Introduction: DIY Macro Len for $2 in 2 Mins - With Video Instruction

This is known as the cheapest, way to DIY a macro lens for less than 2 bucks, I recently bought a O2 pocket PC phone, however, this model unable to take close up image....it made me very sad. When I do a research, I found out almost 80% of the mobile phones in the market do not support macro mode.

I usually use it to capture bar codes, words from newpaper magazine, name card, products and small object....if you like this video...kindly held to vote me higher...thank you and enjoy the movie...

There are all you will need:

1) Blu Tack (very little), about $0.1 buck
2) A pair of Presbyopia glass(must use 250 to 275 degrees) get one at 1 dollar Shop
3) 1 piece of pipe ring form any DIY shop, about $0.1 buck

Instruction:
all you need to do is blu tack....just watch my video instruction



Step 1: Tools We Need


1) Blu Tack (very little), about $0.1 buck
2) A pair of Presbyopia glass(must use 250 to 275 degrees) get one at 1 dollar Shop
3) 1 piece of pipe ring form any DIY shop, about $0.1 buck

Step 2: Remove the Lens

you will need 2 lens from the glass

Step 3: Add Blu Tack

attach some blu tack on the ring (front and back)

Step 4: Add Blu Tack on Lens

add some blu tack in between the lens (left and right), don't block the center

Step 5: Attach Them on the Camera

attach them on the camera

Step 6: More Samples Pictures

here is my samples pictures

Comments

author
Ray-l-l (author)2012-08-16

The idea itself works great. I use a magnifying lens in front of a point and shoot camera to get better macros.

author
paul1407 (author)2010-06-06

fake.

author
gschoppe (author)2007-12-15

warning, rant ahead

THIS INSTRUCTABLE IS FALSE ADVERTISING, CREATED TO DRIVE VIEWERS TO THE CREATOR'S METACAFE PAGE, UNDER FALSE PRETENSES.
this is precisely why metacafe instructables should not be allowed.

I'm very sorry to inform anyone who has tried this instructable and seen less than optimal results, but the author has been less than truthful about the results of his creation... although it may give perfectly acceptable shots, it did not provide the "sample" shots shown at the end of the instruction set.

Most digital camera's add textual data to a photo they take, what is known as EXIF data. It records the type of camera, the settings used, and the lens used in most cases. In addition, most professional/semi-professional image editing suites will leave this EXIF data alone, or append to it when editing and re-saving a document.

That sounds interesting enough, but what does it have to do with the proposed insidious nature of this instructable, you may be asking. Well, most of these images have no EXIF data attached, fair enough... it simply implies that they have been edited in a less advanced program. However, In two cases the EXIF data has survived... We will now examine the EXIF data for the photo of the ear, and the photo of the Book:

EAR
Camera Make: Canon
Camera Model: Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II
Image Date: 2005:01:17 17:48:50
Flash Used: No
Focal Length: 100.0mm
CCD Width: 1.73mm
Exposure Time: 0.0040 s (1/250)
Aperture: f/22.0
ISO equiv: 100
White Balance: Manual
Metering Mode: Center Weight
Exposure: Manual
Exposure Mode: Manual

Strangely enough, this shot appears to have been taken with a professional DSLR, using a 100mm lens. the entire shot does not have the narrow depth of field normally associated with macro photography.

BOOK
Camera Make: OLYMPUS IMAGING CORP.
Camera Model: X550,D545Z,C480Z
Image Date: 2006:12:09 21:59:39
Flash Used: No
Focal Length: 6.3mm
Exposure Time: 0.100 s (1/10)
Aperture: f/2.8
ISO equiv: 100
White Balance: Auto
Metering Mode: Matrix
Exposure: Creative Program (based towards depth of field)

This time, we appear to have an Olympus D545Z (which goes by a few other names in foreign parts), which is a 4 mega-pixel DSLR from years past. Surprisingly enough, this camera recognizes a focal length of 6.3mm, which implies that a professional macro lens is attached.

neither of these cameras look, in the slightest way, similar to the one shown. I am fully confident that the other images are just as much a falsehood, given the high-quality bokeh present in the images of the flower, caterpillar, and turtle(?), which a lens this bodged together has NO hope of achieving. Also, the image of the cat I am certain I have seen before, but I cannot remember where...

if you are interested in how to easily view an image's EXIF data on the fly, check out FXIF, a Firefox extension that adds EXIF data to an image's properties page.
(i have no affiliation with the creator of this plug-in, I simply use it)

/rant

author
ll.13 (author)gschoppe2009-04-09

if you are interested in how to easily view an image's EXIF data on the fly, check out FXIF, a Firefox extension that adds EXIF data to an image's properties page.

That's really sweet, I've often wished Firefox had it built in, plug-in installed.

author
theRIAA (author)gschoppe2007-12-15

it's kind of obvious they aren't from a camera phone because of the color quality, and not from the same person (or direct images from anyone good enough to take those shots) because of the varying level of jepg quality. I just disregarded them because they looked like web pics. and the results looked okay in the movie, i mean they weren't "super macro", but good enough quality to copy a page with info on it.

author
gschoppe (author)theRIAA2007-12-15

what really irks me, is that I really can't trust the video now. what you see at the end looks an awful lot like a video clip taken on a digital camera that has a macro mode... take one clip with it off, and one clip with it on... easy peasy... and what with the existing inaccuracies I can't trust that that's not exactly what we have.

author
gvm3 (author)2009-01-16

Well, he may not know what diopters are, but the basic idea is excellent. I'm going to try it on my digital camera. See, if it doesn't work, you have only wasted a little time. Years ago, I was into photography, and this idea has merit. Don't have a cell phone camera. Gordon

author
LinuxH4x0r (author)2007-12-15

Those are pretty sharp for a cameraphone. Great instructable.

author
clarissa2k6 (author)LinuxH4x0r2008-02-21

it's because those samples were from good digital cameras. not from some camera phone.

author
robgonzo (author)2007-12-15

most reading glasses are sold by magnification power, e.g. 1X, 2.5X etc. What magnification power does 250-275 degrees translate to?

author
BobS (author)robgonzo2007-12-15

It is not 'degrees', or 'times magnification'. Reading glasses are measured in DIOPTRIES, which is calculated as 100 cm/ focal length. The advantage is: you can add diopties: 2 stacked reading glasses of +2 are equivalent to one of +4. The figure of 250 - 275 will mean +2.5 to +2.75 If you use a better lens, properly aligned, like an achromat from the front of binoculars, many image faults will disappear, you can even use it with a digicam.

author
GorillazMiko (author)2007-12-15

really cool and cheap, great instructable

author
cry_wolf (author)2007-12-15

This is what a lot of instructables users need, a macro function. This seems like a great idea and works well, but there seems to be a loss of quality as the picture is lacking the vibrant color and is a bit foggy. Is this because you did not wipe the lens enough? Should i using rubbing alcohol or something to try to get the best picture? Good job on the instructable though, very easy to follow. (:

About This Instructable

29,798views

39favorites

License:

Bio: I love DIY
More by tycoyoken:Make a FireProof GlovePerfect Solution - New Clipless Trick (Never Seen Before)Perfect Letter Holder - Double Locks
Add instructable to: