Related Links:
Budget Macro (1/2004)
Diopter Lenses
DOF in Macro.. [11/2000]
Extension Tubes and Effective F-stops (pdf) [11/2002]
John Shaw on Butterfly photography [10/2000]
Macro Extension Calculator(Quick Disc) [9/2002]
Macro Lens Database (Klaus Schmitt) [2/2004]
Macro Lens Magnification Table (nikon, PDF) [5/2001]
Macro Theory posting [3/2002]
Macrophotography with a Flatbed Scanner (links etc.) [8/2000]
Mayfly Up Close! (nikkor 55mm micro reversed - Thanks to Bob Scott)
Petersen's Photogr. Closeup Article [8/2002]
Quick-Disc Simplies Exposure Compensation [9/2002]

Introduction

So my focus here has been a bit different than the usual macrophotography page on the Web. I have tried to highlight some of the advantages and disadvantages and costs of each option. Where possible, I have suggested some ways out of the quandry of high cost and low availability of many macrophotography options in medium format photography. Much of these ideas are borrowed from 35mm photography, where these options are cheaper and more available.

Magnification Ranges

People often debate the merits of extension tubes or bellows versus diopter lenses and true macrolenses. The above table highlights the reality that different techniques are required to reach different magnification factors. At magnifications up to 1:1, you can often find simple and rugged lenses or devices such as extension tubes that let you do such closeup photographs. For documents and other flat subjects, macrolenses provide optimized performance.

Conversely, two element achromatic lenses may offer a quick and easy to use way to bridge the gap between close focusing limits on your regular lenses and 1:1 macrolenses. High quality (2 element) achromatic lenses can also let you reach surprisingly high levels of magnification and central resolution (but with high edge dropoff in resolution). This technique is particularly suited to many natural subjects such as flowers where the edge elements are less critical and highest possible central resolution is desired.

Macrophotography beyond 1:1 requires specialty techniques and attention to factors such as vibration and depth of field issues. TTL flash automation can help substantially, and is recommended.

While bellows lenses may be expensive, other lens alternatives such as remounted 16mm and 8mm movie camera glass lenses are discussed below. Similarly, a low cost male to male filter thread coupling ring can let you mount two fixed lenses already in your camera bag to achieve high magnification factors. For example, a 52mm to 52mm male to male filter thread coupling ring can let you achieve 4X using a 50mm normal lens reverse mounted in front of a 200mm telephoto. We will try to highlight similar tricks in our discussion below.

Diopter Lenses

One of the biggest advantages of diopter lenses is that they don't change your exposure. With bellows and extension tubes, your exposure will change depending on your setup and magnification ratios (see table below). If your camera has built-in metering and OTF flash exposure, this isn't a problem. But many medium format and older 35mm SLR cameras offer neither facility.

Many folks unfairly downgrade diopter lenses for reducing optical quality. I recently read one of the HP Books on photographing flowers, gardens and landscapes, in which the author confessed he had used diopter closeup lenses for roughly 90% of his flower photographs. Since he had 150,000+ photos, and had sold thousands of these images as stock photos, his endorsement of diopter lenses shouldn't be discounted lightly.

The lower power lenses tend to produce the least optical quality losses. Used stopped down, I have found these lenses do an acceptable job too. They are lightweight, low cost, and easy to pack in your camera bag. You can stack lenses for higher magnification, but single lenses work best. I prefer the +3 diopter lens, rather than the usual kit (+1, +2, +3), since I rarely use the less powerful elements. I have a series VIII set, so I can use them on my medium format lenses or 35mm setups with the right adapter.

Multielement diopter lenses can be quite expensive (over $100 to $150 for some lenses. See Greg Erker's Multi-element Closeup lenses for details. Even a smaller 52mm Nikon closeup can cost $30 for a multi-element achromatic lens. The multiple elements do enable the optical designer to correct some optical defects that compromise the performance of even the best single element diopter lenses.

See Diopter Lenses page for more information, charts for diopter lens use, and some extensive pages of information on diopter lenses.

Lens Reversing Rings

The first and most obvious difficulty is how can you use auto-diaphragm operation with the lens mounted backwards. Generally, you can't. So you will need to stop down or close the lens manually to the desired aperture before shooting. Wide open apertures are usually used to focus, due to the brighter image. You also have to be very careful NOT to scratch the rear of the lens optical elements.

Finally, finding a reverse lens mount adapter can be difficult on some brands. Most of the major SLR brands had a reverse lens mount adapter accessory. The lens usually just screws in to one side of the adapter, while the other side looks and mounts like a regular lens. The filter thread is usually chosen to match the standard or normal lens filter threads. If you use another lens with a different filter thread size, you will also obviously need an adapter ring to mount it.

One simple approach to building a reverse lens adapter is to find a body cap. Remove the glass from a junk filter that fits your lens (brass or metal preferred). Now center and epoxy the filter thread onto the body cap. Use a dremel drill to remove the plastic or metal of the body cap. You have just created a lens reversing ring for your camera! Simply screw in your lens into the filter ring, and you are in business.

Male to Male Adapter

This technique works best with good quality prime lenses, but rather more poorly with most zooms. A typical 200mm:50mm setup will provide larger than lifesize images on film. This approach is much more economical than a bellows and bellows lens combination to reach the same range (2x to 5x) of on-film enlargement using various combinations of prime lenses.

You can obviously use multi-format couplings with the right lens adapter rings. For example, you could put a 35mm lens as the closeup element mounted in reverse on a medium format prime lens, using a male to male lens thread coupling ring and adapters.

Given the high cost of many medium format macro lenses and bellows setups, this $10-15 US adapter ring is a low cost alternative. It is also small and lightweight, and fits compactly into your camera bag for fieldwork.

The main disadvantage is that lens automation is lost on the reversed lens. There is also the risk that the rear lens element of your 35mm or medium format lens mounted in reverse could be damaged. You also have only one ratio of enlargement per lens setup, unlike variable ratio bellows or zoom extension tubes. Finally, the male to male adapter rings are not recommended for really heavy lenses such as long telephotos as the reversed lens, due to the weight.

From Popular Photography, March 1995, p. 27:

front lens reversed    lens on camera   magnif
50mm                    70mm            1.4x
50                      210mm           4.2x
28 (wide open)          70mm            2.5x
28 (")                  210mm           7.5x  (zoom at f/16 setting)

Note that some configurations may vignette, and a male to male coupling ring is required. A fast lens (f/1.4 to f/2) is better for viewing, a slower lens may have better corrections...

Bellows and Bellows Lenses

The dual rail setup makes it much easier to adjust the position of the bellows without moving the camera (unlike many single rail macro-setups). With a dual rail, you can adjust the distance to the subject with one adjustment, and the enlargement extension without moving the camera on its tripod by using the other control.

Some bellows units provide a dual plunger cable release for first closing the lens aperture and then making the exposure (in one mode). Other bellows couple automation through a moving rod to the front mounted lens on the bellows from the camera body.

Bellows are usually found indoors, and are rarely used for serious outdoors macrophotography. They are bulky, often costly, and hard to setup in the field.

Bellows have the advantage of providing the highest degree of magnification, typically up to ten times lifesize (10X!), through the use of special bellows lenses. These lenses are often quite expensive in their own right, and can only be used in a bellows mount configuration. Most of these macro-lenses look like microscope objectives.

In fact, you can often convert some of your microscope screw-mounted objectives into pretty decent macrolenses, especially the wide-field variety. An even cheaper but less optically refined macrolens may be lying in your junk box, if you have an old 8mm or 16mm camera.

These older 8 or 16mm movie cameras used glass lenses of good quality which can be recycled for use as bellows lenses. Many of these lenses can be bought for only a few dollars, as there is very little demand. The fixed lenses are usually optically superior to the zoom lenses. These movie-macro lenses can be centered and mounted in a body cap which matches your bellows lens mount. Mounting the lenses in reverse can also provide additional magnification. Due to the bellows extension, these lenses can easily cover 35mm, 6x6, and even 4x5 plates with enough extension (e.g., 10X bellows lens on 4x5).

The biggest advantage of bellows and extension tubes is that they are non-optical extensions. With a closeup lens or teleconverter, you are introducing additional optical elements which may degrade your prime optics performance. But defects in your lenses will be magnified by bellows and extension tubes too. For this reason, use of flat field and macro lenses is often recommended. Macro lenses are specially formulated for macro work.

Surprisingly, enlarger lenses are often pressed into service for macro-work. They are also formulated for flat field work, in enlarging a flat negative image. They can be used in a reverse mount as a flat-field lens on many bellows and extension tube macro-setups.

A final point about bellows concerns the tilt/shift bellows that are found in medium format cameras such as the Rolleiflex SL66, Kowa 66, and Bronica 6x6 cameras. These tilt/shift bellows enable the photographer to place the plane of focus where he or she needs it to maximize the overall sharpness of the photograph. A few tilt/shift bellows options are also available in 35mm (e.g., Spiratone Macrobel II).

Hasselblad has provided another approach with its Zeiss PC-Mutar 1.4X shift converter. You get shifts (varying from 8 to 16mm horizontally or vertically) for controlling certain problems (e.g., converging verticals).  The 1.4X teleconverter is presumably needed to provide space for the shifting lens mechanics, but ends up converting the 40mm lens to roughly a 60mm shift lens.  Several unique specialty Hasselblad cameras, the Flexbody and Arcbody, were developed to meet various specialty needs for view camera style perspective controls in the 6x6cm format for Hasselblad users. As Q.G. de Bakker points out (see posting), there are issues with coverage using the existing Hasselblad lenses with the Flexbody, and the new Rodenstock lenses for the Arcbody.

While the Bronica 6x6 lens lineup doesn't have any specific macrolens, the availability of their tilt/shift bellows turns their regular lenses into macrophotography lenses. The Rollei SL66 and related model cameras are optimized for macrophotography in medium format, with a built-in bellows, a limited tilt capability, and even a built-in lens reversing mount on their lenses. If you really want to get into medium format macrophotography, it can pay major dividends to carefully select your medium format camera for these features!

Extension Tubes

A typical extension tube might be the M-series tube which is used to extend the 55mm micronikkor macrolens an additional inch or so from the camera's focal plane. The tube fits behind the lens, providing enough extra extension so the macrolens can go from 1/2 lifesize to lifesize images on film using the extension tube. Similarly, Kowa 6/66 uses a series of three tubes (T1, T2, and T3) which provide different lengths (16mm, 32mm, 75mm respectively) and magnifications from one-third lifesize to 1 2/3rds lifesize on film.

Some extension tubes are no more than tubes which match your lens mount. These non-automatic extension tubes are the cheapest kind. Others have additional elements which preserve the automation of your camera's auto-diaphragm operation. Couplings in the auto-extension tubes link the camera body to the camera lens to preserve auto-diaphragm operation. In more modern electronic cameras, the right extension tubes will also link electronic signals to and from your lens.

An unusual variant of the fixed extension tube is a ''zoom'' extension tube. A zoom-tube has a helical or slipping focus mount that can be turned or shifted to extend the width of the extension tube. This approach gives you an adjustable range of extension tube widths, and a corresponding range of magnifications. Unlike bellows, the zoom-tube is more rugged in field use. Unfortunately, the range of zooming is usually relatively limited compared to most bellows.

While variable extension tubes aren't common in medium format photography, you can possibly fabricate one. Cameras with simple non-auto extension tubes like the Bronica are easiest to homebrew. Select two metal or PVC tubes which slide inside each other (barely). Add a sleeve of rubber or other material to enable them to slide smoothly in and out. Paint the inside of the tubes flat black to absorb reflections. Mount an extension tube on one end to mount your zoom-tube on the camera body. Mount the desired lens on the other tube's far end. You can make any number of end-tubes, with different lenses or mounting setups on each one. In fact, the same setup can be used to mount odd-ball lenses on your focal plane medium format camera. See homebrew lenses page for more ideas and photos.

Macrolenses

Some expensive medium format camera systems have only one macrolens (e.g., Kowa 66 110mm f/5.6 macrolens, Rolleiflex 120mm f/5.6). Other formats have a variety of normal macrolenses available, such as the micronikkor 55mm f/3.5 and f/2.8 variants. You can generally also buy macrolenses for 35mm cameras in the 50mm, 100mm, 200mm, 300mm and possibly other ranges. The utility of the longer macrolens variants is evident in fieldwork. Taking a closeup of a rattlesnake is best done with a 200mm or 300mm macrolens to provide the desired longer subject to camera lens distance!

Many 35mm photographers have zoom lenses which feature macro settings. The ideal is a continuously variable macro ability at all zoom settings. Unfortunately, many zooms only deliver macro capabilities at one or the other end of their zoom scale. If you have a choice, pick the zoom which focuses at the longer end of its range. Naturally, the optical quality of these zoom lens macro settings is usually quite poor compared to a true macrolens. But if you lack a macrolens option, this facility is better than nothing! Unfortunately, zoom lenses in medium format photography are very rare, very expensive, and rarely have macro settings.

So you may have to cheat, and adapt a macrolens from 35mm for medium format use. I adapted my 55mm micronikkor lens for use on my Bronica 6x6 as a macrolens. I knew the extra length of the Bronica lens mount would act as an extra length of extension tube for the macrolens. I also suspected that the 35mm macrolens would cover 6x6 format when stopped down. But how to mount such a 35mm lens onto my Bronica? The solution was to drill out a Bronica body cap and epoxy a Nikon rear lens cap into the large centered hole. Now just remove the plastic at the rear of the lens cap with a hot soldering iron or dremel drill. Instant 35mm Nikon lens to Bronica 6x6 mount adapter for $15 US in body cap and rear lens cap costs. Even better, I can use my Nikkor bellows and other lenses as well as my macrolenses for experimentation and fun with closeup photography!

See Homebrew Lenses for details.

Despite the fact that the above chart refers to one of the top macro lenses made, the Nikkor 105mm f/2.8 nikkor, the chart shows how resolution falls off with magnification. At 1:49 (approx. infinity), the lens performs surprisingly well. By 1:4, the lens resolution has fallen off substantially, as you can see. By 1:2, the lens is performing substantially poorer. Again, this chart will probably come as a significant surprise to those who believe that macro lenses are optimized for macrophotography (they are, but even so, some losses are par for the course).

Source: Modern Photography, Sep. 1985, pp.60-61.

Here again, we observe that there is a significant dropoff in resolution even with a lens optimized for macro work, as with this highly regarded Kiron 105mm f/2.8 macro lens. This lens is somewhat better optimized for 1:4 work, rather than 1:1 ratios, while it still performs quite well at infinity (1:49 curves) here.

Teleconverters with Macrolenses

If you build a 35mm to medium format macrolens adapter, as described above, you can also use your regular 35mm teleconverters with your 35mm macrolens in this adapter mount. This approach is very handy when dealing with little lizards and other skittish critters who have doubts about that approaching monster medium format camera rig!

Combining Tricks

No teleconverter available? Try your extension tube sets instead along with your closeup lens. Now you are getting double duty in front and behind the lens, yielding extra macrophotography options. You will also find that your extension tubes can be used with your regular lenses to turn them into much closer focusing lenses. That 200mm telephoto suddenly can focus on much smaller subjects with one or more extension tubes behind it! Now try out a closeup lens on your telephoto, with and without your extension tubes in combination. Take notes, as you will find some unique and useful settings from some of these combinations.

You will also want to try our trick with mounting lenses using male to male adapters, with a closeup lens screwed into one lens filter ring. Again, don't limit yourself to your medium format lenses, but try your 35mm and other available lenses as well. These multi-format lens combining tricks will turn up new possibilities, especially at the range of 2X to 5X, where expensive macro bellows lenses are usually required. Your main cost will be an adapter ring or two to let you mount your various lenses.

Microscope Adapters

While you can use some of these objectives (10X) as bellows mount lenses themselves, the higher magnification lenses are very hard to focus on a typical bellows setup. A better approach is to leave them on your microscope, which typically has a precision rack-and-pinion focusing mount.

Using just the microscope stage lens (not the eyepiece), you can project the image onto your camera's viewscreen and film for focusing. The easy way to do this is with a commercial adapter. Many adapters are made by various manufacturers to mate their camera lens mount directly to standard size (1 inch, 1 1/4 inch, 2 inch) instrument tube mounts.

These mounts are rare and pricey for many medium format cameras. A simpler approach may be to homebrew an adapter with the right diameter copper tubing and a body cap. Center a hole on the body cap. Epoxy the desired and tested length of tube into the cap. Be sure to paint flat black paint inside the tube to cut reflections!

Now you can simply remove the microscope eyepiece, slide in your matching diameter tube on your homebrew adapter, and focus using your camera's viewfinder. Images are likely to be dim, so a lot of light may be needed. Hint: Focus on a non-flammable object first. If photographing bugs or other live subjects, switch to flash for lighting.

You can also build an adapter for using your microscope with eyepiece in place. Photomicrography using the microscope's high power capability will take you into the range well past 40X to 100X, 200X, 400X, 600X, 800X, and even 1200X on some microscopes. There are even some zoom eyepieces on lower cost scopes which can provide a continuous range of magnifications. Many professional setups use a beam splitter to provide an image to the photographer for focusing, and a simultaneous image to the camera for filming. Naturally, a higher cost and higher quality photomicrography setup will produce better results with less effort. Still, many folks do outstanding work using care and an inexpensive surplus high school lab microscope.

Home Brew Macrophotography Lenses

You may already have two or more focal lengths of macrolenses, if you have several enlarger lenses for 35mm and 6x6 enlarging as I do. You can use the body cap approach again, but mount the enlarger lenses in with their rear facing the film in your camera. You will probably need an adjustable focusing mount, using either a bellows or homebrew zoom-tube mount. The Homebrew Lenses page has more ideas and how-to's for creating such low cost macrolenses.

Tilt-Shift Bellows

The Bronica S2/EC deluxe bellows provided front standard tilts and shifts for use with macrophotography. The Bronica S2/EC lineup didn't have an official "macro" lens. But using this bellows setup, the various Nikkor and Zenzanon lenses could be used from infinity to closeup in one continuous motion. The reason Bronica could do this trick is very simple. The helical focusing mount on these 6x6cm SLR Bronica bodies could be removed(!) and replaced by the bellows mount. Thanks to this trick, the Bronica lenses could still be used at infinity, and smoothly focused down to macro closeups. Now you know why I have so many hacked macrolenses on my Bronica system ;-).

The Kowa 6/66 system also had an interesting tilt/shift auto bellows, but it is so rare and pricey that I haven't seen one on sale in years. That is why I broke down and bought the Kowa 110mm macro lens, which is also a great all round "long normal" lens too. You can also find Novoflex and Spiratone medium format and 35mm bellows which feature front standard tilts and shifts. Because these bellows mount between the lenses and the camera body, they preclude the use of the lenses at infinity. You can use other lenses with longer lens registration distances (like large format 4x5" cameras) on these bellows at infinity, however.

We would be remiss if didn't point out that much of the excitement and interest in these tilt/shift bellows lies in the shift capability with various large format lenses (including folder optics and others with excess coverage, and medium format lenses for 35mm use). With the right lens, a small bit of shift is very handy in correcting for converging lines in architecture. Converging lines are often the result of tilting the camera and lens to try and get more of the subject into the photo.

We have a page with tips on making your own shift lenses (for $5 and up) based on an idea of Andrew Davidhazy. But this same trick would also work if you needed a bit of shifting in your macrophotography work. You can even find some older obsolete (and hence cheap) folders with front standards which can be shifted or tilted.

You can find some commercial bellows with tilt and shift adjustments, if you have the right medium format system (or 35mm, with the Novoflex or older Spiratone tilt/shift bellows).

The Contax 645 bellows offers swing and tilt adjustments, which are available in 15 degree increments to the left, right, up and down; while shift and rise are in 15mm amounts (also left, right, up and down). Image magnification is approximately 0.8x to 2.2x using the Planar T* 80mm f/2 lens (bellows is $1,990 at B&H;).

The Contax 645 AF bellows features upper and lower rails which separate and can be used in combination at a right angle, enabling the auto bellows to shift horizontally ($1,789 B&H;).

Mamiya Auto Bellows N 645 features front swing, rise and fall, and tilt for the Mamiya 645 series cameras (for $1,300 list at B&H;, but email B&H; for price quotes).

The low cost Novoflex bellows ($300 B&H;) for medium format cameras may be of interest to other hackers as well. The camera adapters are about $90 (B&H;), while the lens mount adapters are $200 (B&H; prices) and up. You could use one bellows on several cameras, or different lens brands on the same camera, using this setup. You might also just buy an adapter you need and make the rest of the bellows yourself, perhaps starting with a body cap or lens rear cap?

Hasselblad has the Arc body and flex body options with a range of mini-view camera capabilities. You may need to buy Rodenstock leaf shutter mounted lenses to get full coverage and movements, as the standard Zeiss lenses have only a bit of excess coverage. As an alternative, you can also consider the PC-Mutar, which is a 1.4X teleconverter which also provides some shifts and other lens movements. Understandably, the attraction of a 40mm Distagon with a shift lens option is somewhat reduced by it being converted by the 1.4X teleconverter factor to a ~60mm equivalent lens (one stop slower). Unfortunately, the PC-Mutar is expensive ($3,567 B&H;).

Quoting B&H;:

The PC-Mutar 1.4X not only extends the focal length of the lens 1.4 times, but also allows you to adjust the vertical perspective from 8 - 16mm vertical or horizontal, depending on which lens it is combined with. It can be used with all Hasselblad lenses with a focal length of between 40 and100mm. Combined with the 40mm, 50mm and 60mm Distagon wide-angle lenses, the full 16mm shift can be applied. With 80mm and 100mm lenses, the shift is limited to 8mm to avoid vignetting.

Before you get too excited about these options, keep in mind that you can often buy a full large format camera kit for very little money. A Calumet CC400 series monorail, with full movements, can often be had on EBAY for $150-200 USD, with lenses from $50 on up. Such a kit provides not only full perspective control movements, but also can be used for extreme macro using the built-in bellows of the view camera with the right lenses (including 35mm macro lenses and 8/16mm movie camera optics). You can also use rollfilm back adapters with 120 rollfilm in place of sheet film, if you prefer.

Finally, there are a lot of mini-view camera options which take rollfilm but provide a wide range of movements and perspective control with the right lenses. Brands such as arca-swiss, Linhof, and Horseman offer very popular rollfilm camera models with lots of movement. For rather less money, you can buy miniature speed graphic or century graphic cameras with less refinements and movements, but perhaps adequate to many user's needs?

Conclusions

Notes:

From Modern Photography, February 1983, SLR Notebook by Herbert Keppler, p.102:

First, zooms which have macro focusing systems do not provide sharpness anywhere near that of a true single focal length macro lens...

In like manner, zooms used at moderate closeup distances as in portraiture seldom (if ever) provide the same sharpness as a good single focal length as I hope we proved in September SLR Notebook. The loss of sharpness compared to single focal lengths is far greater at such distances than at medium or far distances.

Modern Photography of August 1983 (p. 106) in Keppler's SLR Notebook reviews some higher than 1:1 macro options. The Emoscop is a 30X magnifier, for use with film. The macromax is a 5x magnifier, costing circa $90, with a +/- 2 diopter variation for 35mm users. Keppler also recommends the Kodak dial-lite magnifier or viewer for its built-in 6 watt bulb and 1 element magnifying lens.

British Journal of Photography of Nov. 11, 2000 (p. 17) has a fascinating article titled "Secret's Out" describing John Brackenbury's experiments with extreme DOF from macro to infinity - in the same shot, which he calls "panoramic close-ups".

The trick is done using a 35mm camera and bellows, here a nikon kit. A Nikon 35mm f/2.8 lens is reverse mounted on the bellows. In front of this setup you mount a 4mm (!!) television camera video lens, using a second bellows or bellows extension to provide light-tight alignment and focusing capability. The 35mm lens magnifies the virtual image from the 4mm TV lens, which is designed for a TV format usually only 1/3rd to 1/2 of an inch in size. The magic comes from the use of a 4mm TV lens, yet magnifying the image to fill the 35mm frame. So you get the DOF of a 4mm lens stopped way down, providing the desired closeup to infinity DOF.

The combination of bellows and lenses results in a relatively dark image (circa f/11 equivalent) for focusing, and more like f/90-f/180 (!) during the exposure after stopping down. Even in bright sunlight, exposures will take roughly a second with slow films, so forget action shots.

rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
[1] Re: Macro and Medium format.
From: jalbert@nyx10.nyx.net (Joseph Albert)
Date: Tue Jul 14 1998

Doug Stemke dstemke@umaryland.edu

>wrote:
>
>       I'm still a firm 35mm user, but can see the day when I move up to
>medium format.  I really enjoy nature macro photography now and when I do
>ultimately move up to medium format I'd like to continue working in macro.
>I currently use all Pentax 35 mm equipment, but other than a couple of
>nice flashes (280T and 200T) I imagine I'd be starting from scratch.
>Therefore some questions come to mind.
>
>       What medium format systems best supports macro work?  I'm willing
>at this point to investigate most brands as I would be doing this slowly
>as I can afford different lenses, options, etc.

I have two medium format systems and 2 non-interchangeable lens medium format cameras, and use medium format hte most, but keep a small 35mm outfit for doing macro work. in medium format, filling the frame with some object means working at higher magnification, and hence more bellows factor applied to the exposure. this coupled with the slower max. aperture of medium format lenses, and you often get a really dark viewfinder image to try to focus on.

As a result, medium format has a place in macro photography, but I don't think it can ever completely replace 35mm for macro work. That is, you'll want to keep some of your Pentax 35mm stuff too.

one feature that is really useful to have for macro work is rear tilt. front tilt is potentially useful as well, but with the lens so close to the subject in a macro situation, rear tilt is easier to use. this will give you better control of the DOF of many macro shots, and given that DOF can be in really short supply, this lets you shoot at wider (and hence less diffraction-limited) apertures.

If you want a medium format camera with tilt-- the Rollei SL66 has limited front tilt, and early Mamiya Press cameras have rear tilt. 6x9 field and view cameras from Linhof, Horseman, or Arca Swiss would also be a possibility, and I think Calumet offers an inexpensive 6x9 view camera. A big disadvantage of these cameras for macro work is that you will have to determine the bellows factor for exposure, as they don't support TTL metering, (maybe the SL66 does?).

the cheapest macro outfits in a current model medium format SLR, are the Pentax and Mamiya offerings, especially Pentax 645. There are new macro lenses for Pentax 67 and Mamiya 645 but they are about $1200. For Bronica, Hasselblad, and probably Rollei, but I haven't priced it, just a single extension tube can be pricey. Opinions vary on the omission of mirror lockup on Pentax 645 cameras. The Pentax 645N and 645 have the best damped mirror of any medium format camera (645N is advertised as better than 645, an improvement), but they lack MLU. Whether there are enough vibrations to be noticeable in a macro image is debatable, although it is interesting that Pentax felt compelled to improve the dampening when designing the Pentax 645N.

j. albert

rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: Jack Daynes jackd1@san.rr.com
[1] Re: Extension tube vs close up lens???
Date: Fri Oct 23 1998

Mac,

I must confess to really struggling with the idea that a tube will loose light but a filters will not. As I understand it, the light loss with tubes is due to the magnified image placing less light landing on the film (is this true?).

If the close-up filter could provide the same magnification as the extension tube, would not the reduction of light to the film be exactly the same?

I have used both for macros and I have used them in combinations. I can't say that I've done any scientific evaluations, but I feel the tubes are easier to use. I think it is important to point out that a tube can be used on any lens (assuming all lenses are to fit a single camera system), BUT close-up filters are largely limited to the filter size of the lens you are working with. If you have lenses with 52mm, 67mm, 72mm, 77mm, etc. threads, inter changeability is questionable, impractical, if not impossible.

--
Jack

rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: Nathan Wong nathantw@crl.crl.com
[1] Re: Hasselblad Macro Photography
Date: Wed Dec 09 1998

WHEEL6600 wheel6600@aol.com wrote:

> I just picked up a 500cm with an 80mm & 120mm lens.  I would like to  know what
> else would I require to do Macro photography.  I am interested in  photographing
> old photos

Oh sorry, I didn't see you wanted to take pictures of old photos. A ringlight would NOT be a wise choice if you have it on a copy stand. The reason is you'll see the flash in your picture. You'll need separate lights, two would ideal, aimed at 45 degree angles to the photo you're copying. That will give you shadowless and perfect copies.

Nathan

[Ed. note: you may want to note that macro lenses become shorter in focal length as you get more "macro" as the post below indicates...]
From Nikon Digest:
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999
From: zensu@netscape.net
Subject: Re: nikon-digest V4 #208 [v04.n211/11]

Jordan wrote

> I need a lens for macros and I am considering the zoom 70-180 Micro.
> Any opinions from owners of this lens?

Hello Jordan, I have been using this lens since it came out and love it for close up work. I must warn you that the single focal length Micro Nikkors will give you a greater working distance from the from of the lens than the 70~180 will, but you have to move your tripod or adjust you focusing rail to recompose with the single focal length lenses. All the micro's lose focal length as you get closer to life size. I am reposting the following chart that Riccardo Correani was kind enough to share last year.

According to "Chasseur d'Images", Nikon itself gave information about the actual focal length of the Micro-Nikkor AF lenses at their maximum reproduction ratio:

Micro-Nikkor AF 60 mm    1:1 -> 49, 427 mm.
Micro-Nikkor AF 105 mm   1:1 -> 73,722 mm.
Micro-Nikkor AF 200 mm   1:1 -> 102,225 mm.

Micro-Nikkor AF 70-180 mm :
- @70 mm  - 1:3,21 -> 50,179 mm.
- @105 mm - 1:2,21 -> 62,887 mm.
- @180 mm - 1:1,33 -> 71,187 mm.

Thank you Riccardo.

I would also like to mention that the single focal lengths AF Nikkors all focus to life size without assistance and the zoom gets to 1/2 life size on it's own and goes to life size with the Nikon 6T close up lens.

If you need to keep your distance from your subjects then the single focal lengths are the way to go, but if you can get closer I think the flexibility of the micro zoom is outstanding.

Bobby Flippo

rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: Jeffrey Karp jeffkarp@erols.com
[1] Re: Macros on the cheap
Date: Sat Jan 30 1999

The 500D is a +2 so it will only give you about 1:6(see formula below) when the lens is focused at infinity, but might about 1:4 (image on the film is 1/4 life size)or so ? with the 85mm lens focused at its closest. This is probably not bad for roses.

First of all, only consider 2 elent diopters by Nikon,Canon, or Minolta. http://www.angelfire.com/ca/erker/closeups.html

What are you trying to photograph, and at what magnifications? Diopters work by effectively shortening the focal length of the lens, do not decrease the light, but cut working distance much more than tubes for the same magnification. Extension tubes give you longer working distances, but also cut down on the light(but by doing so they decrease the EFFECTIVE aperature of the lens, and in doing so, give you more depth of field for the same aperature setting on the lens). Extension tubes degrage the image much less than diopters. Diopters are best used with lenses that are 100mm or greater, and for lower magnifications .

Tubes are more effective with shorter focal length lenses. Just remember that with diopters, magnification is FL/1000*D, and for tubes is extension/FL. Many people use diopters to effectively lower the fl of a long telephoto, so that tubes will then be effective. The next tool is the telextender. They decrease the light and image quality, but do not decrease working distance at all. Many people use combinations of all three tools. To devise a strategy, you have to figure out what is shortest, working distance, or light. If you do go for tubes, you should only consider the automatic ones, as with the manual ones you can only look through the lens stopped down, so you must open the aperature up to focus, then close it down to take a photo each time(a real pain). A Vivitar 100mm f3.5 macro lens is a great bargain at $115-160(I love mine.).

Diopters are not so good with wide angle lenses, as the magnification is relatively small(and working distance is quite small). Tubes give you more working distance, and greater depth of field than diopters, but cut down on the light.Tubes are very effective with wide angle lenses, and you will only need short tubes to get good magnification.(Working distance is still small, but larger than with diopters)Diopters are very effective with long telephoto lenses(with tubes alone, you need very long tubes to get decent magnification from a long focal length lens, but will have more working distance at the same magnification than with diopters, or with tubes and a wide angle lens)

Just remember the formulas:

for diopters Mag. =D * focal length(in mm) /1000. D is the diopter strength(ie. 1,2,3,etc)

for tubes Mag. = Extension/focal length

Schoej wrote:

> I have an Elan IIe with an EF 85mm f/1.8 USM and I would like to shoot some
> macros.  I am not a pro and can't justify the cost of a macro lens so I'm
> considering the EF 25 or the 500D.  It's my understanding autofocus  does not
> function with extension tubes, is this correct?  Are there other  disadvantages
> to extension tubes?  What are the drawbacks of screw on close-up lenses?
>
> Additionally what would the magnification of the 85mm with the 500D be  and how
> do you calculate it?
>
> Any info would be appreciated.
>
> Jason  

From: Jeffrey Karp jeffkarp@erols.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: light loss w/extension rings?
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999

> Hello,
>
>    Is there a relatively easy way to calculate light loss while using
> extension rings? Say, divide length of extension by length of lens,
> multiply by ten to get number of stops of correction? (I just pulled
> that out of the foamy nether-regions of my brain, but you get the idea)
>
> Thanks,
>
> Adam  

Not quite. Magnification, m=extension/focal length. (when the lens is focused at infinity) Exposure adjustment factor =(1+m) ^2., (that is (1+m) squared) So for example, a 50mm lens (focus set to infinity) with a 50mm extension tube gives 1:1 (m=1), and the exposure correction factor is 4, or two stops.

Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000
From: Paolo psodini@mit.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo.misc
Subject: close-up lenses & medium format

Hello everybody,

I found many posting explaining magnification and focusing distance with close-up lenses for 35mm cameras. Are the same rules applicable to the medium format realm? Consider for example the 75 zenzanon for the ETRsi (6x4.5 format) and a 4 diopter close-up lens. The minimum focusing distance with this lens is 600mm or in diopters 1.6. With the close-up lens I obtain a total diopters of 4.6 yielding to a minimum focusing distance of 214mm. The magnification ratio is 75mm/214mm or 1:3.

Is this correct?

Thank you,

Paolo

Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000
From: "Lennart Nilsson" 013-179627@telia.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.misc
Subject: SV: close-up lenses & medium format

No it's not correct. First of all the focusing distance is measured from film to motive not from lens to motive, secondly with a minimum focusing distance of 600 mm the extension is about 13 mm, making a total of 88 mm from film to lens. Applying a 4 diopter close-up lens making the focal length change from 75 mm (13,3 diopter) to 58 mm (13,3 + 4) giving you a magnification ratio of (88-58)/58 or 1/1.9. (The distance between lens and motive: 1/(1/58-1/88) mm =170 mm)

Two usable formulas for "thin" lenses are:

GaussY lens formula: 1/a + 1/b = 1/f
Magnification ratio: a/b or (a-f)/f

a: film to lens
b: lens to motive
f: focal length

Lennart

Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000
From: Bilwright@webtv.net (William Wright)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.misc
Subject: Re: close-up lenses & medium format

Hi, Paolo.

Your post was a little difficult to follow because of the units you used, but here are two comments which may (or may not?) answer your question:

First, when you adjust the focus, you are changing the lens's focal length just a little bit. I'm not talking about zoom lenses right now. Even with an 'ordinary'=A0lens, focusing changes the lens's actual focal length just a little bit. Since (f/number = focal length / aperture diameter), this means that the f/numbers that are marked on the lens aren't exactly constant either. Therefore your exposure changes (just a little bit) even though you have not changed the aperture.

The question is: do these minor discrepancies make any practical difference? The industry has, over the decades, decided that these discrepancies are too minor too worry about _until_ the focusing distance becomes less than (approximately) 10 times the lens's nominal focal length. Thus an 'ordinary' 200 mm lens is purposefully manufactured to have a minimum focusing distance of (approximately) 10 x 200 = 2000 mm = 2 meters or about 6.5 feet.

When you want to focus closer than this, you need to add an extension tube or bellows or teleconverter or close-up attachment or use a 'special' lens such as a macro lens or a micro lens, etc. Depending on which path you choose, you may need to do some extra arithmetic in order to adjust the exposure to match the drastic change in focal length.

Second, where magnification is concerned, it is almost always easiest to simply look through the viewfinder and compare the image in the viewfinder to the film dimensions.

To use 35 mm photography as an example, the size of a single frame is approximately 36 mm x 24 mm. (Usually you see a little bit more or less in the viewfinder than is actually covered by the film, but the difference is small enough that you can ignore it.) Example: if the subject of your photograph fills 1/2 the width of the view finder, then it will fill 1/2 of the frame's width also. This would be 36/2 = 18 mm.

So if the subject is (say) 20 mm wide in real life, then the magnification is 18/20 = 0.9. Therefore you can plug "0.9" into whatever calculation you happen to be doing.

Probably you already know that, if you are using an in-camera meter, then your meter is measuring the light that actually reaches the film. Within the limits of your equipment, no exposure adjustment is necessary. When you are using a hand held meter (which isn't looking through the lens), then you must do the arithmetic to compensate. The formulas are _much_ simpler if you use magnification rather than any other measurement. For example, if you decide to adjust exposure by changing the shutter speed, the formula is the relatively simple calculation of: (1+M)^2. In our example, M = 0.9. Thus the shutter should be slowed by a factor of (1 + 0.9)^2 = 3.6. If your hand held meter recommended (say) 1/4 second, you would slow it to 1 second.

If you choose to open the aperture instead, the formula is simply (1+M). In our example, the f/number would be divided by (1 + 0.9) = 1.9. If your hand held meter recommended (say) f/8, you would open the aperture to 8 / 1.9 = f/4.

Either way, the adjustment is 2 steps: either from 1/4 second to 1 second, or from f/8 to f/4.

Cheers,
Bill

Date: Mon, 01 Nov 1999
From: edromney romney@edromney.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: 55mm MACRO LENSES ARE IMPRACTICAL, OVERPRICED AND USUALLY UNNECESSARY

Here's why: To take a 1:1 life size image the lens must be 110mm from the subject at its nodal point. But since there is glass and metal in front of this point, its front will be 4 inches or less from the subject. That is so close you cannot light the subject right. It is too close. All the light will come from the sides. The camera body and glass will cast shadows and reflections. You will get a lousy picture, particularly outdoors.

The way to get a good macro picture is to use a lens of 80mm or longer. Then the subject can be 160mm away and you can light it decently. But longer macro lenses cost a fortune. Why waste the money? Here is how the experts do it.

Method 1-- Simply buy a good enlarging lens of 80 to 135mm such as Componon, Comparon or Omegaron at low cost in a trade fair. They are quite equal to macro lenses and the simple diaphragm is much more accurate at the small apertures used in this work. Mount your enlarging lens on a body cap and put it on a low cost bellows, a $10-$20 item at camera trade fairs. You will then have an excellent macro system this way. Many of the pictures of the insides of cameras in my repair books were made with my 80mm Componon enlarging lens and bellows.

Method 2.--very low cost. Simply use extension tubes or a reversing ring. The F1.4 Nikon is poor in macro but their low cost F1.8 and F2 lenses, even the E series, are fine close up. This is probably true of other makers too. Do this first, and if your prints or slides come out OK, why bother with anything costing more?

Method 3--Diopter close up lenses. Nikon's are beautifully corrected, are the best. Put them on a longer lens, 90mm or longer. Stopped to F16, you will probably find the results acceptable. Easy to use, no bellows factor. Why spend more?

Method 4--There are low cost used German lenses of high quality that focus very close in screw mount and Exakta mount that are good. I like my F1.8 Meyer Oreston, which focusses to 1:3. That means a 3 x 4.5 inch subject will fill the format. The F2.8 Zeiss Tessar, Zeiss Flektogon and Schacht Travenar are good too. I now own an adapter to put screw mount lenses and bellows on my Nikon FE and FG. I got it from DAMAR, Dave Belmoff, a fine old dealer.

Method 5--Do it as we did in the old days when there were no Xerox machines. I used to copy diplomas and certificates by taking my 1929 Voigtlander Avus plate camera with F4.5 105mm Scopar and pulling its bellows out to full 8 inches. I'd stop way down and shoot. A lot of the CU pictures of cameras apart in my Revised Basic Training Text were made this way because I had a big box of 6x9cm cut film I bought cheaply at a camera trade fair then. I still use this camera.

What are 55mm Macro lenses good for? Copying color slides, mainly. But you can easily have that done at low cost. Some say they are sharper than regular 50mm lenses. Maybe, but I am not so sure. I sold the one I bought, couldn't tell the diff. Don't get suckered by the greedy camera stores and the misinformation and new camera hype in the camera magazines. Keep it simple. I may have to do a "Trade Secrets of Practical Photography" book next, as many have urged me, because there is so much baloney and misinformation around.

Yours faithfully,

Ed Romney

see: http://www.edromney.com ....newly revised

From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000
From: ULF S JOGREN ulf.sjogren@mbox310.swipnet.se
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: SV: Proxars

If you want to get real close and get a magnafaction of 2 or 3 times on the negative using no ext. tubes and no proxars here is a lettle trick (again) It is cheap under the circumstances you have some lenses for your Hasselblad. Put a 150 or 250 lens on the camera. Then take your 80 mm Planar, tape it front to front to the lens on the camera. Use a tape that is at least 2" wide. To be sure no light leaks in wrap the taped parts with a layer of aluminium foil. You use the time amd f stops of the tele lens, let the Planar be fully open. The Planar "steals" approx 2 steps. The 150 Sonnar gives a magnafaction of about 2 steps, the 250 Sonnar slightly more than 3.

