How to shoot extreme close ups

[kris limbach]

I am just looking into options of shooting extreme close ups, like italian close or even closer, and I would like to shoot with prime lenses. What would be your preferred option there? Using a diopter  or a specific macro lens? I have a set of speed panchros , but never experimented with diopters with them.. 

[Aapo Lettinen]

sometimes with specific macro but usually a 1x or 2x or 4x diopter which can be thrown on quickly so that it does not slow down the other shooting too much. If you need shots like one eye filling the whole screen or closer then a macro lens is better than trying to stack diopters to get anywhere near the same magnification.  But if it is just "normal ECU" then take a lens which focuses close and throw some diopter on it

[kris limbach]

Thanks Aapo for the suggestion, I will give both a try. I think I might have to go with a Macro, as the director wants some shots closer than ECU. I was worried to get a different rendering when having a specific lens for these shots that is different than the prime set I use.

[Daniel D. Teoli Jr.]

Don't know if you can use this, but the anal still shooters use this for focus stacking. It allows for micro adjustments with focus. 

 

StackShot Macro Rail Package

I probably need to get more anal myself, but not for focus stacking. I need a copy stand setup for camera scanning. Flatbed scanners are crap for negs and chromes. You want to use dedicated close up macro lenses or enlarging lenses on bellows. Diopters are the lowest grade to use. Lots of aberrations when you add magnifying lenses to a setup. But for movies it may not matter that much.

These are good bellows to get. Highly adaptable for still use. BUT...you need to adapt to your use. 

Good luck!

<><><><>

Daniel D. Teoli Jr. Archival Collection
Daniel D. Teoli Jr. Small Gauge Film Archive
Daniel D. Teoli Jr. Advertising Archive
Daniel D. Teoli Jr. VHS Video Archive
Daniel D. Teoli Jr. Popular Culture Archive
Daniel D. Teoli Jr. Audio Archive
Daniel D. Teoli Jr. Social Documentary Photography

Edited May 23 by Daniel D. Teoli Jr.

[Daniel J. Fox]

On 5/12/2025 at 6:21 PM, kris limbach said:

I am just looking into options of shooting extreme close ups, like italian close or even closer, and I would like to shoot with prime lenses. What would be your preferred option there? Using a diopter  or a specific macro lens? I have a set of speed panchros , but never experimented with diopters with them.. 

How close are you hoping to get? There are plenty of lenses with excellent close focusing. The attached image was shot using the Van Diemen 24mm T3 Leica R rehousing, which focuses 17cm from the sensor / film plane. They also made some specific "macro" close focusing lenses including a 50mm T1.5 that allow for some extreme close-ups.

Or if you wanted to stick with the Speed Panchros, you could use extension tubes. There is a great Duclos PL to PL version for about £300 that you should be able to use with the Panchros.

[kris limbach]

Daniel J. Fox this is right the ECU closeness I m trying to achieve! This looks very good! I will look into that lens and also into the extention tubes. I guess they would be the best solution when I like to jump between ECU and CU for example without changing the image quality much

Daniel D. Teoli Jr. Thanks for that hint and you comment on diopters, I always thought that the image "just cannot get better" when you put something like a diopter in front of it..

 

[Steve Switaj]

What camera, or more specifically, what mount are you using?

[kris limbach]

for the  early tests I would use a Blackmagic cinema camera with PL-mount and for the shoot have a Alexa 35.

[Felix Finken]

If you don’t have a macro lens or a diopter, there is also a cheap way to do it: Manually holding the lens just a little bit further away from your sensor. By doing that the close focus gets closer. 
 

You just need to watch out that no other light is falling in the sensor. Did it multiple times when i didn’t have a macro lens or diopter on set.

If you have the budget just go with a diopter…

[Daniel Klockenkemper]

I'm surprised more people have not come out of the woodwork to post their eyeball macro shots.  Here's one of mine - I think this was about 40 cm working distance with a 90mm macro, equivalent to about 140mm lens on Super 35:

 

Compared to Daniel J. Fox's example, the 'topology' of the face is less exaggerated because of the increased working distance.  "Italian" ECU shots in Leone western films were probably achieved at 250mm and 1.7 meter distance (around the close focus of the Angenieux 10-1 zoom), and the facial topology is much more flattened there - also visually striking, but different.  

