got are 52mm thread so will fit on your 50mm prime. I bought them so I can take them out when walking to save lugging another lens around but you can borrow them for a while to give you an idea of what results you can get.