But be cateful not to harm the front lenses. Don't try it with older type Distagon and Sonnars!

Ulf Sj"gren

Sweden

Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000
From: smpowell@taxspam.usa.net (Stephen M. Powell)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.misc
Subject: Mini-FAQ Frugal Macro Photography, Mostly Digital

For links & information about frugal ideas about macro photography, including using a flatbed scanner for macro photography/copy camera work see:

Mini-FAQ Macro Photography, Frugal, mostly Digital

http://www.freeyellow.com/members5/octopus/macro.html

Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999
From: LoveThePenguin dpcwilbur@my-deja.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.misc
Subject: Major Macro

Here's a little experiment that might pay off in the future. When you want to get macro greater than 1:1, follow this simple step: put your extension tubes between the lens and a teleconverter. On my 35mm, when I've got a full set between the 2x and 100mm 2.8 (not a macro lens) the magnification is about 1.5:1 -- a really nice ratio. This is especially useful for photographing small jewelry, micro- electronic circuits, sewing and other fabric concerns, and anything else that needs serious magnification.

The next experiment was to put on my (cheap, but useful) 28-80 zoom lens with macro setting in the same scenario. In macro mode the mag was slightly better -- 1.7:1. This was better, but since the 100mm lens is of higher quality and I don't usually need the extra, the 100mm system will remain.

Magnification can be reduced with a quality improvement by employing a 1.4 teleconverter. These are usually of a higher optical quality than the 2x units, but also cost more.

Fun things to shoot with this arrangement:

eproms (the little chips with see-through windows on top)

fabric

jewelry

blowing up a 110 neg/slide to becoma 35mm neg/slide (hey, now there's a market!)

just pointing the silly thing at people (well, maybe not)

I can't imaging the results if one were to do this with medium-format equipment!

Equipment used:

1. Pentax ZX-M

2. 2x teleconverter

3. #3, #2, and #1 extension tubes

4. Pentax 100mm f1:2.8 lens (usually used as a portrait lens)

5. JC Penny 28mm-80mm f1:3.5-4.5 zoom (told you it was an inexpensive lens--but it works for me)

Date: 06 Oct 1999
From: pburian@aol.com (PBurian)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature
Subject: Re: Choice of Macro Lens

And be careful when checking the specs for most Macro lenses!!!!

The minimum focus distance is measured from the film, not the front of the lens barrel.

So you might think you will be 8" from the subject at 1x magnification with a specific lens. WRONG. If the lens is 4" long, you will be 4" from the subject.

Some Nikon specs show Working Distance per my previous note. That is a more realistic figure but most lens specs just show Minimum Focus Distance.

Peter Burian

[Ed. note: Michael's note highlights the high resolution possible with use of microscope lenses 4750 lpmm!!!]
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000
From: Michael Abbey abbeyphoto@worldnet.att.net
To: Robert Monaghan rmonagha@post.smu.edu
Subject: Re: This 35mm vs 4x5 myth

Hello Robert:

Yes. I was wondering if I would get a rise from someone. I am a professional photomicrographer, so I am referring to microscope objectives. With a Nikon 100X microscope objective of numerical aperture of 1.35 and 405nm light I can resolve 4750 L/mm of subject onto film. The relationship of numerical aperture to F stop is based on the assumption of the same refractive index the microscope objective is immersed in oil with a 1.515 RI.) so true comparison with an air lens is not really accurate.

I find dogmatic statements of superiority for lenses made in these groups so absurd that I just have to post. I actually made money on a bet at a local camera store with someone who was sure that Canon lenses were sharper than Nikon, and of course Canon doesn't make microscope lenses. I have Zeiss, Nikon, and Leitz Plan Apo objectives that all perform the same, and the format is irrelevant.

I can shoot on to 35mm or 4X5 with the same resolution. One of my favorites is a Zeiss 63X na1.4 which has a 2.57mm focal length, a 0.09mm working distance,and an F-stop (in oil) of 0.357, this will push almost 5000 L/mm. note my depth of field is 1/10 of a micron.)

For your information the relationship of F stop to na is : The reciprocal of twice the F stop equals na, and the reciprocal of twice the na equals the F stop, this assumes the same RI on media.

I also shoot 4X5, 6X7, and 35mm in the regular terrestrial world with Nikon, Schneider ( I love my 6X Aspheric loupe), Pentax, Leica, and Rodenstock lenses and I think choosing the best tool for the job is what counts. Never let equipment limit your imagination, that is what clients are for!

Regards
Michael

From: Ron Ginsberg ginsb001@minn.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.misc
Subject: Re: Closeups
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999

Tim Fitzharris "The Sierra Club Guide to Close-Up Photography in Nature" ISBN 0-87156-913-2 gives in my opinion the best pros and cons of technical technique including the use of extension tubes, diopter supplemental lenses, macro lenses, and combos of this hardware. The tech chapter contains diagrams of the order of attachments including flash with a pocket bouncer attached. Very clear and sample photos are excellent. Comparisons regarding working distances using normal or telephoto range primes or zooms are informative.

There are also chapters on composition, lighting, exposure, etc.

Flifer wrote:

> We have a Canon Eos and are interested in close ups--such as flowers, insects,
> etc. What is recommended? We have heard of Close-up Kits, Extension tubes and a
> macro lens.
>
> Thanks!

From Nikon Mailing List;
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000
From: "Riccardo Polini" ripolin@tin.it
Subject: R: [NIKON] macro coupling rings

>I've got an interesting question, what's the calculation for determining the
>effective aperature when using a macro coupling ring?
>
>I'm thinking about using a coupling ring with my 50mm f1.8 mounted to the
>end of my 28-80mm f3.5-5.6 as a cheap macro solution and am wondering how I
>can determine what the max. effective aperture is.
>
>Anyone ever use this type of set-up? What kind of results can you get? Is it
>better to just use a reversing ring?

Karl, I'm not sure what you're referring to when you speak about "macro coupling rings". If you refer to "extension tubes", the effetive aperture, F, is simply a function of the reproduction ratio, R, as in the following relationship:

F = f x (R + 1)

where f is the aperture we set on the lens. For example, if you set f/8 on your 50 mm coupled to a 25 mm long extension tube (or to a bellow, it's the same) you get a R = 1:2 or 0.5; therefore, the effective aperture is:

F = 8 x (0.5 + 1) = 12, i.e. around f/11.

In other words, at 1:2 the brightness decreases by 1 stop, at 1:1 by 2 stops and so on. The situation is a little bit different with lenses using a floating elements design, but this is another story ... (we have to take into account the reduction of the focal length at the near limit ...).

Regards,

Riccardo Polini
http://space.tin.it/arte/ripolini

From: velimatti.ollilainen@helsinki.fi (Velimatti Ollilainen)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature
Subject: Re: Diffraction? I sure don't see it!
Date: 3 May 2000

Dear Mark

The effect of diffraction as the reduced sharpness can be easily seen in macrophotography. My rule of thumb when selecting small apertures is that do not exceed the effective aperture value (Neff) of 50. This rule works quite well for instance using Fuji Velvia film

When using high magnification (5x or more), this value of 50 can be quite commonly reached. Diffraction will then soften the macrophotos even the depth of field will increase.

You'll propably not exceed this 50-value using "normal" magnifications, like 0.1-0.5x

How to calculate this effective aperture value:

Neff = (M+1)N, where M is the magnification and N is the aperture value used

An example:

magnification 5x using a 20mm macrolens connected with a bellow, used aperture f/16 -> Neff = (5+1)16 = 96. So with this lens - bellow combination and magnification, the smallest aperture which "can" be used is somewhere between f/5.6 and 8.

Sure you can use these small apertures but you'll then lose some of the sharpness, so it is a compromize between the sharpness and depth of field.

Hope this helps

regards,
velimatti

From Contax Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000
From: "Bob Shell" bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] Tabletop macro setup for 645

You need a solid copy stand to support this sort of rig. The best one I ever found was the baseboard and column from an old enlarger that I bought at a yard sale. I mounted a tripod head on the part that used to support the enlarger head, and it was great. Many of the copy stands on the market are just enlarger parts without the enlarger head anyway. My current one is from Adorama and is the baseboard, column, and head support from one of their house brand enlargers (made in Italy by Lupo). Shop around, and make certain you know the weight of what you want to hang on the stand. I use mine for 35mm only, so it doesn't need to be super strong.

Get some tungsten lights and reflectors, not to light the photos but so you can see to focus. You need a lot of light for that.

Actual exposure is probably best by flash since it will overcome any vibration or movement of the stand or subject. Since the 645 has built-in flash metering, this part should be easy. Try flash on one side, reflector on the other, first. Use aluminum foil to make your own small reflectors to bounce light where you want it. Multiple flash can follow.

Don't know of a good book on this subject.

Bob

...

From Nikon Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000
From: ripolin@tin.it
Subject: Re: [NIKON] Another thought about extreme close ups

> I just remembered another question I have about the reverse method for
> extreme close ups. It was mentioned that a telephoto with a smaller focal
> length reversed is a good way to go by Ricardo. I visited his page and the
> results were quite stunning. Good stuff Ricardo!! Anyway, my question is, if
> the optical quality if the lens is extra special, like say with a 105  f/2.5
> and a 35 f/1.4, would the end result be noticeably better? Im just curious. I
>
> have used a 200 f/4 and find it is a very good lens, but would the results i
> get with say a 180 f/2.8 ED be better? That also brings up a whole new issue,
>
> thread size. Is there a 72 mm thread size reverse ring? Would a 105 f/2.5
> with a 35 f/1.4 reversed be a good combination? Or say a 180 F/2.8 ED with a
> 35 f/1.4? Of course . the thread size of the 35 is 52 mm..  ARRGGHHH!! Im
>
> just really anxious to explore this avenue.
>
> Thanks!

Dear Geoffrey,

my 50/1.8 E doesn't work properly with my 105/2.5 AIS due to vignetting. To eliminate vignetting, one has to add about 40-50 mm of extension tubes and this causes too many vibrations to the set-up and/or a light fall-off in the viewfinder. Therefore, each lens+reversed_lens combination should be carefully checked. The AIS 200/4 is one of best and cheapest lens to take high magnification macro pictures.

Warm Regards,

Riccardo

[Ed. note: See John Shaw's closeups in nature for more..]
From Minolta Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000
From: "Marat R. Safiulin" marat@bcc.com.uz
Subject: (Fwd) Achieving 6:1 macro - it is somewhat easy!

Hi, all,

I have already sent this message to e-groups, but as long as the MML seems to be running up again I thought it is a good idea to forward the same message here too.

I am a bit excited about new possibilities in macro shooting which are now open to me. And I would like to share with you my experience.

Yesterday a friend of mine brought me a Russian magazine which is like a PopPhoto or similar. There I found an extremely interesting article about how to achieve magnification more than 1:1 (sure, there is a special Minolta 1x-3x macro lens, but it costs a fortune) using lenses which can be found in an advanced amateur kit.

So, for this you will need a tele lens (with the focus distance not less than 200mm, though even a lens with 100mm can provide 2:1 magnification). I found that my 75-300, even though far from being an excellent lens, does quite a decent job. Such lens will be you prime lens. It is not very important how fast the lens is, though a faster aperture will help a lot during focusing. Also you will need something like 50/1.7 lens, which will be your secondary lens. The main condition of this lens is that it should be as fast as possible (again, my 50/2.8 macro, even being quite slower than 50/1.7, did a good job). This second lens may be even from totally different brand.

The most difficult part is to make an adapter for such a combination. In an ideal case the filter threads should be the same on the both lenses. Then the task becomes much easier. You will only need to find a pair of spare (or broken) filters with proper threads and remove glass parts from them. Then you will have to attach two rings to each other either gluing them by the epoxy glue or using one of the inner rings for screwing them together. The lens threads should be directed outwards. It is very important that this combination is very sturdy as long as it will get quite a momentum after attaching the secondary lens. Also it should be light tight.

After finishing the adapter, you have to attach the prime lens to the camera and screw on it the secondary lens via the adapter. Set the focus distance to the maximum (in case the prime lens being a tele zoom), make sure that the secondary lens is fully open - and happy shooting with a new macro set! The magnification is approximately calculated as a ratio between focus distances of the prime lens and the secondary one, i.e. in my case I easily achieved magnification of 6:1 (300:50=6:1).

There are few things you have to think about during shooting with such combination. First of all, the tripod (as usually with any macro shooting) is a MUST. Otherwise it is practically impossible to focus. It would help a lot if it is heavy and sturdy. Macro rails won't be an excessive thing, but it is possible to shoot without them. Then you have to take care about the ground on which the tripod will be set. Loose floors like parquet or carpets will result in uncontrolled vibrations. You will also need to take care about the rear (which now becomes the front) element of the secondary lens. As long as it is supposed to be inside the camera, not outside it, it is very exposed to any impact, so be careful. The working distance of the system is approximately equal to the focus distance of the secondary lens, i.e. is about 45-50mm in case of 50mm lens, which makes getting scratches on the front element during focusing an easy thing. And, as ever in macro shooting, you will have to find proper lighting (taking into consideration that the front element is very prone to flare). Actually a flash bracket with tilting possibility will be a great thing.

But even with the above inconveniences I am thrilled at the opportunities which lay open for me now. And I hope that you will find them as exciting as I did.

I am sorry for such long ramblings, but I couldn't help myself sharing with you this idea and my excitement.

Regards,

Marat.

Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000
From: stu-art stu@an.isp.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.art
Subject: Re: Photo-micography

> I have always wanted to do some photo-micography, i.e. photographing
> through a microscope. I am interested in doing colorful textures and
> also insects. Perhaps the insect wouldn't need a microscope?

depends on how small the insect is and what kind of magnification you are after.

you -may- be able to get what you're after with a 135mm macro lens.

-maybe- but probably not.

stereo microscopes are -fabulous- for insects and things that size. eg: you can get the individual "teeth" on the saw-type blade from a Swiss Army Knife. the only problem is a very very shallow depth of field.

photo-microscopy with a biological microscope gives you some -amazing- images, but you need your samples on slides, and you need to know how to set up for "Kohler Illumination", which is very easy anyway.

also be prepared to do some tests with exposure/film/development to maximise the contrast, because you tend to get very poor contrast from biological microscopy. this can be helped, of course, by using filters over the light source, with black & white film, to adjust the contrast of different things in whatever you're shooting.

if you want to do colour -- then you may enjoy working with a polarizing microscopy, and rock/mineral slices. there are geophysical exploration applications of this technique, but it also simply looks -really- cool.

> I use Nikon F3's. I hope to be able to rent a microscope to keep costs
> down. How to begin? Any suggestions would be appreciated.

you'll need a microscope (stereo or biological), camera mount attachment, 35mm SLR, and an objective lens FOR the microscope itself (this goes inside the camera mount attachment).

here are three examples of things i have done, with colour manipulation in photoshop to make them more interesting...

http://www.geocities.com/lorthie/micro/microscopy.html

the images -may- take a slight while to load, but i tried to make them as small as possible without looking too awful.

if you want any more info, just ask...

Stu.

From: C. Downs
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000
Subject: Re: Macro lens

"xiemark" xiemark@ms22.hinet.net wrote:

>I like macro photography. I am considering buying Rodenstock or shneider 120
>mm 5.6 macro or 180 mm macro lens. What is the difference between these
>lenses? I am now using Horseman FA 4x5 field camera. Which macro lens is
>suitable for field work? What is the advantage over normal lens?
>Please help me and provide me more infomation.
>Thanks.
>Mark

I would assume that you will want to be able to reach 1 to 1 with your set up. Whatever your max bellows extension is will be twice the focal length that you can use. There are cone shaped extension boards that can extend your lens in front of the camera for extra length and an extension back can be easily made for extending the back of the camera as much as a foot or so. The reason for the extra long length is that the longer the lens you use the narrower the field of view. This will allow you to isolate the subject much easier. It also will allow for the softening of the background while holding the subject in sharp focus. 35mm photographers often use lenses of 180 to 300 mm for macro and the same ratio works great for large format except that 400 to 600 mm lenses are a real pain to work with! . Check John Shaw's "Close ups in Nature" for good info. The minimum working distance is also important as you are probably finding! A 4x5 camera on a tripod is very unwieldy at best and may need all of the distance you can manage for the best shots. Wildflower photography usually requires extreme subject to camera distance as you should never be standing in your subject or otherwise disturbing them. In many of the National parks the flowers and other small subjects are being destroyed by folks working too close. This usually means that the longest lens that you can get to 1 to 1 will work best. There is an opposite effect that can be had by using wide angles (where ever you have the room to work) they can be brought in close. This gives great subject and background relationships such as a single flower as subject and the background as a whole field of flowers. George Lepp ( several publications and the magazine "Outdoor Photographer") is very good in 35mm at doing this and looking at his work should provide good insight. I have found that the 35mm ApoGrandagon through the 58mm XL's will work great for this perspective 4x5. Sometimes superb results can be had if your subject won't be destroyed by getting too close!

I mention the lens length so that you will purchase something that will work with your particular camera. A macro lens will be great but the resolution of something such as an ApoSymmar will be so high that you will not ever be disappointed. Modern lenses in the ApoSymmar or Rodenstock equivalent class will far exceed your requirements and in all outdoor circumstances will out preform your "subject".....by this I mean that your subject will never be as free from vibration or camera vibration as the resolution of the lens. Subject limited would be another way of putting it. I have 4x5 and 8x10 film images of small flowers {1 to1} that show cilia and pollen spores with such great detail that biologist friends can identify the type of pollen. As is with a lot of camera hype you will hear all manner of "superlatives" about the "macro" lenses but save your money and try to find a good lens that will work and also function as a regular lens. I will be glad to email a couple of shots from a regular ApoSymar that should satisfy any doubts you might have. I can easily make 30x40 prints with extremely sharp resolution from the 4x5.

I can actually just about guarantee that you will have as your limiting factor the subject movement or camera vibration.

Going past 1 to 1 is a special field of photography and today seems to be best done by reversing a regular lens of short focus length [ 120mm Symmar for example] in front of a longer lens. Mike Kirk makes reversal rings for this and you will get approx. the magnification ratio that is the same as the power of dividing the length lens into the length of the longer lens. Your dof will be the same as it would be by using a lens on very long extension but the light fall [ bellows factor ] off is much less as the reversed lens works as an extremely sharp diopter with no additional light fall off beyond that of the long lens. I have tried a 300mm with a 120 reversed in front and had "scales on butterflys wings" success! mighty shakey though at that size! Human hair with dust and scales showing with super sharp resolution is the subject size attainable quire easily [ you can use your 35mm lenses or other format lenses as the short lens when doing this!]

I know that this doesn't really answer your 120 verses 180 macro lens question but I hope it will save you money and help to place the limiting factors where they will be in the real world { you are stuck with your camera bellows length unless adapters are made}. If all you do is macro then go for it but if you want superb results the macro lenses in the field are not of much improvement over the newer lenses such as the ApoSymars or equivalent Rodenstocks. In the studio with huge camera stand and strobe light on rigid subjects you might be able to see the difference with a microscope but I'd bet a bundle you can't reproduce that in any field use.

[Ed. note: some more neat tips from Michael Gudzinowicz...]
From: bg174@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Michael Gudzinowicz)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: 23 Jul 2000
Subject: Re: Macro lens

"xiemark" xiemark@ms22.hinet.net wrote:

>I like macro photography. I am considering buying Rodenstock or shneider 120
>mm 5.6 macro or 180 mm macro lens. What is the difference between these
>lenses? I am now using Horseman FA 4x5 field camera. Which macro lens is
>suitable for field work? What is the advantage over normal lens?
>Please help me and provide me more infomation.

You might want to check out the Nikon lenses as well. Since the FA has a short bellows extension (250 mm), the 120 will go to 1:1, while a 180's magnification will be 0.70 (M = (ext/fl) - 1). The lenses are more or less optimized for the 1:3 to 3:1 range, with elements reversed on some for magnifications greater than 1:1.

The short bellows of you camera will only allow partial use of the 120's range conveniently, so if you wish to go greater than 1:1, consider getting a long bellows camera.

Another alternative are the "process" lenses with a focal length of around 150 mm such as the APO Ronar, APO Artar and G Claron. They are corrected for 1:1 work. The field of view is narrower, but certainly adequate for most work at 1:1. Again, another camera would be more versitile.

You can also use high quality diopter lenses which readjust the path and lens focal length so the lenses remain optimized at close distances. Calculate exposures based on the extension and focal length without diopters, not magnification. That is very likely the easiest, lightest and cheapest way to get very good results.

Another option is to use an adapter to front mount enlarging lenses in the normal or reversed position, or reversed MF or 35 mm format lenses.

Chuck mentioned using reversed lenses as high magnification diopters, in which case the diopter power would be 1000/fl of the added lens. Your rig would probably be a bit front heavy if you decide to do that, and technique must be faultless.

Also, if you aren't trying to make large grain free prints, consider 35 mm and medium format. Full frame at 1:1 on 4x5 is only 1:2 with MF and 1:4 with 35 mm, and those formats will generally give better depth of field even after the LF lens has been well stopped down.

From Nikon Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000
From: "Marc Auth" mauth@micron.net
Subject: [NIKON] macro at 3x lifesize

I was playing around with my 24mm Nikkor the other and attached it backwards to the camera using a BR-2 reversing ring.

Surprise!

Attached backward, it became a "close-up" lens like I've never owned.

As best I can measure, image is about 3x lifesize, great for the tiny stuff, like insects and flower parts. Thought I'd pass this on to all who like to do this kind of work (and cheap, too).

Of course, be prepared for DOF to be scant millimeters even at f22.

Best regards,

Marc Auth

AUTHENTIC! PHOTO

http://www.webpak.net/~mauth

From: smpowell@taxspam.usa.net (Stephen M. Powell)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.misc
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000
Subject: Re: Macro photography

>Just recently came back into photography and would like some advice on macro
>techniques
>
>1. Is there any good web sites for this subject ?

My web site "Mini-FAQ Macro Photography, Frugal, mostly Digital" has links to many of them.

http://octopus.freeyellow.com/macro.html

>2. Depth of field, in the recent Amateur Photographer they gave an equation
>for working out the hyperfocal distance of a lens (focal length squared/ 

There should be information at the sites under "Conventional Macro Photography".

Stephen M. Powell

Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@worldonline.nl
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Hasselblad serviceMacroPhoto

biloux wrote:

> Does somebody know how I could do macrophotography with my Hasselblad 500CM,
> what type of lenses are available, ...???

To start, the Planar 80 mm will do fine. Just add some extension tubes, and maybe a bellows.

And (if you do not know these already) try to find the formulae to do the calculations needed when doing macro-photography. Using a TTL-metering prism will make things a lot easier, but is not strictly necessary.

Better results in the macro-range are obtained when using the specialized Makro-Planar lenses.

The f/4 120 mm Makro-Planar and the f/5.6 135 mm Makro-Planar both give equally excellent results. The 135 mm lens must be used on the bellows, or on the discontinued variable extension tube. This lens will be discontinued.

The 120 mm Makro-Planar not only is one full stop faster (which helps in focussing), but it can be used on camera as any normal lens.

The 135 mm will cover infinity upto 1:1 magnification when used on the bellows. The 120 mm will cover infinity upto 1:4.5 magnification. To get higher magnifications, extension tubes or bellows are needed: the 32 mm extension tube combined with the 120 mm will take you upto 1:2 magnification.

To go beyond, say, 2:1 magnification, it will be better to use specialized macro/micro lenses like the (discontinued) Zeiss Luminars or equivalent lenses from other manufacturers like Leitz/Leica or Olympus.

These short focal length lenses give excellent results without needing too long extensions. They however do not have a built in shutter, and they must be mounted (microscope thread-mounts) using the special lens mount adaptor.

Since these medium to high magnifications usually need long shutter speeds, you can use the auxilliary (rear) shutter in the 500 C/M to make the exposure, and/or use open flash.

Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000
From: Roger roger.cantwell@removethis.virgin.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Macro photo question

biloux wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Does somebody know how I could do macrophotography with my Hasselblad 500
> CM?

Generally, there are four ways, some of which can be used in combination:

1) Buy a macro lens - the easiest but probably most expensive.

2) Use the standard lens, reversed. Presumably an reversing ring is available for 'blads that fires the leaf shutter when the lens is reversed (it can't be beyond the wit of man, because a reversing attachment is made for Canon lenses that allows the lens-based AF to continue working!). If there isn't anything on the market that will trip the shutter, set up the shot, black out the room, lock the lens on "T" and use flash.

3) Use bellows. These work best with a macro lens, but a standard lens is OK.

4) Use an 80mm enlarging lens, either on bellows or attached to the camera in some other way (you'll need a bit of Heath Robinson ingenuity). The enlarging lens should be better than a standard lens, and possibly as good as the macro, because it's designed for working at these distances. No shutter, so you'll have to use flash again.

--
Roger

Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2000
From: Tom Keller tkeller@midwest.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.marketplace.35mm,rec.photo.technique.nature
Subject: Re: John Shaw's "Butterfly bracket"

Ed,

I, too, have been looking for a small ball head. I recently found a small table-top tripod with a ball head and am going to the camera store this week with my alan wrenches to see how easy it will be to remove it. I think It will work for $16. In the meantime I have made a flash bracket that doesn't swivel for the verticle shots. It leaves the flash on the side. The ball head will fix this. But, you can build the whole thing for just a few dollars. The aluminum bar was about $6 and I bought fancy knobs at True Value for $3.50 (ea) to attach the thing to the camera and to attach the hotshoe. As for the slot, I simply drilled a number of almost connecting holes and then used my sabre saw with a hacksaw blade to finish the slot. A file smoothed out the bumps. Also, insteading of twisting the bracket to have it tilt forward, I attached the verticle piece with a bolt and wing nut so I could easily ajust it. So, without the mini ball head I can't get the light source from above on a verticle shot, but I'd say I'm 90 percent functional. For another inexpensive version of a bracket that has brought excellent results, check out Marc Cassino's home page. He has good directions and a couple of photos. http://markcassino.com Go to Essays and the last one on the list on Learning Photography: Insect Closeups will give you good advice. Enjoy.

tom keller

ed@l-a-net.net wrote:

> First thing...deja.com is going down tomorrow for several days to switch
> their email server, thus please reply to me via email at:
>
> ed@l-a-net.net
>
> Thanks!
>
> My message regards building a macro flash bracket.  I want to build one
> of the flash brackets that John Shaw illustrates in his book, "Closeups
> In Nature".  The problem I have is that I live in a rural area without
> any camera shops close by, thus I can't go in and browse around for the
> small ball heads that I need.  When searching online mostly what I find
> are no pictures with only a brief description similar to "small ball
> head"....really brief and non-descriptive.
>
> Does someone know a model number or type of ball head I could look for
> that would work in building one of these macro flash brackets?
>
> Thanks a million!  ...and remember, please email me at ed@l-a-net.net
>
> Take care,
> Ed
> ed@l-a-net.net
> lareb@my-deja.com(offline for a few days)

Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@worldonline.nl
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.technique.nature
Subject: Re: Going beyond 1:1

Rudy Garcia wrote:

> Oh, I forgot one more thing.  Magnifications of 4X or more are not really very
> practical in the field.  For one thing, field subjects are generally 3D
> and at such magnifications, the subject better be pretty flat if you are
> going to have a sharp image at all.  These magnifications are better tried
> in a controlled environment. You'll need every trick in the book to get
> decent sharpness.

Apropos practical: using a combination of two lenses to obtain high magnifications indeed is not as practical (or as good) as using a short, special, macro/micro lens on tubes or bellows. I would hate to work with the proposed combination of two large lenses in an unwieldy combination, when a tiny macro/micro-lens (and they really are tiny) will do the same, and even better.

Even if cost is important, i would not dismiss this option: brands like Pentax, Olympus, Zeiss, Leitz, and others make/made excellent micro-lenses, and they can be found used, sometimes way too expensive, but sometimes very reasonably priced.

I use Zeiss Luminar lenses (mainly 16 and 25 mm, so using an adapter *only* with the 16 mm lens on a typical 35 mm camera will give me a magnification of approx. 1:1. Using the 16 mm with adapter *only* on my MF camera will give me a magnification of almost 5x !), and have never payed more than (equivalent) US$ 100 for any of them (last one i bought was from a dealer who had a load of Leitz Photar/Phocotar (or whatever they are called) lenses, none of them priced below US$ 500. The equally excellent Zeiss Luminar was priced at US$ 90! Lucky, i guess ;-)).

Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@worldonline.nl
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Hasselblad and Macro Photography.

UCS308 wrote:

> I want to take photographs in doors at 1:1 up to 4:1. I have a Hasselblad
> 203FE and wondered what advice people had in terms of lenses.
>
> I have used the Nikon 60mm Micro, on an F5 before. I like the fact that this
> lens will stop down to F57. I tried the 120mm Makro CFi Recently with
> AutoBellows, and found it to be difficult to work with and wondered what
> else was out there.

The 120 mm Makro-Planar (or the 135 mm Makro-Planar) is the best you can get. Excellent lenses, every bit as good as your micro-nikkor. At least. Going beyond 2x-3x, perhaps you should consider mounting a special purpose macro/micro lens, like the Zeiss Luminars, Leitz Photars (or whatever they are called), Olympus micro-lenses, or Schneider Componons (M-Componon?). They, being shorter, do not need excessive bellows extension. You could even try and find an adaptor to mount your 60 mm micro-nikkor on the bellows.

Doing photomacrography in MF of course is more cumbersome than in 35 mm. When deciding to use MF instead of 35 mm to do macro, you either do this because you want to have a larger frame to get more space around your subject, in which case you're just lumbered with the larger sizes of MF gear. Or you might want your subject to fill the entire frame, and that will need extra, higher magnification compared to 35 mm, and you're stuck with all that needs to be done to get this to boot.

So if you don't really need MF, stick to 35 mm, for convenience sake. 1:1 is 1:1 on any format, just easier to achieve on smaller formats.

Shallow depth of field is not a MF problem. It comes with the territory, i.e. high magnifications. Stopping down excessively (like f/57 !) will perhaps get you more dof, but it definitely will ruin your picture.

Same goes for dark viewfinders: don't even think of using split prism or other focussing aids. Instead, consider using a clear screen: very bright (in comparison), but it will take some getting used to.

And working distances at any given magnification, in theory, are better in MF, using a 120 mm lens, than in 35 mm, using a 60 mm lens. But then, lenses have sizes too, and MF lenses are bigger than 35 mm lenses... Anyhow, short working distances come with the territory as well.

My own MF macro-setup is a 2000 FCW body, tubes or bellows, and the 120 mm Makro-Planar lens to take me up to 2:1 (starting with a 32 mm tube, if this is too short, substituting it for a 56 mm tube, and finally the bellows). For anything higher i use 16 mm and 25 mm Luminar lenses on tubes (sometimes) or bellows (most of the time). The 25 mm on bellows starts at approx. 5:1, so sometimes (not often) i need to bridge the gap between 2:1 and 5:1, and i use the 80 mm Planar (!) lens on bellows. The Luminars take me up to about 16:1. (Or more, combining tubes with bellows. Or even combining bellows with bellows... But that would be silly ;-))

I do like the non-auto bellows because the 'extra' rail extends to the back, underneath the camerabody, and not in front, pushing against the subject (for this reason, my auto-bellows is lying somewhere in its original box, not used for a very long time now!). This means i have to stop down the lens manually before taking the picture, but it has never really bothered me. You will have to stop your CFi lens down manually to use TTL-metering... what luxury! ;-)

From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2000
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@worldonline.nl
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: Extension Tubes

Owen P. Evans wrote:

> Good day to one and all,
>     I have recently acquired the following Hasselblad extension tubes; the
> 8mm, 16mm, 21mm, 32mm and the 55mm tubes.
>     I only have a 500 C/M and 80/2.8 T* Planar at this time and I am
> attempting to get a lot closer to my favourite subject matter, flowers.
> During this past summer, I used a Nikon 5T and 6T alone or stacked to
> magnify the image via Bay 60 to 62 mm. step ring. This worked well and I am
> pleased with the results but I prefer to use extensions and no filters. ( as
> an aside, I have been using a Nikon 200 mm. / 4 Micro Nikkor for all of my
> 35 mm. photography ) The deal on all of these extensions was too good to
> pass up so I bought them all.
> Could some of you pass on your experiences with any of these tubes and the
> 80 lens? How many can you stack and not vignette? What is practical and what
> is fun? Are there any rules to using the extension tubes which I should be
> aware of? Are there any light losses with these tubes and are there any
> correction factors?

You can use any, or all, of these tubes in any configuration with your 80 mm lens. Stacking tubes means adding mechanical couplings, and you might perhaps want to limit yourself to a stack size of five tubes ;-) Seriously though, adding more interfaces, each with their own play, means the chance of jamming increases. But you can easily stack 4 tubes.

The standard 80 mm Planar lens is quite good enough to be used as a macro lens.

Yes, there is light loss that you must compensate. You can calculate how much you need to calculate using the following formulae:

Magnification = total amount of extension / focal length of lens used.

Diaphragm compensation factor = 1 / (Magnification + 1)

Shutterspeed compensation factor = (Magnification + 1)^2

Compensation in stops (EV) = log(Shutterspeed comp. factor) / log(2)

From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@worldonline.nl
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: macro work

piero cavigliasso

> I'm quite new in this forum and new in the hasselblad group of users.
> After years of 135 photography  I bough a 500cm +80/2,8T* +120/5,6T* , all
> second hand. Here in Italy that all costed me about 2500usd but it seems
> that I'll have to make some more investment. And I'd like to ask advise to
> you all.
>
> I use it for hobby and for work. For work I need to take pictures to objects
> in the size range of  30cm (12 inches) down to about 3cm (about 1 inch) like
> rings and  small mechanical parts.
> The advise I need is for
> 1) the kind of lighting equipment I should buy (or make it on a 'do it
> yourself' basis - if possible)  and
> 2) what kind of  film
> 3) if I should buy a tube (55mm?) or a bellow.

As lighting equipment you can make do with any kind you like really. Small studio flash units (or any flash with modelling lights) are great. But when coming in close, doing 2x magnification, you will find that there is not much room to play with, and lighting your subject becomes a bit of a hassle.

There is a lot of do-it-yourself trickery (reflectors mainly) involved. But nothing that can't be done.

You could use a ring light, again preferably one with modelling lights. If you don't like the even, flat light they give, you can always mask a part, or even parts, of the light. But it will always remain frontal light, and you might still want to use additional lights to get some 3-D and pick out structure.

In theory, you can just about use any kind of film you want. Photographing objects down to 3 cm will mean you'll lose up to 3 stops due to extension. And you might be tempted to close the aperture somewhat more than usual to gain depth of field, losing you some more light. Light loss however is balanced a fair deal by being able to use you're lights in close. And if one burst of flash is not enough, you can always fire a second. Considering this loss of light, using a faster than normal film would appear to be the obvious choice, but i find a medium, or even slow film (Kodachrome 25 in 35 mm) is never a problem.

Since you need to go up to 2x magnification (photographing objects down to 3 cms in size) you would definitely want to use the bellows. You'll need an extra 14 cms of extension to do this with the 80 mm lens, even 20 cms extra using the 120 mm. So bellows it is. The 120 mm lens has a built-in extension of about 28 mm, the bellows has as minimum extension of 63.5 mm.

This means that the maximum magnification using the 120 mm lens by itself is about 0.2x (object dimension 25 cm), and the minimum magnification of this lens on the bellows is about 0.5x (object dimension 11 cm), so you will want to use 16 and 32 mm tubes as well to bridge the gap. You could use the 80 mm lens as well, but since the 120 mm is suited so much better for this job, and you'll need just as much extra hardware to make the 80 mm do what you want, i'd stick to the 120 mm.

From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000
From: Marc James Small msmall@roanoke.infi.net
Subject: Re: macro work

I use a manual bellows rig with my 2000 FCM. My lenses range from the 2.8/80 Planar T* to a Luminar and a variety of Micro-Summar and Micro-Tessar lenses to the intended 5.6/135 CZ S-Planar. Any way you cut it, the gear works impeccably. I generally do my critical work on chromes; with a Kiev Meter-Prism, the metering is dead on-spot. The stuff I do for casual work is shot on colour or black and white negative films; here, exposure is less of a problem.

I never use flash, but, then, I am almost always shooting camera gear or lenses or the like, so I am trying to avoid the harsh burn of chrome and black leather. So, I put a chair -- as a stand -- on my front porch in the early afternoon, and go from there, with a white sheet as a backdrop.

The quality breeds of micro lenses are the now-NLA Zeiss Luminars, the partially now-NLA Leitz Photars, the older Micro- and Repro-Summars and Milars, and the Bausch & Lomb Micro-Tessars. There are also Zeiss Jena Mikrotars and Zeiss Jena and Oberkochen Micro-Tessars. All are magnificent.

But, bluntly, you can do no worse than what Victor meant for you, a 5.6/135 S-Planar and a Bellows. Manual or automatic, either way, it will work. And, with a TTL meter-prism, worry not about the details!

Marc

msmall@roanoke.infi.net

From Hasselblad Mailing List;
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@worldonline.nl
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: Extension Tubes

Lynda Botez wrote:

> > Yes, there is light loss that you must compensate. You can calculate how
> > much you need to calculate using the following formulae:
> >
> > Magnification =  total amount of extension / focal length of lens used.
> >
> > Diaphragm compensation factor = 1 / (Magnification + 1)
> >
> > Shutterspeed compensation factor = (Magnification + 1)^2
> >
> > Compensation in stops (EV) = log(Shutterspeed comp. factor) / log(2)
>
>
> How about giving us an example (for the mathematically impaired)?

I'd be glad to.

Suppose you're using the 'good old' 80 mm lens and put it on a 16 mm extension tube. Suppose that you don't use the lens' extension, i.e. the lens is set to focus at infinity.

Magnification on film then is total extension/focal length = 16/80 = 1/5 = 0.2, i.e. the object appears at 1/5 life-size on film.

Now next thing to do is measure light. Say the meter tells us that f/8 at 1/125 second gives correct exposure. We now have a choice: either we open up the aperture to compensate for light loss, or we lengthen exposure time to do the same. Only one of these two is required. To find out how much more the aperture should be opened, or the exposure time lengthened, we must use the appropriate formula.

To find the f-number to use to get proper exposure on film, we must apply our formula saying that the correction factor is 1/(magnification + 1) = 1/(1 + 0.2) = 0.8333. So in our example, we will have to multiply the chosen f-number, 8, by 0.8333, giving us 6.667, which is almost exactly half way between f/5.6 and f/8.

Using this f-number and the chosen shutterspeed will give correct exposure.

If we chose to leave the aperture at f/8, and change shutterspeed instead, we must use the formula saying that the correct correction factor is (magnification + 1)^2 = (0.2 + 1)^2 = 1.44. Our chosen shutterspeed is 1/125 second, which is 0.008 second. Multiply this by the correction factor found (1.44) and we'll get the correct time of 0.01152 second. Convert this back to fractional values by simply dividing this into 1 = 1 / 0.01152 = 1/86.806 second. The correct shutterspeed would be approx. 1/80th of a second. This is not on our shutterspeed ring, and therefore can't be set, but if it would be right between 1/60 and 1/125 second.

You will often find that you would have to use shutterspeeds that can't be set, unless you're getting into the multiple second range. Most of the compensation therefore must be done changing aperture. Yet you can combine the two changing shutterspeeds to the nearest possible value, and then changing aperture to take care of the remainder.

Since it helps just knowing the amount of compensation needed in stops, or Exposure Values (EV) (specially helpful when changing shutterspeeds to take the whole number part of the change in stops needed, and changing aperture to take care of the remaining fractional part) we can calculate the compensation needed in stops by taking the log of the shutterspeedfactor and dividing this by the log of 2. In our example, the shutterspeed factor was 1.44, so compensation needed in stops/EV would be log(1.44)/log(2) = 0.526.

So our measured f/8 at 1/125 sec. must either be f/6.667 at 1/125 sec., or f/8 at 1/86 sec.

Important thing to remember is that lenses have extensions too. So using the 80 mm from our example with the 16 mm extension tube would give a different result if the lens was not set to focus at infinity. The total amount of barrel extension of the 80 mm lens is approx. 8 mm. You will have to add the amount of barrel extension used to the length of the tube(s) and/or bellows. It's quite noteworthy that for instance a 250 mm lens, with its built-in 31 mm extension (approx.) will require an exposure compensation of 0.34 stops when used at its closest focussing range of 2.5 meters. And even more when we compensate for it being a rather asymmetrical lens: compensation required is over 0.5 stops using no extra tubes or bellows at all! The 8 mm extension used when focussing the 80 mm at its near limit still needs an compensation of log((1 + 8/80)^2) / log(2) = 0.275 stops!

By the way: Hasselblad nor Zeiss supply data about the total amount of extension built-in their lenses, but you can measure these quite easily, as the amount the length of your lens changes from settings at infinity and near focussing limits. Unless the lens uses internal focussing or floating elements.

[Ed. note: Mr. Erwin Puts is a noted Leica lens tester and reviewer and author of a number of photographic resources (articles, CDROM..)..]
From Leica Mailing List;
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000
From: imx imxputs@knoware.nl
Subject: [Leica] macro and CoF

Adrian wrote in part about the Curvature of Field when taking macro pictures with the Apo 100 and using bellows or extenson tubes.

Here are the facts: The APO 100 is NOT a zoomlens design. It is a standard Double Gauss with a two element rear group to improve macro capabilities.

The story that zoomlenses and internal focusing lenses are not as good when using tubes than lenses where the complete optical cell moves when focusing is not true.