There is no strictly right or wrong approach, but you should keep in mind both the storytelling and the practical considerations.  How much proximity is appropriate for that character, at that moment in the story?  Is the moment intense and psychological, or observational?  If you get extremely close, what would the exaggeration of the facial structure imply about the character being photographed? 

There are plenty of practical considerations if you put the lens extremely close to the actor, no matter if it is by diopter, macro lens, or extension tube:

• Even tiny movements by the actor become giant when magnified to cinema screen size.  It helps to give the actor something to lean their head against, or to have them put their head against a wall
• It can be an uncomfortable, unpleasant experience for some actors to have the camera apparatus, metal rods, etc. so close to their face, especially if their ability to move is limited
• You will see reflections in the eyeball.  If possible, get a larger monitor for video village to check what is in the picture, and be prepared to move equipment, crew, etc.  Do your lights blend into the scene if they appear on camera?
• If the lens is extremely close, the depth of field will become razor shallow - which eyelash do you want in focus?  (My calculator says 90mm at f/8, 40cm focus distance has 2 mm depth of field; wide open is less than 1 mm.  Your calculations may vary based on your chosen circle of confusion)
• At extremely close distances, the lens itself can literally overshadow the subject, making it a challenge to light
• You, and your focus puller, will have a much easier time if there is room to light for a deeper stop, and slightly more depth of field in general from using a longer focal length at a slightly increased distance.  There is no need to be dogmatic about the aperture at macro distances - depth of field will be shallow regardless.  If you decide on the "Italian" style and have a more typical focus distance, then your standard photographic approach can apply

[Daniel J. Fox]

8 minutes ago, Daniel Klockenkemper said:

I'm surprised more people have not come out of the woodwork to post their eyeball macro shots.  Here's one of mine - I think this was about 40 cm working distance with a 90mm macro, equivalent to about 140mm lens on Super 35:

 

Compared to Daniel J. Fox's example, the 'topology' of the face is less exaggerated because of the increased working distance.  "Italian" ECU shots in Leone western films were probably achieved at 250mm and 1.7 meter distance (around the close focus of the Angenieux 10-1 zoom), and the facial topology is much more flattened there - also visually striking, but different.  

There is no strictly right or wrong approach, but you should keep in mind both the storytelling and the practical considerations.  How much proximity is appropriate for that character, at that moment in the story?  Is the moment intense and psychological, or observational?  If you get extremely close, what would the exaggeration of the facial structure imply about the character being photographed? 

There are plenty of practical considerations if you put the lens extremely close to the actor, no matter if it is by diopter, macro lens, or extension tube:

• Even tiny movements by the actor become giant when magnified to cinema screen size.  It helps to give the actor something to lean their head against, or to have them put their head against a wall
• It can be an uncomfortable, unpleasant experience for some actors to have the camera apparatus, metal rods, etc. so close to their face, especially if their ability to move is limited
• You will see reflections in the eyeball.  If possible, get a larger monitor for video village to check what is in the picture, and be prepared to move equipment, crew, etc.  Do your lights blend into the scene if they appear on camera?
• If the lens is extremely close, the depth of field will become razor shallow - which eyelash do you want in focus?  (My calculator says 90mm at f/8, 40cm focus distance has 2 mm depth of field; wide open is less than 1 mm.  Your calculations may vary based on your chosen circle of confusion)
• At extremely close distances, the lens itself can literally overshadow the subject, making it a challenge to light
• You, and your focus puller, will have a much easier time if there is room to light for a deeper stop, and slightly more depth of field in general from using a longer focal length at a slightly increased distance.  There is no need to be dogmatic about the aperture at macro distances - depth of field will be shallow regardless.  If you decide on the "Italian" style and have a more typical focus distance, then your standard photographic approach can apply

What format did you shoot this on with the 90mm macro?

[Daniel Klockenkemper]

21 minutes ago, Daniel J. Fox said:

What format did you shoot this on with the 90mm macro?

Four thirds sensor, hence the tighter angle of view.

[Daniel J. Fox]

1 minute ago, Daniel Klockenkemper said:

Four thirds sensor, hence the tighter angle of view.

And a deeper DOF (at the same stop) than the equivalent lens would on S35 

[Daniel Klockenkemper]

Do you have a point you are trying to make?  I address depth of field at several points in my post - at macro distances, depth of field is extremely shallow regardless of sensor size.  Focal length equivalence debates are a dead horse at this point, and doing so would derail the topic considerably.