All lenses (excepting the true micro lenses) when used with bellows or extension tubes will have pronounced Curvature of Field, when not stopping down a few stops. The optical argument is this:

When working very close to the object, the rays of light from the object are angled much steeper than in normal situations. Lenses are not designed to cope with these extreme angles and magnifacation ratios and we get a fairly heavy amount of oblique chromatic aberrations and the steep angle introduces new errors. The sum of all this looks like a pronounced CoF. True Micro lenses like the Micro-Nikkor or the Elmarit 60, are corrected for these steep angles that the rays make.

The best way to proceed here is to use as long a telephoto lens as you can handle and experiment with extension tubes to get the right magnification.

Erwin

From hasselblad mailing list;
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000
From: LEO WOLK bigleo@worldnet.att.net
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: Zeiss Luminars

GOOD LUCK, These are extremely scarce. And the few sets I HAVE seen have price tags like phone numbers! At one time Le Camera was advertising the full set of 4 for something like $6000!

Best, Leo.

From Hasselblad Mailing List;
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@worldonline.nl
Subject: Re: Zeiss Luminars

....

That's steep!

The full set, however, consisted of five Luminar lenses: 16, 25, 40, 63 and 100 mm. The first four had the RMS microscope thread, the 100 mm did not. I currently have and use the 16 and 25 mm Luminars, and have access to the 100 mm (if ever i would need it). They are great lenses. Olympus did have two micro/macro lenses in RMS thread (they are now still available in OM-mount), 21 and 38 mm in length. These two are great too, as good as the Luminars. Perhaps they are not that hard to find. And perhaps not that expensive. There might be more lenses like these, made for use in microscopy. Perhaps a specialised microscope dealer can help.

From Hasselblad Mailing List;
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000
From: Akhil Lal akhil.lal@bcc.cuny.edu
Subject: Re: Zeiss Luminars

They do show up on ebay from time to time.

You might wish to consider the Leitz/Leica Photars which are, I believe, more recent designs and are, by all accounts, first class. These are still available new.

Regards,
Akhil

From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000
From: Peter Klosky Peter.Klosky@trw.com
Subject: Re: macro work

Alison,

Here's a link about the DX-12R, as well as the DX-8R.

http://www.tocad.com/dx8r.html

B&H;:

http://www02.bhphotovideo.com/default.sph/FrameWork.class?FNC=ProductActivator__ Aproductlist_html___649___52880___SUDX12R___REG___SID=E34D80042B0

The reason I suggested the DX12-R is that it is designed for medium format systems, in that it has a wide opening that Sunpak says fits up to a 77mm filter. At present, I have the Sunpak DX-8R, which I bought to replace my Cambron ring flash, as the Sunpak is a little more powerful. Another list member has that Cambron, btw.

Most of my macro work has been done with the Cambron ring flash. I got it at a camera show and have been pleased with the result. It has a 52mm screw thread, and I used it with a B-50 to 52mm adapter on my 80C and 150C Hasselblad lenses, with good result. I'll comment that a lot of my macro work is medical work in 35mm, which matches the format my daughter's doctor uses. The Cambron is fully manual, which presented no significant problem.

Peter

alison@airpen.demon.co.uk 11/26/00

Funnily enough I was about to bring the subject of lighting macro shots up myself... I'm in the middle of some work for a client who wants close-up abstracts and those that I've taken outside have worked well. (Using 32 & 56 tubes with a PME45 metering prism.)

But I'm currently stymied due to currently appalling UK weather, so I've been trying to work indoors without a lot of success. I've tried using my Metz and also tried tungsten with 80A Hitech filter, but I'm just not getting the sort of lighting result that I want for the fossils I'm shooting. I'd thought of trying ringflash but didn't realize there was anything available to fit the 'blad lenses.

Peter--you mentioned the sunpak DX-12R, is that the one you use yourself?

Is anyone else out there using ringflash successfully with their 'blad lenses for close-up work?

Alison Napier
alison@airpen.demon.co.uk

From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000
From: Mark Rabiner mark@rabiner.cncoffice.com
Subject: Re: Hasselblad Macro work

_emaq_ wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I dont' want to go out and spend $$ on a Hassy Macro book.  Does anyone
> know any web sites with macro work done with Hasselblad?
>
> I'm not considering macro work on medium format right now (have a 55micro
> Nikon), but would love to see some on the web.
>
> TIA!

I talked to the rep. and e mailed them and they sent me all kinds of macro stuffa few months back. A plastic slider computer thing which I love!!!

The Vario no longer made tube was a crucial part of obtaining lots of those magnifications.

Amazing you have to get those used!

mark rabiner
:)
http://spokenword.to/rabiner/

From Nikon Mailing List;
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000
From: "L Shepherd" Shepherdlen@btinternet.com
Subject: Re: [NIKON] Reversed lenses

- ----- Original Message-----
From: "Riccardo Polini" ripolin@tin.it
Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2000
Subject: [NIKON] Reversed lenses

....

> 2. Can we calculate the magnification attainable using a reversed lens and
> how...
> Riccardo Polini

I can help on this bit.

Reversed on bellows film plane to subject distance equals focal length times magnification (plus or minus 5%).

A 20mm gives 7 times magnification at 140mm subject to film plane distance.

The 140mm includes the 46.5mm between the Nikon lens flange and film plane nd any extension tube needed to mount the camera body on the bellows. Once you have set the subject and film plane the challenge is to move the lens to acheive focus. It comes right in from total blur and right out again in about 2mm!

The subject is difraction limited smaller than f4 and even at f8 (where quality drop is not too bad) total depthis .086mm. TTL exposure needs some compensation - about plus 1 stop with the F100. What you have in mind is not for those in a hurry. E-mail me if you want more guidance.

Good luck.

Len Shepherd

Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001
From: Bill Tuthill ca_creekin@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Highest-rated macro lenses vs reality?

Because wildflower season approaches and Tamron's $50 rebate expires at the end of January, I updated my list of macro lenses, and sorted by the composite score of www.photozone.de/easytxt.htm and Photodo. The results for 90-105 lenses surprised me a bit because Canon came out on top, and Nikon (famous for "micro" photography) was only mid-pack.

        focal length & speed    wgt     len     cost    close filter score
Canon   macro 100mm f2.8 1:1    650g    105mm   $430    30cm    52  9.14
Minolta macro 100mm f2.8 1:1    510g    98mm    $580    35cm    55  8.72
Sigma   macro 105mm f2.8 EX 1:1 451g    94mm    $389    31cm    58  8.58
Tamron  macro 90mm f2.8 1:1     403g    97mm    $360    29cm    55  8.56
Nikon   macro 105mm f2.8 D 1:1  555g    104mm   $540    31cm    52  8.44
Tokina  macro 100mm f2.8 1:1    550g    98mm    $370    35cm    55  7.82
Pentax  macro 100mm f2.8 FA 1:1 600g    104mm   $560    31cm    58  7.80
Pentax  macro 100mm f3.5 FA 1:1 220g    72mm    $200    43cm    49  7.09
Vivitar macro 100mm f3.5        270g    71mm    $140    43cm    49  6.59

Do these results agree with your experience? Tamron is recommended more often than Sigma for better bokeh, but the scores aren't that divergent. The Pentax 100/2.8 stands out for high cost in the lower ranks. Has the new Canon 100 USM macro changed optically since the non-USM lens listed?

In the 50-60 range, Sigma is the winner, and Nikon is again mid-pack, but short macro lenses aren't much use in the field anyhow.

Sigma   macro 50mm f2.8 EX 1:1  358g    63mm    $259    19cm    52 8.90
Minolta macro 50mm f2.8 1:1     315g    55mm    $350    20cm    55 8.85
Nikon   macro 60mm f2.8 D 1:1   455g    75mm    $330    22cm    62 8.83
Canon   macro 50mm f2.5 1:1     280g    63mm    $285    23cm    52 8.74
Pentax  macro 50mm f2.8 FA 1:1  385g    70mm    $355    19.5cm  52 8.22

From Hasselblad Mailing List;
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@worldonline.nl
Subject: Re: Close-up Portraits

Paolo Pignatelli wrote:

> Why do we have so many different lengths extension tubes?  I have the 10 and
> the 55, but I see that there is a "new series" with a 16mm, etc.  Why?  I
> use my 10 and 55 mostly with my 120 Makro, what intermediate extension would
> you recommend, the 21 or the 16, the 32... (and why)?

The "new" range of tubes is 8, 16, 32, 56 mm. Notice how there is a 8 mm step in this series (8, 16, 8 + 16, 32, 32 + 8, 32 + 16, 56, 56 + 8, and then you're up to the minimum bellows extension)?

This 8 mm step is derived from the smallest maximum barrel extension found in Zeiss/Hasselblad lenses. This way, you can get a seemless, gap-less extension from 0 upto the combination of all tubes + bellows.

[Ed. note: some notes on macro calculations thanks to Q.G. de Bakker!]
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@worldonline.nl
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: exposure compensation with extension tubes

Rafael Alday Anzola wrote:

> Recently I puchased a 32mm extension tube for my 250mm C T* lens for
> obtaining closer portraits. According to Q.G. de Bakker (I don't know the
> first name),

I'm trying to keep that a secret ;-)

> the exposure compensation with a 32mm extension tube + maximum
> extension of the 250mm lens is about 1 stop. I took two rolls and films were
> correctly exposed. After this, I looked for formulas to obtain a table that
> help me to calculate the exposure compensation with other extension tubes
> and lenses. I found the following formulas:
>           Maximum field of view= focal lens/extension*56.6
>           Minimum field of view= focal lens/(maximum extension of the lens
> (32mm in 250 mm lens)+ extension o tube)*56.5
>           Magnification= total amount of extension/focal lens
>           Diaphragm compemsation factor= 1/(magnification+1). This numer
> must be multiplied by the selected diaphragm read in the hand lightmeter.
>           Shutterspeed compensation factor= (magnification+1)^2. This number
> must be multiplied by the selected speed read in the hand lightmeter.
>           Compensation in EV (stops)= log (shutterspeed comp. factor)/log
> (2)
> With all of these formulas I performed a table for different lenses and
> extension tubes. I could not enclose this table because was bigger in Kb
> than permited on the list.
> I was very susprised when I saw that the theoretical compensation for a
> 250mm lens ( with the maximum extension)+32mm extension tube would be only
> 0.6 stops.
>  What is wrong?.
>   The films I developed were well exposed (perhaps a unappreciable
> overexposure of 1/3 stop?)

What's "wrong" is that the usual formulas don't take into account that some lenses aren't symmetrical. The Hasselblad/Zeiss Sonnar f/5.6 250 mm, among many others, is not. You will have to take this into account as well. The degree of assymetry can be expressed by the ratio of the entrance and exit pupil of the lens, the pupillary magnification (is this the right term in English?), which is diameter exit pupil/diameter entrance pupil.

You should change your formulae accordingly for all lenses that are distinctly assymetric.

For instance, the shutterspeed compensation factor for such lenses is not (!)

(magnification+1)^2

but

((magnification/pupillary magnification) + 1)^2.

Similarly, the aperture compensation factor is

1/((magnification/pupillary magnification) +1).

In the 250 mm Sonnar, the entrance pupil diameter is 44.8 mm, the exit pupil diameter is 25.6, the pupillary magnification therefore is 25.6 / 44.8 = 0.57.

Using all lens extension (approximately 32 mm) plus 32 mm tube, magnification is

64 / 250 = 0.256

shutterspeed compensation factor then will be

((0.256 / 0.57) + 1)^2 = 2.1

or,

log(2.1) / log(2) = 1.07 stops.

You will find that you will loose more light than the "classic" formulae will tell when using telephoto lenses, but less when using retrofocus lenses. In my own tables, i ignored asymmetry when pupillary magnification is greater than 1 (retrofocus lenses).

You can also calculate an 'assymetry focal lenght' by multiplying the lens' focal length by the pupillary magnification, and use this 'asymmetry focal length' in the 'classic' formulas instead of the nominal focal length (the 250 mm, for instance, would become a 142 mm).

A rather incorrect explanation of this phenomenon is that assymetric lenses are either closer to the film (telephoto) or further away from the film (retrofocus) than their focal lengths may suggest. So adding, say, a 32 mm tube to a 250 mm lens is not really increasing lens-film distance by only 1/8, but by 1/4. So extra compensation is needed.

You can find all necessary data (pupil diameters, and true focal length, but alas no maximum extension 8( ) on all Hasselblad lenses on the Zeiss Lens Data Sheets, or on Zeiss' website.

Postscript:

I should perhaps add that this 'asymmetry focal length' should only be used to calculate exposure compensation. All other calculations (field of view, magnification, etc.) should be done using the true focal length.

[Ed. note: Special Thanks! to Randy Holst for providing this detailed posting on macro flash topics and tips...]
From Nikon MF Mailing List:
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001
From: Randy Holst mistervolvo@home.com
Subject: Re: [NikonMF} fluorescent lights/macro (LONG)

laika wrote:

[snip]

> I had written off the flash idea considering the F3's non standard flash
> shoe and I don't have the funds at the moment to get myself a SB-16A or more
> suitable for this job a SB-21A. The idea of using a standard flash in manual
> mode connected by a PC cord didn't occur to me before.

Hi Laika,

For close up work, you can use most any small flash unit which has a PC connector and manual mode. It just takes a little understanding as to how it all works.

> So the PC cord will allow me to trigger an off camera flash but with no TTL.

Correct. Lack of TTL capability is no big deal. In fact, with some very reflective or non-reflective subjects and backgrounds, TTL flash control can be fooled like any other non-TTL automatic flash control system into giving you improper exposure. The advantage of using a fully manual system is that correct exposure is not dependent upon subject reflectivity. Correct exposure can be determined with an incident reading flash meter or simply by tests with film.

> Does the flash need a special connect terminal of does it just use the
> normal shoe?

The Nikon F3 has a small round PC flash terminal on the front of the body, below the rewind crank. Any standard, generic PC cord will fit that terminal. Most aftermarket flash units have a provision for connecting the PC cord. Your best bet would be a non-coiled PC cord, 3' to 5' long.

> I know my father has Vivitar flash that I could borrow long
> term, from memory it has manual output control (I'll get it off him on
> Monday and see).

Vivitar makes good units for this purpose, particularly the Vivitar 283 and 285, both with a Guide Number of 120. They also come with short cords which fit the special Vivitar socket on one end and a PC cord connector on the other. The 285 has the advantage of built-in variable manual power settings.

> Now if this all hooks up ok where do I start as far as setting goes ?

First, there are a few basic principles of close up flash photography with which you need to be familiar. Here they are in no particular order.

1. Lens Extension: This has to do with all close up photography. A normal 50mm lens does not have enough focusing movement to move the aperture far enough away from the film plane to affect exposure to any appreciable degree. But when you use extension tubes between the camera body and lens, you have substantial lens extension which will affect exposure. With a lens extended to provide a reproduction ratio of 1:2 (half life size), one stop less light passes through the lens at any given aperture. At 1:1 (life size), two stops less light passes through the lens. In other words, with the lens extended to provide a 1:1 ratio and the aperture set at f8, the amount of light reaching the film would be equivalent to f16. This is one of the reasons that existing room light is not bright enough for close up work. The Nikon PN-11 extension tube provides 52.5mm of extension, enough to bring your 50/f1.8 lens up to 1:1 or a little beyond, resulting in a two stop light loss right off the bat. If you set the lens aperture to f11, the effective exposure would be f22, and so on.

2. One key aspect of flash photography is the flash-to-subject distance, NOT the camera to subject distance. With the flash in manual mode, it puts out the same amount of light each time it is fired. The intensity of the light on the subject increases if the flash is moved closer and decreases if moved away. In order to establish proper exposure which can be repeated, you want to mount the flash OFF the camera so the camera can be moved around while the flash stays the same distance from the subject. (Hence the need for a PC cord several feet long.) Once proper exposure is established with a particular flash-to-subject distance, the camera can be moved anywhere without affecting exposure. For exposure repeatability, measure the flash-to-subject distance with a ruler and place it the same distance from the subject each time (measuring from the face of the flash reflector).

3. Most small flash units have a near working limit of about 3', from flash head to subject. This limit is determined by the power (Guide Number) of the flash and the smallest aperture available on the lens. A flash like the Vivitar 283 is pretty powerful with a Guide Number of 120. Trying to use it within 12" of the subject may produce too much light, depending on the amount of lens extension, aperture setting and film speed. There is an easy/cheap way of reducing the flash unit's light output and improving the quality of light it provides. I've found that a piece of white translucent Lexan (really tough plastic, free scraps available from any electric sign company) about 1/8" thick and cut just big enough to cover the flash unit's reflector, will reduce the flash unit's output by about 2-1/2 to 3 stops. Just attach the piece of Lexan to the front of the flash reflector with Scotch tape. This enables you to use the flash closer to the subject, which also makes the light source larger in relation to the size of the small subject. It's kind of like using a large diffused light box, only on a smaller scale. I've found that the white Lexan doesn't seem to produce a color shift.

4. The Nikon F3 has a flash synchronization shutter speed (the X setting) of 1/80th of a second. This is the fastest shutter speed at which the shutter is completely open when the flash is fired via the PC cord. Use this setting. Actual exposure time will be determined by the duration of the flash unit, usually 1/1000 or a second or shorter, so you can even hand-hold the camera and get no blur in the photo - another advantage of close-ups with flash.

Here's a cheap, simple way of creating a mini close-up studio for shooting small objects, which performs a number of functions:

Buy a sheet (1/4" thick, 2' x 3') of white foam core board (cheap at any art supply store) and cut it into six 12" square pieces with a sharp knife. Either use tape and/or a hot glue gun to assemble a box (cube) with an open bottom. (You will have one 12" square piece left over.) Cut a hole in the top center, just big enough to stick the flash head through and hold it in place. (This will maintain the same flash-to-subject distance each time you use it.) Cut another hole in the top to place a small, high intensity desk lamp over it to provide focusing illumination. (This focusing light will be overpowered by the flash.) Cut a hole in one of the sides, large enough to allow you to easily stick the lens/extension tube into the box for shooting. The white interior walls of the box will reflect light from all directions toward the subject, providing fairly even but not completely shadowless illumination. Some shadow gives the subject a more 3-dimensional look. (You can adjust the fill light effect from the interior walls by taping up pieces of black paper if needed, but this will affect exposure.)

Getting started:

Set up the box on a table at a comfortable working level, and place a representative subject on a piece of white paper under the open bottom of the box, in the center. Place the flash unit in the hole in the top so it's aimed straight down toward the subject (with the piece of white Lexan over the reflector). Place the desk lamp over it's respective hole to provide interior illumination. I'd start with ISO 100 speed slide film in your F3, with the shutter speed set to "X". Connect the PC cord between the camera and flash unit, making sure the flash is set to manual operation and that it is allowed to fully recharge before each exposure.

With the PN-11 and 50/f1.8 lens mounted on the camera, set the lens focusing ring to the infinity setting and leave it there (maybe even tape it in that position). Leaving the focusing ring at the same position will ensure that the lens extension doesn't change, which may affect exposure slightly. Focus on the subject in the viewfinder by moving the entire camera slightly forward or away from the subject. At the 1:1 reproduction ratio, you will only have about 2" of working distance from the front of the lens to the subject, so be careful not to let the front of the lens shadow the subject from the flash above. Do not use a filter on the lens as it will likely cause reflections and a reduction in contrast in the photos.

I would normally determine a starting point for exposure with a flash meter, but since you don't have one, you'll have to burn up a roll of film to determine proper exposure. I'd start at f4 on the lens and go all the way to f22, in half-stop increments, for a total of 11 frames of film. This is a rather rough guess at a starting point as I have no idea as to the power of your flash unit. You may also want to repeat the same series of shots with the Lexan diffuser removed from the flash if you have a particularly wimpy flash unit or want to obtain greater depth of field with smaller apertures.

I'd recommend doing this initial test with transparency film as it's more sensitive to differences in exposure and you won't have to deal with corrections made in printing negatives. In other words, what you see in the slides is exactly what you got. Make sure you write down the aperture settings for each frame and don't have the film mounted. Have the lab just develop the film and leave it in one long strip for mistake proof comparison of each frame on a light box. The best looking frame will indicate your optimum aperture setting for future shots.

Several people have made suggestions as to film, so I might as well also. My favorite is Kodak E100S transparency film, which has very accurate color and is a true 100 speed film. The "S" means saturated, for colors with a nice punch, but not overly so. You can have it developed at any lab with E-6 capability.

Good luck. Lemme know if you have any questions.

Randy Holst
Boise, Idaho

From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001
From: Peter Klosky Peter.Klosky@trw.com
Subject: RE: Life size, half size and close-ups

Nitzan,

The definition of magnification is "The ratio of an optical image size to an object size." In other words, "thirty to one", "30:1", "thirty power", "thirty times" and "30X" all mean the same thing, and refer to a high degree of magnification. Derek's explanation is good, and he is correct that you stated it backwards in part of your email.

Peter

From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001
From: Jim Brick jim_brick@agilent.com
Subject: RE: Life size, half size and close-ups

Nitzan,

This is exactly what I told you, privately, two weeks ago.

Take a photograph of a ruler. When 1" on the ruler measures 1" on the film, it is 1:1 or life size. When 1" on the ruler measures 1/2" on the film, it is 1:2 or 1/2 life size. When 1" on the ruler measures 1/10" on the film, it is 1:10 or 1/10th life size.

Jim

From Hasselblad Mailing List;
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001
From: Henry Posner/B&H; Photo-Video henryp@bhphotovideo.com
Subject: Re: Life size, half size and close-ups

you wrote:

>1.  My confusion lies when they say: 1/2 life size or 1/4 life size....Does
>1/2 life size or 1:2 mean that half a golf ball will fit the frame, and 1/4
>life size or 1:4 mean that one quarter of the golf ball will fill the frame?
>Meaning then that 1:4 is a GREATER magnification than 1:2 or 1/2 life
>size???  Am I understanding this correctly?

It has nothing to do with the frame.
1:1 means that an object which is 1" in "real life" will be 1" on the film.
1:2 means that an object which is 2" in "real life will be 1" on the film
2:1 means that an object which is 1" in "real life" will be 2" on the film

--
regards,
Henry Posner
Director of Sales and Training
B&H Photo-Video, and Pro-Audio Inc.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com

From Hasselblad Mailing List;
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@worldonline.nl
Subject: Re: Life size, half size and close-ups

Just remember that the size indicated *always* is the *relative size* of the object as it appears *on film*, compared to the object's actual size.

1:10 (= 1/10) means it is 1/10th life size on film,
1:2 = half life size on film,
1:1 life size on film,
2:1 (= 2x) twice life size on film,
3x three times life size on film,
etc., etc.

From: "Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@worldonline.nl
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2001
Subject: Re: Hasselblad extension tube

WTE wrote:

> Can anyone tell me the exposure factor for a Hasselblad extension tube that
> is marked inside
> -21-. The tube will be used with a 500C.

We will have to know what lens you're using first. Exposure compensation is needed because the lens is taken further away from the film plane by inserting an extension tube, thus spreading the light passing through the lens over a larger area. The amount of extra spread, and thus light loss is determined by the ratio of extension added to the focal length of the lens used.

So first we need to know the focal length of the lens or lenses you will want to use with the tube.

The general formulae to calculate exposure compensation and relating entities are:

[1] Magnification = extension added/focal length of lens used

For instance, using your 21 mm tube and a 80 mm lens (set at infinity):

Magnification = 21 / 80 = 0.2625

Objects will appear on film 0.2625 times their natural size.

Note that lenses have extension too, so using the lens at any other focussing setting than infinity, you will have to add the extension provided by the focussing mechanism to the extension provided by the tube.

[2] Field of view = film format size / magnification

For instance, using the above combo on a Hasselblad, having a format size of approx. 56 mm square, field of view will be 56 / 0.2625 = 213.33 mm

[3] Exposure increase factor = (magnification + 1)^2

For instance, using the above combo, a measured shutterspeed of 1/125 must be changed to :

(0.2625 + 1)^2 = 1.5936 * 1/125 = 0.01275 = 1/78 second (somewhere between 1/60 and 1/125)

[4] Aperture correction factor = 1 / (magnification + 1)

For instance, using the above combo, a measured aperture of f/8 must be changed to:

1/(0.2625 + 1) = 0.792 * 8 = 6.3

Note: either the correction to the shutterspeed (as per [3]) or to the aperture (as per [4]) must be used. Not both, unless you can distribute the necessary correction over both (for instance when a 1.5 stop correction is needed you can correct for 1 full stop by changing the shutterspeed, and correct for the remaining 1/2 stop by changing the aperture).

[5] The compensation required in stops/exposure values is:

-EV = log((magnification + 1)^2) / log(2)

For instance, still using the above combo, the necessary compensation in stops/exposure values is:

log((0.2625 + 1)^2) / log(2) = log(1.5936) / log(2) = 0.6725.

From Minolta Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001
From: "Alan Kerr" southernlightsphotography@xtra.co.nz
Subject: stacking lenses

I had a look at some great close-up work taken with a setup where the photographer stacked his lenses. He mounted a 200mm lens to the camera then using a joiner that was like a filter ring but male threads on both sides he attached a 50mm lens reversed to the 200mm. This gave about 2x magnification with working distance only a few inches and the quality was great. He told me he had to try several combinations to get one that had no vignetting problems. You can solve some vignetting problems by use extension tubes between the prime lens and the camera.You have the reversed lens wide open, that way you can control exposure with aperture on the prime lens. The photos totally blew me away they were fantastic. Another thing this guy did which was a great effect was to slide an aluminum tube about 8 inches long over his macro lens and took photos of flowers. The results were great with the flower in the centre and reflected colours of the tube from the flowers on the outside of the shot. It was all great stuff

Best Wishes
Alan Kerr
Southern Lights Photography

http://www.Minoltians.ws the gallery dedicated to Minolta Photographers

From Minolta Mailing List;
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001
From: montemaranotw@nswccd.navy.mil
Subject: Re: stacking lenses

....

I have used 2 step up rings back to back. Depending on the diameters of the lenses you are trying to stack there may be a step up ring combination where one will slip over the other. This will help with alignment and can make a stronger glue joint. (I use epoxy.) I did get some strange stares in the photo shop as I sat on the floor trying out different combinations. I also took a rear lens cap, cut out the closed end, epoxied a step up ring to it. Now I can screw in a UV filter to protect the rear element of the reversed ring. Since there is only about a cm working distance with the combination I'm using, I feel much more comfortable with the filter on. Can also use colored filters for special effects.

Tom

From Nikon MF Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001
From: "Hansen, Lars Holst" LHHansen@zi.ku.dk
Subject: RE: Which Nikon Macro lens on a bellows?

Hi Alex!

You might find the "photo tips" page of John Shaws site @

http://www.johnshawphoto.com/frame_page.htm

useful in deciding for a macro focal lenght.

Best regards, --
Lars Holst Hansen - LHHansen@zi.ku.dk
http://www.zi.ku.dk/personal/lhhansen
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NikonRepair

Alexander Frese wrote:

> ...Now I'm considering to add one of the Nikon Macro lenses to my
> equipment. ... Which one (55, 105 or 200 all MF!) will do best? ...

From Hasselblad Mailing List;
Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@worldonline.nl
Subject: Re: extension tubes

Anthony Ferraro wrote:

Does anyone know how many stops you lose when using the different extension tubes. Somebody told me #56 is 2 stops. Is this correct? What about #21, #32 etc?

It all depends on what focal length lens you use.

Some formulas:

Magnification = extension / focal length

For instance, 56 mm tube and 80 mm lens: 56 / 80 = 0.7. (Remember that lenses have built-in extension too, so you will have to add this to the extension provided by the tube. The built-in extension of a lens with focussing ring set to the infinity-mark is 0 mm. You can measure the extension as you turn the focussing ring on all lenses, except the ones using internal focussing.)

=> Aperture correction factor = 1 / (magnification + 1)

For instance, 56 mm tube and 80 mm lens: 1 / (1.7) = 0.588. So a measured aperture of, say, f/4 must be changed to 0.588 * 4 = 2.35 (almost halfway between f/2 and f/2.8)

=> Shutterspeed correction factor = (magnification + 1)^2

For instance, 56 mm tube and 80 mm lens: (1.7)^2 = 2.89. So a measured speed of, say, 1/125 sec. must be changed to 2.89 * 1/125 = 2.89 * 0.008 = 0.02312 sec = 1/43.25 sec. (almost halfway between 1/60 and 1/30)

Remember that only one of the two corrections above must be used, either shutterspeed or aperture.

=> Correction in stops = log((magnification + 1)^2) / log(2)

For instance, 56 mm tube and 80 mm lens: log((1.7)^2) / log(2) = 1.531 stops.

Also, if a 120 Makro is capable of 1:3 with no accessories, and 1:1 with the 32, could I get 1:1 with an 80 cf and the #56?

No.

The 120 mm will only reach 1:2 using the 32 mm ring. This means it will then have a total extension of 60 mm, so the lens' own built-in extension is 28 mm. Without the 32 mm ring, therefore, it will only go to approx. 1:4.3

You will need a total extension equal to the focal length of the lens used to get up to 1:1. So using a 80 mm lens you will need 80 mm extension. The lens will provide approx. 8 or 9 mm itself, the rest must be provided by tubes or bellows.

Does anyone have experience with these extension tubes? Are they too much of a pain, and/or unreliable?

No. They work fine.

Would I be better served with proxars?

They are easier to use (no compensation needed), but, in my opinion, should only be used to achieve a moderate extension of the lens' close focussing range.

and what proxar 120 makro combo would I need to achieve a 1:1 ratio? and the 80 cf???

The 120 mm Makro-Planar lens is corrected to give its best performance at close focussing range. I wouldn't mar this by adding a supplementary lens.

Use tubes or bellows instead.

Besides, i don't think the Proxars will be able to take either lens to 1:1.

From Nikon MF Mailing List;
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001
From: "Mel Hughes" mellh@bellsouth.net
Subject: Close up 'on the cheap'

Mike,

I believe you could use any of the Nikon extension tubes with your lenses with great success. I believe the PN-11 (52.5mm) used on a 50mm lens would provide close to a 1:1 reproductions. The PN-11 offers a rotating tripod collar mount as well. There is also the PK-11A (8mm), PK-12 (14mm) and the PK-13 (27.5mm). The only problem with any of these is cost. Even used, a Nikon extension tube in good shape can run anywhere from $40 to $90, depending on the length of the tube, its condition, and the seller.

But there are other alternatives. A three extension tube set of Kenko auto extension tubes for Nikon AI/AF from B&H; costs $89 new. It includes a 12mm, a 20mm, and a 36mm tube which would allow magnifications of .35, .51, and .83 respectively on a 50mm lens. They,as well as the Nikon tubes, can be used together as well to increase magnification.

Yet another alternative is the Nikon double element close-up lens. The 3T and 4T are the 52mm size and provide a 1.5 diopter and a 2.9 diopter, respectively. Although they are recommended for telephoto lenses, I have used them to good effect on a 50mm f/1.8 Nikkor.

Then too, there are the lens reversing rings which have a Nikon F type flange on one end and are threaded to go into your 52mm filter ring on the front of your lenses. It allow you to reverse your lens for some pretty incredible macro work.

If you are just curious and a little inventive. The cheapest alternative is to make your own tube with either plastic or cardboard tubing and use gaffer's tape to mount your lens and your body. Although not elegant, it can produce the same image as an all-auto tube. The main difference you will see in tubes between manufacturers is quality and heft of build, inclusion of auto features, and ease of use. All a tube does is provide extension. Some just do it more elegantly. The same can not be said of close up lenses. The double element lenses are markedly better. Another feature of the close up lenses is that you lose no light using them. Use of extension tubes costs light and increases exposure requirements.

Hope this helps,

Mel Hughes
Chattanooga, TN

mailto:mellh@bellsouth.net

From: "Al Denelsbeck" denelsbeck@ipassonspam.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: Thu, 31 May 2001
Subject: Re: Choosing a Macro lens...

Steve Kramer wrote

>It seems the more I try reading the reviews and comparing the charts,
>the more confused I get. Would someone please tell me...
>
>Given the parameters of staying with Nikon lenses, what would YOU choose
>as the ideal dedicated macro setup for OUTDOOR nature use?  A single
>lens? A lens with a teleconverter? Which lens? which converter? And why?
>
>Steve Kramer
>Osaka, Japan

I'm not a Nikon user, so I'll stay away from specific lens and accessory recommendations. But given no stronger parameters than that, I would have to say there isn't any ideal setup, save a good tripod.

I started macro work on my Olympus system with a set of cheap single element diopters, and with a sharp lens and a little attention got great results. Once I switched to a Canon system, I got the diopters (not as good on the longer lenses now), as well as three extension tubes, a teleconverter, and a dedicated (Sigma) 105 macro. And I use them all, frequently in combination.

There's no way I could possibly agree with the other posters who say avoid the teleconverter - the results I've gotten from one (Kenko MC-7 2X) have been superb. On my website, see the lizard (page 27, specs listed) and Publication (the striders were shot with a Sigma 105 macro, a 2X converter, and a 12mm extension tube, the spider with a 75-300 consumer zoom and, if memory serves, a 36mm tube).

In the field, you may not necessarily know what you're after or how close you can get, and having options just means you're more likely to get the shot. The extension tubes with a cheap-ass 75-300 zoom give me a better reach than anything else, the dedicated macro is undoubtedly the sharpest. Combining the macro with a converter and extension tube(s) can give extreme closeups with a little working distance, and the distance is helpful not only with skittish subjects, but in simply not interfering with your setting (or submerging your camera).

I also have yet to use a flash bracket but would still recommend one. I've gotten by with using a bounce card on a camera-mounted external flash, and also with two mini-slave strobes from Photographer's Warehouse strapped on the macro hood themselves - strictly manual output, so some tests are needed, but works in place of a ringflash. Pushing film also helps, in reducing needed light and/or allowing handholdable shutter speeds.

If budget is a consideration, I'd say get the tubes first, and no need to stick to any particular brand. There's no elements to be unsharp, and they allow you to see if macro is worth the effort. If you already know macro is a calling, don't limit yourself to any one technique. A dedicated macro lens is a necessity, I'd recommend the 100mm or thereabouts, but should not be considered complete by any stretch.

Just my 2 bytes, - Al.

[Ed. note: nifty idea for a macro wind screen - Thanks, Eric! ;-) ...]
From Minolta Mailing List;
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001
From: eric.samuelsson@usa.net
Subject: OT: Wind cover

Manfred, I have the same experience as you, and I don't consider my current solution to be perfect, but here's what I did:

I took 3 equally sized pieces of clear plexi glass (1-2mm thick). I taped them together with a transparent tape into a U shape. The tape makes it collapsible and adjustable. I also attached small sticks at the bottom of the construction to be able to secure it to soft ground and make small adjustments of the height.

This solution is at least light-weight and stable. It's not that adjustable, but the tape and the sticks is enough for most situations.

Regarding the light: I have not seen any color cast due to the plexi glass, but the U shape must be adjusted so that the shadows of the tape isn't disturbing.

Regarding the background: On rare occasions I notice some glare, but it can be removed with a polarizer.

If anyone has improvement suggestions or a better overall solution, let me know.

Regards,
Eric

....

Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001
From: Mark marks6@earthlink.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.misc
Subject: Re: Help with indoor macro photography

First

Write letters to the museums that you will be visiting, telling them what you want to do. Many museums will not allow tripods or flash, but if you pave the way, you will probably be OK with both. Ask to get written permission to do whatever it is that you want to do.

Next, I assume that you want to take these photographs to document the objects - in that case I would make up a small card with a variety of different colors in it, and place this within the image for each photo that you take, now, regardless of how the film is processed, or what light you have, you at least have a shot at being able to use photoshop to get the original colors back. A small scale might also be helpful.

With Macro, most any light will be soft enough for you - I'd use a single flash, with a reflector - if you can.

If you can use a flash, rig up an arm to hold it off to one side of the lens (about so that the angle between the lens, the subject and the flash is about 45 degrees), and another arm to hold a piece of foam-core with aluminum foil on it on the other side, then for various magnifications with the macro lens, determine the aperture needed to get a good exposure. You can write these down on the back of the piece of foam-core. When you are in the museum, you will be able to look at a pot, decide that it needs, say a 1:5 magnification, set then just set your focus and aperture, and move the tripod until you have sharp focus, and snap! For good measure, I'd bracket the exposures - film is cheap, the trip is not.

David Aftandilian wrote:

> Dear All:
>
> I'm about to begin a research project that will take me to a number of
> museums in Illinois, and a few in other midwestern states. Part of the
> project will involve photographing pots, pipes, and other art objects in
> the museums under indoor, low light conditions.
>
> I have access to an old Pentax Spotmatic camera with a 50mm Takumar
> macro lens, a tripod, a cable release, and a flash. I also could use a
> newer semiautomatic Pentax, for which I would have to buy a macro lens.
>
> Questions: how can I take the best photos possible under these
> conditions, with the truest colors and clearest detail, and as little
> equipment as possible? What sort of portable macro setups do people
> recommend for indoor conditions? Is there such a thing as a portable
> light table, for instance? Might a digital camera be better for this
> than the ones I have? Is there any way to get good lighting without
> dragging around several photographic lights?
>
> Thanks a million for any advice.
>
> -- Dave

Date: 03 Jun 2001
From: heavysteam@aol.comzapcrap (Heavysteam)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Choosing a Macro lens...

> The (only) advantage of using longer lenses is that they allow longer  lens
> to subject distances.

That's a very powerful advantage. One of the biggest problems in macro photography is getting enough light on the subject to allow needed working apertures, and the longer working distance makes this much easier.

Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001
From: "Paul Skelcher" skelch@erols.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Choosing a Macro lens...

> or Lieberkuhn reflectors instead?

Q.G. de Bakker wrote

> Something from the world of microscopy. See for instance, especially  fig. 4:
> http://www.microscopy-uk.org.uk/mag/artsep98/beincid.html

Thanks, very interesting. I've been using microscopes at work every day for the last 30 years and never come across the term. Needless to say I've ordered a couple of reflectors and an oil lamp, from B&H.;

Paul

Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001
From: ss@randomc.com (Steve)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: off-brand macro lenses

>> > I am advising a friend about buying an AF camera for his sister. The  make
> of
>> > body is pretty much up to her, but finding an adequate lens for o150   or
> less is
>> > a problem. I was going to suggest a macro, but due to the budget  marque
> lenses
>> > are out.
>> > how do third party macros (cosina 100mm, sigma 50mm) stand up to the  major
>> > manufacturers? I recall hearing cosina's was not too bad (by their  low
>> > standards). I know Tamron's is great, but unless I can find a decent
> secondhand
>> > model it's out of the budget. Are there any marque macros, or decent  zooms
> that
>> > can focus pretty close (1:3, 1:2 etc.)?

You can find the Tamron for about 325 at KEH - mind you they come in and out pretty fast. New they run about 400. The Nikon 60mm runs about 250 used.

I can only recommend the Tamron at this point for third party. As far as the image quality, some like the Sigma, others hate it. I've never heard a complaint about the Tamron. My complaint with the Nikkor Micros that I own and have used (55 mm AIS, 60mm AF, 105 AF) is that they shorten their focal length to aceive 1:1 and the out of focus doesn't look so good. However, they are very solid and very sharp. The Nikon 28-105 goes to 1:2 and looks quite good for a $299 lens (brand new price!)

Steve

From Minolta Mailing List;
Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2001
From: montemaranotw@nswccd.navy.mil
Subject: Re: Macro Lenses

Robin,

Some people on this list have recommended the Vivitar 100 f/3.5 Macro as a good, inexpensive lens to move up a level from standard lens plus diopter. It is similar to the Phoenix, in that is is 1:2 but comes with a closeup lens. One of the British magazines (either Amateur Photographer or Practical Photography) recently rated Macro lenses. The Vivitar was best of the cheap bunch (suprisingly good). The Minolta 100 f/2.8 was one of the best. Another cheap approach is to try one of the dual element closeup lenses such as the Nikon 3T, 4T, 5T, or 6T. I ahve usedthe 3T and 4T and they are very sharp. (John Shaw recommends this approach). The 3T and 5T are equivalent to approx 1.5 diopter closeup lenses and the 4T and 6T are higher (don't have my notes, but I think they are a bit more than 2 diopters. (B&H; will have the values on their web site). The difference between the 3T and 5T, and the 4T and 6T is that the 3 and 4 have 52mm threads where the 5T and 6T are 62 mm. (Check the B&H; site for the 5&6T.)

I use the 3T and 4T with my Minolta 70-210 f/3.5-4.5 lens (the lens has a 1:4 magnification ratio without the closeup lens). This lens has a 55 mm thread size, but a 55 to 52 mm step down ring works well with no vignetting. I also combine these with a Tamron 1.4x Teleconverter. The 3T plus the 70-210 (at 210mm) plus the 1.4x TC gives me about 0.85x (approx 1:1.25). It is very sharp. Auto focus still works with my 7. The 4T gives me about 1:1 (haven't actually measured this yet) and the combination of both 3T and 4T with the TC gives me more. What is just as nice is that this combination gives me approximately 15 inches working distance (front of the lens to the subject) which lets me stay away from the subject, use a lens hood, and use a flash. If you were to attach one of these to the front of your 70-300 you might need the 62 mm versions (5T or 6T). They cost about $48 each, the smaller ones about $35 each. You can add these to the front of a macro lens also. Tom

...

From Nikon MF Mailing List;
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001
From: Scott Perkins 2scott@bellsouth.net
Subject: Close Up Photography

I stumbled across this encyclopedia created by Riccardo which is fantastic.

I don't understand it but it is none the less fantastic I'm sure! I never even heard of extention tubes and 4t 5t and 6t lens.

Looks like a cheap way to get a new lens setup!

http://space.tin.it/arte/ripolini/Close_up.htm

Thanks Riccaro. I will be studying it you can be sure. you have some really nice pictures on your website ! Thanks for the website and opening my eyes to close up stuff. My second lens was a 35-70 zoom macro and I already took some pics about ten inches away from the lens with my new toy and I thought I was doing good.

his website link is below.

Riccardo Polini wrote:

> The price of the Angenieux was slightly higher than Nikkor 80-200/4 and  was
> 3 times higher than the price of the Tamron.
> Do they have the same design (like AF Tokina and Angenieux 28-70/2.6 )?
>
> Riccardo Polini
> http://space.tin.it/arte/ripolini
> ripolin@tin.it

You seem to intimate here that, even though macro lenses are optimized for
close focus, they perform as well at infinity as non macro lenses. I'm
sorry to tell you that the compromises work both ways. Macro lenses are not
as good at infinity,
--
Fred
Maplewood Photography 

From Nikon MF Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 
From: "shepherdlen" <Shepherdlen@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: Macro camera shake/shutter speeds


> It has been mentioned recently in the thread on MLU that macro work is more
> prone to shake. Does this mean that the normal "rule" of hand holding a lens
> (that you should set the shutter speed to a maximum of the reciprocal of the
> lens length) does not apply at high magnification? Is there another rule
> which takes into account the magnification and lens length?

The rule of thumb does not allow for lenses longer than normal or macro
where the shake factor increases, or larger than normal front elements 
or heavy lens weight which reduce camera shake.

Withe macro it is usual to use small apertures to get deptth of field and
fine grain film for subject detail.

At 1:1 you loose the equivalent of 4 stops shutter speed due to image
magnification, gain 1 on Nikon D macros operated by the command dial, and
loose at least 2 on something as long as a 200 macro.

Len Shepherd.

From Nikon MF Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 
From: "John O'Connell" <boywonderiloveyou@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Macro camera shake/shutter speeds

As you focus closer into the macro range, the old rules no longer apply.
Once you hit start shooting at about 1:4, you'll be into the tripod/flash
range in order to get any depth of field.


>Withe macro it is usual to use small apertures to get deptth of field and
>fine grain film for subject detail.
> At 1:1 you loose the equivalent of 4 stops shutter speed due to image
>magnification, gain 1 on Nikon D macros operated by the command dial, and
>loose at least 2 on something as long as a 200 macro.


With old-fashioned lenses you lose one stop of light at 1:2, and two stops
at 1:1. Internal focus lenses (like most new telephotos and the newer
Micro-Nikkors) let you "keep" more light at the expense of working distance.

It's your f-stop rather than your shutterspeed that changes as you get into
the macro region. You end up with f/11 for all intents and purposes as
opposed to the indicated f/8 at 1:2.

John (who uses a bellows [gasp!] and uncoupled extension tubes [gasp! again]
to do his macro stuff) 

From Minolta Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001
From: manfred.maisch@epcos.com
Subject: Re: Macro Lenses

Hi Robin,

just a remark:

at the moment the Sigma 3,5/180mm is offered here in Germany for about
1000DM (that is less than 500 US$)in a lot of shops. that is about the 
half of the prize before and brings the lens in the prize-range of the
100mm macros. The lens is excelent: There are several tests and I know
this by personal experience because a friend of mine uses the
Nikon-Version. There is no visible difference in picture quality to my
Minolta 4/200mm. My advantage is a little bigger working distance.
BTW: does anybody have an idea, why the price of the Sigma lens
dropped that much, and did the same prize-dropp happen elsewere?

Manfred 

[Ed. note : Thanks to Q.G. de Bakker for this correction and update!]
Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2001 
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" <qnu@worldonline.nl>
To: rmonagha@mail.smu.edu 

.....

In the same section you say that: 

"Although the Hasselblad lenses have enough extra coverage for the limited
Flexbody tilts/shifts, the new Arcbody model required new lenses (from
Rodenstock) to provide the required coverage."

Alas the Flexbody tilts/shift proved to be too much for the coverage of all
Zeiss/Hasselblad lenses. Movements using this "camera" is limited by lens
coverage. So the first part of the above is not correct.

The Flexbody offers almost twice as much tilt (28 degrees in either
direction) as the ArcBody (15 degrees in either direction). The Flexbody
also offers slightly more shift than the ArcBody (30 mm against 28 mm).
Yet the above quoted section seems to suggest that the ArcBody has larger
movements than the "limited" ones on the FlexBody, and thus the ArcBody
needs lenses having larger image circles, while the more restricted
Zeiss/Hasselblad lenses are able to cope with the movements on the Flexbody.
That obviously isn't correct as well.

Regards 

From: "Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@worldonline.nl>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Hasselblad Makro lens compensation
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 

Amr Ibrahim wrote:

> With Hasselblad 120 Makro in mind, I trust that exposure reading from a
> meter while it is at infinity is likely to be different than while it is
> focused at the minimum distance.  I hope that the Group can share its
> experience in this matter.  I would also appreciate if there is any
> coefficient, or a factor, that can be used to compensate for the difference,
> if any.

Indeed, you need to compensate 0.6 stops when using the 120 mm Makro-Planar
at its close focussing limit.

You can calculate the exposure compensation needed using the following
formulae.

Magnification = Extra extension / Focal length

(Remember that "Extra extension" includes both extension added by extension
tubes or bellows, and extension provided by the focussing mount itself!)

Aperture correction factor = 1 / (Magnification + 1)

Shutterspeed correction factor = (Magnification + 1)^2

Correction in stops/EV = log(Shutterspeed corection) / log(2)

or,

Correction in stops/EV = log(Aperture correction) / log(sqr(2))

These formulae are correct for symmetric lenses. Asymmetric lenses require a
little more (telephoto), or less (retrofocus) compensation.

What you need to do to get better calculated results, taking into account
lens asymmetry, is get hold of the Zeiss Lens Data Sheets. You can get them
from Zeiss (by mail or as PDF document from their website
http://www.zeiss.de) or Hasselblad. These sheets contain exact data
concerning focal length and exit and entry pupil diameters. Alas no data is
given for maximum extension built in these lenses, so you will have to
deduce these from the given close focussing limit, or measure the actual
change in lens length when going from infinity setting to close focussing
limit (this will only work with lenses not using internal focussing and/or
floating elements).

Using these data you can determine an "asymmetry focal length", and
substituting this "AFL" for the true focal length in exposure compensation
formulae will yield the desired results. The AFL is calculated by
multiplying the focal length by the pupillary magnification of the lens (=
diameter exit pupil / diameter entry pupil).

The pupillary magnification of the 120 mm Makro-Planar is 33.5/29.7 =
1.1279.
Its "AFL" therefore is 120.9 * 1.1279 = 136.4 mm.


To: camera-fix@yahoogroups.com
From: "J-2" nikitakat@edsamail.com.ph>
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 
Subject: Re: [camera-fix] 28mm finder

Hi Kelvin

Planning to do the same with the vf's salvaged from 'single-use' cameras.  The Kodak 'SnapKids' (or so, as its transliterated from the Japanese markings) has a vf which gives a nice 28mm view.  The Fuji
disposables, at least the one tossed here, appear to have vfs with 35 mm views.  A simple foot could probably be made from aluminum or even resin/plastic scraps. 

The old flash circuits from these often are still working and *very much potent*- shockingly, that is. I'm toying with the idea of fitting them into an old flash gun to -'accesorise' the old rfs.  They really look off when paired with a newer flash.

Jay 


Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 
Subject: Re: [Rollei] M-Componon
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com>
To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>

Don't forget the Macro-Nikkor (not the Micro-Nikkor) lenses made for bellows
use.  They are less common than the Leica and Zeiss offerings, but of very
high quality.  They aren't seen much because they were never sold through
Nikon's camera division, but through their microscope division.

Bob

> From: Marc James Small msmall@roanoke.infi.net>
> Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2001 
> To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> Subject: Re: [Rollei] M-Componon
>
> At 08:41 PM 10/28/01 -0500, Roy Dunn wrote:
>> Anyone have any experience of the 50mm or 28mm M-Componon lenses for macro
>> work? What other lenses would folks suggest to stick on the end of the
>> bellows/shutter adapter (6000 series) for magnification ratios of 3 to 10?
>
> The standard choices would be either the Leica Photars or the Zeiss
> Luminars.  Only a couple of the Photars are still available new, but there
> are buckets of both used floating about, and these often appear on e-Bay.
>
> Marc
>
> msmall@roanoke.infi.net  



From: "Roy Dunn" ferox@mindspring.com>
To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Subject: RE: [Rollei] Re: M-Componon
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 

> Canon made a couple for bellows use as well. Another choice: I know a guy
> who shoots underwater stereos with a custom rig fitted with old
> Repronars...
> the chromes are stunning!

I have used the Canon macrophoto lenses for many years - they have served me
very well, and they were remarkably cheap for the superb results they
produce. Unfortunately, the screw thread is only about 10mm (approx), which
precludes them from the Rollei Shutter adapter.

The M-Componon designation is apparently some optical optimization for
macro, as opposed to the more standard S-Componon. I would have thought that
enlarging lenses were all optimized for flat field - what other optimization
is there for macro?

In terms of Zeiss, Schneider, Leica, Nikon, et al, would there be any
appreciable difference in image quality that folks are aware of?

Cheers,

Roy (with a humble bow to the purists, I have only once been in a darkroom
to print some BW in 1983, so my experience with enlargering lenses is almost
zero...)


Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 
To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
From: Marc James Small msmall@roanoke.infi.net>
Subject: Re: [Rollei] M-Componon

Bob Shell wrote:
>Don't forget the Macro-Nikkor (not the Micro-Nikkor) lenses made for bellows
>use.  They are less common than the Leica and Zeiss offerings, but of very
>high quality.  They aren't seen much because they were never sold through
>Nikon's camera division, but through their microscope division.


Bob

Neither Zeiss nor Leitz/Leica ever marketed their macro lenses through the
camera divisions, either and, in fact, these are not often listed in their
camera catalogues at all.  These guys are all modified microscope
objectives and, so, are sold through the microscope divisions.

Marc

msmall@roanoke.infi.net  



Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 
To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
From: Mark Malkin mm15@cornell.edu>
Subject: [Rollei] M-Componon

I have the entire set of Zeiss Luminar lenses and they are superb. I also 
have the macro Nikkor 65mm and 120mm  and they are similar.  For 
magnification in the 3 - 10 range the 25mm or the 40mm Luminar  will likely 
be the most convenient as the required bellows draw is still 
reasonable.  All these lenses are superb optically and cover up to 4x5 
format; they are perfect for the 6x6  Rollei using the M39 adapter.

The Luminars (19, 25,40,and 63mm but not the 100mm) and the macro nikkor 
19mm and 35mm all have the RMS microscope objective thread.so an adapter is 
needed to fit the 39mm Leica thread on the Rollei M39 shutter. The Macro 
Nikkor 65 and 120 fit the M39 shutter directly which is nice.   My RMS 
adapters are from Nikon and work perfectly but I believe these are no 
longer made although Nikon still can supply a M39 to F bayonet 
adapter.  Other adapters can sometimes be found as this adaptation was 
common for some of the macro-photo camera systems like the Nikon MultiPhot 
and possibly the Leitz Aristophot; and some camera manufacturerers ( ie. 
Zeiss, Rollei, Contax, Hasselblad, Linhof) did produce adapters to fit 
these lenses to some cameras.   Edmund scientific does have RMS to 42mm 
t-mount threaded adapters which are also useful but not for the M39 Rollei 
shutter.  I have also had an adapter made to mount Nikon F bayonet lenses 
on the Rollei M39 shutter (based on a Nikon E2 ring which allows closing 
down the diaphragm on the Nikon lens with a cable release) although I have 
not had much time to explore the use of it for macro work.  A 200mm Nikkor 
lens with Nikon 4T diopter might be pretty interesting on the Rollei 
6008I.... There are so many possibilities for adaptation of lenses for macro .

Other Books that discuss the macro-scientific lenses and systems such as 
Luminars and the Wild Photomacroscope  include Brian Bracegirdle's 
"Scientific PhotoMACROphotography", William White's "Photomacrography" , 
Albert Blaker's "Handbook for Scientific Photography", and Lester 
Lefkowitz's "The Manual of Close-Up Photography.
.



Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 
From: "H. Scott McCann" 70645.251@compuserve.com>
Subject: 35mm Nikon lens on Bronica
To: "rmonagha@mail.smu.edu" rmonagha@post.cis.smu.edu>

Dear Colleagues:

        I took a short Bronica S2a Extension tube and mounted a Nikon 35mm
lens mount from an old junker 35mm body on it. (Takes a little metal
smithing but nothing too difficult). Now attach a "trash" 35mm lens like an
old 135mm and you will have a first rate macro setup. Show the results to
your "Hasselbad" friends (aren't they fun to annoy?) and ask them to
duplicate for under $100.  Lenses under 100mm make you work too close to
the camera. Lenses like the 135mm are very cheap and work just fine, longer
ones for shooting Cobras and thing like that. This trick works with 4X5
cameras also. Don't forget to allow for the extension tubes when
calculating the exposure. 

                Scott McCann
                70645.251@compuserve.com


From: Stephe Thayer ms_stephe@excite.com>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Macro lens adapter for med format
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 

I just finished making an adpater to use an olympus 80mm f4 bellows only 
macro lens on my 6 X 6 Kiev-60. It turned out to be real simple and seeing 
as how in macro mode the image circle is quite large with an 80mm lens, 
even designed for 35mm use, it looks like it covers 6X6 with no problem on 
just the adapter tube I made and extended should cover without any problem 
either. Still haven't tested the results but I can't see why they shouldn't 
be good, especially stopped down to the range normally used for macro work. 
Something like this should also work on any focal plane shutter med format 
camera.  This adapter cost me less than $25 bucks to make including a new 
extension tube and a used off ebay teleconverter to use as the lens mount. 
If you're interested, I wrote a simple page about this and should have some 
pictures made with this in the next few days to see how well this works 
out. I'm excited about getting some "real" macro shots on med format!

http://stephe_2.tripod.com/kiev/macro.htm
-- 
 
  Stephe


From: David Littlewood david@nospam.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Does macro capability detract from lens quality
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 

Shakespeare shakespeare@waitrose.com> writes
>I would like a fixed "portraiture" prime lens in the region of 80-100.
>
>However... I would also like a true 1:1 macro lens. If I opt to kill two
>birds with one stone, will I be somehow compromising the quality of the
>prime lens by picking one that has close focussing?
>
>I don't understand the subtleties of lens design, but have always believed
>that ther is no such thing as a free lunch :-)
>
>BTW, I am looking at the Cano 100mm macro f2.8 , or possibly the Sigma 105mm
>f2.8 EX
>
Lens designers, in trying to optimise performance and control about 10
kinds of aberration, will usually try to optimise performance at one
particular focus setting. For a normal lens in the 50-100 mm region,
that will typically be for subjects at (IIRC) 20 times focal length.

For a macro lens, they will optimise the quality for 1:1 reproduction
(i.e. for a subject at 2x focal length away) or something close. and
will often concentrate much more on ensuring flatness of field.

In theory, this may mean that performance at infinity, or at 20x focal
length, is not as good. In practice, this difference is in my experience
(with 3 macro lenses) not detectable. In fact I have seen far more
complaints from people saying that macro lenses are TOO sharp for
portrait work (which would normally involve a subject distance of 20x
focal length, i.e. the area where non-macro lenses are optimised, and
macro lenses are not), as they are unkind to any blemishes or wrinkles
on the subject's skin. It is of course easier to reduce sharpness with a
soft filter than it is to put it back with a sharp filter (oh, wish).

I have certainly never had any problems whatever with the performance of
macro lenses at infinity or mid-distance. Of far greater significance is
the fact that they are (a) bigger and heavier than a comparable non-
macro lens; (b) cost a lot more; and (c) usually have a smaller maximum
aperture. That is where the "free lunch denial of service syndrome"
comes in. However, for portrait work these factors are unlikely to be a
major concern (I assume cost is not a killer as you are already
contemplating it), and I think you would find a 100 mm macro lens a good
choice.

I have a Canon 100 mm pre-USM macro; it is an excellent lens, and I have
no doubt the newer USM is even better. AF is much less important for
macro work (you are better off leaving in manual, and focussing by
moving the camera) but the USM would certainly be good for "normal"
work.

I cannot comment on the Sigma as I have never used one. I personally
avoid using third party lenses except in the most exceptional cases.

I am waiting for an IS version of the 180 mm f/3.5L macro - no, I have
not heard a rumour of one, I'm just hoping!
-- 
David Littlewood


From: Tony Polson tony.polson@btinternet.com>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Does macro capability detract from lens quality
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 

"Ahriman" ahriman@nospam.com> wrote:
> 
> I suggest you read my post again; I say that as portrait photography is
> often done at *less* than the infinity setting, a macro lens will make an
> excellent portrait lens.

Not so.  Most macro lenses are not good portrait lenses, because (a)
they are designed for ultimate sharpness and (b) they tend to have harsh
background bokeh, neither of which makes them ideal for portraiture.  

Several macro lenses are very sharp when focused at infinity.  They get
some of the top MTF ratings (focused at infinity) at Photodo.com (for
example the Nikon 60mm f/2.8 AF Micro-Nikkor, but sharpness/contrast (as
expressed in MTF ratings) is only one of a number of factors we should
use to compare lenses.  

[yet another example of the profoundly misleading Photodo ratings]

You can just about get away with using a macro lens for landscape work
provided you use the smaller apertures - say f/11, f/16 or f/22, when
the bokeh is less of an issue.  However, at larger apertures - say
between wide open and f/8, the bokeh will ruin a landscape photo.

I repeat that the Tamron 90mm f/2.5 or f/2.8 macro lens does not appear
to suffer in the bokeh department, despite offering excellent sharpness.
It has superb, smooth background bokeh and works well at all focusing
distances. It's a very fine lens, well suited to portrait photography. 
-- 

Best regards,

Tony Polson



From: Patrick Bartek bartek@intermind.net>
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: exposure compensation for close focus
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 

A Shooter wrote:

> Does anyone know what the formula to calculate exposure compensation 
> for close focus?

Are you using bellows or extension tubes?  Or close-up lenses, only?

If the latter, you don't need to make exposure compensations.  For the
former, I do have the formulas, but I suggest you try and find
Hasselblad's Close-Up Calculator.  I makes things a whole lot easier.

If you can't find that Calculator, get the Calumet Exposure Calculator
-- $6.95 US.  This works better than the Hassie one, since you don't
have to know what focal length lens you're using or what the lens to
subject and lens to film distances are.  You don't have to measure or
calculate anything really.  You just put the target that comes with the
calculator in the scene being photographed, and use the exposure
compensation scale to measure it on the finder screen, and read the
exposure correction directly off that scale.  Easy.  It's accurate to
within 1/3 stop.

-- 
Patrick Bartek
NoLife Polymath Group
bartek@intermind.net


Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 
From: Mike Vanecek mike@mjv.com>
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: [HUG] Re: Closeup -Lens or tubes?

I would  have to concur. I did some tests with the screw on macro 
filters for my 35mm setup, and experienced a lot of coma. I'm sure the 
Proxars on Hassy are better, but you still have an imperfect solution. I 
now have an autobellows for my old Hassy and drool everytime I compose 
something in it (keep drool cup handy). That and my 80 and I get some 
stunning closeups. If you have a choice, go extension over macro filters 
anyday and any way you can. The autobellows can set you back a grand 
used, but the individual extensions can be pretty affordable and after a 
while you'll have a collection of them. That's the next step for me - 
but I always do things backwards. :) Remember to keep in mind exposure 
compensation. I think the calculation is

f = FL/(FL + E) * M

f - solution
FL - Focal Length - like 120 for your lens
(FL + E) - Add focal length to length of extension
M - metered EV from spotmeter or flash meter (unless you have TTL handy).

Divide "FL" with the sum of "FL" and "E" and multiply the result with 
"M" and you should have your final "f" setting. My notes are at the 
studio, so this is off the top of my head - can anyone confirm this? 
Anyway, using up to and over 2x magnification on the autobellows, I get 
perfect exposures on transparancy film, so either my math is accurate or 
I'm butt lucky... :)

Cheers,
Mike

Peter Rosenthal wrote:

>Think of your 120 macro lens as a racehorse.  A racehorse designed to focus
>up close.  Think of screw-on close-up lenses as milk wagons.  Uncorrected,
>milk wagons.  With chromatic abberations, coma, astigmatism and flare.  Now
>go to the race with your racehorse and have him pull the milkwagon.  There
>ain't no way to win!  Even if you don't mix metaphors.  Think of tubes as
>longer legs and bigger lungs on your racehorse. You might even consider a
>bellows attachment for your racehorse to give it variable length legs. I
>know I would!!
>
>Peter


From: Stephe Thayer ms_stephe@excite.com>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Pentax 645 Macro
Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2001 

Mark Schuler wrote:

>  I asked someone about the difference
> between a 120mm macro lens versus using a set of macro extension tubes
> with the 75mm lens.  I was told, that only the macro lens will have
> everything in focus when focusing flat work.  All opinions/suggests are
> welcome.
> 
> 

I doubt you'll run into this "only the macro lens will have everything in 
focus when focusing flat work" you are talking about with either one. Most 
macro work is done stopped down at least some (as little as possible to 
avoid diffraction but enough to get sharpness and correct any lens faults) 
and should cover any flatness of field issues you might have with a 
standard lens. These are normally well corrected for this anyway. 

The main question is how much mag do you need? I've found with my both my 
OM 35mm and my Kiev K-60 up to about 1:1 a standard lens on a tube/bellows 
is hard to tell from a "real" macro lens. It's when you get beyond that you 
run into sharpness issues. Even at 2X the 80mm arsat lens on my Kiev looks 
pretty good but when compared to the same thing shot with a OM 80mm f4 
bellows only macro lens (on an adapter I made) can you see how much sharper 
a macro only lens is at high mag. 

That said, I'm not sure any of the "general" macro lenses that focus from 
infinity to macro would be that much better than a normal lens on a tube, 
just easier to use. The extra focal length can come in handy as far as 
getting light on the subject though. If you want really high mag, you need 
to read up on either special macro -only- lenses, reverse mounting of non 
symmetrical lenses and the adapting of enlarging lenses etc. I think your 
worries about field flatness with either of your choices are unfounded 
concerns. I'd get a set of tubes and see how you like them, they are handy 
to have anyway!
-- 
 
  Stephe

From nikon mf mailing list:
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 
From: H Miller caravaggio_48326@yahoo.com>
Subject: Stacking Rings

Folks:

I've been out looking for stacking rings.  So I
thought I would follow up on an earlier thread on
finding stacking rings with the current info I've dug
up.

Two sources have them now:  Kirk's and B&H.; I've not
found any other sources.

Kirk has some stacking rings left, but generally not
the most commonly used ones (Kirk told me that these
had sold out and he's having trouble finding more).
B&H; has all the common sizes of stacking rings and
lacks only the 77mm->77mm ring.  B&H; said it's out of
stock and won't be produced anymore.  This ring,
however, Kirk has.

With the stacking rings between Kirk and B&H; and
appropriate step-up and step-down rings, I have been
able to connect every lens I have (even combinations
that make no sense).   As more of these go out of
production though, that may not be as easy in the
future.

Kirk sells his rings at $13.00.  B&G; sells theirs at
either $6.95 or $7.95.

URLs for Kirk and B&H; are:

     http://www.kirkphtoto.com
     http://www.bhphotovideo.com


Hope that helps.

Hugh Miller, a newby to this group.


From nikon mf mailing list:
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 
From: "John O'Connell" boywonderiloveyou@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Re: Close up: lenses or extension rings?

>What are the advantages and disadvantages of
> > using lenses (types that screw in in front of the main lens) and of
> > using extension rings?
> > What about bellows?
> > Dan

1.  Tubes fit on all Nikkors.  Filters don't.

2.  Filters allow work with zooms.  It can take 1/2 an hour just to frame
and focus the first time you use a zoom on a bellows -- fortunately spiders
don't move very quickly, or I wouldn't know this.

3.  Filters are impractical for work with very long or short lenses.

4.  Bellows are great for some things and terrible for others.  I've been
using one with the 105/4 short mount Nikkor as my macro lens, and I've
found it to be so inconvenient for field work that I bought a diopter and
borrowed a zoom for macro work outdoors.

My advice: If you use a telephoto zoom, buy a diopter.  If you use primes,
buy tubes.  If you do a lot of macro work you'll end up with both so it
won't matter.


From Nikon mailing list:
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 
From: Koskentola Jaakko jaakko.koskentola@bof.fi
Subject: VS: Stacking lenses

Hello,

As regards reversing and stacking lenses it is good to bear in mind that the
working distance can be very small indeed. I have reversed a 20/3.5 with
good results (thanks for the tip, Roland!): the magnification ratio is well
in excess of 1:1. To get a grip of the optics, one could think of a
wide-angle lens acting as a funnel of a sorts: it condenses a large area
into 24x36 mm, and, when reversed, the funnel is also reversed, thereby
taking a v. small area and enlarging it in the process.

I also had a male-to-male adapter tooled, and when coupling a 105 with a
reversed 20 one gets a magnification ratio of around 5:1. The problem is
that the working distance is only some centimetres. Therefore, if anyone
is interested in trying this, I recommend that you get the BR-3 ring
(which is attached to the lens's mount) and use a UV or other filter to
protect the rear element. Especially if you're shooting insects like ants
which spray their stuff at intruders...

The upside is that you can use the unreversed lens for focusing.

... jaakko

----
From Nikon mailing list:
 Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 
   From: Ron Schwarz rs@clubvb.com
Subject: Re: VS: Stacking lenses

If you want to do some mind-blowing closeup work, get an old movie camera
lens -- you can pick up some nice short focal length C or D mount lenses
for ten bucks or so -- and then reverse it, and put it on a bellows.  
Their formulas are designed for extreme resolution in a small area at very
short range (at the back side of the lens, when you reverse the ratio).



From Nikon Mailing List:
Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 
From: "shepherdlen" Shepherdlen@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: Reverse lens mounting - advice needed

There is reversed lens mounting and lens stacking.

Lens stacking is easier.

Use a moderate telephoto on your camera body and mount a seperate standard
or wide angle lens filter thread to filter thread on it.
You can now make your own lens stacking adaptors for very little money.
Buy Cokin (or similar) lens to filter holder adaptores in the filter sizes
you need and glue them together with a permanent glue like araldite.

You use the telephoto lens in the normal way and set the stacked lens at
maximum aperture.

The magnification you get is the focal length (in mm) of the lens on the
camera body divided by the focal length of the stacked lens so a 50mm
stacked on a 200mm goves 4x magnification.


The main advantages are full aperture viewing, all meter options, and
automatic stop down of the taking lens.

Quality is supposed to be better than anything except macro lenses, and
although I have never done this I have seen some first class results.

With reverse mounting you use a BR2a to mount a 52mm thread lens in reverse
position on the camera body. A BR-5 is also needed for a 62mm thread. You
then put a BR3 on the bayonet end of the lens to make the aperture preset
operation.

Disadvantages are aperture priority metering only, stopped down lens
aperture operation, and the cost of the bits and pieces compared to 2 
Cokin adaptors.

Before you go any further total depth of field at f11 is 1.5mm at 1x
magnification, and 0.25mm at 4x magnification, and the effect of camera
shake at infinity is magnified many times.
You will need patience and ingenuity to get good pictures.

Len Shepherd.


From nikon mailing list:
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 
From: "Deric & Stephanie Soh" beetroot@singnet.com.sg
Subject: [NIKON] Microphotography for the cost of 2 Cokin rings 
(aka What I did for Easter)

Hi fellow Nikon users,

  Out of boredom and to get a new twist to my normal photography, I followed
some advice given by Paul Harcourt-Davies (Outdoor Photography, April 2001,
Number 11) in which I can make my own contraption to get a coupled macro lens.

  Basically, I got 2 Cokin filter rings (52mm, but it works with other sizes,
as long as the outer ring is larger in diameter than the inner ring).  I
snapped on the Micro 105/2.8 D into my F80 and reversed a Nikkor non-AI 50/2
on the other end.  I got as close as 1-2 cm from the subject and a
magnification of around 2:1.  Of course the viewfinder is significantly darker
(although the reversed lens is wide open).  The DoF is incredibly shallow so I
had to use f/16 or smaller.  It's amazing, I got full use of 3D Matrix, AE
mode, AF (sortof as there's the AF search is quite messy) and DoF preview.

  It works with my Nikon F, 135/3.5 non-AI and the normal lens, too.  For
those of you who have a telephoto and a normal lens but wants to get into
macrophotography without breaking the bank, try this simple project.

  A word of caution, vignetting sets in if the reversed lens is wider than
50mm.  I tried it with my AF-D 24/2.8 and a non-AI 28/3.5 (reversed on the 105
micro) and both shows visible vignetting, especially when the 105 micro is
stopped down.

  Not a bad way to spend a rainy Easter here in Singapore.

Rgds,
Deric.


From Nikon mailing list:
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 
From: Koskentola Jaakko jaakko.koskentola@bof.fi
Subject: VS: Stacking lenses

Hello,

As regards reversing and stacking lenses it is good to bear in mind that the
working distance can be very small indeed. I have reversed a 20/3.5 with
good results (thanks for the tip, Roland!): the magnification ratio is well
in excess of 1:1. To get a grip of the optics, one could think of a
wide-angle lens acting as a funnel of a sorts: it condenses a large area
into 24x36 mm, and, when reversed, the funnel is also reversed, thereby
taking a v. small area and enlarging it in the process.

I also had a male-to-male adapter tooled, and when coupling a 105 with a
reversed 20 one gets a magnification ratio of around 5:1. The problem is
that the working distance is only some centimetres. Therefore, if anyone
is interested in trying this, I recommend that you get the BR-3 ring
(which is attached to the lens's mount) and use a UV or other filter to
protect the rear element. Especially if you're shooting insects like ants
which spray their stuff at intruders...

The upside is that you can use the unreversed lens for focusing.

... jaakko



From Nikon mailing list: 
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 
From: Ron Schwarz rs@clubvb.com
Subject: Re: VS: Stacking lenses

If you want to do some mind-blowing closeup work, get an old movie camera
lens -- you can pick up some nice short focal length C or D mount lenses
for ten bucks or so -- and then reverse it, and put it on a bellows.  
Their formulas are designed for extreme resolution in a small area at very
short range (at the back side of the lens, when you reverse the ratio).




Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@worldonline.nl
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: Proxars, Extension tubes, Converters, oh my!

Frank Filippone wrote:

> That is a technical fact I had not heard before.... the difference between
a
> point source and a "diffuesed" source of light having different falloff
> characteristics.... can you explain more thoroughly, even off list?....

Ok. But first let me beg your indulgence: it's not all fresh to me, and i
never was much of a mathematician anyway.


Think of it this way: when you're flash is far away from your subject, it is
relatively small compared to the entire angle of view, and its angle of
illumination. It can then be considered to be a point source (i.e. its light
seems to originate from only one, distant point in space), and the usual
law,  E = I / (r * r), (E = strength of illumination, I = intensity of light
source, and r is radius, or distance from point source to subject)
concerning light intensity and fall off with distance apply.

When the light is getting closer to the subject, its relative size
increases, until it is nearing or equalling the size of the subject. At this
point it must be considered as a series of adjacent point sources. Since the
distance from any one point in the subject to all points in the luminous
area of the flash is not constant, the simple square law does not apply.
Instead, the universal formula E = pi * I * (sin(u) * sin(u)) (u = half the
angle from edges of light source to point in subject) can be used to
calculate illumination in any point in the subject.


On top of this, when the area of the light is getting bigger than the
subject, a lot of its output may pass the subject, without aiding in its
illumination. Altering the distance between the flash and the subject not
only changes distance, but

You can try and do the calculations, but it is far easier to just meter the
flash ;-)

When you're subject is relatively large compared to its distance to the
light source (or, to put it in another way, when the distance from light
source to subject is small compared to the size of the subject) it can
easily happen that one part in the subject is much closer to the light than
another point. It must therefore be expected that not all points are lit
equally strong. On the contrary, you can see a quite distinct fall off, in
which points furthest away may be underexposed by one, or even more stops.
Again, using the above formula, you can calculate relative illumination for
every point in the subject, but it would be far easier to just do a
(polaroid) test.



Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 
From: Peter Klosky Peter.Klosky@trw.com
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net, qnu@worldonline.nl
Subject: Re: Proxars, Extension tubes, Converters, oh my!

Q.G.,

Nice explanation of the size of the light source having a greater softening
effect, in practice, when you move the light near the subject.  I've found what
you say to be true, in practice.  There is yet another aspect to the
"equation."

Another effect is "spill/bounce."  When the angle of the light is wide, and the
room or what have you has reflective surfaces, some of the light may reach the
subject by means other than directly from the source.  For example, with a
common photographic umbrella, almost as much light passes through as is
reflected.  Some people even use them in "shoot through" mode, and the
Photogenic Eclipse is designed to reduce this effect, when required.  The net
effect I'm trying to describe is that a higly diffused, wide angle light source
will appear softer and exhibit less falloff than a narrow angled light, in
practice.

Again, your suggestion to use Polaroids is good.  Myself, I conduct a
film-based test using bracketing, recording the tubes, focus, ring-light
settings, fstop, etc. which takes even longer, but achieves a result that is
highly consistent.

Peter
....



Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@worldonline.nl
Subject: Re: Proxars, Extension tubes, Converters, oh my!

Q.G. de Bakker wrote:

> [...]
> On top of this, when the area of the light is getting bigger than the
> subject, a lot of its output may pass the subject, without aiding in its
> illumination. Altering the distance between the flash and the subject not
> only changes distance, but

And here i must have done something wrong ;-)


I meant to say: altering the distance between flash and subject not only
changes distance, but may also affect the ratio between light reaching the
subject and light passing it by.




From: "Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@worldonline.nl
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Exposure correction with extension tubes?
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002


Grand Master Chuck wrote:

> Hi, I have a Hasselblad 500C/M and I recently got a 55mm extension tube
> fixed that wasn't working before, and 2 Proxar filters (1, and .5) and I
> know I need to correct the exposure my meter prism gives me when using
> these, but by how much?

When you're using a meter prism you do not meed to correct the reading. The
prism will be metering thelight coming through the lens plus tubes, so it
will register any light loss and suggest the correct exposure for the
combination.

> I am using a 150mm f4, and an 80mm 2.8.  Do I
> need to make any correction for the close up filters?  Or only for the
> extension tube?

You only have to correct for extension added.
So there is no correction needed for the "filters" (they are lenses, not
filters), but a correction is needed for the tubes.

 And by how much?  And I have a vague recollection that
> it changes depending on if I'm at infinity or closer.

Correct. Focussing is done by adding extension through means of the
focussing helicoid, so you need to take this into account as well as any
extension added in the form of extension tubes or bellows.

You can use the following formulae:

Magnification = total amount of extension / focal length of lens used.

Diaphragm compensation factor = 1 / (Magnification + 1)

Shutterspeed compensation factor = (Magnification + 1)^2


Compensation in stops (EV) = log(Shutterspeed comp. factor) / log(2)

Suppose you're using the 80 mm lens and put it on a 55 mm extension tube.
Suppose that you don't use the lens' extension, i.e. the lens is set to
focus at infinity. Magnification on film then is total extension/focal
length = 55/80 = 0.688.

Now next thing to do is measure light. Say the meter tells us that f/8 at
1/125 second gives correct exposure. We now have a choice: either we open up
the aperture to compensate for light loss, or we lengthen exposure time to
do the same. Only one of these two is required. To find out how much more
the aperture should be opened, or the exposure time lengthened, we must use
the appropriate formula.

To find the f-number to use to get proper exposure on film, we must apply
our formula saying that the correction factor is 1/(magnification + 1) =
1/(1 + 0.688) = 0.592. So in our example, we will have to multiply the
chosen f-number, 8, by 0.592, giving us 4.74, which is almost exactly half
way between f/4 and f/5.6. Using this f-number and the chosen shutterspeed
will give correct exposure.

If we want to leave the aperture at f/8, and change shutterspeed instead, we
must use the formula saying that the correct correction factor is
(magnification + 1)^2 = (0.688 + 1)^2 = 2.85. Our chosen shutterspeed is
1/125 second, which is 0.008 second. Multiply this by the correction factor
found (2.85) and we'll get the correct time of 0.02278 second. Convert this
back to fractional values by simply dividing this into 1 = 1 / 0.02278 =
1/43.89 second. The correct shutterspeed would be approx. 1/44th of a
second. This is not on our shutterspeed ring, and therefore can't be set,
but if it would be right between 1/30 and 1/60 second.

You will often find that you would have to use shutterspeeds that can't be
set, unless you're getting into the multiple second range. Most of the
compensation therefore must be done changing aperture. Yet you can combine
the two changing shutterspeeds to the nearest possible value, and then
changing aperture to take care of the remainder.

Since it helps just knowing the amount of compensation needed in stops, or
Exposure Values (EV) (specially helpful when changing shutterspeeds to take
the whole number part of the change in stops needed, and changing aperture
to take care of the remaining fractional part) we can calculate the
compensation needed in stops by taking the log of the shutterspeedfactor and
dividing this by the log of 2. In our example, the shutterspeed factor was
2.85, so compensation needed in stops/EV would be log(2.85)/log(2) = 1.509,
almost exactly 1.5 stops.

The important thing to remember is that lenses have extensions too. So using
the 80 mm from our example with the 55 mm extension tube would give a
different result if the lens was not set to focus at infinity. The total
amount of barrel extension of the 80 mm lens is approx. 8 mm. You will have
to add the amount of barrel extension used to the length of the tube(s)
and/or bellows. It's quite noteworthy that for instance a 150 mm lens, with
its built-in 25 mm extension (approx.) will require an exposure compensation
of 0.44 stops when used at its closest focussing range. And even more when
we compensate for it being a rather asymmetrical lens: compensation required
is almost  0.6 stops using no extra tubes or bellows at all! The 8 mm
extension used when focussing the 80 mm at its near limit still needs an
compensation of log((1 + 8/80)^2) / log(2) = 0.275 stops!



From: kaliushkin@att.net (Dan Kalish)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Exposure correction with extension tubes?
Date: 4 Mar 2002


"Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@worldonline.nl wrote 
> Grand Master Chuck wrote:

Well done!  A few additional points:

1. As noted, a regular lens focussed at its closest calls for exposure
compensation of less than half a stop, according to these equations.
Don't let the mathematics overwhelm reality.  There are so many
factors, you should always test and bracket, especially in the macro
and near-macro realm.  You wouldn't blindly rely on what the meter
said, would you?

2. I believe whether supplementary lenses call for exposure
compensation or not is a somewhat unsettled question.  Its generally
accepted that any such compensation (due to decreasing the focal
length) is matched by light losses.  Again, test and bracket.

Dan




From: "Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@worldonline.nl
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Exposure correction with extension tubes?
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002


Dan Kalish wrote:

> Well done!  A few additional points:
>
> 1. As noted, a regular lens focussed at its closest calls for exposure
> compensation of less than half a stop, according to these equations.
> Don't let the mathematics overwhelm reality.

I forgot this point in my earlier reply. Sorry!

My calculations as given are indeed not quite true to reality. They do, in
fact, not take asymmetric lens designs into account. Considering assymetry
too, the compensation needed when focussing close is even larger (except in
retrofocus lenses; with these the compensation needed is less). But even
without asymmetry correction, compensation needed with the Sonnar f/4 150 mm
is only just less than half a stop (0.44), so definitely not to be ignored.
Corrected for asymmetry (i.e. in reality) it even is 0.58 stop.

With other lenses compensation needed when set to the close focus limit,
without extra tubes or bellows too is quite considerable. I can't remember
where, but i posted the amounts to one forum or another on the net quite
recently. But here they are again (figures include asymmetry correction):

Distagon 30 mm - 0.20 stop;
Distagon 40 mm - 0.18 stop;
Distagon 50 mm - 0.31 stop;
Distagon 60 mm - 0.30 stop;
Planar 80 mm - 0.30 stop;
Planar 100 mm - 0.41 stop;
Planar 120 mm - 0.57 stop;
Sonnar 150 mm - 0.58 stop;
Sonnar 180 mm - 0.59 stop;
Sonnar 250 mm - 0.57 stop;
Tele-Tessar 2350 mm (old, non SA model) - 0.72 stop.

You can see that except for the shortest wide angle lenses, your exposure
will be off by at least 0.3 of a stop.
I don't know if you think this is mathematics overwhelming reality, but i
have found that reality asks from us to well consider these figures, or else
we'll be wondering why our images sometimes come out underexposed. The usual
remedy people then resort to indeed is bracketing, but that wouldn't be
necessary if only we kept this in mind. So ignore it at your own peril! ;-)




Subject: Re: How to get down to 1:1 macro?
From: Bob Salomon bobsalomon@mindspring.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002

 Henkka Karapuu at
karapuu@tietoverkot.net wrote on 3/2/02 5:09 PM:

> I'm trying to figure out ways to get at least 1:1 macro, preferably
> higher, in medium format. Pentax 67 seemed to offer good & economical
> solution with dedicated macro lens, but unfortunately (as asked couple
> of threads ago) it requires heavier tripod that i'm willing to carry.
>
> What would be other good choices for this kind of work?
>
> -Henkka
>
>
One easy way is the Novoflex Bellows with either a Pentax lens or a reversed
enlarging lens or a duplicating lens.