[Daniel J. Fox]

5 minutes ago, Daniel Klockenkemper said:

Do you have a point you are trying to make?  I address depth of field at several points in my post - at macro distances, depth of field is extremely shallow regardless of sensor size.  Focal length equivalence debates are a dead horse at this point, and doing so would derail the topic considerably.

Since the focal length equivalence debate is one that many people still seem to get wrong... so not sure I'd call it a dead horse... 

The point I was making is that using a lens 1.5x longer will give an even shallower DOF (at the same fstop) even when dealing with macro distances. A shot with a decent DOF will be moderately easier to achieve on MFT - compared to S35 and much easier than on FF/135.

Yes the 250mm end of the Angenieux zoom would be the way to go, but if the OP is using Speed Panchros, it's doubtful his set includes any of the telepanchros.

[kris limbach]

Thank you for this great information Daniel. Yes , very important to think about the actor being comfortable. And the Angenieux zoom approach is also good to know as a reference how Sergio Leone might have achieved his "italian" closeups. This might be easier to achieve in our case of shooting, where the person is seated in a convoluted situation and it will be hard to get that close to the person with the camera. The Cookes are the prime set, but I wouldn´t mind using another vintage lens with a similar rendering for the ECU , like a Angenieux Zoom or maybe a photo-Lens like a Super Takumar Macro , when the image rendering translates well. But this would involve more testing. Getting a Duclos Extension Tube would maybe be the best option, as I then can play with the different focal lengthes of the prime set to find the adequate size of the ECU.

[Steve Switaj]

My day job is doing camera engineering for a very large stop-motion animation studio in Oregon.

Pretty much our entire world is macro work, and we've come up with a whole fleet of really creative solutions to get our shots.

We test a lot of lenses, and, because of the very large number of stages shooting at the same time, I pay particular attention to cost effective solutions.

If you're going to do a lot of close-up work, I'd suggest you buy an inexpensive, dedicated macro lens. Macro is often tweaky and frustrating and if you can save time and aggravation on a busy set... well, that has it's own value, and a lens that just does the job without fuss can be worth it's weight in pixels.

If you have $1500 in the budget I'd suggest one of the new Laowa Sword macros. 

     https://laowacine.com/product/sword-macro-cine-full-frame-lens-series/

Laowa is one of the brands made by Venus Optics, a niche Chinese lens manufacturer that offers an eclectic collection of unusual lenses. We've worked with them a lot, and as far as I can tell the company is run by a somewhat eccentric optical designer who pretty much builds designs he thinks are cool. 

The Laowa Sword line are cine-style macro lenses in a PL mount. The 60mm and 100mm are the standouts in the line.

At about us$1500 each, they offer better than 1:1, the image is clean, sharp and color-neutral, with good evenness and very little CA, the irises are nice and round with plenty of blades, so out-of-focus highlights look good. They cover full-frame and at t2.9 they're reasonably fast (though because of DOF considerations you almost never shoot macro full-open anyway)

Mechanically, they are very good, with smooth, wander-free focus (IIRC the elements ride on rails instead of a helix), and a really pleasant, long focus throw of maybe 270 degrees.

Working distance and space to light are always an issue with macro lenses, especially for cine lenses with a big 80mm front, but the 60 and 100mm Laowas  have a nodal point pretty close to the end of the barrel when at close focus, so they offer a reasonable amount of working room (and don't forget that because of the way macro lenses work, at 1:1 both these focal lengths will approximately double)

Now, the bad news. They are not compensated, like, say, some of the Signature Primes. 

They are simple lenses, so they have all the optical issues that you find with any old school macro lens... They breathe - like a lot, and because of bellows effect,  they have a really dramatic exposure shift as you get more macro (like 2+ stops, it's an optical consequence of moving the focal plane farther from the exit pupil as you extend out to focus close), so don't plan on a lot of focus pulls from infinity, they're one-trick ponies.

Also, like most simple macros, at very high ratios they do that thing where they seem to dolly forward as you focus (because the nodal point of the lens moves forward down the barrel by a good few inches). 

So...  are they a match for $35,000 Signature Primes? Well, no. But at literally 5% of the cost, they are a shockingly good tool  if you use them for what they're good at.

[Steve Switaj]

By the way, if you're working with an EF, RF or Alpha mount, a really good, inexpensive, macro solution is one of the old 55mm Nikkor still macros on a mount adapter. 