The Novoflex bellows uses interchangeable adapters for any 35mm SLR or most
2 1/4 SLR focal plane shutter cameras on the rear and for most 35mm or
lenses or 39mm Leica thread lenses on the front.


Mix and match. Hasselblad lens on Pentax 67, Leica lens on Hasselblad 200,
Nikon lens on Canon, etc.

Just depends on the adapters used.

HP Marketing Corp. 800 735-4373 US distributor for: Ansmann, Braun,
CombiPlan, DF Albums, Ergorest, Gepe, Gepe-Pro, Giottos, Heliopan, Kaiser,
Kopho, Linhof, Novoflex, Pro-Release, Rimowa, Sirostar, Tetenal Cloths and
Ink Jet Papers, VR, Vue-All archival negative, slide and print protectors,
Wista, ZTS www.hpmarketingcorp.com




From nikon mf mailing list:
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002
From: H Miller caravaggio_48326@yahoo.com
Subject: Stacking Rings

Folks:

I've been out looking for stacking rings.  So I
thought I would follow up on an earlier thread on
finding stacking rings with the current info I've dug
up.

Two sources have them now:  Kirk's and B&H.; I've not
found any other sources.

Kirk has some stacking rings left, but generally not
the most commonly used ones (Kirk told me that these
had sold out and he's having trouble finding more).

B&H; has all the common sizes of stacking rings and
lacks only the 77mm<->77mm ring.  B&H; said it's out of
stock and won't be produced anymore.  This ring,
however, Kirk has.

With the stacking rings between Kirk and B&H; and
appropriate step-up and step-down rings, I have been
able to connect every lens I have (even combinations
that make no sense).   As more of these go out of
production though, that may not be as easy in the
future.

Kirk sells his rings at $13.00.  B&H; sells theirs at
either $6.95 or $7.95.

URLs for Kirk and B&H; are:

     http://www.kirkphtoto.com
     http://www.kirkphtoto.com
     http://www.bhphotovideo.com


Hope that helps.

Hugh Miller, a newby to this group.




From: CFSienko katrinaxx@worldnet.att.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Bellows extension factors 101
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002


Part # CC9201   $4.99
Cathy

Howard Lester wrote:

> It's called the Calumet Exposure Calculator, at least in their 1993
> catalog...
>
> Howard Lester



From: "Bong Munoz" bong@ecicable.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Bellows extentions factors 101
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002


Joe Lacy jmlacy1@attbi.com wrote 
> My camera only allows a total of 8" from the front of the lens board to the
> film plane. Do I even need to be concerned about 8"? If so, then at 8" what
> amount of light should I be adding?

I will risk two mathematical formulae since you can just plug these into a
spreadsheet and print a table for your lenses.  The first converts the
extension into the number of f/stops you have to open up:

adjustment = log((extension/focal_length)^2)/log(2)


For example, if you have a 135mm lens and you've extended the bellows such
that the distance from the lens (measured at the diaphragm?) to the film
plane is, say, 152mm, then your exposure compensation is:

log((152/135)^2)/log(2) = 0.34 or approximately 1/3 stop.

The second computes the extension needed given an f/stop:

extension = focal_length*sqrt(10^(log(2)*adjustment))

For example, if you want to know at what extension you should add 1 1/3
stops then with our 135mm lens:

135*sqrt(10^(log(2)*1.3)) is approximately 212mm.

These equations were derived from the formula for the bellows extension
factor. There is some (if not more) degree of slop in my working methods;
the formulas just give me a reasonable estimate.  The Optar on my Crown
Graphic doesn't even have half-stop detents.

Finally, while these computations have worked for me I'm not confident
enough with my math so YMMV :)

--bong


From: "John Hughes" jhughes@surfglobal.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Bellows extentions factors 101
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002


Go here: http://www.cocam.co.uk/CoCamWS/Services/DOF.htm.  Enter your data
and print the results and laminate it.  Then put it in your camera bag.



From: Michael Briggs MichaelBriggs@EarthLink.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: 203 7.7 Ektar and 8" and 3 questions.
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002


Joe Lacy wrote:

> Third question: Let's take a real situation. The light reading says f11
> @60th. On an 8" bellows extended out to 8" should I make any corrections and
> typically how much for 8"?

With a 203 mm lens (=7.99 in), with distance from the film to the
optical center of the lens (for most lenses, the location of the f-stop
aperture) being 8 inches, you are focused on infinity.   No correction
no necessary.

If you have an 203 mm focal length lens and a maximum bellows extension
of 8 inches, you are only going to be able to focus on distant objects.
If 8 inches is the size of your bellows, you might want a shorter focal
length lens instead.

There is an easy rule of thumb to know whether a correction is needed:
if the subject that you are focused on is within 10 times the focal
length of the lens, they you need to calculated the exposure
correction.   You can find the equation on various places on the web
(you probably wouldn't like the version I use because it uses logs).

--Michael


From: camartsmag@aol.com (CamArtsMag)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: 04 Feb 2002 
Subject: Re: Bellows extentions factors 101


At what point do I need to concern myself with this and is there an "easy"
way to calculate it like ... for every 2" open 1/2 a stop? I wonder if
there's any difference if I'm only 2x3.


Some people will overwhelm you with math formulae but here is an easy way

for every 25% beyond the infinity extensiion of a lens add 1/2 stop of
exposure. This holds true for any focal length lens. For example, with a 150mm
lens (6") the bellows has a 6" extension when photographing something at
infinity. If you focus on somehting closer the bellows extension will increae.
When it reaches 7.5" ad 1/2 stop of exposure. If the subject is closer and the
bellows now reaches 9" add 1 full stop. It does not matter, for exposure
purposes, if you use f-stops or shutter speeds. Of course, if you use the
f-stop you will have less depth of field. If your exposure time begins to
exceed 1 second then you have to be concerned about Reciprocity Failure.

steve simmons
view camera magazine



Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 
From: Ralph Barker rbarker@pacbell.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Bellows extentions factors 101


Calumet sells a nifty (and inexpensive) little calculator widget for
this. You put the "target" in the scene, and then measure it on the
ground glass with the ruler they provide. The ruler reads out directly
in the compensation factor you need.

Joe Lacy wrote:

>At what point do I need to concern myself with this and is there an "easy"
>way to calculate it like ... for every 2" open 1/2 a stop? I wonder if
>there's any difference if I'm only 2x3.
>
>Thanks,


From: "Howard Lester" hlester@as.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Bellows extension factors 101
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002


It's called the Calumet Exposure Calculator, at least in their 1993
catalog...

Howard Lester

"Ralph Barker" rbarker@pacbell.net wrote

> Calumet sells a nifty (and inexpensive) little calculator widget for
> this. You put the "target" in the scene, and then measure it on the
> ground glass with the ruler they provide. The ruler reads out directly
> in the compensation factor you need.




From: "Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@worldonline.nl
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Hack TTL flash metering..
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002

Robert Monaghan wrote:

> yes, macro takes a lot more light than you might expect ;-)
>
> you can use a simple fiber optic light pipe probe aimed at the subject,
> and conduct the light to the light sensor on auto-strobes, to get a true
> auto flash in macro (takes a good bit of twiddling though).

I am planning to go another way (with a bit more twiddling).
There are plenty fiber optic lighting systems for use with stereomicroscopes
and their like. What i need from them are the fiber optics and the tiny
focussing units that go on the end of each. I got these already. Next, i
need an old, disfunctional 35 mm slide projector. Third part is any compact
flash capable of being used with TTL-flash control cameras (plenty of
choice).

The thing to do is to rip the concave mirror, the lampfitting and the
condensor out of the slide projector, and put them in a new box, together
with the flash unit. Next i will put an U-shaped flash tube, roughly the
size of the projectors original lamp, at the appropriate place between
mirror and condensor, disconnect the flash's own tube, and hook up the
U-tube instead. After fitting the fiber optics at the right place in front,
i'll have a TTL-controlled macro fiber optics flash unit.

What's holding up the project at the moment is that i'm still trying to
figure out a way to leave the projector's lamp in place too, so it will have
a modelling light as well. I think i will end up having two separate
mirror--lightsource--conderser units in the same housing, one for flash the
other for the modelling light, set at an angle.

The advantage of using fiber optics is not only that you can bundle light
increasing effective output (providing the setup bundling the light into the
fiber optics is efficient to some degree), but that you can model light on
small subjects the same way you can with larger subjects, instead of being
stuck with huge area (in comparison to the subject) lights all the time.



From: Stephe ms_stephe@excite.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: How to get down to 1:1 macro?
Date: Sun, 03 Mar 2002


Henkka Karapuu wrote:

> I'm trying to figure out ways to get at least 1:1 macro, preferably
> higher, in medium format. Pentax 67 seemed to offer good & economical
> solution with dedicated macro lens, but unfortunately (as asked couple
> of threads ago) it requires heavier tripod that i'm willing to carry.
>
> What would be other good choices for this kind of work?

I'm using a kiev 60 (a mirror lock up model) with a olympus 80mm f4 macro
lens to get way past 1:1 (actually it's about 2.25:1). With a focal plane
shutter camera (any will do) and some fabrication, you can mount almost any
sort of lens, including enlarging lenses etc. Covereage isn't an issue when
you start focusing this close as almost any lens will cover a 6X6 negative
this far into macro. I'm using a 3221/3047 tripod with a cable release and
it's plenty.


I'm going to play with a reverse mounted 35mm shift lens this weekend to
get some even closer stuff! Read at my site about how I made this and see
some results. And yes it BLOWS 35mm away!

http://www.geocities.com/kievgurl
http://www.geocities.com/kievgurl/hack.html
http://www.geocities.com/kievgurl/macro/test.htm
--
  Stephe



From: kaliushkin@att.net (Dan Kalish)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Exposure adjustments with diopter lenses
Date: 22 Mar 2002


Gentlemen:

I beg to differ with some of these points.  I've already written up
some notes on extension parameters

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NikonMF/message/23766

and have just finished my analysis of supplementary lenses, such as
these diopters.  However, I haven't written it up yet.  I'll present a
preview here.


Lets start with the supplementary lenses.

"John Yeo" jonnieo@thegrid.net wrote 
> Dave,
...
>
> > For the 2+ diopter:
> > ---------------------------------------------------------
> > diopter focal length = 1 / 2 = 0.5m = 500mm
> > 1 / 0.127  + 1 / 0.5 = 1 / 0.101
> > The new effective focal length will be 101mm.
>
...
>
> I assume you are familliar with the forumula for calculating the object and
> image distance of a lens... 1/f = 1/i + 1/o.  f is the focal length of the
> lens, i is the distance from the lens, to where the image will be formed,
> and o is the distance from the lens to the object that is being focused on.
> In a system of lenses, the location of the image of the first lens BECOMES
> the object for the second lens.
>
> I drew a sketch... see http://www.dreamwater.net/cosmic9/2systembig.jpg.

John: that's inaccessible.  I get a 403 error.

> You can see that f1 is where the image would be formed if the second lens
> were not there, when the light rays are coming in parallel (the object is at
> infinity).  That point becomes the object for the second lens, o2.  o2 =
> f1 - d, where d is the distance between the lenses.
> We can use the object/image forumla to calculate where the final image, i2)
> would formed in this system.  f2 is the focal length of the second lens.
>
> 1 / f2 = (1 / o2) + (1 / i2)
>
> 1 / f2 = (1 / (f1 - d)) + (1 / i2)  Substitute f1 - d for o2
>
> 1 / i2 = (1 / f2) + (1 / (f1 - d))
>
> So, the location where the new image would be formed would be i2 away from
> the second lens.  If you wanted to add a third lens to the system, you would
> use the point i2 as the object for the third lens.
>
>

I think its easier to start off assuming both lenses are focused at
infinity.  Then the object is f2 from the lens combination, the light
rays between the lenses are parallel, and the lens combination is f1
from the film plane.  The basic lens equation is then 1/f(combination)
= 1/f1 + 1/f2.  Voila!


> > 127mm / f4.7 = 27mm aperture diameter
> > 101mm / 27mm = f3.7
> > The effective new f-stop is f3.7.
> >
> > In order to use the f-stop settings on the lens, I plan to compensate for
> > the change of f4.7 to f3.7 by adjusting the ASA film speed.
> >
> > The difference between two f-stop in terms of stops:
> >
> >  log(4.7) - log(3.7)
> > --------------------
> >     log(sqrt(2))
> >
> > So the difference between f4.7 and f3.7 is 0.7 stops.

 ...

>  This of course
>  would
> > be before any bellows correction. Does it make sense that I can do this?
>
> Correct.
>

WRONG!

There is no exposure compensation in this situation.  The reason is a
little tricky, but bear with me.

The combined lens, still at the infinite focus position for f1=127mm,
is not at the infinite focus position for f(combined)=101mm.  It is
displaced forward d=127mm-101mm=26mm.  This gives us magnification
M=f1/f2=d/f(combined)=0.26.  The aperture f/stop is multiplied by
1+M=1.26.  Now when we compensate for the reduced focal length, we
divide by the same quantity, 1+M.  The result is no exposure
compensation.

> > For bellows correction, I will compare the bellows extension to the new
> > focal length of 101mm rather than the 127mm focal length of the lens
>  without
> > the diopter.
> >
> > For example, if the bellows is extended to 202mm, I will increase exposure
> > time by 4 or open the aperture by 2 stops.
> >
> > 202^2 / 101^2 = 4
>
> Correct.  The f number is the diameter of the aperture divided by the
> extension.  f/e.  If you double the exetnsion, you have f / 2e, or (1/2) *
> (f/e).  The new f number would be half the original number, which translates
> into a difference of two stops.

But we're not finished!  We must multiply by the correction for the
supplementary lens.  To go back to aperture, we correct by dividing by
2 and multiplying by 1.26.  In all, we multiply by 1.26/2 which is
about 0.63 or 1/1.59.  That is correction of the speed by a factor of
2.53, and a correction of 1.34 stops.

The correction for the supplementary lens is due to reduction in focal
length, which increases the amount of light per unit film area.

I hope this is understandable!

I'll let you know when I've posted this analysis.

Dan


From Nikon Mailing List:
From: "John Owlett" owl@postmaster.co.uk
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 
Subject: [Nikon] Re: Micro Photography 2:1

Pacal Lebeau wrote:

> The micro 60/2.8 can go up to 1:1; the PC micro 85/2.8
> can go up to 1:2.  I am wondering if there is a solution
> to go up to 2:1 with a nikkor lens.
>
> I understand Canon has a lens that can go up to X5, the
> MP E 65/2.8.
>
> Perhaps some nikonians know a solution.


You are quite right in your use of 2:1.  It means that the
image on the negative is twice the size of the subject.

Ordinary lenses, which focus from infinity down to 1:10,
are designed to have a large subject in front of the lens
and a small image behind the lens.  For macrophotography
(between 1:1 and 20:1) -- with a large image behind the
lens and a small subject in front of the lens -- the
design needs to be reversed.

Some manufacturers make a special lens with a reversed
design: usually such a lens does not focus to infinity.
Nikon suggests that you reverse an ordinary lens.

To obtain 5x magnification, I would mount an AI-S Micro
105mm f/2.8 onto my F3/T; then I would screw onto the
front an adapter with a 52mm male screw thread on each
side; then I would screw onto the front of that a reversed
Nikkor 20mm f/4 (wide open and focused at infinity).

As a guideline, the magnification you can get by doing
this is the focal length of the main lens divided by the
focal length of the reversed lens.

For greater magnification still, you need a bellows with
a reversed wideangle lens on the front.  Nikon says that
with the PB-6 bellows, and the PB-6E bellows extension,
and a Nikkor 20mm f/2.8, you can get 23:1 magnification.

For any magnification greater than that, your hobby has
become photomicrography, and involves attaching camera
bodies to microscopes.

Reversing one lens onto another is relatively simple.
I carry the 105mm and 20mm lenses in my rucksack anyway,
and bought an inexpensive aluminium 52mm-to-52mm adapter.
Using a bellows is much more complicated, since you also
need an adapter to close the diaphragm of the reversed
lens and a twin-cable release to tell it to close the
diaphragm just before releasing the shutter.

Once, and only once, have I ever taken a bellows into the
field.  I have since heard that only the Novoflex bellows
is regarded as being convenient enough to use in the field.

Later,

Dr Owl

--------------------------
John Owlett, Southampton, UK




From: Sketcher invalid@nowhere.net
Newsgroups: sci.astro.amateur
Subject: Re: Focal length of microscope-eyepieces?
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2002


"Stubbe B.R." stubbe_bak at hotmail dot com wrote:

>    I have some microscope-eyepieces that I have used with my telescope, the
>only problem being that I don't know precisely what magnification they
>provide.

Insert an eyepiece into the telescope's focuser.  In the daytime focus
on a distant object.  Point the (distantly focused) telescope toward
the sky.  Measure the exit pupil diameter.  The magnification is equal
to the scope's objective diameter divided by the telescope/eyepiece
exit pupil diameter.

For a photo of an exit pupil and a photo of a simple, homemade device
for measuring them see:

http://www.rangeweb.net/~sketcher/equip2.html

Sketcher


From: "Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@worldonline.nl
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Hasselblad with bellows
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 


Joan Girdler wrote:

> I am using an 80 planar lens on a bellows or am trying to.  The
> distributor
> claims it works.  How does one go about focusing?  I have tried just
> about everything and all I have is a blur.

There are three ways to focus.

1. with the bellows set to any, fixed extension you desire, and the bellows
plus camera and lens at a fixed distance to your subject: by using the lens'
focussing mount. That will not be very good... ;-)

2. Again with the camea, bellows and lens at a fixed distance to your
subject: by altering the bellows extension. Also not very good: the
focussing range is perhaps still not what you need, and, more important,
you'll be changing magnification as you go along.


3. Set bellows to desired length (determined by lens used and desired
magnification), and move the whole shebang, camera, bellows and lens, closer
to or further away from your subject. This is the way to do it properly.
Just move in until things are in focus. Mind that you don't bump objects
with your front lens. But if you do, move back ;-)

(Oh, and there is still option 3a to consider: move the subject instead)

> What is the closest
> distance from object?

With a 80 mm lens and full bellows extension?

Not using the lens' own built-in extension (focussing ring set to infinity):
roughly, about 60 mm.

Using the lens' built-in extension as well: about the same, really.

> Should lens be set at infinity?  Thank you for any help.


No. Not necessarily. The lens can add another 10 mm extension
(approximately).

Perhaps not that much when using full bellows draw already. But very useful
in other situations.



From: sog@amaterasu.scd.ucar.edu (Steve Gombosi)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Hasselblad with bellows
Date: 15 Apr 2002


Mike King mikeking@cableone.net wrote:
>When shooting with any bellows unit I first set the bellows extension to the
>desired magnification and then focus the image by moving the
>camera+bellows+lens as a unit in and out to find the focus--a focusing rail
>is a great aid in this process.

If she's using the Hassleblad autobellows, it has its own rail built-in.

In any event, I agree with Mike and Q.G. - trying to *focus* using
the bellows and/or lens helical is pretty much hopeless. At extremely
close distances you end up changing magnification and just generally
confusing the issue. Use the bellows and/or the lens helical to set
the magnification you want, then adjust the subject distance until
you're in focus. It's *much* easier that way.
...


From: Stephe ms_stephe@excite.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Hasselblad with bellows
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002


Joan Girdler wrote:

> I am using an 80 planar lens on a bellows or am trying to.  The
> distributor
> claims it works.  How does one go about focusing?

Bogen makes a really nice focusing rail, description off BH photo's site:
3419 Micro Positioning Plate Supports 17.6 lb. I have one of these and it's
a nice unit and reasonable at $71. Doubles as a long lens to body tripod
mount.
--
stephe
http://www.geocities.com/kievgurl/



From: Roy Harrington roy@harrington.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: bellows draw math question
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002


Michael Gudzinowicz wrote:
>
> hogarth hogarth@directvinternet.com wrote:
>
> > What is the math for figuring out bellows draw for a given
> > focus distance for a given focal length? For example, say
> > I have a 210mm lens and I want to focus it down to three
> > meters. How much extra bellows draw does that produce over
> > the 210mm flange-to-film distance of infinity focus?
>
>
> 1 / focal_length = 1 / subject_distance + 1 / image_distance
>
> image_distance = 1 / ((1 / focal_length) - (1 / subject_distance))
>
>                = 1 / ((1/210)-(1/3000)) = 226 mm

This is correct, but I've found some other equations quite useful.

(1)   ObjDist = Flen * (1 + Mag)
(2)   ImgDist = Flen * (1 + 1/Mag)

taking the first one:
 Mag = (ObjDist/Flen) - 1  =  3000/210 - 1  = 13.25

The nice thing about this is that you can use any units for distance
and focal length.   So you can estimate pretty easily:
think dist = 10 feet, focal length = 8 inches = 2/3 foot.
So 10/ (2/3) = 15,   and mag ~= 14

Then use the second equation.
The 1/Mag term gives you the extension_part_infinity.
210/13.25 = 16 mm
so ImgDist = 210mm + 16mm = 226mm  (same as above)

The estimating method would be very good as well,
210 * (1/14) = 15mm,   so its only off by 1mm

Another useful bit of information is that the (1 + 1/Mag) factor
tells you the exposure compensation for bellows extension.
You can calculate it exactly in stops:
exposure _increase = (1 + 1/Mag)^2
But again estimating is plenty good.  If 1/Mag  = 1 you need
2 stops (this is 1:1 life size) and 1/Mag = .4 you need 1 stop.
Just guess the in between points.  For the above,  1/14 is
so much smaller than .4 that no compensation is needed.

One other point is about the telephoto lens.  The nice thing
here is that all the calculations are exactly the same till the last
step, then you add the extension distance to the position where
the lens is focused at infinity.  So in the above example if the
210 was a telephoto that used just 150mm for infinity you
would just add the 16mm to 150mm giving 166mm total
extension.  Bellows compensation calcs don't change at all.


>
> extension_past_infinity = image_distance - focal_length = 226 - 210 = 16 mm
>
> bellows_draw = extension_past_infinity + infinity_film_flange_distance
>
> The "extension" is the amount of bellows draw past the infinity position.
>
> For most lenses, the focal_length approximates the film to flange distance
> at infinity, so the image distance may be used as an estimate of the total
> bellows draw.
> For true telephotos, the infinity film to flange distance is less than
> the focal length, and it's value should be used to calculate the bellows
> draw.
>

I find that the accuracy of the ball park estimating is plenty
close enough for all real photo purposes.

Roy

--
Roy Harrington
roy@harrington.com
Black & White Photography Gallery
http://www.harrington.com



From rollei mailing list:
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 
From: Dan Kalish kaliushkin@worldnet.att.net
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Rollei Users list digest V10 #217

Robert: This is my approach; the framework and equations are well
established and developed in many sources.  I've tried to explain it as
follows:

Bellows, extension tubes for Nikons, but just as applicable for medium
format:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NikonMF/message/23766


Large format discussion of supplementary lenses:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&group;=rec.photo.equipment.large-format

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&selm;=3053eba9.0203221751.57d710c0%40po
sting.google.com&rnum;=7

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&threadm;=3053eba9.0203231638.2acbf433%4
0posting.google.com&prev;=/groups%3Fnum%3D25%26hl%3Den%26group%3Drec.photo.eq
uipment.large-format%26start%3D25  (especially my posts)

..
> I don't understand the difference between the use of bellows and the
> rolleinars. I also use a Mamiya TLR, and you have to admit the inclusion of
> bellows into the design was great. The bellows do require exposure
> compensation as stated previously, and the compensation factors are
> indicated on the side of the camera as you extend the bellows.
>
> I'll try another test roll of Provia tonight, and bracket the exposures.
> For an indoor still life lit from above (no flash), using Rolleiflex with
> rolleinar #2 about 12-18 inches from subject, would you do an incident
> reading or reflected light reading and why?
>
> Thanks again,
> R.J.




From: "Tommy Huynh" tommyphuynh@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.technique.nature
Subject: Re: Macro photography: ringlite VS regular flash
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001


I don't like the flatness of ring lights and don't find much use for them
outside of product photography.  With regular flash units, you can still
control the flatness by flashing it behind a white pice of paper and
controlling it's size.  Just cut a hole the paper for the lens if you want
to get the light close to your lens.

The documentary you saw was probably Nick Nichols doing his shoot of the
Ndoki rain forest.  This guy is probably one of my favorite photographers,
more for his approach than his pictures.  You have to respect a guy that's
had Malaria 12 times!  Anyways, he uses an EOS system (sometimes 5 A2Es will
be draped around his neck as well as EOS 1(x)s) and has an interesting
approach to flash use.  He uses a huge bulb/reflector flash for wildlife
shots with teles(EF500mm I think) which I've yet to figure out what it is,
looks bigger than the sunpack one, like a modified studio rig.  He also uses
the built in flash on the A2s sometimes which is unusual since most pros are
usually too hoidy toidy to do such a thing which I think is BS.  I've had
some of my best shots with my A2e's built in flash.  His use of 2 shoe mount
flashes for macro is not unusual though.  Canon's new E-TTL is great for
this especially since you can play with ratios.


"B Yen" byen00@earthlink.net wrote...
> I want to try out some macro photography.  I have a N2000, Nikon 50mm/3.5
> AI macro & a TC201 (w/o optics, acts as extension tube).  I'm thinking
> about what flash I need:
>
> - Vivitar 550 FD (for Nikon)  $39 used
> - Vivitar 6000 ringlite flash $110 new
>
> Would a ringlite flash be preferable?  Since, the regular flash is front
> mounted & acts like a point light source.  I have a Canon T90, cables for
> multi-flash, 2 300TL flash..but no macro lens! (I need to get one).
>
>  I was watching a National Geographic documentary in Africa, & the guy was
> using 2 flashes with gel filters (mounted externally, left & right of
> subject).
>
>
> TIA for any help/advice.


From: Struan Gray struan.gray@sljus.lu.se
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: DOF dabbling (was Kowa 250)
Date: 26 Mar 2002 


Willem-Jan Markerink, w.j.markerink@a1.nl writes:
> "Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@worldonline.nl wrote:
>> "Amazing" DOF (like in this Empire of Bugs thing) can
>> be achieved with quite down to earth ancient techmology.
>> Pick a lens, any lens, and point it at anything of
>> interest. Then, put a tiny object, like a bug, in
>> the image space behind that lens. Next, pick a
>> camera and macro lens, and focus it on the bug.
>
>No preference in focal length for that secondary lens _at all_?


        The focal length of the secondary lens determines the relative
magnification of the bug and the background.  It's aperture determines
their relative brightness.  The background will of course be upside
down unless you use a rectifying prism or relay lens too.  It can be
very hard to avoid bad aberrations in the outer parts of the image of
the background, but c'est la vie.

        One of Attenborough's "Life" series of nature films had him
talking to camera with a line of ants marching across the front of the
frame, all in focus.  I think this was the first time it had be used
to wow the couch potato public.


> Btw, I am currently dabbling a bit in huge lenses
> from Diaskop and Epidiaskop....focal range 200-500mm,
> aperture f4.0-6.0 ....

        Wide open?  Don't get the sun in the frame - your bug won't
last long :-)

Struan

PS: I'm taking a mill to the Kowa back plate.  Making a circular
hole is the only way to end up with a lens that will fit both a
Super 66 and a 6/6MF.  I can live with the depreciation.


From: Struan Gray struan.gray@sljus.lu.se
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Kowa 250/5.6 vignetting at close focus
Date: 26 Mar 2002


Duncan Ross, notmyreal@address.com writes:

> The Kowa Microscope adapter can me handy for adapting
> different things to the camera.  These are not too
> expensive... if you can find them.

    There's always a catch.

        When I was in Japan a couple of years ago I had a dream of finding
a little mom and pop camera store with a pile of mint but unloved Kowa
oddballs.  No chance.  I did have fun comparing gear with the
old-guys-with-tripods who seem to congregate near every photogenic
view, but most of them couldn't understand why I, a European, wasn't
using Rollei or Hasselblad.

        For high magnifications I have a lot of options.  Shutters that
are large enough to work with microscope objectives and eyepieces are
cheap to free, especially if you lurk at universities who are throwing
out Polaroid copy cameras and oscilloscope/SEM recorders.  Don't
bother hanging round the dumpsters at my lab though :-)

Struan


From: Struan Gray struan.gray@sljus.lu.se
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Mega topic drift  (was Kowa)
Date: 26 Mar 2002

Willem-Jan Markerink, w.j.markerink@a1.nl writes:
>>> Btw, I am currently dabbling a bit in huge lenses
>>> from Diaskop and Epidiaskop....focal range 200-500mm,
>>> aperture f4.0-6.0 ....
>
> Another project involves using a Diaskop lens on a 4x5" camera
>....there are *no* other tele lenses with such apertures (up to
> 1000/6),

    There is a surplus place is selling relay lenses from Xray
machines in eBay, and some of those have big apertures and large
coverage (4x5 and up at 1:1).  No really long focal lengths though.
If you can live with a mere 24", there is an Aero-Ektar aerial mapping
lens in that length and f6.0.

    Telescope objectives made of an air-spaced doublet can be long and
big, but f8 seems to be about the limit.  I have an antique Zeiss
'comet spotting' refractor whose front element is roughly a 1000 mm
f8.  One of the other uses of my reversing ring (if I ever get it made
up) will be to mount the Kowa on that. (Yeah! Back on topic!).

 At the other end of the quality scale, simple plastic fresnels can
make "interesting" images on large sheet film or paper negs.  (Whoa!
wrong newsgroup!)

Struan


Date: Wed, 15 May 2002
From: blades@starband.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: macro vs. normal


I disagree here.  Well made macro lenses are better at close focus (inches
instead of feet) than they are at, say, infinity focus.   A perfect example
is the Nikkor 60mm Micro Nikkor.  This lens is nothing short of spectacular
up close and is soft at infinity.  I'm not saying it's unuseable at infinity
focus, but it sure is visibly softer than any 50mm normal Nikkor is at
infinity focus.

As a note, I would consider 1:5 or so to be getting beyond the realm of
close focus.  Many non-macro lenses can product 1:5 reproduction ratios.  No
hard and fast rule here.

Fred
Photo Forums
http://www.photoforums.net

"Tony Spadaro" tspadaro@ncmaps.rr.com wrote
> A well made macro lens will work jes'fine at every distance out to
> infinity - this is excepting the bellows designs which porbably can not be
> focused to infinity.
>   You really will not be able to see the difference between a shot taken
> with a macro and the normal lens equivalent unless one or the other is a
> cheapy.
>
> --
> http://www.chapelhillnoir.com



From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Lens Help
Date: Mon, 13 May 2002

nqlee" annqlee@msn.com wrote:
>Tim,
>
>The equations with a thin lens assumption is the following
>
>M=(v-f)/f
>where f is the focal length and v as the bellow draw. M is the
>magnification.
>Let say your bellow draw is 300mm=12", like the other gentleman said, then
>M=(12-10)/10=0.2, which means that you can only shoot  something
>(4x5)/.2=20x25 inches and not
>smaller. IE you can not get a head shot, because most heads are around 8x10
>inches and not 20x25.
>20x25 seems more like torso and head.
>
>Good Luck,
>
>ann

 Here the minimum distance is calculated from the amount of extension
from the infinity bellows position. A 4x5 Speed Graphic has a bit more
than 12" of bellows extension.

  If we assume a thin lens, or simply that the rear principal point is
near the center of the lens, the available extension from infinity
focus is around two inches. The formula is:

u = (F^2/x)+F

Where u = subject distance (technically from the front principal
point, but the center of the lens will do).
F = Focal length
x = available bellows extension from infinity focus. For a ten inch
lens on a Speed Graphic this is a little more than two inches.

  The minimum distance comes out to around 35 inches.
  Magnification at this distance should be about 0.4 x the object
size.
...

---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com


From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Lens Help
Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 


groovensynth email@domain.com wrote:
>I just purchased an Ektar Commercial 10" f/6.3 lens.  I thought I would
>use it on my Speed Graphic as a portrait lens.  I seem to run out of
>bellows before it is in focus.  Why is that? I thought I read somewhere
>that the Speed have bellows enought for 360mm?
>
>tks
>Tim

 The 4x5 Speed Graphic has about 12.5 inches (about 318mm) stretched
to its limit. For a 250mm lens this should give you a minimum distance
of about three feet assuming the rear principal point is somewhere
around the middle of the lens. For a Tessar type such as the
Commercial Ektar the rear principal point is about in the air space
between the diaphragm and rear element. This will lengthen the minimum
focusing distance but you should still be able to do portraits.

  I checked an Anniversary Graphic with a 12" Apo-Artar. It will focus
to about 15 feet.

  Where is the front standard set on this camera? It should be right
at the front of the rails to get maximum bellows extension.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com



From: "annqlee" annqlee@msn.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Lens Help
Date: Mon, 13 May 2002


Tim,

The equations with a thin lens assumption is the following

M=(v-f)/f
where f is the focal length and v as the bellow draw. M is the
magnification.

Let say your bellow draw is 300mm=12", like the other gentleman said, then
M=(12-10)/10=0.2, which means that you can only shoot  something (4x5)/.2=20x25 inches and not
smaller. IE you can not get a head shot, because most heads are around 8x10 inches and not 20x25.
20x25 seems more like torso and head.

Good Luck,

ann


"groovensynth" email@domain.com wrote 
> I just purchased an Ektar Commercial 10" f/6.3 lens.  I thought I would
> use it on my Speed Graphic as a portrait lens.  I seem to run out of
> bellows before it is in focus.  Why is that? I thought I read somewhere
> that the Speed have bellows enought for 360mm?
>
> tks
> Tim


From: webmaster@microscapes.de (MMooz)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: photomicrography webring
Date: 11 May 2002 


I want to present you an international webring, dedicated to
photomicrography with polarized light. The Lightscapes Webring has
been initiated last year to offer a possibility to get to know the
images and the work of people who are engaged in that topic and to
exchange with each other. Meanwhile the webring connects websites from
20 members in 9 countries. You can visit the webring at
http://www.microscapes.de for further details.

Kind Regards
Martin Mooz


From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@worldonline.nl
Subject: Re: [HUG] Extension tube options for close-ups with 80mm CFE

Simon Lamb wrote:

> Can anyone tell me the options available for doing close-up/macro
> photography using the 80mm CFE lens?  Would I be able to get reasonable
> reproduction ratios using any of the Hasselblad extension tubes with the
> lens?  I was interested in using the 120MP but I cannot justify the cost of
> a dedicated bellows so I am trying to improvise, if possible.

You can easily calculate the magnification any tube, or combinations of
tubes, will yield in combination with the 80 mm lens by dividing the total
length of extension by the lens' focal length. The lens itself can provide
up to about 9 mm of extension you may want or not want to use.
I have included a table below.

So first decide on what magnifications you want/need, and then it's easy to
decide what tube or tubes you need (magnification x focal length).

The amount of extension you need in combination with the 80 mm lens is about
2/3 the amount needed with the 120 mm lens. So maybe (depending on what
reproduction ratio you want to work at) you will need the bellows anyway?

=================
Table
=================
INF = Infinity setting, not using the barrel extension
MINF = Magnification at infinity setting. Total extension = extension added.
FBE = full barrel extension, making full use of the extension built-in to
the lens. Total extension = built-in + added.
MFBE = Magnification at FBE setting
Extension = added extension in the form of tubes

Extension 0 = no extra extension (tubes, bellows) added. Extension
increasing in 8 mm increments, up to 64 mm. Extension values needing more
than one tube appear in [ ]. Why stop at 64 mm? It's the point where bellows
should take over. Seems natural to stop there. ;-)

80 mm lens  (9 mm extension):
Extension  -  INF  -  MINF  -  FBE  -  MFBE
0  -  0 EV  -  0  -  0.26 EV  -  0.11
8  -  0.23 EV  -  0.10  -  0.47 EV  -  0.21
16  -  0.44 EV  -  0.20  -  0.67 EV  -  0.31
[24]  -  0.64 EV  -  0.30  -  0.85 EV  -  0.41
32  -  0.83 EV  -  0.40  -  1.02 EV  -  0.51
[40]  -  1.00 EV  -  0.50  - 1.19 EV  -  0.61
[48]  - 1.17 EV  -  0.60  -  1.34 EV  -  0.71
56  -  1.32 EV  -  0.70  -  1.49 EV  -  0.81
[64]  -  1.47 EV  -  0.80  -  1.63 EV  -  0.91

To calculate the field of view (in mm) divide 56.5 by magnification.



From contax mailing list:
Date: Tue, 21 May 2002
From: Steve Levit salevit@yahoo.com
Subject: RE: [Contax] OT: macro with converters

The teleconverter in question is for the Kiev88 line
of cameras.  Their 2x teleconverter is supposed to
allow the glass to be removed so that the barrel can
be used as an extension tube.

Steve L.


From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 
From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] View camera question

 you wrote:
>Having not used my view cameras for some time I am drawing a blank on the
>formula you use to determine magnification if you know the lens focal length
>and the bellows extension.
>
>Anyone here know it off the top of your head?
>
>Bob
>
  Where
m = magnification
h' = height of image
h = height of object
v = image distance
u = object distance
F = focal length


m = h'/h = v/u = v-F/F =F/u-F

Lens to image = v = Fu/u-F = mu = (m + 1)F
----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com



From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 
From: Dale Dickerson vze2g2z8@verizon.net
Subject: Re: [Rollei] View camera question

Using the Kodak Professional Photoguide (6th ed.) page 47,  Close-up
Exposure dual:

150mm lens with 356.7mm distance from lens to film distance the
magnification (image dimension over subject dimension) is just less then
1 1/2

210mm lens with 356.7mm distance from lens to film distance the
magnification (image dimension over subject dimension) is centered
between 1/2 and 3/4

page 49 has exact formula

lens-tofilm distance = lens focal length x (magnification + 1)

356.7=210 x (m+1)
1.69857142857142857142857142857143=m+1
.69857142857142857142857142857143=m

356.7=150 x (m+1)
2.378=m+1
1.378=m


I hope this helps.

Best Regards,
Dale


From: fotocord fotocord@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Macro Photography: 45mmGN nIkkor for 6x6 ???
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2002


Graphic wrote:

> AFAIR,  I had heard that the 45mmGN Nikkor (F-mount) was a sharp,
> relatively flat field lens for use on a bellows.
>
>
> 2. Will it cover all or most of the 6x6cm format when used on a bellows?

Almost anything will cover 6X6 when focused close. I use an 80mm f4 olympus
bellows lens on my kiev-60 and it's fantasic! The olympus bellows caused
vignetting but the lens has planty of coverage. Used on a pentacon bellows
it covers 6X6 easily.

Other choices are enlarging lenses or for closer work reversed wide angle
35mm optics. I'm also amazed how well the normal 80mm russian arsat works
reversed on some tubes. This is all assuming the camera has a focal plane
shutter.
--
Stacey



From: w.j.markerink@a1.nl (Willem-Jan Markerink)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Zeiss Luminar macro lenses for Hassy?
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 02

  rcyoung@aliconsultants.com (Robert Young) wrote:
>Has anyone seen these now "unavailable" items, and given them a try?
>Has anyone seen these on the used market?

Those are by far the most expensive micro/RMS-lenses on the market, but by
far not the only ones....here is my attempt at a complete market-overview, past
& present:

http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/microlen.htm

One thing to remember if you ever shoot with them: do NOT stop down too far,
they were designed for maximum performance around full aperture.
--
Bye,
Willem-Jan Markerink
w.j.markerink@a1.nl
[note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!]



From: artkramr@aol.com (ArtKramr)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 22 Jun 2002 
Subject: Re: Zeiss Luminar macro lenses for Hassy?

>Those are by far the most expensive micro/RMS-lenses on the market, but by
>far not the only ones....here is my attempt at a complete market-overview,
>past
>& present:
>

They are absolutely outstanding lenses.Maybe the best in their class.

>One thing to remember if you ever shoot with them: do NOT stop down too far,
>they were designed for maximum performance around full aperture.
>

Yes of course. That is because they are diffraction limited.

Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer



From: 76266.333@compuserve.com (Dan Fromm)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Zeiss Luminar macro lenses for Hassy?
Date: 14 Jun 2002 

rcyoung@aliconsultants.com (Robert Young) wrote 
> Has anyone seen these now "unavailable" items, and given them a try?
> Has anyone seen these on the used market?

Last year I found a 100/6.3 Luminar with coating problems.  I don't
like it, but as I said it has problems.

Keep an eye on eBay, both US and Germany.  Luminars, Photars, and
other micro lenses keep turning up.

As for how good they are, they have a fantastic reputation.  I
recently had a shoot-out with 32/4.5 Micro Tessar, 35/4 Eurygon, and
35/4.5 Tominon.  Much to my surprise, the Tominon won.

Cheers,

Dan


From: "Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@worldonline.nl
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Exposure compensation for Ext. Tubes/LS lens
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002


Nigel Bardsley wrote:

> Does anyone know a good resource, web or book etc. for manually adjusting
> exposures when using extension tubes I have a Sekonic L-408. I am just
> getting into MF with a Pentax 67II, practicing with floral shots in the
> garden. I know I'm going to waste plenty of frames, but I would like to
> learn something in the process!

All you need to know are a few formulae:

========

Magnification = total amount of extension / focal length of lens used.

Diaphragm compensation factor = 1 / (Magnification + 1)

Shutterspeed compensation factor = (Magnification + 1)^2

Compensation in stops (EV) = log(Shutterspeed comp. factor) / log(2)


========

Suppose you're using a 100 mm lens and put it on a 20 mm extension tube.
Suppose that you don't use the lens' extension, i.e. the lens is set to
focus at infinity.
Magnification on film then is total extension/focal length = 20/100 = 1/5 =
0.2, i.e. the object appears at 1/5 life-size on film.

Now next thing to do is measure light. Say the meter tells us that f/8 at
1/125 second would give correct exposure.
We now have a choice: either we change the suggested aperture to a smaller
value to compensate for light loss, or we lengthen the suggested exposure
time to do the same. Only one of these two is required. To find out how much
more the aperture should be opened, or the exposure time lengthened, we must
use the appropriate formula.


To find the f-number to use to get proper exposure on film, we must apply
our formula saying that the correction factor is 1/(magnification + 1) =
1/(0.2 + 1) = 0.8333. So in our example, we will have to multiply the chosen
f-number, which was 8, by 0.8333, giving 6.667, which is almost exactly half
way between f/5.6 and f/8.

Using this f-number and the suggested shutterspeed will give correct
exposure.

If we want to leave the aperture at f/8, and change shutterspeed instead, we
must use the formula saying that the correction factor is (magnification +
1)^2 = (0.2 + 1)^2 = 1.44.
The suggested shutterspeed was 1/125 second, which is 0.008 second. Multiply
this by the correction factor found (1.44) and we'll get the correct time of
0.01152 second. Convert this back to fractional values by simply dividing
this into 1 = 1 / 0.01152 = 1/86.806 second. The corrected shutterspeed
would be approx. 1/80th of a second. This perhaps is not a setting you can
set on the camera, but it would be right between 1/60 and 1/125 second.

You will often find that you would have to use shutterspeeds that can't be
set, unless you're getting into the multiple second range (using "B"). Most
of the compensation therefore must be done changing aperture. Yet you can
combine the two, changing shutterspeeds to the nearest possible value, and
then changing aperture to take care of the remainder.

Since it helps just knowing the amount of compensation needed in stops, or
Exposure Values (EV) (especially helpful when changing shutterspeeds to take
the whole number part of the change in stops needed, and changing aperture
to take care of the remaining fractional part) we can calculate the
compensation needed in stops by taking the log of the shutterspeedfactor and
dividing this by the log of 2. In our example, the shutterspeed factor was
1.44, so compensation needed in stops/EV would be log(1.44)/log(2) = 0.526.

To summarize: our measured f/8 at 1/125 sec. must either be f/6.667 at 1/125
sec., or f/8 at 1/86 sec.

One important thing to remember is that lenses have extensions too. So using
the 100 mm from our example with the 20 mm extension tube would give a
different result if the lens was not set to focus at infinity: the extension
of the lens has to be added to the length of the extension tube.
You will have to meassure or find out in another way how much the total
amount of barrel extension of the lens you're using is.

Many lenses have enough built-in extension to require a considerable
exposure compensation when used at their closest focussing range, even
without adding extension tubes. So once you found out how much extension is
involved setting your particular lenses to their close focus limit, you can
calculate the compensation needed. You wil be surprised!

And many long lenses do need even more compensation when we take their
assymetry into account as well. But that's another issue ;-)


From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@worldonline.nl
Subject: Re: [HUG] Best lighting for Luminar on 'blad?

Stuart Phillips wrote:

> Excuse me, but what's a luminar a kind of super-proxar?

Luminars are (out of production) Zeiss lenses, depending on focal length,
best at moderate to rather large magnifications.
They don't have shutters (though you can fit all of them in front of one),
and have RMS screw mount (that is, all but the longest, 100 mm one). They
are pretty rare, yet do surface now and again. And when they do, i'm gather
they can be quite expensive.


Hasselblad used to sell a "lens adapter"; basically a aluminium block with
hasselblad bayonet fitted to the rear, and a center opening with RMS thread.

Equally good (and equally out of production now) are the Olympus Zuiko 20 mm
and 38 mm Macro MB lenses. These too have RMS thread and non-auto, non-click
stop apertures, though later versions were made in OM mount and auto
diaphragm.



From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 
From: Marc James Small msmall@infi.net
Subject: RE: [HUG] Best lighting for Luminar on 'blad?

Stuart Phillips wrote:
>Excuse me, but what's a luminar a kind of super-proxar?
>

There are a family of macro lenses which began life as glorified microscope
objectives.  These include the Leitz Micro-Summars and Milars and the Leitz
or Leica Photars, the Carl Zeiss Jena Mikrotars, the Bausch & Lomb
Micro-Tessars, and the Carl Zeiss or Zeiss Winkel Luminars.  Most of these
lenses are in the so-called "Royal Screw", the thread mount of 0.7965"
(20.1mm) x 36 t.p.i. Whitworth adopted by the Royal Microscope Society in
the 1860's, so adapters to most camera systems (including Linhof,
Hasselblad, Rolleiflex SL66 &c;, Leica Bellows II and Bellows R, &c;) abound.
 Other lenses, such as the early Leitz Photars from the 1920's and the
longer Photars and Luminars, use larger thread-mounts which require special
adapters.

There are also macro lenses made by other manufacturers such as Nikon and
Staeble.  I don't know for certain, but I believe that the Micro-Nikkors
are in RMS, while the Staeble Kartagons are in M39.

Marc

msmall@infi.net


[Ed. note: long sold, but here for info on device...]
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 
From: song wenge daliansong@yahoo.com
Subject: [HUG] "Hasselblad luminar lens adapter" for sell

Dear all,

I have the "Hasselblad luminar lens adapter" for sell.
It basically an aluminium block with hasselblad
shutter and aperature fitted to the rear, and a center
opening thread. It looks in excellent to mint
condition. If anyone needs it, makes an offer.

Regards.

WENGE SONG


Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2002
From: "skipcashwell" skipcashwell@snet.net
Newsgroups: alt.photography
Subject: Re: 50mm macro lense, any advantages?


The longer lenses have some advantages, true, however, there are many
disadvantages that, IMO make a 50-55mm micro (macro?) focal length a better
choice:
1. Greater depth of field - less "telephoto" image flattening
2. General overall sharpness, especially at maximum aperture
3. Substantially less spherical aberration and color shift
4. Perspective control more manageable
5. A lighter weight, more user-friendly form factor
6. Increased versatility (can be used for "normal" photography)
7. Much lower cost

Just my 2-cents, which in today's money market ain't worth much!
Skip Cashwell



From: Christoph Breitkopf chris@chr-breitkopf.de
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Best Way to Choose Macro Lens
Date: 23 Jul 2002 

"Keith A Desotelle" KDESOTELLE@wi.rr.com writes:

> Greetings~
>
>     With the help of the group I decided on the Nikon F100 several months
> back.  I purchased a Tamron SP AF28-105MM F/2.8 and have been very please
> with the setup.  While shooting my first flowers this past week I was
> dissapointed with the results of the 1:4.7 macro magnification ratio.  I was
> not dissapointed with the lens, just the results.  Anyway this is a good
> thing as it allows me to spend more of my hard earned income on a 1:1 macro
> lens.  I have several questions.
>
>     Is sharpness the only advantage of selecting a prime macro over a short
> zoom macro?

No. Actually, with three-dimensional subjects such as flowers,
sharpness may not be an issue at all. Ease of use is. People got
by without macro lenses for a long time. Most older macro designs
just offer more built-in extension the other lenses, but if you
have time to add an extension ring or close-up lens, the effect
is the same. (Of course, macro lenses are optimized for sharpness
in the close range, and maybe flattness of field - but with
flowers it is unlikely the the difference is very noticeable).
I a way, macro lenses are just like zooms: ease of use, not
necessarily quality. An enlargement lens on a bellows will often
be better in a certain magnification range than a macro lens.

A zoom lens with a matching diopter
(see http://www.angelfire.com/ca/erker/closeups.html)
will be quite ok for a lot of macro applications - but you have
to screw the diopter on and off, and focusing is likely much
harder because of a short focusing throw. Also, a good
diopter may cost nearly a much as a third-party 100mm macro
lens.

>     Finally, any personal feelings on a specific lens would be interesting
> to hear.  Thanks in advance.

Seems I'm recommending not to buy a macro, eh? ;-)
You might want to experiment with other options a bit.
Maybe you can loan some equipment for testing, to get
a feel for what you prefer.

It's really hard to recommend one of the Nikkors - you
already have F2.8 at 60 and 105mm. So the only lenses
to extend your range apart from just focusing closer
are the 4/200 and the 70-180 Macro zoom (a real one).
Both are big, heavy and expensive, and at least a stop
slower than what you are used to.
A third party 90 or 100mm Macro would be an option
if you don't want to spend that much money.
Also very nice: the 2.8/180 IF-ED with a Canon 500D
close-up lens or an thirs party AF extension ring.

Regards,
Chris



[Ed. note: thanks to Ronnie Kroonenberg for sharing these handy formulas!]
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002
From: r.kroonenberg1@chello.nl
To: rmonagha@post.smu.edu
Subject: numeric aperture

    hello in my computer program i use this

      na_from_diaf:=sin(arctan(1/diaf)/2   ));
      na_from_diaf:=1/sqrt(1.0+sqr(diaf*2.0));   the same

     greetings ronnie kroonenberg


From: pal@nospam.net (Peter)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature
Subject: Re: Closeup photography and breezes
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002


I made a contraption out of plexiglass that helps for the times I want
natural light. Picture in your mind a plexiglass cube (well, a 3-D
rectangle, not a square cube) with two sides missing - the side that
goes on the ground, and the side you shoot through. It does a great
job of blocking wind. You put it over the plant, of course. You just
have to pay extra attention to the background when you shoot, so you
don't get any glare or plexiglass joint in the background. I use a 180
macro when using this, so I've got lots of control over the
background.


1 - I had 4 pieces of about 1/8 inch thick plexiglass cut, (3) of them
15 x 30 inches, (1) 15 x 15 inches.

2 -  Next I layed the three long pieces on the floor, the long sides
separated by 1/4 inch. I then used 2 inch wide clear waterproof tape
to tape the three long pieces together, putting the tape on each side.
Tape the entire 30 inch lengths. I pushed the tape together from each
side, so it stuck togther between the 1/4 spaces between the
plexiglass. At this point I had three pieces of plexiglass that were
attached by tape hinges.

3 - With the taped-togther three pieces flat on the floor, I put the
15 x 15 inch piece  1/4 inch away from the end of one of the end
pieces of the already taped pieces. Do the same with the tape, making
a hinge for that piece. This group of 4 pieces can be folded together
flat, or un-folded into a cube-shape with 2 sides missing. When you
want to use it, you un-fold it into a cube shape and hold it in this
position by applying a temporary piece of 2 inch tape to the end piece
and one of the side pieces.

It makes a huge difference. Plexiglass isn't cheap, I paid around $30
US for the 4 pieces.

Dominic Franklin dominic.franklin@nospamthankyoumam.btinternet.com wrote:
>Sorry if asked before. When taking closeups, of say flowers, even small
>breezes can cause significant subject movement. How do people overcome
>this, apart from using flash or fast shutter/wide aperture combinations?
>Do you use clamps to hold the subject still, or to hold card to block
>the breeze? Grateful for any guidance, or direction towards useful
>websites. I seem to recall Novoflex making some clamp-style device.


from hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@worldonline.nl
Subject: Re: [HUG] Auto bellows with adaptor and Zeiss Luminar

Alison Napier wrote:
[HUG] Auto bellows with adaptor and Zeiss Luminar
> Is there anyone on the list who has experience with this setup?

Yep.

> I currently use bellows and extension tubes, but need to extend my macro
> capabilities to beyond this. I'm planning on getting hold of a 40mm Zeiss
> Luminar  which I understand will give me magnification in the range 4 -16x
> (5x being the optimum for this objective).
>
> I've so far found only one
> possible source for the objective and one other possible source for the lens
> adaptor.
>
> If anyone has a) any other information, such as about usage etc. or


Discounting the depth of the adapter (how thick is it?), you'll get
magnifications ranging from 2.47x upto 5.94x using the 40 mm with bellows
(63.5 upto 202 mm extension. The camera adds 74.9 mm. Add the length of the
adapter too, but subtract the focal lenght of the Luminar.)
You'll need a lot more extension to get upto 16x (as you will know, 40 mm
(well, 39.9 mm exactly) extra for each next unit step).  The 16 mm Luminar
will just about reach 16x with full bellows draw (still not counting the
extension provided by the adapter. You'll get another step, upto 17x, with adapter).
Perhaps you should try and find a 25 mm or 16 mm Luminar instead of the 40 mm?

The focal length of the 40 mm Luminar is 39.9 mm, it's maximum opening is f/4.
Most (all?) Luminar's aperture scales are marked "1", "2", "4", "8","15",
"30", etc. Each number representing the factor with which you need to
multiply the exposure time, relative to the correct time wide open ("1").The
easier way to use this is to count each mark, each one representing closing
the aperture by one stop.


The thread mount on the Luminars is the internationally normed microscope
thread, W 0.8# x 1/36". The no longer available lens adapter has this
thread. But if you can't find one of those, it is just a piece of
aluminium/aluminum with a Hasselblad bayonet on the rear. You could perhaps
order the bayonet part from Hasselblad, and have someone machine a piece of
aluminium/aluminum, or brass, to fit. The hardest part would be to cut the
right thread to take the Luminar. If you can't find someone who can,
remember that it is a standard microscope thing, and you might be able to
find a ready made adapter that can be fitted to the home made adapter.

(By the way: does anybody in the group know where i can find an Olympus PM
MT-ob adapter so i can mount my Luminars on my Olympus bellows? TIA.)

Luminars are excellent macro lenses, but don't give in to the temptation of
closing the aperture all the way to get as much depth of field as possible.
The image quality will suffer quite a bit if you do.

> b) any sources of purchase (pref. in Europe,  but elsewhere will suffice
> if no European
> sources can be found)

Sorry, but no... :-(


from hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 
From: Marc James Small msmall@infi.net
Subject: Re: [HUG] Auto bellows with adaptor and Zeiss Luminar

Luminars are in a standard microscope thread size (the Royal Microscope
Society thread-mount, the so-called "Royal Screw").  Most other macro
lenses share this mount -- Zeiss Luminars, Leitz Photars, Micro Summars,
and Milars, Bausch & Lomb Micro-Tessar, Zeiss Jena Mikrotars, &c; &c.;
(Staeble Katagons, however, use M39.)

I have a stable full of these lenses and use them on occasion on my 2000
FCM with bellows.

In today's world, eBay is probably the best venue for such items.

Marc
msmall@infi.net


From rollei mailing list:
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 
From: Mark Malkin mm15@cornell.edu
Subject: [Rollei] Re:: Rollei 600x vs Contax for MACRO

Macro work on 6x6?  I use the 90/4; 150/4.6; and 300/4 APO Schneiders on my
6008I.  The 90 is a great lens but pretty short focal length for my
taste.  It is quite sharp but working distance and perspective are
rather  difficult if you get really close.  It really is a sweet lens
though.  The 150/4.6 bellows lens is probably the sharpest macro that you
will find for the 6000 series.  It is a short mount  lens and not  so
convenient to use.  I prefer longer focal lengths for their ability to
isolate the subject but using long focal lengths on 6x6 for macro = a very
long bellows extension and difficult to handle system.  For maximum working
distance macro work I also use the 300/4 APO tele Xenar with a Canon 500D
77mm diopter fitted via a custom machined adapter.  This works very well
and seems a bit easier (NOT lighter however...) to handle than the 150 with
a fully extended bellows.  The 300 does vignette in the  6008 finder as the
Rollei has a rather small mirror. I never tried the Zeiss 120 macro but I
have heard that the old f5.6 version for the 'Blad is sharper than the
newer  4.0 version.  Perhaps the newest Rollei version with enhanced
anti-reflection treatment will have improved sharpness but I have not heard
anything.  The 120 is optimal at 1/8x which is not where I like to be.  1/4
- 2x is the range I frequently use.  BTW the Luminars work great on the
6008I (you must use the rather rare M39 shutter adapter and there is
significant vignetting on film with some combinations of tubes) and I have
never seen another 6x6 camera that comes close to the 6008I for macro work
- except perhaps the SL66E.  The Rollei metering beats anything else (the
6008AF even has fill flash done right - FINALLY!... I need one of these..)
interchangeable finders without loss of metering, remote mirror
pre-release, vibrationless and virtually zero delay shutter release (around
an astounding 3ms I believe); the macro-friendly list goes on.

It is still always a question if MF 6x6 macro is really worth it - my Nikon
with 200mm macro sure delivers nicely with much less effort but the film is
smaller, of course....  Remember that at 1:1 a 6x6 camera will   cover a
much greater field of view than a 35mm camera.  One must think this through
when choosing lenses and extension components for a 6x6 macro system.


From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 
From: Tom Christiansen tomchr@softhome.net
Subject: Re: [HUG] Close-up equations

Folks,

I couldn't wait, so I did the footwork myself. Here's what I came up with.

First the compensation factor:

C = DI^2 / FL^2, DI = FL + EXT --> C = (FL + EXT)^2 / FL^2
As M = EXT / FL --> C = (M+1)^2

So to compensate for bellows extension, multiply the shutter speed by (M+1)^2.


Or in stops: C' = sqrt(C) = M+1

Multiply lens aperture by (M+1) to get the effective aperture.


Or in number of stops: #stops = log(C') / log(sqrt(2)) = log(EXT / FL +1) /
log(sqrt(2))
--> #stops = (log(EXT) - log(FL)) / log(sqrt(2))

Add #stops of exposure to compensate for extension.

-------------------------------------

Then the extension at minimum focusing distance:

Newtons formula: (DI - FL) * (DO - FL) = FL^2
--> EXT * (DO - FL) = FL^2 --> EXT = FL^2 / (DO - FL)

So, a 50mm lens focused at 0.6m (600mm) will have approx. 50^2 / (600-50) =
4.5mm of extension. This yields a reproduction ratio of 4.5:50 or 1:11
without extension tube. This "extra" extension should be added to the
length of the extension tube when calculating the reproduction ratio at
minimum focus. However, it should be noted that as DI changes when the lens
is focused, the calculated extension is only approximate. Just for kicks, I
measured the extension on my 50mm (for 35mm Contax) to be about 5.0mm.
Close enough for my applications... If anyone want to solve the
differential equation to get the exact result, be my guest... :-))


List of symbols:
#stops  Number of stops
C               Compensation factor (time)
C'              Compensation factor (aperture)
DI              Distance from film (image) to lens
DO              Distance from film to object (= the distance on the lens
focusing scale)
EXT             Extension
FL              Focal length
M               Reproduction ratio (0.1 = 1:10, 0.5 = 1:2, 1.0 = 1:1...)

Operators:
log(x)          Logarithm (base 10) to x
sqrt(x)         Square root of x
x^2             x squared


Please feel free to check the math. I hope someone will use this at some
point. I had fun doing it... :-))


Thanks,
Tom


From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2002 
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@worldonline.nl
Subject: Re: [HUG] Close-up equations

Tom Christiansen wrote:

> [...]
>
> Or in stops: C' = sqrt(C) = M+1

This is not correct.
Stops = log(Shutterspeed correction factor 'C') / log(2)

> [...]


One thing to consider as well is lens asymmetry.
Exposure compensation formulae (quite rightly) are based on the "inverse
square" relation between distance and illumination. Adding extension equal
to the focal length of the lens will double the lens-to-film distance, and
thus, according to the formulae, necessitate a 4x (2^2) exposure correction.
However...
The lens-to-film distance when using asymmetric lenses is not equal to the
focal length (and there goes Newton's fomula... ;-)), not even when focussed
at infinity. Adding 50 mm of extension to a retrofocus 50 mm wide anglelens
will not double the distance, just as adding 150 mm of extension to a
telephoto 150 mm lens will not.

The measure for asymmetry in a lens is the pupilary magnification, the
relation between the sizes of entrance and exit pupils of the lens. In a
true symmetric lens (which are rather scarce) both have the same size. In a
telephoto lens the exit pupil is considerably smaller, in a retrofocus lens
the exit pupil is considerably larger than the entrance pupil.
The error you get if you would assume symmetric lenses can be quite large,
easily large enough to produce unwanted results. To get correct results when
calculating exposure compensation calculate the pupilary magnification:

PM = diameter exit pupil / diameter entrance pupil

Or the other way round. It doesn't really matter except for the next step,
which is: multiply the true focal length by this PM (or divide, if you chose
to calculate that the other way around).
The result is an "asymmetry focal length".

AFL = PM * FL

Use this one instead of the true focal length in all calculations concerning
exposure compensation needed due to adding extension. And in these
calculations only.

The necessary data (pupil diameters, and true focal lengths) for all
Zeiss/Hasselblad lenses are available from both Hasselblad and Zeiss as
'Zeiss Lens Data Sheets'. They are available in .PDF format on
http://www.zeiss.de (you will have to "click" your way to where they are) or
in printed form.


from hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2002 
From: Tom Christiansen tomchr@softhome.net
Subject: Re: [HUG] Close-up equations

QG:

> > Or in stops: C' = sqrt(C) = M+1
>
>This is not correct.
>Stops = log(Shutterspeed correction factor 'C') / log(2)

Oh, I see the source of confusion.

C' is not in stops. C' is a linear multiplier.

You can achieve correct exposure in several different ways:

1) Multiply the shutter speed by (1+M)^2.
2) Calculate the exposure based on the effective aperture, Aeff = Alens*(1+M).
3) Or increase exposure by log2((1+M)^2) stops (where log2(x) is logarithm
with base 2, log2(x)=log(x)/log(2)).

Example:
You're shooting at a reproduction ratio of 1:2 (M = 1/2 = 0.5), and the
medium tone subject meters 1/60 at f/8.
1) Shoot at f/8 and 1/60 * (1+0.5)^2 = 1/27 seconds
2) Punch in the effective aperture Aeff = 8 * (1+0.5) = 12 into your light
meter and get the exposure time (hopefully it'll read 1/27 seconds).
3) Increase exposure by log2((1+0.5)^2) = 1.2 stops.

The remaining equations in my previous email can be derived from above
using the relation, M = EXT/FL.

Tom


From: "Richard Knoppow" dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Focus calculation for lens and bellows length?
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002



"Ed Margiewicz" Edmarg1@comcast.net wrote
> Hello,
> Is there a formula to calculate how close a certain lens will focus at a
> certain bellows length?  For example, is there a way to calculate how
close
> a 300mm lens will focus at 38cm from the film plane?
> Thanks,
> Ed

  The basic equation is:

  1/F = 1/u + 1/v  (1)

Where:
F = Focal length
u = subject distance
v = image distance

Lens to image distance = v = Fu / u-F  (2)

Subject to lens = u = Fv / v-F  (3)

For your example of v = 380 mm the subject distance would be 1425mm from
(3).

Required lens movement from the infinity focus position is:

x' = F^2 / u-F  (4)

Note that the distances u and v are from the principle points of the lens,
not the physical position of the lens. For most symmetrical or nearly
symmetrical lenses the principle points wll be about one third of the the
depth of the lens from either end. This becomes significant only when the
subject distance is small.
--
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com



From rollei mailing list:
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 
From: bigler@ens2m.fr
Subject: Re: [Rollei] OT: LF/Macro and image circle

Just my euro 0.02 in this discussion: do not forget that any lens used
at 1:1 ratio will roughly exhibit an image circle twice as big (in
diameter) as when used in the infinity-focus position. So a macro lens
designed for covering a 24x36mm frmae at infinity will cover about
80mm in diameter at 1:1 ratio ; a 6x6cm MF lens designed for covering
80mm in diameter will cover 160 mm at 1:1 ratio ; and a lens designed
for 6x9 will cover 2x100 = 200 mm at 1:1 ratio.

Of course if the lens is not specifically a macro lens, image quality
at 1:1 is not the best for a lens optimised for infinity-focus. But
stopped down to f/22 things can be more than acceptable. An at 1:1
ration the total depth of field (equal to the depth of focus there for
symmetry reason) is equal to 4.N.c whenre N is the f-stop number and c
the circle of confusion. Same DOF whatever the focal length moght be.
So now according to the format you are filling and whta kind of image
quality you want, you'll select a value for c according to your
requirements.

Now you can use lenses designed for 35 mm photography on a LF camera
at magnifications higher than 1:1 simply by reversing the lens and
using it like an enlarger lens. Zeiss luminars are in fact reversed
lens designs. To mount a reversed 35mm lens on a LF lensboard you'll
simply need a reversing ring fitted to the front filter therad (with
two male threads) and probably an adaptor ring to fit the LF camera
lensboard aperture. Now you'll probably need a shutter as well, an old
shutter of size #3 (you do not care for 1/500s) and some additional
threaded rings ; since shutter threads do not fit within the standard
filter thread sizes, you'll probably have to ask a machnist to make an
adaptor ring to fit any lens in front of a big old shutter.

--
Emmanuel BIGLER
bigler@ens2m.fr


From: asfl@freemail.com.au (Thom)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Bellows compensation w/telephoto...
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002

duganfoto@aol.com (DuganFoto) wrote:

>Hi,
> I've never used a tele lens for large format before, and just purchased a 300mm f5.5 Tele-Xenar.
> My question is in regards to bellows extension compensation.
> I realize that the bellows draw is significantly shorter than a standard
>design lens, but unsure about calculating BEF. With my 210mm, I always use the
>general rule  (8" lens, 11" bellows draw, add 1 stop...16" bellows draw, add 2 stops, etc.)
>I suspect that this will not work due to the difference in nodal point location.
> Can anyone give me any advice that will help me come up with a working formula
>for this lens?
>I doubt that I will be using it for much close-up work, but you never know...
>Thanks very much,
>
>Doug Allen
>duganfoto@aol.com

The forular is the same for all lenses.

Do this, take the camera outside and focus on something at infinity.
Take a tape mearsure, a metal one with a tab at the end and clip it
someplace near the film plane then measure  the length in MM's.  Put a
piece of tape on the side of the front board and at that focal length
(say 210mm's) put a line and mark it 210.  Then do the same for all
your other lenses.  This gives you a point to measure the nodel point
to film plane from.  The "hook" has to be at the same plane of course
for every lens.  You can use your noral formular on all lenses that
way.

THOM


From: "Tim Mathers" tmathers@rochester.rr.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: re: bellows compensation
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002 



 This subject seems to "pop up" every once in a while.
The following works for any focal length lens on any
film format.

 The calculation of bellows draw (effective aperture)
is based on the lens to film extension. It is also
a function of image magnification. A simplified
method to determine exposure compensation is to
determine the lens to subject distance as a function
of "lens focal lengths".

exposure         focal lengths
compensation     (subject-to-lens)

 +  1/3            9   (9.196 for "purists")

 +  2/3            5   (4.86)

 +  1              3.5 (3.42)

 + 1 1/3           3   (2.70)

 + 1 2/3           2.5   (2.28)

 + 2               2

 For instance: if a 210mm lens is being used
and the lens to subject distance is 3 feet:

 3 feet = 36 inches
 210mm lens = 8 inches (8.27 actually, but
lets assume that you don't have a calculator
handy to divide 210 by 25.4, so you mentally
divide 200 by 25).

 So, 36 inches is "around" 4  1/2 focal lengths.
Open 2/3rd's of a stop or 1 stop. You'll be
close enough!

Timmy



From: jhughes@surfglobal.net (John C. Hughes)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: bellows compensation
Date: 17 Sep 2002 


The easiest way to solve this problem is right here:

http://www.salzgeber.at/disc/index.html

Download this and paste it to some stiff cardboard.  It works every
time, for all lens focal lengths.



Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 
From: Robert Feinman robertdfeinman@netscape.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: lens question


I reversed mounted a 25mm focal length 16mm movie camera lens on my
speed graphic camera. It makes a great macro lens. It covers the film
and gives about a 12x magnification at normal bellows draw. I use the
built in shutter..



From: egclayton@msn.com (Edward Clayton)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Flower Macrophotography  HOW???
Date: 8 Oct 2002


Some things that I have tried sucessfully are:
   Focus at a third of the way through the image. (This alows for the
rule of thumb that one third in front of the focal point will be in
focus and two thirds behind the focal point will be in focus.

Stop way down.  F64 or smaller.

   If you are using strobes, compose and focus using your modeling
lights, then turn all the lights off in the room.  Open the lens and
use multiple pops of the strobes to give you the light you need .


Try pinhole...dof is quite good.

Ed


jesskramer@aol.com (JessKramer) wrote...
> I have an Arca Swiss compact metric and a 150mm lens.
>
> I want to do flower macrophotography with greater than 1:1 mag for very large
> enlargement.  The flowers will be on a studio tabe with controlled lighting
>
> please give me some suggestions



From nikon mf mailing list:
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 
From: "John O'Connell" boywonderiloveyou@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: 200mm micro lens verses 105 micro lens

Hi,

At normal working apertures, I wouldn't be too concerned about f/4 vs. f/2.8
for a macro lens.  f/8 or f/16 will yield the same amount of light from both
lenses.  The f/4 lens will be darker, but probably not so much darker that
you couldn't focus.

There are only two advantages for the 200mm macro lenses: longer working
distance and smaller angle of view.

The 200mm lenses are definitely harder to handhold.  The traditional
solution for living subjects is to mount a flash on a bracket using the
tripod mount on the 200mm lenses.  For static subjects, tripods come in
handy.  If neither of these solutions fit the working methods that produce
the results you like with the 105, then perhaps a 200 is not the lens for
you.

Personally, I think that if I had a 105 micro it would be difficult to
justify buying the 200; if you choose your compositional battles wisely you
should be able to produce what you want to with it.

John
...


From nikon mf mailing list:
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 
From: "Ed Alban" edalban@consultant.com
Subject: Re: 200mm micro lens verses 105 micro lens

--- In NikonMF@y..., "Judith Jones" judith.jones@d... wrote:
> What advantage would there be in purchasing this
> over my 105 micro lens?

Some advantages are:

 - you'll be further away from your subject

 - narrower angle of view results in ease of background selection of
macro subjects

 - tripod collar makes switching to verticals painless since there
is little or no need to recompose

 - also, tripod collar combined with Arca-style QR plates and clamps
makes for a "coarse" focusing stage.  Actually quite convenient in
the field.  With the 105, your QR plate is on the camera body and
so, it's oriented sideways (unless you have a bidirectional plate)

Ed Alban
Vancouver BC Canada


From nikon mf mailing list:
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 
From: "Roland Vink" roland.vink@aut.ac.nz
Subject: Re: 200mm micro lens verses 105 micro lens

Hi Judith,

Advantages of the 200mm micro over shorter micro lenses:

1) Longer working distance. This means you are less likely to scare
away shy subjects such as your frog, or butterflies and so on. It
gives you more room for lighting - you are less likely to put your
shadow across the subject.

2) Narrower angle of view. This cuts down the amount of background
you can see behind your subject. If there are any distracting colors,
shapes or highlights in the distance, just shift your position
slightly to remove them from the background. Also, the background is
blurred out more so you get a nice smooth blur which lightlights the
subject instead of detail which competes with it.

3) Built-in tripod mount. Yes the 200mm is harder to handhold, but
you shouldn't really be handholding your camera for closeups anyway.
For really sharp closeups I always use a tripod. The 200mm micro has a
built-in tripod mount, which gives two advantages - the camera/lens
balances better and it is possible to rotate the camera from
horizontal to vertical while staying on target.

4) No loss of speed at close range. The 200 micro is an IF lens, one
of the result of that is that the f/4 speed is constant through the
whole focus range. Shorter micros focus by expension which results on
loss of speed at close range. At 1:2 the effective aperture is around
f/4 anyway, and at 1:1 the loss is nearly 2 stops.

I'm not familiar with prices in England, but 200mm micros are
expensive. Check http://www.graysofwestminster.co.uk/ for some some idea on pricing.

Nikon has two models, the manual focus version which accepts 52mm
filters and goes down to 1:2 and the bigger AF version which accepts
62mm filters and goes down to 1:1. Magnification of the manual and AF
version can be increased by using an extension tube or closeup
filters. Tubes result in slight loss of light but retain more working
distance, filters result in slight loss of working distance but there
is not loss of light. If you use good quality 2-element filters (Nikon
3T etc) there will be almost no loss in quality.

Hope this helps,
Roland



From: Don Stauffer stauffer@usfamily.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: macro photography
Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 


Curvature of field is generally more of a problem with higher field
angles (as with short focal length lenses).

Thus a zoom macro that only macros in the extreme telephoto position
eases the problem.  Yes, curvature of field is a problem with a macro
shooting at short focal length.  Thus, shooting with a short FL lens and
supplemental closeup lenses may be more of a problem.

However, if you are shooting flat subjects like a document, you are not
looking for perspective effects, so in THAT case yes, an extension tube
or a macro telephoto lens would be the way to go.

BTW, curvature of field is not the only off-axis aberration by any
means, so wide angle lenses with soft edges could be suffering from
several causes of aberration.  Many types of aberrations are
proportional to field angle (or even a power function of field angle).

Wayne Melia wrote:
> "Don Stauffer" stauffer@usfamily.net wrote 
> > An extension tube is basically the same, optically, as a macro lens.
> > Such arrangements give a slightly telephoto perspective.
> {snip}
> I stand to be corrected, but........
> I understood that a true macro lens also corrects for curvature of plane of
> focus in that:
> -- a normal lens has a curved focus surface .... anything "x" distance from
> the focal point of the lens is the surface of focus, which is by definition
> a curved surface. Using an extension tube with a normal lens would not
> change this.
> -- a macro lens maintains a flat plane of focus parallel to the film back -
> a consideration when photographing subjects such as documents, and the
> inherent very shallow depth of field at close distances.
> Cheers.
-
Don Stauffer in Minnesota
stauffer@usfamily.net
webpage- http://www.usfamily.net/web/stauffer



Subject: 20x Hand Lens recomendations?
From: Peter Werner pgwernerKILL@SPAMsfsu.edu
Newsgroups:sci.geo.geology,sci.optics,sci.techniques.microscopy
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002



I want to get a high-quality 20x hand lens to use when my 10x hand lens
isn't powerful enough and am looking for recommendations. I will be
using it mainly to look at fine structures on mushrooms and insects.

Apparently, the best-quality optics are to be found in the Bausch and
Lomb Hastings Triplet - however, the 20x magnifier in this series has a
tiny lens, on the order of 7-8 mm, and hence has a tiny focal distance,
which makes it very difficult to use.

I've been looking for alternatives. There are plenty of lower cost 20x
triplets with 18-21 mm lenses, but I'm not sure about the quality of
these. One company, GemOro, even makes a 20x magnifier in this size
which it refers to as a Hastings Triplet, but I unfortunately cannot
find a retailer who actually sells these.

http://www.contenti.com/products/magnifiers/hand_magnifiers.html
advertises a 20x qaudruplet magnifier from a Japanese company called
JSP - it has a 14mm lens and apparently has aplanatic and achromatic
correction. Has anybody ever tried these?

Finally, I've read some brief mentions on one of these lists of a
high-end 20x lens sold under the name Iwamoto. Its supposed to be very
good quality and larger than the B&L; 20x triplet. Unfortunately, a
Google search turns up absolutely nothing about this or any other
optical product under the brand name "Iwamoto". Can anybody give me
more details about this?

If anybody has any recommendations for a good-quality
achromatic/aplanatic 20x hand lens with a decent focal length, please
let me know.

Thanks in advance,
Peter

--
Peter Werner
Graduate Student, Mycology, San Francisco State University


From: don@tower.net.au (Don Findlay)
Newsgroups:sci.bio.botany,sci.bio.entomology.misc,sci.geo.geology,sci.optics
Subject: Re: 20x Hand Lens recomendations?
Date: 27 Oct 2002

Peter Werner pgwernerKILL@SPAMsfsu.edu wrote...
> I want to get a high-quality 20x hand lens to use when my 10x hand lens
> isn't powerful enough and am looking for recommendations. I will be
> using it mainly to look at fine structures on mushrooms and insects.
>
> Apparently, the best-quality optics are to be found in the Bausch and
> Lomb Hastings Triplet - however, the 20x magnifier in this series has a
> tiny lens, on the order of 7-8 mm, and hence has a tiny focal distance,
> which makes it very difficult to use.
>
> I've been looking for alternatives. There are plenty of lower cost 20x
> triplets with 18-21 mm lenses, but I'm not sure about the quality of
> these. One company, GemOro, even makes a 20x magnifier in this size
> which it refers to as a Hastings Triplet, but I unfortunately cannot
> find a retailer who actually sells these.
>
> http://www.contenti.com/products/magnifiers/hand_magnifiers.html
> advertises a 20x qaudruplet magnifier from a Japanese company called
> JSP - it has a 14mm lens and apparently has aplanatic and achromatic
> correction. Has anybody ever tried these?
>
> Finally, I've read some brief mentions on one of these lists of a
> high-end 20x lens sold under the name Iwamoto. Its supposed to be very
> good quality and larger than the B&L; 20x triplet. Unfortunately, a
> Google search turns up absolutely nothing about this or any other
> optical product under the brand name "Iwamoto". Can anybody give me
> more details about this?
>
> If anybody has any recommendations for a good-quality
> achromatic/aplanatic 20x hand lens with a decent focal length, please
> let me know.
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Peter

I can't give you any specific recommendation there as regards choice
but in my experience I would go for the Japanese lenses - big lens,
big field, full field focus (those Bausch and Lomb things are a joke -
tinier lens, an even tinier field, and a big price).  They can be
difficult to get hold of though, because stockist go with the name.
Many years ago I had a 'Swift', and of all the ones I've come across
it was the best.  Don't know if they're still around (they used to
make microscopes as well).  It was a single big (for a x20) lens in a
nicely chromed body.  Very high quality.  Full focus right to the
metal.  this is a eulogy

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr;=&ie;=ISO-8859-1&safe;=off&q;=+%22hand+lenses%22+swift+


From: RichS rich-NoSpam@bearlycomputing.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: LF Macro Photography
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2002 


On Sat, 26 Oct 2002 00:37:21 GMT, "Sherman"
 wrote:

>"Drew Saunders" dru@nospamme-stanford.edu wrote 
>>  "Sherman" sherman-remove_this@dunnam.net wrote:
>>
>> > "Sam Carleton" nospam@miltonstreet.com wrote ...
>> > > Macro exposure formula
>>
>> > >
>> > > Then I am wondering how to calculate the magnification.  I am assuming
>> > > that one must measure the distance from the film plain to the lens
>> > > plain, and I need to know the focal length of the lens, but from there
>> > > I am stumped.  I assume there is a simple formula out there somewhere.
>> > >  Might someone enlighten me?
>> >
>> > Sam,
>> > Go to http://www.salzgeber.at/disc/ download the PDF, print it out, laminate
>> > it and never worry about bellows factor again.  If you prefer to spend money
>> > Calumet sells essentially the same thing for about $10 I think.
>> >
>> > Sherman
>> > http://www.dunnamphoto.com
>> >
>>
>> I have the calumet exposure calculator. It's very similar to the disc
>> references above, but uses a square "target" which I think might be
>> easier to position than a circle. 8 bucks. Here's the URL from hell:
>> http://www.calumetphoto.com/syrinx/ctl?PAGE=Controller&ac.ui.pn;=cat.CatI
>> temDetail&ac.item.itemNo;=CC9201&ac.catTree.detail;=y

>> Or, if that doesn't work, go to  and
>> search for Item No: CC9201.
>>
>> Either the Calumet calculator or the disc is much better than doing all
>> the math.
>>
>> --
>> Drew W. Saunders
>>
>> dru (at) stanford (dot) eee dee you
>
>Drew,
>I also have the Calumet calculator.  The thing I like about it is that one
>side is white and one is black (though I could easily use a marker to
>blacken my QuickDisc also).  That can sometimes make it easier to see.  I
>also like the little case and fact that it is plastic and unaffected by
>moisture.
>
>However with the Disc it doesn't matter at all how it is oriented in the
>scene.  Just measure the longest dimension.  With the square Calumet thingy
>if it isn't fairly square to the lens then the measurement will be off.
>Sometimes enough to affect the exposure.
>
>Sherman
>http://www.dunnamphoto.com


I may be sorry I do this... but...

I fully agree on both the Disc and the Calumet calculators. There were
things I liked about both, but they also lacked in certain areas. So I
created my own. It's basically a target/ruler device that combines the
circle of the Disc, some features of the Calumet, and adds what I
thought they lacked. But this does make it a bit more comples to
read... I've made it available on my site in printable PDF format. It
should print at the correct dimensions, but since both ruler and
target are on the same page, it doesn't matter.

It's been downloaded many times, but noone has yet commented on it.
Since you folks seem to do close-up work, I thought I'd finally
mention publicly here to see if I could get some suggestions about
corrections or improvements (through e-mail preferably). Don't feel
obligated though, and no nasty comments about my 'photography' ;-) I
like to 'play' and don't have all that much time... Anyway, just
thought I'd offer an alternative to the Disc and Calumet...

Link to the site is http://www.southbristolviews.com under "close up
exposure calculating". It's a framed site... A direct link to the page
is http://www.southbristolviews.com/pics/Graphic/CloseUpCalc.html .
Enjoy, or not :-{ And any suggestions for improvement would be very
welcomed...

P.S. Remove the "-NoSpam" for email replies...