Those old 55's (especially the newer f2.8 version) were among the sharpest lenses ever made for 35mm still cameras and it intercuts well with cine lenses from the same generation.

You can find them in excellent condition for $150. 

Buy a high-quality adapter ( I recommend Fotodiox, https://fotodioxpro.com/ ). You should keep the adapter attached to the lens and use it as a unit, and (after assembly) use a couple of small dabs of  hot glue to prevent any movement between the lens and adapter.

The focus throw isn't as good as a true cine lens, but macro work tends to be more focus-by-eye anyhow, and for a couple of hundred dollars it's a really serviceable option for the occasional macro need.

Edited May 26 by Steve Switaj

[kris limbach]

@Steve Switaj Thank you ! 

 

I was also thinking about a photo macro lens. The Nikkor is a great advice to try out, lets see. Do you think these will give better results than a extension tube on a cine prime lens, or something similar? 

I shot a lot on pentax super takumar photo lenes for a vintage but sharp look, but I never owned their 50mm Macro lens... 

 

 

[Daniel J. Fox]

26 minutes ago, kris limbach said:

@Steve Switaj Thank you ! 

 

I was also thinking about a photo macro lens. The Nikkor is a great advice to try out, lets see. Do you think these will give better results than a extension tube on a cine prime lens, or something similar? 

I shot a lot on pentax super takumar photo lenes for a vintage but sharp look, but I never owned their 50mm Macro lens... 

 

 

It depends if the type of shot you need is a macro or just a tight close-up.

As was said above, the Italian close-ups were basically just shot at the end of a telephoto zoom - if that is the type of shot you need then a 200mm to 250mm might be the simple answer. In that case you are getting a tight framing through restricted angle of view, not proximity to the subject.

If you "need" a macro, and you can mount a Nikon or similar to your camera, there should be no issue. Nearly every vintage cinema macro from the 60s to the early 90s used rehoused photography optics, Nikon, Leica, Zeiss or Canon.

[Duncan Brown]

I'll toss in a few random thoughts here.

-- A dedicated macro lens has other advantages - they are usually very flat field, have little or no CA at the edges, etc.  If you can afford it (and mount-adapted stills macro lenses are a great way to afford it) that's a really good way to go.

-- Unless you spend a lot of money on a diopter - a really really good expensive diopter -  just don't even bother with diopters.  Might as well shoot through a plastic magnifying glass as use one of the inexpensive diopter sets.

-- Air (distance) is much cheaper than a diopter, and doesn't introduce any optical elements that need to be high quality.  Extension tubes are a really quick way to move the focus point closer (at the obvious expense of the infinity end of things.)  RAF Cameras makes a series of very affordable PL-PL macro extenders.  I even got them to make the shortest one physically possible in PL, because their normal ones brought the focus range basically on top of the lenses I was using, and I needed a bit more distance between camera and subject.

[Nicolas POISSON]

An example of what can be obtained with extension tubes. This was shot on an A7s3 in full frame mode, with an old still lens (Tokina ATX 35-70 f2.8), at F/11 if I remember correctly. My face was almost touching the lens, and was lit with small led panels (Viltrox RB08). The set-up is not comfortable by any mean. You could place the camera a bit farther away if you were using S35 or m43 sensor.

[Aapo Lettinen]

yes if the ecu is meant to be pretty much the single eye and nothing else then it can be good candidate for extension tubes. stacking tons of diopters will ruin the edges though can be used for effect if it fits the story and mood.

I used to carry a 35mm ai-s nikkor with couple of extension tubes mounted to it to grab quick eye ecus for music videos. sometimes used diopters too but usually I just approximated whether I could do the shot using 2x or 4x diopter and if not then immediately switching to the 35mm + extension tubes kit.

it helps with these things if you have a camera with stills mount like Nikon F,  ef-mount, L-mount, M4/3, e-mount, etc. so that you can use physically small macro lens or extension tube mounted lens, helps a lot with the shadows and reflections.

been 15 years since I shot this scene, I think it was the 35mm+tubes combo. full frame on 5d2 in any case

[Aapo Lettinen]

yes some old 2014 music video stuff. this is the 35mm ai-s nikkor with extension tubes, I think it was on 5d3 though we mostly shot on gh4.  if you want this type of shots the tubes are the way to go. wider can usually be done with almost any macro lens just fine

 

Edited May 28 by Aapo Lettinen