From: danielwfromm@att.com (Dan Fromm)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: LF Macro Photography
Date: 26 Oct 2002


nospam@miltonstreet.com (Sam Carleton) wrote...
> Macro exposure formula
>
> Most of the macro photography I have ever done has been with the
> computerized 35mm and TTL flash.  I would like to start doing some
> with LF.
>
> For now I am going to use the cameras I currently own.  But when money
> permits, I would like to get a new camera.  From all that I can tell,
> the Wisner has the longest bellows of the 5x7 field cameras.  Are
> there any brands with a longer bellow?
>
...
> I am going to be starting with a 4x5 camera and later moving to a 5x7
> camera.  I do believe that I will be working with a magnification of
> no less then 1:1.  Will I be able to get away with the shortest of the
> macro lens or will that not give the 5x7 the coverage while at 1:1?

Before you do anything, buy a copy of Lester Lefkowitz' The Manual Of
Closeup Photograpy.

Then take a cold shower.  Photography in the field at magnifications
above 1:1 isn't easy, and you should think hard about how much trouble
it is before you invest in gear.

There are many lenses available for photomacrography (magnfication >
1.0).  Each is optimized for a range of magnifications, and all of
them will cover 4x5 across that range.  I haven't seen much about what
will cover 5x7, but what will cover 4x5 at x:1 will probably cover 5x7
at ~ 1.4x:1.

Don't obsess over bellow extension, the practical way to get more
magnification is to get a shorter lens.  And, as I've said, working at
high magnification isn't easy.

Likely lenses?  There are inexpensive (Tominons made for the Polaroid
MP-4 system, all screw into the front of a #1 shutter.) and much more
expensive (Leica Photars, Zeiss Luminars).  The longest relatively
common ones that will go much above 1:1 are the 135/4.5 Tominon (goes
to 3:1) and the 100/6.3 Luminar (on 4x5, recommended for 0.8:1 - 8:1).

 To learn a little about them, go to
http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/microlen.htm

Now go take your cold shower.

Cheers,

Dan


From: brianc1959@aol.com (brian)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: LF Macro Photography
Date: 26 Oct 2002

...(quotes above posting)

The symmetrical dialyte process lenses (Goerz Artar, Rodenstock
Apo-Ronar, etc.) will work very well at *any* magnification.  Its an
inherent advantage of this type of design.  I've used a 240mm
Apo-Ronar at near-zero magnification on 4x5, and at about 4:1
magnification on 11x14 (in the field!).

Brian
www.caldwellphotographic.com



From Minolta MF mailing list:
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 
From: "Maisch, Manfred" manfred.maisch@epcos.com
Subject: AW: Re: Macro Phtography Question

The best thing for macro photography are special macro lenses: they are
designed for macro photography and offer the best performance. They are
typically available (so for Minolta) in 50mm, 100mm and 200mm, that varies a
little at other manufacturers.

*       The 50mm lenses are the least expensive, offer excellent quality,
but the working distance is very small, making them uncomfortable for
working in the field.

*       The 100mm are much more comfortable, but more expensive, they are
probably the most used macro lenses in the field.

*       The 200mm are best suitable for field photography: they offer the
longest working distance, almost necessary for insects etc. and the small
angle of view makes it easier to control the background. Additionally, the
rotable tripodmount makes framing easier. But these lenses are heavy and by
far the most expensive.

If one does not want to invest in real macro lenses, extension tubes or
supplementary lenses (diopter) are practicable ways to extend the macro
capability of non-macro-lenses. Both are relatively inexpensive and
lightweight, but quality wise they cannot really compete with true macro
lenses:

*       Extension tubes enable lenses to focus closer, by adding extension.
They don't gave glass, but they bring a lens into a situation, for that it
is not designed. Nirmal lenses are designed for infinity, so adding to much
extension can result in lower image quality. As the magnification you get
with a given extension depends on the focal length, the use of extension
tubes on zooms is very inconvenient, as the focal plane moves drastically
during zooming.

*       For zooms, diopters are much more convenient, as zooming works as
before, just at closer distances. Diopters contain glass, so it's important
to use good ones. High quality is offered by two element achromatic
diopters.

Manfred



From Minolta MF mailing list:
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 
From: "Tommie Holt" credable@f8click.com
Subject: RE: Re: Macro Photography Question

Manfred,
        I think you are giving excellent advice, however you have forgotten the
bellows. Though they are not as practical in the field, they do work. Using
them with enlarging lenses or reversed lenses can really give you some
excellent macros. The old Minolta bellows can be adapted to use the AF
lenses, or finding a 42 mm bellows and using adapters works as well. The 42
mm bellows are cheap and the adapters are quite inexpensive. I believe they
also keep Aperture control as well. I personally use a Novoflex Minolta AF
bellows and find it is a great combination with reversed lenses. Of course
reversed lenses work great without a bellows as well. My nickel's worth.

Tommie Holt


From Minolta MF mailing list:
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 
From: "Maisch, Manfred" manfred.maisch@epcos.com
Subject: AW: Re: Macro Photography Question

Of course, you are right. Bellows are a special kind of extension. I also
use the Novoflex bellow, they are great, but they are expensive, so I regard
them more as a tool for an experienced macro photographer, than for one who
wants to extend his normal lens occasionally.

When you reverse a lens, you also need a manual aperture control. I use the
one from HAMA and glued an adapter for the 1200AF ring.flash on it. But
that's really close-up photography!!

Since I have my 4/200mm I changed my technique:
*       Up to life-size I use the lens alone
*       Up to 1,4x or 2x life-size I ad a TC
*       Only at higher magnifications I play around with extensions and
reversed or stacked lenses
*       My newest purchase is the Minolta achromatic diopter No. 0 (0,94
dioptrin), to create a lightweight macro setup (up to + life-size) together with my
4/70-210mm to carry always around. So far I don't have experience with this.

Manfred


From: danielwfromm@att.com (Dan Fromm)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: LF Macro Photography
Date: 28 Oct 2002

Cathy Cathyxx@worldnet.att.net wrote
> brian wrote:
>
> > Hi Dan:
>  {snip}
> > Flowers would be considerably more difficult, I imagine.
>
> Flowers are quite difficult. Practice and a good relationship with the
> camera, lens and flower makes it worthwhile. For myself, I have to
> become the flower.
>
> >
> > I recall that the whole thing looked ridiculous:  this huge camera
> > pointing at the ground, help up by two tripods.  I wish I had
> > photographed the setup!
>
> I routinely take digitals of everything I'm doing, including the set-up.
> > To be honest, I question whether large format is really suitable for
> > macro work because of the depth of field issue.  Smaller formats seem
> > to be at their best when doing closeups.
>
> Uh huh. But we all want the BIG picture of the little stuff.
> Too bad we cant hook the cameras up to a microscope.
> Cathy


Well, what got me into it originally isn't very different from what's
motivating Sam.  I didn't like the pictures I was taking on 35mm of
flowers and fungi and such.  Either I had fine detail and a picture of
not much or lousy detail and a picture of a bit more.  Going up in
format seemed natural.

I've been using a 2x3 Graphic with a 100/6.3, trying to shoot not much
above 1:1, occasionally falling back into my bad old habits (frame as
tightly as possible, dammit!) and going up to ~2.5:1.  The best I can
say is that flash is invaluable and that in the best of circumstances
its not easy.  Some of my results please a little, some are not as
good as I'd like.  It goes against the grain not to stop down very
much, and that's what's required above 1:1, especially with lenses
that are by god best wide open.

One thing it has done has been to get me to resurrect some work I did
in the late '80s on the math behind Spiratone's Macrodapter.  Am now
struggling to design a similar device to mount on the Graphic.  I
calculate that if I do it to specification (I have the spec already,
just can't see how to attach it nicely to the front standard) then I
can use the same f/stop from 0.5:1 to 2:1 with the same power setting
on the flashes and get the right exposure to +/1 1/3 stop.  Gotta get
building.

Cheers,

Dan


From: "Stanley K. Patz" Stan@PatzImaging.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: LF Macro Photography
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002


> Most of the macro photography I have ever done has been with the
> computerized 35mm and TTL flash.  I would like to start doing some
> with LF.
>
>
> Then I am wondering how to calculate the magnification.  I am assuming
> that one must measure the distance from the film plain to the lens
> plain, and I need to know the focal length of the lens, but from there
> I am stumped.  I assume there is a simple formula out there somewhere.
>  Might someone enlighten me?
>

> I am going to be starting with a 4x5 camera and later moving to a 5x7
> camera.  I do believe that I will be working with a magnification of
> no less then 1:1.  Will I be able to get away with the shortest of the
> macro lens or will that not give the 5x7 the coverage while at 1:1?

Dear Sam,

I regularly do macro photography for electronics clients. My set-up is
fairly simple. I use a 135mm enlarger lens on an 8x10 camera - for it's
bellows - and shoot 4x5 film. I use a ring light for fill and a diffused
overhead as a main light. I use bw Polaroid as my light meter and
composition checker.

You could adapt some of these thechniques in the field. I know you would
not have a shutter with an enlarger lens, but you would need a long
exposure to satisfy the bellows draw and small aperture. If you shot
strobe, daylight is not a factor, just use a dark slide for exposure
control.

Even if you get the gear and technique right, you are probably heading
in the wrong direction. Macro work requires strict control. Field work
with large format is always awkward, messy and usually windy. This does
not mix well with the unforgiving precision needed for close-up work.
Stick to the easy handling, easy viewing of a 35mm or 2 1/4 camera.

Stan Patz
http://www.PatzImaging.com


From: nospam@miltonstreet.com (Sam Carleton)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: LF Macro Photography
Date: 28 Oct 2002 

Stan,

I am sort of scratching my head here.  What make you think I am going
to be taking this to the field? {grin}  Ok, I know that I am asking
about a field camera.  I do own a Sinar f1 and a Linhof Technica III.
The Sinar is a wonderful camera, but I only have 12 inches of bellow
extension.  The Linhof works, but it falls victim to the other problem
I have with the Sinar, it is a 4x5 cameras.

The cost of Sinar's 5x7 rear standard is ($3084 @ B&H;) but you also
need the Sinar 5x7 glass/holder carrier ($1874 @ B&H;).  Then throw in
both the extra mono-rail and bellows, the cost is in the five grand
range.  A whole lot more money when compared to the Wisner 5x7 with 30
inches of bellows @ $2695.

All the macro work I want to do will be indoors.  If all I did was
studio work, The 5x7 Sinar would be well worth the money, but this
macro idea is only a very small part of what I shoot.  Most of my LF
is done on the street.  Camera and tripod is transported via foot and
shoulder.  The Sinar f1 is already too bulky and delicate for my
street photography (and shoulder), the 5x7 Sinar is simply out of the
question!  When I discovered the Wisner 5x7 has a 30 inch bellow, I
know I had a winner.  I was/am simply wondering if there are any other
5x7 field cameras out there with the same type of bellow extension
which would give me the same degree of flexibility.  As to date, I
cannot find any 5x7 camera that can compete with the Wisner.


Sam Carleton

4x5 street photography
http://photos.yahoo.com/bc/samcarleton/lst?.dir=/My+Images/LF+Street+Photography




From: Gerard gerard@hawaii.rr.com
Newsgroups:sci.bio.entomology.misc,sci.geo.geology,sci.optics
Subject: Re: 20x Hand Lens recomendations - try 14x?
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002


Stephen Poe wrote:

>There is a B&L; Hastings triplet available in a 14x (or at least there used
>to be) - Over the years I have gathered the whole set - 5x, 7x, 10x, 14x -
>have to say that for me (plant pathologist) the 7x is really the most
>useful.  not that hard to carry an inexpensive stereo microscope along on
>trips - I have an AO Cycloptic (7x to 25x with 10x eyepieces) that I bought
>on eBay for less than $100.

Ben Meadows sells B&L; Hastings triplets in 7x, 10x, 14x, and 20x
magnifications for $36.95, $42.50, $50.70, and $50.70 respectively. I
haven't bought optics from them, but their service for surveying gear
was great. And once you are on their mailing list you'll get one of the
most fascinating catalogs published anywhere! You'll find them at
www.benmeadows.com.


From: "Stephen Poe" spoefish@mindspring.com
Newsgroups:sci.geo.geology,sci.optics,sci.techniques.microscopy
Subject: Re: 20x Hand Lens recomendations - try 14x?
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002


There is a B&L; Hastings triplet available in a 14x (or at least there used
to be) - Over the years I have gathered the whole set - 5x, 7x, 10x, 14x -
have to say that for me (plant pathologist) the 7x is really the most
useful.  not that hard to carry an inexpensive stereo microscope along on
trips - I have an AO Cycloptic (7x to 25x with 10x eyepieces) that I bought
on eBay for less than $100.

Stephen


From: danielwfromm@att.com (Dan Fromm)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: How good are large format lenses for medium format?
Date: 7 Nov 2002


rmonagha@smu.edu (Robert Monaghan) wrote 
> see http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/results.html  Chris Perez, noted MF and
> LF lens tester, on this topic ;-)
>
> in general, smaller coverage and smaller lenses can usually produce higher
> aerial resolutions for the same price point, cf microfilm lenses vs 35mm,
> 35mm vs MF, and MF vs LF. But since film resolution limits are more often
> limiting, these differences are masked by lower system resolution issues.
> It isn't the lenses limiting us as much as the film lpmm and diffraction
>
> bobm


Um, Bob, the entire universe, including your site, is plastered with
notices to the effect that microfilm lenses are the good cheap way to
get high quality high magnification.  I swallowed the myth until I got
some and shot them against real lenses intended for photomacrography.
The tests involved shooting a stage micrometer, so they weren't what
most people would regard as "proper" because the bars were much
narrower than the spaces between them.  Even so they made difference
between the lenses very apparent.  My 17/4 Tominon wide open beat a
19/3.85 B&L; from Apogee Inc., my 35/4.5 Tominon wide open beat a
no-name 32/2.2 from Apogee.  Perhaps other microfilm projection lenses
would have done better, perhaps I got good examples of the Tominons,
but I think we've found another myth for you.

I've got the same results with reversed cine lenses too.  The 25/1.9
Cine Ektar does better than the 25/1.4 Cine Ektar II, both are worse
than the Tominons mentioned above.  Recently got a 25 Luminar and a
15/2.5 Cine Ektar, have to try them.

Cheers,

Dan


From: danielwfromm@att.com (Dan Fromm)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: How good are large format lenses for medium format?
Date: 16 Nov 2002


rmonagha@smu.edu (Robert Monaghan) wrote 
> Hi Dan!
>
> re: MF vs LF res. trends
> the aerial resolutions do tend to be higher as the format sizes drop per
> the tests I've seen and cited; this should make sense in light of coverage
> issues so isn't a surprise...
>
> the question of using smaller format lenses in reverse for macro lenses is
> another issue, yes?
>
> this is not to say that a $2 used 8mm movie lens used in reverse will beat
> a lens designed from the get-go as a macro lens (e.g., Polaroid MP4);
> what's amazing it that it works as well as it does in the macro
> applications. ;-) It is also worth noting that most such use isn't in LF
> but in MF and 35mm bellows users...
>
> some tests of the noted zeiss luminars against the cheapy accura bellows
> lenses didn't find the cheapy lenses were better, but they were
> surprisingly close given the huge cost differences between these lenses.
>
> for most folks, the issue isn't whether to use a Luminar or other macro
> lens or a cheapy lens, but whether to do macro at all in the higher
> magnification ranges which are beyond the typical 35mm kit 1:1 limits.
>
> So I think the reason there are so many sites extolling the virtues of
> such lenses is not that they outperform purpose designed macro/bellows
> lenses, but that they often work well enough to do many tasks and photos
> at such a modest cost that any amateur photog can give 2X to 10X+ macro
> photos a try. ;-)
>
> regards bobm


What amazes me, Bob, is just how good cine lenses that were
inexpensive when new can be in normal use.  Given that, its not
surprising they work fairly well at high magnification when reversed.
The two situations are the same.

What surprised me more, though, was the microfilm lenses I tried out.
Given the propaganda, I expected they'd do better than they did.

Their biggest advantages are very low purchase price and relatively
low cost of adapting to cameras.  The ones I'm playing with cost < $10
each, and could be mounted on a 35mm camera with simple cobbled-up
adapters.  Darkroom tape, standard stepping rings, lens "reversing"
adapter (male filter thread on one side, male camera mount on the
other).

C-mount cine lenses' big advantage is, at least for the short ones
that don't require much extension for high magnification, is working
distance.  The C-mount flange-to-film distance is 17.56 mm, and the
lens' rear elements rarely protrude more than a few mm behind the
flange.  D-mount (8 mm) is another matter, much less handy.  D-mount
lenses may have a performance edge, though, since a short, say 10 mm
D-mount lens, is probably not retrofocus while a 10mm C-mount is.  And
really short C-mount lenses aren't inexpensive.

The 35/4.5 Tominon usually goes for more than $10 (least expensive
I've found cost me $22 delivered from the UK), $30-40 is typical on
eBay.  They're in #1 shutter thread, a #1 to T-mount or LTM adapter
will cost $35-50.  Still not tons of money for possibly fruitful play,
but more than a microfilm or cine lens.

Cheers,

Dan


From: Niall Hammond news@niall.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: any macro shooters out there?
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 


 Al Denelsbeck wrote:
> Easier to keep
> them from leaving, no wind to worry about (any slight twitch will ruin
> focus), lots of lighting options, and so on.

You know I have been sitting there thinking what else I missed.

All those darn rods, wires and bits of string with clips, clamps and
things on the end.

To the original questioner and those other who give a damn (you sad
gits).

You are going to need some serious Heath Robinson kit to hold things in,
or out of, place when trying to photograph them.

Still day? Like hell is it. You finally get the bellows set up and that
little green fly in focus. Ten miles away a gnat farts and the leaf will
swing too and for and too and for and... Well you get the picture,
actually you don't as it is moving too and fro...

Also frezzy spray stuff and CO2 cans if you can.

A film fridge is also good.

This is for those hard topped bugs.

You catch um, put um in a airtight box, gas um with CO2 and stick them
in the fridge for awhile.

They then come out dead slow, though not dead - even if they seem it. Be
quick though a few zaps from the ring flash heats them back up and the
bug bugs off.

Did I mention the fact the ring flash will heat up bugs and make them
hyper? Opps. Consider it mentioned.

Macro photography is a lot of frustration, some humour and some very
daft looks from passer bys......

Niall



Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 
From: Tom Christiansen tomchr@softhome.net
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: [HUG] Hassy "poor man's macro" image

Folks,

>Hm., seems I was a little premature in "publishing" my "test-results". I
>had only tried with the 150 mm wide open. Further testing seems to tell me
>that I can actually stop down the 80 mm a few stops and retaining almost
>full coverage. I plan on making a less interim fixture between the two
>lenses and some further tests.

If the 150 is the lens closest to the camera body, then the 80 acts as a
diopter. Its aperture should be left wide open. Only fiddle with the f-stop
on the 150.

Tom


From: brianc1959@aol.com (brian)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Stacking Lenses:  Conventional Wisdom?
Date: 13 Feb 2003 


edgy01@aol.com (EDGY01) wrote 
> Personally, I have always kept the lens nearest the body wide open and
> controlled exposure with the front most lens.
>
> Dan

Hi Dan:
You're one of the few people who seems to use this approach, which I
feel is the correct way.  Did you arrive at this by experimentation?

Brian
www.caldwellphotographic.com



From: "Max Perl" max_perl@post11.tele.dk
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Stacking Lenses:  Conventional Wisdom?
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003


"brian" brianc1959@aol.com skrev...
> I'm not too experienced with reverse stacking two lenses together for
> ultra-macro photography, but I've read several posts stating that the
> way to do it is to leave the front (short EFL) lens wide open and use
> the aperture stop in the rear (long EFL) lens.  However, I've been
> doing some raytracing experiments with Nikon lens prescriptions from
> patents, and in almost every case I get dramatically better results by
> stopping down the front lens while leaving the rear lens wide open.
>
> I realize this makes aperture calculation a bit more difficult, but I
> would think that image quality is what matters most in this type of
> work.  In many cases I get severe vignetting along with severe
> off-axis aberrations when stopping down the rear lens, but no
> vignetting and good correction when stopping down the front lens.
>
> I've got a M/M coupling ring on order and plan to try some
> combinations out, but I was wondering if anyone has found similar
> results.
>
> By the way, 135mm prime lenses seem to work best as the rear lens, so
> this focal length may have a good use after all.
>
> Brian
> www.caldwellphotographic.com

I have a couple of books written by John Shaw. Here he describes in details
how he uses stacked lenses for macro photography. His favorite combination
is a Nikkor 200/4 on the camera and then a Nikkor 105/4 short mount lens
reversed. The 200/4 is most of the time stopped down to 22 and the 105/4
always wide open. Looking at the pictures the combination seems very good.
I have never succeded in getting a 105/4 shortmount......or 105 bellows I
think it is called also. The 200/4 is easy to get. From the pictures is it 
not the nikkor Q but the later model with rubber on the focusing ring. So 
it must be the 5 lens version.

Max


From: rpn1@cornell.edu (Neuman - Ruether)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Stacking Lenses:  Conventional Wisdom?
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003

...

The non-macro 200mm f4 compact Nikkor is one of the best
lenses to use for macro (!!!) with achromats, reversed
lenses, tele-extenders, tubes, or whatever combinations
you want (almost...;-). Stopped well down, I've gotten good
3X results with it. See for an example:
www.ferrario.com/ruether/web_photos/phun_fotoz/bugs/b55.jpg
(more at http://www.ferrario.com/ruether/phun.html, "bugs").

David Ruether
 rpn1@cornell.edu
 http://www.ferrario.com/ruether



From: brianc1959@aol.com (brian)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Stacking Lenses:  Conventional Wisdom?
Date: 13 Feb 2003 

...


Hi David:
Thanks for the information.  I'll definitely check out some of the
possbilities of the 200/4.  By the way, your comments a week or so ago
regarding distortion in 50/1.8 Nikkors seems dead-on.  The older
version, which doesn't have the ghosting problem, does indeed have
slightly more barrel distortion than the newer version.  Fortunately
this is less of a problem for me than ghosting.

Brian
www.caldwellphotographic.com


From: brianc1959@aol.com (brian)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Stacking Lenses:  Conventional Wisdom?
Date: 13 Feb 2003

...

Hi Max:
Thanks for the information.  I wonder if a short large-format lens or
perhaps an enlarging lens wouldn't provide even better quality than
the  105/4 shortmount while retaining the working distance advantage
and also have far better availability.  I still suspect that stopping
down the front lens provides better quality and less chance of
vignetting.

Brian
www.caldwellphotographic.com


From: Barry Lennox pbarryplennoxp@operamail.com
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.equipment
Subject: Re: microscope questions
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003

"Mike Shonle" mike@psychonic.net wrote:

>Hi, I'm trying to do some surface-mount board assembly/rework, and am
>wondering what kind of microscope would be best.  Is a zoom feature
>important?  If fixed mag is ok, what's a good value?  stereo vs. mono?  Not
>needed at all?

I looked around quite a bit, and decided stereo was vital, but zoom I
could do without, as the price delta was pretty high. I ended up with
a used Swift Stereo Eighty with 10x and 20x for less than $200. I find
it very satisfactory, and could not do without it for SMD inspection.
One minor point, I think, but given the choice, I would probably
prefer 7x and 15x.

Barry Lennox




From: Rich Webb bbew.ar@mapson.nozirev.ten
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.equipment
Subject: Re: microscope questions
Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2003

 "Mike Shonle" 
wrote:

>Hi, I'm trying to do some surface-mount board assembly/rework, and am
>wondering what kind of microscope would be best.  Is a zoom feature
>important?  If fixed mag is ok, what's a good value?  stereo vs. mono?  Not
>needed at all?

Every so often I drop by http://microscopeworld.com/micro1.htm to drool.
One of these days... In the meantime, I get by with my good ol' 2 1/2 x
OptiVisors (http://xtronics.com/optivisor.htm and many others).

If you go with the microscope, a two power is probably just as good as a
zoom for rework, and a bit cheaper. You can also change eyepieces and
objectives if necessary. A 20x / 40x would probably be a good choice.
Stereo is probably worth it -- if you're going to do it, do it right and
enjoy the easier "seeing" with both eyes. You will need some kind of
boom stand for circuit board work.

--
Rich Webb   Norfolk, VA


From: "Bob Parnass, AJ9S" not_for_mail@fake789.com
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.equipment
Subject: Re: microscope questions
Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2003

 Rich Webb wrote:

> ... In the meantime, I get by with my good ol' 2 1/2 x
> OptiVisors (http://xtronics.com/optivisor.htm and many others).


Amen.    I bought the same power OptiVISOR from the same place.
It has restored my close-in vision to the point where
servicing small devices is again possible.

I learned about OptiVISOR from my dentist, who uses an OptiVISOR
(same power/focal length) in both his dental practice and his
model railroading work.
--
Bob Parnass, AJ9S               Linux User             http://parnass.com



From: "Sherman" sherman-remove_this@dunnam.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Flower Macrophotography  HOW???
Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2002


"JessKramer" jesskramer@aol.com wrote 
> I have an Arca Swiss compact metric and a 150mm lens.
>
> I want to do flower macrophotography with greater than 1:1 mag for very large
> enlargement.  The flowers will be on a studio tabe with controlled lighting
>
> please give me some suggestions

Jesse,
Go to this link- http://www.salzgeber.at/disc/ and download the file.  Spend
the time to make the disc.  It automatically figures out your bellows
compensation.  Put the disc in the frame at your plane of focus, measure the
size of the disc on the GG using the matching ruler and read your bellows
compensation in f-stops.

It is an invaluable aid to doing close-up and macro-photography.

Sherman
http://www.dunnamphoto.com



From minolta mailing list:
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 
From: "Michael Hohner" miho@nefkom.net
Subject: Re: curved focal plane

 Maisch, Manfred wrote:

>*      My 4/70-210mm shows some field curvature at max. magnification (at
>210mm close focused (110cm), + x magnification), but to a lesser extend,
>*      My 4/200mm doesn't show visible field curvature (max. magnification:
>life-size),
>*      Noe does my Sigma 2,8/90mm (max. magnification: 1/2 life-size)

The latter two are true macro lenses, and these are almost always
designed to have a flat field. The other lenses you mentioned are not.

---
Michael Hohner
miho@nefkom.net
http://www.nefkom.net/miho


From minolta mailing list:
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 
From: "Maisch, Manfred" manfred.maisch@epcos.com
Subject: AW: curved focal plane

Yes, I know, and I knew, that flat or curved field is an issue with lens
design. But I never noticed it before and always regarded it as a more or
less theoretical issue, and indeed it is not very relevant until you du
reproduction or photograph stamps. But I didn't expect it to be as strong.
I think, it is the price for the unusual small close focus distance of the
Sigma WA lenses, and I love my Sigma 2,8/24mm for this.

Manfred


Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 
Subject: Re: [Nikon] Nikon Macro Nikkor Lenses... 19mm 35mm 65mm
From: Ian Goodrick goodrick@macunlimited.net
To: nikon@photo.cis.to

Donzo98@aol.com wrote:

> Hi Gang,
> Are there any of you crazy enough to be using these lenses on 35mm bodies or
> the D1 series? They were originally designed to be used on the Nikon
> Multiphot. Interested to hear your responses.

I'm not but this guy is

http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_spec.html

Have a good look at the rest of the site, its a fun read.

Ian


From: "Max Perl" max_perl@post11.tele.dk
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Stacking Lenses: Conventional Wisdom?
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003

"brian" brianc1959@aol.com skrev 
> "Max Perl" max_perl@post11.tele.dk wrote
> > "brian" brianc1959@aol.com skrev
> > > I'm not too experienced with reverse stacking two lenses together for
> > > ultra-macro photography, but I've read several posts stating that the
> > > way to do it is to leave the front (short EFL) lens wide open and use
> > > the aperture stop in the rear (long EFL) lens. However, I've been
> > > doing some raytracing experiments with Nikon lens prescriptions from
> > > patents, and in almost every case I get dramatically better results by
> > > stopping down the front lens while leaving the rear lens wide open.
> > >
> > > I realize this makes aperture calculation a bit more difficult, but I
> > > would think that image quality is what matters most in this type of
> > > work. In many cases I get severe vignetting along with severe
> > > off-axis aberrations when stopping down the rear lens, but no
> > > vignetting and good correction when stopping down the front lens.
> > >
> > > I've got a M/M coupling ring on order and plan to try some
> > > combinations out, but I was wondering if anyone has found similar
> > > results.
> > >
> > > By the way, 135mm prime lenses seem to work best as the rear lens, so
> > > this focal length may have a good use after all.
> > >
> > > Brian
> > > www.caldwellphotographic.com
> >
> > I have a couple of books written by John Shaw. Here he describes in details
> > how he uses stacked lenses for macro photography. His favorite combination
> > is a Nikkor 200/4 on the camera and then a Nikkor 105/4 short mount lens
> > reversed. The 200/4 is most of the time stopped down to 22 and the 105/4
> > always wide open. Looking at the pictures the combination seems very good.
> > I have never succeded in getting a 105/4 shortmount......or 105 bellows I
> > think it is called
> > also. The 200/4 is easy to get. From the pictures is it not the nikkor Q but the later
> > model with rubber on the focusing ring. So it must be the 5 lens version.
> >
> > Max
>
> Hi Max:
> Thanks for the information. I wonder if a short large-format lens or
> perhaps an enlarging lens wouldn't provide even better quality than
> the 105/4 shortmount while retaining the working distance advantage
> and also have far better availability. I still suspect that stopping
> down the front lens provides better quality and less chance of
> vignetting.
>
> Brian
> www.caldwellphotographic.com

Hi Brian,

I have used enlarger lenses on the PB-6 with very good results. So probably
you can get good results using them stacked on an e.g. 200/4.
John Shaw also uses other combinations e.g. 200/4 + 50/1.8, 200/4+55/3.5 and
200/4+35/2....all depending of how much magnification he needs.
The reason he does not stop down the reversed lens is because he is afraid
of diffraction. He claim to get the higest resoultion using the reversed
lens wide open.

Max


From: brianc1959@aol.com (brian)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Stacking Lenses: Conventional Wisdom?
Date: 13 Feb 2003 

"Max Perl" max_perl@post11.tele.dk wrote
. . . . .
> The reason he does not stop down the reversed lens is because he is afraid
> of diffraction. He claim to get the higest resoultion using the reversed
> lens wide open.
>
> Max

This doesn't make any sense. You can use either iris diaphragm to
create the final desired relative aperture. The diffraction in either
case would be the same because all that matters is the f/# in image
space. But when you use the rear stop rather than the front you can
wind up with an enormous amount of lateral color, astigmatism and
vignetting, particularly when using wide angle lenses in front. The
reason is that these lenses are very sensitive to changes in stop
location, whereas 135mm and 200mm lenses are very insensitive to it.

It is true that the f/# at the image plane is increased more
dramatically by stopping down the front, but all you have to do is
stop down less. For example, if you put a 50mm in front of a 200mm
and stop the 50 down to f/4 then image space f/# will be f/16. So if
you want f/16, then just stop down the front lens to f/4 (in this
case) accordingly.

Brian
www.caldwellphotographic.com


From: brianc1959@aol.com (brian)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Stacking Lenses: Conventional Wisdom?
Date: 15 Feb 2003 

> The magnification, with the prime lens focused at infinity is simply the
> ratio of the two focal lengths, as in:
>
> Mag = Prime lens fl / Reversed lens fl
>
> This assumes that the reversed lens is of a fairly symmetrical
> construction.


When both lenses are focused at infinity the magnification is the
ratio of focal lengths regardless of lens construction.

Brian
www.caldwellphotographic.com




Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 
From: Henry Posner/B&H; Photo-Video henryp@bhphotovideo.com
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: [HUG] Re: Lens Bay 50 to Bay 50 adaptor (poor man's macro)

 you wrote:
>I'd like an adaptor to let me connect a 150mm and 80mm
>Bay 50 lenses face to face.

They're called male-to-male macro couplers. No one I know of makes a
Bay50-Bay50 macro coupler so ideally you'd want a Bay50->55mm step-up ring,
a 55-55 macro coupler and a 55mm->Bay 50 step-down ring, but the only Bay50
step down ring I can find is Bay50->52mm.

So, you could do this:
Bay50->55 step-up ring
52mm-55mm macro coupler
Bay50->52 step-down ring.

Frankly I think you should consider a Bay50->62 step-up ring and the Nikon
dual-element Achromatic 5T & 6T close-up diopters.

--
regards,
Henry Posner
Director of Sales and Training
B&H; Photo-Video, and Pro-Audio Inc.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com



Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 
From: Jim Brick jbrick@elesys.net
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net, hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: [HUG] Re: Lens Bay 50 to Bay 50 adaptor (poor man's macro)

...

If you use a 55mm male-to-male coupler, then the same B50->55 step-up ring
can be used on both lenses. The male-male 55-55 coupler looks the same from
both sides, therefore the bayonet lens adapters will be the same. B50->55
step-up from both sides.

Jim



Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 
From: Philippe Tempel ptempel2000@yahoo.com
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: Re: [HUG] Re: Lens Bay 50 to Bay 50 adaptor (poor man's macro)

Thanks for the replys.  I'll try to locate the 55mm
coupler the next time I'm at the store.  Here's
another strange combo.  Try the 80mm lens with a loupe
on the front.  My loupe is big enough to not touch the
lens glass so I could tape it up to the body to just
play with it a little.  The images look prety cool on
the WLF.  I'll have to try some shots with it.  Only
problems are that it magnify's even more so shallower
DOF.  You are also right on top of the subject (only
an inch or so).  And the edges are blurred, but I like
that effect.
...



Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 
From: Tom Christiansen tomchr@softhome.net
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: [HUG] "Test" results: Nikon close-up lenses on 80CB and 150C.

Folks,

I got some 2-element Nikon 5T and 6T (62mm, +1.5 and +2.9 diopter
respectively) in the mail the other day. I tested them on my 80mm CB (with
a B-60 to 62mm step-down ring) and on a 150mm C (with B-50 to 62mm
electrical tape (poor man's step-up ring)).

Those diopters are actually fairly impressive. The only thing that annoys
me is that the focusing range is rather limited once you stick the diopter
on the lens. I've used a few macro lenses and they've all focused from
infinity to 1:1 at the twist of a lens barrel, thus, giving a lot of
freedom in composition. With the diopter, you get close in a hurry - which,
I suppose, is also the point... Anyway.


I shot with 80CB + 6T; 80CB + 5T; 80CB + 6T + 5T; 150C + 6T; 150C + 5T; and
150C + 6T + 5T. When stacking diopters, I followed Nikon's advice and put
the diopter of lowest power (the 5T) furthest away from the lens.
I shot at apertures in the range of f/4 to f/32 shooting at least three
pictures (at different f-stops) of the same subject.

RESULTS
1) It's true!! You really don't need to apply exposure compensation or
bellows extension when using diopters.
2) The DOF is incredibly shallow with both diopters on the lens!!
3) I notice no vignetting and no significant light fall-off with any of the
combinations or at any of the tested f-stops.
4) Sharpness/resolution/contrast: I'm sure my Contax Makro Apo-Planar could
do better, but it doesn't fit on the Hasselblad mount... I'm also sure that
the 'blad macro lens would do better, but it doesn't fit in my shirt
pocket... That being said, I'm rather impressed with the sharpness of these
diopters. Granted, they don't outperform the real macro lenses, but they
are actually reasonably close. I think they are an incredible deal at $40
each!! On the flower shots I did, you can definitely tell the minute
details, lines/veins in leaves, "hair", etc.

I've tossed some pictures up on my website. I was kinda in a rush to get
these pictures so I didn't spend too much time finding the right subject
and such. I just wanted to get a rough idea of the performance of these
close-up diopters.

150C lens with 6T diopter (f/16, 1/15 sec):
http://students.washington.edu/tomchr/pictures/Winter2003/150C6T.jpg  (full
frame)
http://students.washington.edu/tomchr/pictures/Winter2003/150C6T-Detail.jpg
(detail)

150C lens with 6T + 5T diopters (f/11, 1/30 sec):
http://students.washington.edu/tomchr/pictures/Winter2003/150C6T5T.jpg
(full frame)
http://students.washington.edu/tomchr/pictures/Winter2003/150C6T5T-Detail.jpg
(detail)

Tom


From: chip5fall@aol.com (CHIP5FALL)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature
Date: 07 Mar 2003 
Subject: Re: mirror lockup

You can fill the frame with a fly at something like 6 feet ...
and something like a fly or butterfly probably would *not* let you get much
closer.

Unless you learn about your subjects. Entomologist Ed Ross (in his early 80's)
is still turning out the best macrophotos of insects that I see; and he is
still doing it with an unaided 60mm Nikon Micro lens. He da' master!

Carl May


From: remove.david@meiland.com (David Meiland)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Bellows Factor Calculator
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 

two23@aol.comSPAMnot (Two23) wrote:

>I've recently got a clue how much I'm missing by not shooting some macro (close
>focus) with my 4x5. Where can I get a bellows factor calculator? I looked on
>eBay but could not find any used ones. KEH didn't have any used ones either.
>
>
>Kent in SD
>Kent in SD


I put together a one page chart of typical focal lengths, bellows
factors, and magnification ratios. So far it's worked for me. It's
here:

http://davidmeiland.com/largeformat/exposurecompensation.pdf
---
David Meiland
Oakland, California
http://davidmeiland.com/



From: foto28@aol.comedy.com (Foto28)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: 21 Mar 2003 
Subject: Re: Bellows Factor Calculator

I've got a chart for Fuji GX680 compensation that works for various lenses
simply by reading the position of the front standard on the camera's millimetre
focusing scale. The chart includes magnification ratios, compensation, etc. and
could be modified to work with LF by plugging in different measurements for the
area being photographed.

To see it, go to www.dannyburk.com, then to reviews, then to Fuji GX680III.
You'll find a link to my chart about halfway down the review page.
===============
Danny Burk
www.dannyburk.com - fine art photography


From: "Al Denelsbeck" AL@wading-in.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature
Subject: Re: techniques for butterflies photos
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 

Jmac mrbeefyNO@SPAMhotmail.com wrote
> At the Lena Meijer Conservatory in Grand Rapids Michigan they have
> butterfly exhibit every spring.
> (for more info see http://www.meijergardens.org/events/butterfly.htm )
>
> My aspiring young photographer (13 year old daughter) and I want to try to
> get some quality photos. We went last year and had very little success.
>
> Does anyone have any ideas on how best to get these flighty little creatures
> in your view finder? One thing I read said to get out early before the sun
> warms their wings., however this doesn't work in this case as it is a
> controlled environment and doesn't open to the public till 9 am.
>
> Last year we chased them around waiting for them to land, used auto focus
> and snapped away. The butterflies are in a small green house type structure
> with native plants and are just all flying all around (very impressive)
>
> We are using a Canon EOS 300 body and have the following Canon lenses: 24mm
> 2.8, 100mm 2.8 macro, 300mm 4 L with a 1.4 teleconvertor and a 28-90 4 -5.6
> zoom. We also have a decent Manfrotto tripod. We prefer Fuji Velvia or
> Provia slide film.
>
> I was thinking of setting up the tripod with the 300mm (maybe add the 1.4
> teleconvertor) and try to track them as they fly about.
>
> Thoughts, suggestions and URLs are welcome, and needed!


I've had the best luck being patient, and I think the best shots came
from a 105mm macro, sometimes with a 2x teleconverter. A friend used a
75-300 with extension tubes. The hazards of either is that the light-loss
affects your shutter speed, and forces you to use flash.

Generally, it was far easier to wait for them to land anywhere - even a
superb AF will have a hard time nailing a small airborne erratic subject
;-). You may find that there are periods of activity (probably when they
first let people in) and slower periods, where the butterflies aren't as
concerned with food, are acclimated to people again, and are conserving
energy.

If anything, I'd lean towards a monopod, rather than a tripod. Mobility
means a lot in butterfly houses.

I have, on occasion, used a couple of small slave strobes strapped to
the lenshood for extra light. This allowed good lighting of close subjects
and kept the shutter speed high enough for handholding, but the output was
strictly manual, so you would need to know best manual settings for the
distances involved.

One photographer I read about made a simple rig to take photos of
insects in flight. It consisted of two stiff wires attached to the lens,
extending out the same distance just outside the visible field of the macro
lens. These were just guides. He would pre-focus and set flash and exposure
for a subject centered between the wires, lock it in, then wander around and
try to simply line up a flying subject between the wires. Never raised the
camera to his eye, never focused. About the same as catching a butterfly in
a net.

I made a similar rig out of replacement antennas from Radio Shack, so
they were collapsible and protected anyone near you from getting poked in
the eye with a bit of wire. I haven't yet tried them out to see how this
works for myself.

If you're using Provia 100F, try pushing the film for more film speed. I
love using it at 320, processed at a two-stop push - gives a better shutter
speed and the results are little changed from using it at 100 (except for
the extra cost of processing). The extra sensitivity adds in more ambient
light as well, rather than relying solely on flash and thus having totally
black backgrounds.

Watch the butterflies carefully. They almost always give a good
indication of where they want to land, and moving slowly can put you close
to it. If you spook them (and you will), just hold still - they may return
to the same spot once they realize you're not a threat, and you'll have
focus, exposure, and composition ready.

Hope this helps. Good luck!

- Al.


From: rpn1@cornell.edu (Neuman - Ruether)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Depth of Field Preview Explanation req'd!
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 

...
>How important is DoFPw to a hobbyist (with leanings to get serious)?
>
>I have seen what is does by testing out my camera in the store, but I
>don't really "get it". Yes, I know what depth of field is, and yes, I
>can see how (using the Rebel 2000) by adjusting the aperture with
>DoFPw engaged the picture in the viewfinder is noticibly dimmed
>according to aperture size. But I do not see how this tells me what
>the depth of field will be? And the effect in the viewfinder is so
>subtle! Can someone explain how the dimming corresponds to the
>"Preview" feature? The salespeople I have talked to can't communicate
>to me how this "dimming" translates to depth of field, and many of
>them don't seem to consider this much of a feature, either!
>
>If it wasn't for the Manifesto here:
>http://chapelhillnoir.com/mani/equip/mmselect.html
>I wouldn't be trying to select a camera with this feature, but if I
>don't understand the feature, it hardly seems reason to seek it out!
>(Although I may regret this later when I am more savvy -- hence this
>posting!!) If I decide this feature is NOT important, I will probably
>lean towards another SLR.

It is important for some, but maybe not for the obvious
reason...;-) Unless the viewfinder is very sharp (unlikely
in the Rebel 2000 - and this is becoming rarer all the time
in the AF age, when people value finder brightness above
sharpness...), it would be very hard to see subtleties of
DOF change with aperture unless you aim the camera at a very
near object that is very out of focus, with good focus on a
distant scene (or the other way around...) and then stop the
lens down. You should see the out of focus part of the image
sharpen. Even with a very sharp VF, it is impossible to
see when the OOF part of the image sharpens enough to look
sharp in the final image. Better uses for DOF preview:
previewing the "look" of OOF image parts at the taking
aperture (this changes a lot with stop used, if the OOF
parts are far out of focus and not likely to be made sharp
by stopping down); judging tonal effects in the final image
(highlight and shadow detail will be lost in the image,
compared with normal viewing, and using the DOF preview to
see better what the darker tones will look like in the image
with the lower tones "dropped-out", or what the relatively
"blown-out" highlights will look like can give you a better
sense of the graphic effects of the final image...

David Ruether
rpn1@cornell.edu
http://www.ferrario.com/ruether


From: brianc1959@aol.com (brian)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Connecting to Lenses Front to Front.
Date: 19 Apr 2003 

"headscratcher@nospamforme.net" headscratcher@nospamforme.net wrote
> rcrev@yahoo.com (Ray Creveling) wrote:
>
> >I was looking at an article in photoview magazine about shooting
> >crytals. The way it was done was to mount a reversed 50mm lens to the
> >front of a 300mm lens. I have my 75-300 lens and a 50mm 1.8 lens. I
> >have the 58mm step up ring. now how to I get the male threads to
> >connect them both?
> >
> >Ray Creveling
> >rcrev@optonline.net
>
> The item is called a macro coupling ring. They are made in various
> coupling threads, usually the same thread or with slight differences
> (49/49mm. 52/49, 52/52, etc). If the threads are noticeably different,
> you can use a coupler and a step-up or step down ring.
> This method can produce very good results with single focal length
> lenses, but it is not recommended for zoom lens. The design of zoom
> lenses will likely produce vignetting and poor sharpness. You didn't
> mention your camera system, but for Pentax i've used a 135mm lens
> coupled with a 50mm or 28mm lens on the front. Your magnification
> depends on the lenses..135mm divided by 50mm= 2.7x; 135/28= 4.8x.
> Use very sharp lenses, a tripod or sliding macro mount, and a camera
> with depth of field preview. Make sure that your diopter lens (with
> the lower focal length) is capable of full aperture control when not
> mounted on the lens. Canon FD lenses cannot do this, and some AF
> lenses of various brands have no aperture ring at all.
>
> headscratcher

Thats good advice, since its almost always preferable to stop down the
front lens rather than the rear one in order to avoid or minimize
vignetting, color fringing, and other aberrations. Unfortunately,
although this is a far superior arrangement in terms of optical
quality, it means you give up automatic aperture control.

Brian
www.caldwellphotographic.com


From: dslr dslr2@btopenworld.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Connecting to Lenses Front to Front.
Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2003 

Tony Spadaro wrote:
>
> How did you join them, epoxy or something more? It's all very academic for
> me as I have a reversing ring (and never use it) but it sounds like
> sonmething worth knowing and passing on.
>

That's what I used when I tried it - two appropriate size Cokin adapter
rings epoxied together. The important thing is to ensure that you remove
all the paint from the mating surfaces (so that rhe epoxy is going
straight onto the metal surface) and that you "key" both surfaces to
give the epoxy plenty of surface area to bond to.

--
regards,
dslr


From: rcrev@yahoo.com (Ray Creveling)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Connecting to Lenses Front to Front.
Date: 20 Apr 2003

The Connection was between a canon 75-300 zoom and a pentax manual
50mm lens. I used epoxy to join the 2 plastic filters together and
then wrapped with duct tape as a precaution. I then attatched a 49 to
58mm step up ring to the pentax lens. The whole system is pointed
straight down so I didn't have to worry about the zoom creeping but,
the focus ring on the canon kept miving about 1/2 a turn. I used a
small piece of tape to hold that in place if I calculated the DOF
corectly it's somewhere in the neighborhood of .05mm @ f45. Sharpness
was an issue as mentioned and I'm still working on getting the colors
vibrant but I'm happy with my first attempt. A Final FYI do not even
consider this without a focusing rail of some sort.

Ray Creveling
...


From: rcrev@yahoo.com (Ray Creveling)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Connecting to Lenses Front to Front.
Date: 19 Apr 2003

...
Thanks to all for your help. The system I rigged up seems pretty sharp
and since I'm at such high maginfication I'm stopped down all the way.
I'm picking up my test roll today if all goes well I will post my
images and find a site to document the aparatus I built. FYI since it
is impossible to buy the revesing ring I needed during the passover in
this area I built one out of 2 plastic filter rings with the glass
removed.

Ray Creveling
rcrev@optonline.net


From: "headscratcher@nospamforme.net" headscratcher@nospamforme.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Connecting to Lenses Front to Front.
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 

rcrev@yahoo.com (Ray Creveling) wrote:

>I was looking at an article in photoview magazine about shooting
>crytals. The way it was done was to mount a reversed 50mm lens to the
>front of a 300mm lens. I have my 75-300 lens and a 50mm 1.8 lens. I
>have the 58mm step up ring. now how to I get the male threads to
>connect them both?
>
>Ray Creveling
>rcrev@optonline.net

The item is called a macro coupling ring. They are made in various
coupling threads, usually the same thread or with slight differences
(49/49mm. 52/49, 52/52, etc). If the threads are noticeably different,
you can use a coupler and a step-up or step down ring.

This method can produce very good results with single focal length
lenses, but it is not recommended for zoom lens. The design of zoom
lenses will likely produce vignetting and poor sharpness. You didn't
mention your camera system, but for Pentax i've used a 135mm lens
coupled with a 50mm or 28mm lens on the front. Your magnification
depends on the lenses..135mm divided by 50mm= 2.7x; 135/28= 4.8x.
Use very sharp lenses, a tripod or sliding macro mount, and a camera
with depth of field preview. Make sure that your diopter lens (with
the lower focal length) is capable of full aperture control when not
mounted on the lens. Canon FD lenses cannot do this, and some AF
lenses of various brands have no aperture ring at all.

headscratcher


From: "Bandicoot" "insert_handle_here"@techemail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: High magnification
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 

"Scott M. Knowles" scott@wsrphoto.com wrote
> Peter Charles p_s_charles@hotmail.com wrote 
> > Just passing along some info for anyone interested.
> >
> > High magnifications of decent quality can be achieved with regular
> > lenses if you stack them filter ring-to-filter ring...[snipped]
> >
> > Given my other previously noted interests, any guess as to what this
> > is?
> >
> > http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharles/highmag.jpg
>
> As said, a (fishing) fly? But an easier way to photograph them would
> be with "micro" lenses, such as Minolta's 12mm and 25mm lenses. They
> were originally developed for microscopes but with their camera mount
> adaptor on their bellows, the 25mm lens magnifies 3:1 to 8:1 and the
> 12mm lens 8:1 to 17:1. Working distence is less than an inch to
> almost touching the subject, and DOF is quite small, but they're
> interesting lenses.
>
> --Scott--

Pentax makes an adapter from the K mount to 'standard' microspcope thread -
not sure what that is, but its the size every microscope I've ever used has
taken. This means you can use a very wide range of microscope lenses, from
all sorts of manufacturers. Often these aren't expensive used, though if I
wanted to use one this way I'd just unscrew one from the turret on my
microscope...

Peter


From: scott@wsrphoto.com (Scott M. Knowles)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: High magnification
Date: 24 Apr 2003

...
> http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharles/highmag.jpg

As said, a (fishing) fly? But an easier way to photograph them would
be with "micro" lenses, such as Minolta's 12mm and 25mm lenses. They
were originally developed for microscopes but with their camera mount
adaptor on their bellows, the 25mm lens magnifies 3:1 to 8:1 and the
12mm lens 8:1 to 17:1. Working distence is less than an inch to
almost touching the subject, and DOF is quite small, but they're
interesting lenses.

--Scott--


From: Peter Charles p_s_charles@hotmail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: High magnification
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 

Just passing along some info for anyone interested.

High magnifications of decent quality can be achieved with regular
lenses if you stack them filter ring-to-filter ring.

I know of two combinations that work without adverse effects (usually
severe vignetting when stopped down is present in most combos) -
Nikkor 200 F4 with a Nikkor 50mm F2 or faster, reversed in front of it
and a Pentax SMC 135 f3.5 with a 50 f2 or f1.7. Male-male filter
rings can be purchased in 49mm or 52mm sizes. The 50mm is left wide
open and the telephoto is stopped down. Interestingly, only about 1/2
a stop of light is lost. The Nikkor combo produces a magnification
rate of approx 4:1 while the Pentax is about 2.7:1. Usually I'll stop
the tele down to f32 and use a camera or grip mounted flash with a
home-made white cardboard hood over the flash to direct it on to the
subject. As the flash tube is larger than the subject, the
illumination is not at all harsh even when using direct flash. Small
flashes will do quite well (I'm currently using a Sunpak Auto124.)

Given my other previously noted interests, any guess as to what this
is?

http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharles/highmag.jpg

As can be expected, the working distance is not great. I had a Pentax
system about 20 years ago and I did a lot of bug photos hand held
using this rig. If I had a decent slide scanner I could post some.
looking at the eight eyes of a spider is kinda cool if you like that
sort of thing.

Peter


From: rpn1@cornell.edu (Neuman - Ruether)
Newsgroups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras,alt.graphics.photoshop,alt.photography,fj.comp.dev.digital-camera,rec.photo.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.marketplace.35mm
Subject: Re: Macro magnigication
Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2003 

"Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@worldonline.nl wrote:
>Neuman - Ruether wrote:
>> >Yes. But don't expect mch quality out of a auxillary lens plus extender
>> >combination.
>>
>> Depending on stop and lens, the results can be excellent
>> when combining TC, achromat, *and* tube - [...]
>
>Indeed. But you left out one important factor: depending on (un)critical
>expectations, i.e. your personal definition of what "excellent" actually
>means...

Uh, yes - but other items (like the lens reviews at:
www.ferrario.com/ruether/articles.html, and the Nikkor
evaluation list at www.ferrario.com/ruether/slemn.html)
on the web page just might indicate that I'm a bit of
a "sharpness-nut" - and kinda know the difference
between "sharp" and "not-quite-sharp"...;-) While the
images at www.ferrario.com/ruether/phun.html, "Bugs",
are too small to see the difference, they really ARE
sharp(!)...;-) BTW, I've owned a LOT of macro lenses
and macro accessories, and have tried MANY combinations
of these, and have come up with some favorites (these
are noted in SLEMN with the particular lenses), but the
best for around 3X turned out to be the Nikkor 200mm f4
NON-macro compact-version, plus either TC14A or TC200/201,
plus Sigma achromat from their 90mm, with tubes added
or not, to taste, all used at the lens-marked f8-11,
with a TTL flash mounted with end at the lens front
at an angle away from center, pointed at the focus
point. The images shot with this combination are
hard-edged and "wiry" (the orange fly is one) in the
original slide, with plenty of fine detail showing...
(and, BTW, they were shot "as-found", "hand-held"...;-).

David Ruether
rpn1@cornell.edu
http://www.ferrario.com/ruether


From: GR GR@fake.not
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.misc
Subject: Re: merging macro images technique
Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 

PC Photo June 2003 page 38. Article called Macro Panoramics
How to, and examples.
Gene http://www.photoprojects.net

Gary C wrote:

> Someone mentioned a technique to me where a series of macro images of
> a subject are combined, to produce one image with maximum depth of
> field - all of the subject is in focus. This is done by focusing at
> different points in each image, and then somehow merging only the
> parts that are in sharp focus to create the final image.
>
> Does anyone know more about this technique, and if so, is there
> software that can do the combining automatically? Thanks in advance.
>
> Gary


From: "Al Denelsbeck" AL@wading-in.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.misc
Subject: Re: merging macro images technique
Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 

Gary C garypch@hotmail.com wrote 
> Someone mentioned a technique to me where a series of macro images of
> a subject are combined, to produce one image with maximum depth of
> field - all of the subject is in focus. This is done by focusing at
> different points in each image, and then somehow merging only the
> parts that are in sharp focus to create the final image.
>
> Does anyone know more about this technique, and if so, is there
> software that can do the combining automatically? Thanks in advance.


There is a method that I can't find the name of right now (if it has
one); it requires an elaborate rig, but it's done in-camera without the use
of software. In essence, the subject is illuminated only by a thin slit of
light parallel to the film plane, and the focus of the camera corresponds to
the illuminated area. While the shutter is open (or through a series of
exposures), both the focus area of the lens, and the area illuminated by the
light, are changed, tracked on a subject from front to back, to give the
entire subject lighting only for the areas in focus. Obviously there are a
lot of difficulties in this.

I know of no specific software to do this alone, but you can do the same
thing in Photoshop with judicious use of layers and layer masks, essentially
allowing only the infocus areas to show and masking the rest. It would be
time consuming, but probably much easier than building a lighting/focus rig
for your camera to accomplish the same thing on a single frame.

- Al.


From: danielwfromm@att.com (Dan Fromm)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: testing ;-) Re: Are used MF...
Date: 17 Jun 2003 

Stacey fotocord@yahoo.com wrote
> Dan Fromm wrote:
>
> > I've been thinking about replacing her camera with a used
> > 8008S, mainly because it (a) does TTL flash which is sometimes useful
> > and (b) syncs at 1/250.
> >
>
>
> TTL flash ROCKS for macro work and the 1/250 sync should cover almost any
> problems you'd run across. Personally I don't like to totally overpower
> ambient as the totally dark barkgrounds bother me but that's a personal
> choice! The flash will freeze any motion at the focus plane but still allow
> a little bit of the background to show up.

In my experience, TTL flash for macro work is disastrous. Specular
highlights and other bright areas in the field make it underexpose the
main subject. Same problem as metering reflected for ambient light.

I do the equivalent of incident metering, i.e., calibrated flash rigs
plus a little informed judgement. Setting up the rigs -- I have 3 --
cost a short roll of film each. And my results are, at least as far
as exposure goes, very consistent and surprise free except when the
flash cable fails or a slave (multi-flash setups) dies. In this case,
intelligence and knowledge beat money (= brainless machinery) and
ignorance.

My FM2n syncs at 1/250. At 1:1 @ f/16 with ISO 100 film, this puts
ambient 3 stops down. Safe. But until I find the cash to get replace
my Copal 1 Press with a cock-and-shoot Copal 1, I'll continue to have
minor problems with the Graphics.

Cheers,
Dan


From: danielwfromm@att.com (Dan Fromm)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: testing ;-) Re: Are used MF...
Date: 15 Jun 2003 

"Q.G. de Bakker"  wrote in message news:...
> Dan Fromm wrote:
>
> > But and however, the view is dimmer -- at 1:1 with the aperture ring
> > set to f/22, I'd be seeing through my 105/2.8 at an effective f/11,
> > not f/5.6, through my 210/9 stopped to f/16 at an effective f/64, not
> > f/32 -- and there's that additional piece of glass to collect smudges
> > and be obnoxious.
>
> I'm not sure i correctly understand what you are saying (and if i don't, i
> apologize), but you must know that the good thing of filters (ND and others
> alike) is that you only need them during the exposure, not when composing
> and focussing. Right?
>
> > An SLR with a flash sync speed of 1/1000 would solve the problem
> > equally well, but as far as I know there is no such machine.
>
> Rollei 6000 series (or rather some of the lenses available for this system).
>
> > Tell us, Stacey, do you do much close up work out of doors with flash?
>
> You're right there. No need for ND filters then.

QG, I'm astonished. Here's the situation. I have a flash rig which
requires f/16 with ISO 25 film at 1:1. Effective aperture is f/32.

Now suppose I switch to ISO 100 film. Per sunny sixteen, ISO 100 film
wants f/16 @ 1/100. And I want to shoot at f/16, not at a smaller
aperture.

Well, then, I can turn the flashes down two stops and still shoot at
f/16, effective aperture f/32, and my highest sync speed. When that
speed is 1/125 or 1/90, then I'll get exposure from ambient. This I
don't want.

As for ND filters, well, when I'm shooting 2x3 with a Graphic they're
an option because the camera is on focusing rail on tripod and its all
very slow-working. Then I turn flashes up 2 stops, focus, compose,
put the filter on the camera and presto! ambient is overpowered. ND
filters are not such a good option with my Nikons because I shoot
handheld, on the fly as it were.

You and Stacey wonder why I want to shoot at such large apertures.
Well, its like this. There's a tradeoff between sharpness in the
plane of best focus and the extent of passable sharpness, i.e., depth
of field. More depth of field, less sharpness in the plane of best
focus. Which aperture is best depends on magnification. At 1:1,
stopping down below f/22 gains nothing and to my taste going below
f/16 really costs more than it gains.

My choice, which I don't always stick to, is a little idiosyncratic.
Even so, my three MicroNikkors are unusable at f/32 @ 1:1. Further
along these lines, I used to wonder why S. H. Weitzman's photos of
tiny characid fishes are so nice. So I asked him how he takes them.
His subjects are nearly planar, and he shoots at f/8 @ 1:1. End of
discussion.

The tradeoff isn't so harsh at lower magnifications, but the best
aperture gets larger as magnification rises. Above perhaps 3:1 wide
open is usually best.

Finally, since everytime I post anything about the relationship
between aperture and best resolution possible at moderate
magnifications someone hits me with effective aperture, effective
aperture has nothing to do with attainable resolution. NOTHING. If
you think otherwise, consider why compound microscopes work at all.
Hint: what matters in close up work is resolution in the subject
plane, not in the image plane.

Cheers,

Dan


From: brianc1959@aol.com (brian)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Luminar/Photar vs. reversed enlarging lens
Date: 9 May 2003 

danielwfromm@att.com (Dan Fromm) wrote 
> brianc1959@aol.com (brian) wrote in message {snip}
> > Dan:
> > Since the 55/2.8 Micro Nikkor is marked with magnification ratios
> > starting at 1:10, wouldn't you get even better results if you set it
> > to the reciprocal of the actual magnification when going higher than
> > 2x reversed? In other words, if you are shooting at 7x then you
> > should set the lens to 1:7 and not 1:infinity. The separation of the
> > two lens groups would be better balanced for coma that way.
> >
> > Brian
> > www.caldwellphotographic.com
>
> Brian:
>
> That's a very fair question. 
>
> I thought about doing what you suggest, then recalled that at 1:8 the
> floating element has floated very little from the infinity position.
> I also recalled the bafflegab I got from Nikon when I asked whether I
> should shoot at 1:2 with the lens set to infinity on a PK-13 or fully
> extended on its own mount. They emit even more bafflegab about why
> the floating element is needed AND why its ok to shoot at slightly
> over 1:2 on the PK-13.
>
> In strict logic you can't be wrong. In practice, though, the lens
> seems to do adequately well no matter what. Yes, this bothers me.
>
> But you're right, I did bias the experiment against the MicroNikkor.
> I still have trouble believing the results, suspect but can't find
> pervasive operator (that's me) error.
> Cheers,
>
> Dan

Hi Dan:
After thinking about it some more I realized that you didn't bias
against thee Micro Nikkor at all. At 8:1 magnification you only use a
tiny portion of the image circle, even with 4x5 film. Therefore the
amount of coma is insignificant even if the groups aren't in the
optimum position. However, if you go to 1:2 you should get
significantly better results wide open by turning the focusing ring
rather than adding an extension tube. By the time you stop down to
f/8 it would not matter.

The reason the 55/2.8 Micro Nikkor did so well in your tests is that
its nearly diffraction limited at f/4, and should be capable of
resolving more than 200 line pairs/mm. In fact, over certain narrow
regions of the color spectrum it should be capable of even 400 line
pairs/mm. This is all even more amazing when you consider how cheap
these lenses can be on the second hand market.

Brian
www.caldwellphotographic.com


From: brianc1959@aol.com (brian)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Luminar/Photar vs. reversed enlarging lens
Date: 7 May 2003 

danielwfromm@att.com (Dan Fromm) wrote 
> reversed MF 55/2.8 MicroNikkor (set to infinity, best at f/4) 
> 45/4.5 CZJ Mikrotar 
> 50/3.5 Reichert Neupolar 
> 50/4.5 Enlarging Ektar 
> 50/4.5 Tominon. 
> I think all of them are quite usable. That the
> MicroNikkor did so well was a surprise. On the whole, given current
> prices the Enlarging Ektar and Tominon give astounding value for
> money.

Dan:
Since the 55/2.8 Micro Nikkor is marked with magnification ratios
starting at 1:10, wouldn't you get even better results if you set it
to the reciprocal of the actual magnification when going higher than
2x reversed? In other words, if you are shooting at 7x then you
should set the lens to 1:7 and not 1:infinity. The separation of the
two lens groups would be better balanced for coma that way.

Brian
www.caldwellphotographic.com


From: danielwfromm@att.com (Dan Fromm)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Luminar/Photar vs. reversed enlarging lens
Date: 7 May 2003 

sog@niwot.scd.ucar.edu (Steve Gombosi) wrote in message news:...
> I'm curious if anyone has done any tests of the famous, rare,
> hideously expensive, and no-longer-manufactured, high-magnification
> lenses like the Zeiss Luminar or Leitz Photar vs. a really top-quality
> modern enlarging lens (reversed, of course) like the Apo-Rodagon or
> Apo-Componon HM for high-magnification macrophotography (like 5:1
> or 10:1).
>
> If anybody has, I'd be interested in hearing about their results.
>
> Steve

Funny you should ask.

I recently shot a 25/3.5 Luminar against a reversed 25/1.9 Cine Ektar
II at 8:1. The reversed Cine Ektar II is highly recommended in
Kodak's Photomacrography pamphlet, I think its their publication
N-12B.

The test involved shooting a transilluminated Olympus 100 marks/mm
stage micrometer. TMX, flash, Nikon FM2N with plain ground glass
screen, eyepiece magnifier. Both lenses shot wide open, down 1 stop,
down 2 stops. Negatives were examined with a stereo microscope.

Wide open, both lenses cleanly separated the minor tick marks, i.e.,
separated features that were 10 microns apart. In shots taken with
the Luminar, the tick marks' images on the negative were slightly
narrower, i.e., the Luminar is sharper. The Luminar was best wide
open, image quality deteriorated visibly at even one stop down. The
reversed Cine Ektar was best at f/2.8. All things considered, the
25/1.9 Cine Ektar II is by far the better value.

In the pamphlet, Kodak suggests using the 50/4.5 Enlarging Ektar,
mounted normally, as a macro lens. I've tried one and other lenses at
4:1 and 8:1. Most were best wide open. Of the ones that separated
the tick marks, the ranking was:

reversed MF 55/2.8 MicroNikkor (set to infinity, best at f/4) > 45/4.5
CZJ Mikrotar > 50/3.5 Reichert Neupolar > 50/4.5 Enlarging Ektar >
50/4.5 Tominon. I think all of them are quite usable. That the
MicroNikkor did so well was a surprise. On the whole, given current
prices the Enlarging Ektar and Tominon give astounding value for
money.

And I tried some 100 mm lenses too, at 2:1 and 4:1. Results were,
100/6.3 Neupolar > 100/6.3 Luminar = 4"/5.6 Enlarging Pro Raptar
mounted normally. Actually, the Pro Raptar was a tiny bit worse than
the Luminar at 2:1, as good at 4:1. The Luminar used was a good one
borrowed from Charlie Barringer, my own 100/6.3 Luminar is a disaster.

Remember that lenses that were good when they left the factory aren't
always good many years and, perhaps, much abuse later. If you get any
lens, you should get it with the right of return and put it through
acceptance testing as quickly as possible.

Regards,

Dan

Oh, yeah, I've tried a number of other inexpensive enlarging lenses.
None worth bothering with, although, since the mechanics are a pain I
shot all of them mounted normally and this wasn't fair to them


From: "Geoff Bryant" geoffbryant@xtra.co.nz
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Luminar/Photar vs. reversed enlarging lens
Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 

I used to do a lot of this sort of thing, though I could never justify the
cost of a Luminar.

Consequently I can't give you a direct comparison of the type you seek, but
one thing you may not have considered that I found very useful and that gave
super quality results was to use reversed 16mm movie camera lenses. The best
lens I found was an old Taylor Hobson 1 inch, but there are probably much
better lenses available now for next to nothing. With the bellows I had I
could get around 7x magnification from the T-H.

Geoff Bryant


"Steve Gombosi" sog@niwot.scd.ucar.edu wrote 
> I'm curious if anyone has done any tests of the famous, rare,
> hideously expensive, and no-longer-manufactured, high-magnification
> lenses like the Zeiss Luminar or Leitz Photar vs. a really top-quality
> modern enlarging lens (reversed, of course) like the Apo-Rodagon or
> Apo-Componon HM for high-magnification macrophotography (like 5:1
> or 10:1).
>
> If anybody has, I'd be interested in hearing about their results.
>
> Steve


From: Bob Salomon bobsalomon@mindspring.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Luminar/Photar vs. reversed enlarging lens
Date: Wed, 07 May 2003 

danielwfromm@att.com (Dan Fromm) wrote:

> sog@niwot.scd.ucar.edu (Steve Gombosi) wrote 
> > I'm curious if anyone has done any tests of the famous, rare,
> > hideously expensive, and no-longer-manufactured, high-magnification
> > lenses like the Zeiss Luminar or Leitz Photar vs. a really top-quality
> > modern enlarging lens (reversed, of course) like the Apo-Rodagon or
> > Apo-Componon HM for high-magnification macrophotography (like 5:1
> > or 10:1).
> >
> > If anybody has, I'd be interested in hearing about their results.
> >
> > Steve
> Funny you should ask.
>
> I recently shot a 25/3.5 Luminar against a reversed 25/1.9 Cine Ektar
> II at 8:1. The reversed Cine Ektar II is highly recommended in
> Kodak's Photomacrography pamphlet, I think its their publication
> N-12B.
>
> The test involved shooting a transilluminated Olympus 100 marks/mm
> stage micrometer. TMX, flash, Nikon FM2N with plain ground glass
> screen, eyepiece magnifier. Both lenses shot wide open, down 1 stop,
> down 2 stops. Negatives were examined with a stereo microscope.
>
> Wide open, both lenses cleanly separated the minor tick marks, i.e.,
> separated features that were 10 microns apart. In shots taken with
> the Luminar, the tick marks' images on the negative were slightly
> narrower, i.e., the Luminar is sharper. The Luminar was best wide
> open, image quality deteriorated visibly at even one stop down. The
> reversed Cine Ektar was best at f/2.8. All things considered, the
> 25/1.9 Cine Ektar II is by far the better value.
>
> In the pamphlet, Kodak suggests using the 50/4.5 Enlarging Ektar,
> mounted normally, as a macro lens. I've tried one and other lenses at
> 4:1 and 8:1. Most were best wide open. Of the ones that separated
> the tick marks, the ranking was:
>
> reversed MF 55/2.8 MicroNikkor (set to infinity, best at f/4) > 45/4.5
> CZJ Mikrotar > 50/3.5 Reichert Neupolar > 50/4.5 Enlarging Ektar >
> 50/4.5 Tominon. I think all of them are quite usable. That the
> MicroNikkor did so well was a surprise. On the whole, given current
> prices the Enlarging Ektar and Tominon give astounding value for
> money.
>
> And I tried some 100 mm lenses too, at 2:1 and 4:1. Results were,
> 100/6.3 Neupolar > 100/6.3 Luminar = 4"/5.6 Enlarging Pro Raptar
> mounted normally. Actually, the Pro Raptar was a tiny bit worse than
> the Luminar at 2:1, as good at 4:1. The Luminar used was a good one
> borrowed from Charlie Barringer, my own 100/6.3 Luminar is a disaster.
>
> Remember that lenses that were good when they left the factory aren't
> always good many years and, perhaps, much abuse later. If you get any
> lens, you should get it with the right of return and put it through
> acceptance testing as quickly as possible.
>
> Regards,
> Dan
>
> Oh, yeah, I've tried a number of other inexpensive enlarging lenses.
> None worth bothering with, although, since the mechanics are a pain I
> shot all of them mounted normally and this wasn't fair to them.

Why not try a modern, high performance enlarging lens reversed as the
poster asked?
--
HP Marketing Corp.


From: Stacey fotocord@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Lenses - yesterday, today and tomorrow
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 

> Bob Monaghan wrote:
>> . . . .
>> the tominon suggestion is a good one; I've got the copal shutter and
>> 105mm (?) lens with it from such a polaroid closeup kit, but didn't get
>> the other lenses, sad to say. So these are probably a good option too.
>
> Hey Bob, any other views about older Polaroid gear? I keep seeing short
> references to some of the older lenses, including some of the three
> element glass designs of the early pack film and roll film cameras. Care
> to comment about the defocus highlights of any, perhaps even the roll film
> types?

I've had good luck with the rodenstock ysarons. I have the 105 and the 75mm
and both work great for close up work. I used the 105 as my 6X9 enlarging
lens for years and when I "upgraded" to a real enlarging lens, couldn't
tell much if any difference.
--
Stacey


From: robmurr@aol.com (ROBMURR)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 28 Jun 2003 
Subject: Re: Closeups on a Budget

Cheapest way is to use either the Nikon 5T or 6T with a step up
ring to 62mm...they are very nice and cheaper than canons.
Optimized for lenses over 100mm and 2 elements.
They are about $45.

Next is to buy canons 500d at twice the price.

Next is to buy a canon macro lens. 


From: "Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@worldonline.nl
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Pentax 67: Bellows Vs Extension Tube
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 


rgans wrote:

> Is there a way I can compute the magnification of each?

Yes. It's easy.

Magnification = extension / focal length of lens used

It gets a little more complicated when deciding how much "extension"
actually is involved. ;-)
"extension" obviously can be the fixed length of the tube, or the length of
the bellows you happen to have set.
But it must also include the length of the extension provided by the lens
itself.
Unless the lens is set to infinity focus (= 0.00 mm lens extension), it will
a show an appreciable amount of extension. In unit-focussing lenses (which i
believe most Pentax 67 lenses are. But i could be wrong) you can measure the
total length of the lens when set to infinity, and the same when set to its
close focussing limit. The difference is the total amount of extension the
lens itself can provide. You can guesstimate in between amounts when using
the lens set in between infinity and close-focus limit.

"Magnification" is the size of the object on film, compared to the object's
"real life" size.

And while we're talking calculations, the "normal" formulae for exposure
compensation are:

Aperture factor = 1 / (magnification + 1)

Shutterspeed factor = (magnification + 1)^2

Light loss in stops = log(shutterspeed factor) / log(2)

Light loss is a bit different with asymmetrical lenses than the above
formulae would suggest, but they do provide a good approximation.



From: "Al Denelsbeck" news@wadingin.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Closeups on a Budget
Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2003


Olaf Ulrich olaf.ulrich@onlinehome.de wrote 
> Al Denelsbeck wrote:
> > Now, we seem to be making some headway.
> > Close-up diopters work better if
> > a) you use them in extremely limited ways ...
>
> 'Extremly limited' is an exaggeration. Leave out the 'extremely'.

Using them at or near infinity, leaving you with adjusting focus by
moving the entire camera in tiny increments, is what I call 'extremely'.


> Al further wrote:
> > b) you use them only on lenses they're
> > optimized for ...
>
> No. Just avoid using them on lenses that are completely inapt
> for use with close-up lenses on a certain strength.

Ahem. On 'normal' lenses, which means no zooms and no lenses that have
actually been optimized for work at less than infinity. You yourself
admitted this changes the performance.


> Al further wrote:
> > c) you use them while focused at infinity.
>
> This is not a must.

It is to get the results you're referring to, isn't it? I thought that
was what we were discussing. I'm not sitting here picking on you, I'm
pointing out that you made a huge statement based on following specific
criteria in specific situations, without bothering to qualify any of it.


> Al further wrote:
> > But here's the problem. This is a far cry
> > from your original statements.
>
> Not really. You just want to include every thinkable (but
> possibly inadequate) use of close-up tools into this discus-
> sion. Naturally, every tool has its limitations. I was think-
> ing of reasonable use of close-up lenses and extension
> tubes only.

Well, that brings us back to definitions, doesn't it? 'Reasonable use',
to me, means getting the pic you're after, not letting the equipment dictate
how you go about your photography. More below.


> Al further wrote:
> > It fails to reflect the most commmon uses
> > of either diopters or extension tubes. And
> > it greatly limits the ability to obtain the
> > magnification and working distance that you
> > want.
>
> With any given lens, both extension tubes and diopter lenses
> yield limited ranges of magnification and working distances.

No argument. And with any given lens, in any given situation, one may
work better than the other. I am of the opinion (and I doubt I am alone)
that the limitations on diopters are far greater.


> Al, you asked me to specify my statements, and I did. Now
> I am asking the same from you:
>
>
> Al wrote in an earlier article:
> > I've done tests of my own [...] The diopters,
> > meniscus-type single-element, weren't bad
> > at all, but noticeably less sharp that the exten-
> > sion tubes with each lens tested.
>
> Which diopters did you use, how long are your extension
> tubes, and which were the lenses tested?

From memory, since this was a few years ago: A set of three meniscus
single element diopters, your standard +1 +2 +4 set. Not even sure of the
manufacturer, since they're stuffed away in another camera bag right now,
but I think Vivitar. A set of three THK extension tubes, in 12, 20, and 36mm
lengths. These were with my Canon rig. Even more previous to that, a 20 or
25mm tube, and same strengths of diopters, on my piece-of-shit Olympus rig,
with the not-so-piece-of-shit Zuiko glass. The goal, both times, was to
produce the same approximate magnification so that comparisons would be
reasonably matched.

Diopters weren't so bad with the Zuiko primes - produced more than
adequate results with a 50mm 1.2, 35mm 2.8 and 28mm 2.8. Both of the latter
just about worthless because of the apparent size reduction of the subject,
requiring ridiculously close working distances (and naturally some wicked
field curvature with the 28). The 28 fared worse of all with the diopters -
the corner fuzziness became very pronounced. Didn't mean anything, I wasn't
about to use them. With the 50, the tube fared just a bit better - the
diopter produced a light haze over everything, probably from skylight off
the front surface. No I was not in direct light, I was working with my back
to the sun to keep the subject lit, but aimed upwards slightly, which is why
I suspect the sky. And yes, they were clean.

Later on, with the Canon rig, they were tested on a borrowed 50mm 1.8,
and my own 75-300 zoom, 28-105 zoom, and 105mm macro, which we'll leave off
since you've already pointed out this isn't the type of lens you're talking
about. Then again, neither are the zooms, but then again, a few people
actually own them and use them.

The 50 (Canon1.8, don't ask me which model, it was a test to see if I
wanted a 50mm to carry around): About indistinguishable, when matching
magnification. Of course, additional extension left the diopters behind...
as long as I could get light on the subject. The working distance didn't
impress me. Neither did a 50mm perspective, but that's another story.

The 28-105 (Sigma 2.8-4): This is one of the lenses that is clearly
*not* optimized for infinity focus, something I'm not wild about since I'd
like it for the wide end. However, it handles surprisingly well with
extension, and barely adequate with the diopters. If I recall, I attempted
only one focal length, at 105, since the diopters were small and would have
vignetted seriously. I had no particular intention of using it for macro
work, since the 75-300 could kick better mag at 1:4 unassisted. However, in
some recent applications I was reminded that the short focal length had its
uses in some circumstances, and the resulting closeup was far sharper than
anticipated. Not that a web display will tell you anything, but one of the
frames I'm talking about is at http://wading-in.net/Jellyfish2.html. Taken
with what is widely regarded as a piece-of-shit lens with those terrible
extension tubes that produce so horribly with zooms, I'm quite happy with
it.

The 75-300 (Canon 4-5.6 USM II): Did a few focal lengths, just don't ask
me which ones because my memory isn't that good, but safe to say that *near*
75 and 300 were in there (some variation is possible, since I was after
matching magnifications). What length extension to what strength diopters? I
have no idea. At shorter focal lengths, the difference was minor - some
slight corner fuzziness with the diopters, not enough to concern anyone but
a stamp collector ;-). At the longer focal lengths, the diopters dropped off
considerably, and sharpness throughout the frame could not be made to match
the extension tubes.

No, at no point was I using infinity focus, for good reason. I was in
the field, had no macro slider platform, and no intention of getting one.
Nor had I even heard about using diopters at infinity. Put it down to my
ignorance if you like, but the ignorance also goes through the three books
on macro work behind me and the packing materials of the diopters
themselves. Further, the tests were intended to be in conditions I was most
likely to encounter, and subjects I was usually after. Focus was of
paramount importance, and was done manually - another reason that I wouldn't
consider infinity focus. For closeup work I usually spend a lot of time
trying to be meticulous with focus, perhaps because the focus screen in the
Elan IIe isn't what I'd like it to be. It's a damn sight easier to twist the
focus ring ;-).

Results were viewed at 10x magnification (Fuji Provia 100, pre 'F') very
carefully. I'd be more than happy to carry the much smaller set of diopters
and leave a bit more room in the bag. But the tests didn't bear out, and
they now ride around in the bag with my POS Olympus system, which is small
enough to take with me on bike rides. Last set of shots with them, on the
same 50mm 1.2, were okay but not 'sharp', but were handheld, so
inconclusive.

Should I have been using them differently? Perhaps. But I probably also
wouldn't have cared. Again, I was after the best results from the conditions
I would be in, not theoretical lab work. Struggling to maintain a lens at a
fixed focus point and thus move the camera to bring focus is idiotic when
you're after reptiles and insects. You often take what you're given, and
make it work in whatever manner you can.


> Al wrote in an earlier article:
> > Worst was the 75-300 zoom at 300 mm, not
> > surprising naturally, but the extension tubes
> > still beat out the diopters.
>
> Still? The longer the lens, the better a given extension tube
> will perform, and the worse a given diopter lens will do. The
> reason for this is simple---the relative strength (i. e. the
> achieved magnification) of a given diopter lens increases,
> the relative strength of a given extension tube decreases with
> the focal length of the base lens. And the higher the magni-
> fication, the more problems with poor performance. So I
> assume you've compared apples to oranges here ... the apple
> being large magnification through a diopter lens, the orange
> being small magnification through an extension tube. No
> wonder that the extension tube outperformed the diopter lens.
>
> Or did you really use an extension tube long enough to yield
> the same magnification as the diopter lens? On a 300 mm
> telephoto lens focused to infinity, a +2 dpt close-up lens will
> yield a magnification of approximately 1:1.7 (at a working
> distance of approx. 0.5 m). To achieve the same magnifica-
> tion with extension tubes, you'd need a tube length of 180 mm
> (this is more than the average bellows unit at full extension).
>
> A +1 dpt close-up lens approximately corresponds to 90 mm
> worth of tube length (again on a 300 mm telephoto lens, that is).

Like I said, I went for the same magnification with both - there was no
point in performing a test otherwise. What was used against what, I don't
recall, but I do know I've used all three tubes stacked at times. The entire
point was to do an 'apples to apples' test.

Nowadays, macro work is done with the 105 macro lens, occasionally with
the extension tubes or a 2x teleconverter, both of which work just ducky. I
rarely use the tubes with the zooms anymore, but since I've published photos
with them, I can't say that the negative effect they had (which I have yet
to see with any of my lenses, including the Sigma 170-500 zoom) was what I
could call 'prohibitive'.

Fair enough?

- Al.


From: "David Ruether" rpn1spam-dunk@cornell.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Closeups on a Budget
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 

"Al Denelsbeck" news@wadingin.net wrote 
> Olaf Ulrich olaf.ulrich@onlinehome.de wrote 
> > Okay. Asymmetric lenses (and virtually all SLR lenses
> > are asymmetrical) are optimized for some particular
> > magnification, or image-to-subject ratio, or distance.
> > In non-macro lenses, this distance usually is infinity
> > or near-infinity. At any other distance, the lens' per-
> > formance will decrease---the greater the difference
> > to the optimal distance, the greater the loss.

[...]

This is quite correct. I have checked many a lens (see
www.ferrario.com/ruether/slemn.html for some...), and
most lenses show considerable sharpness variation with
focus distance even within their "normal" focus ranges - and
zooms often do not perform very well near their close-focus
limit (and tubes degrade this performance considerably more
by pushing the lens well out of its design range). With zooms,
achromats generally give sharper results than tubes do...




From: James Meckley jmeckley@pegasus.cc.ucf.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Regarding lens reversal
Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2003 

Xosni wrote:
> Don Stauffer stauffer@usfamily.net wrote 
> > An enlarger lens often makes a successful macro lens, since they are
> > designed for similar conjugate distances to a macro lens.
>
> I thought they are designed to give optimum results with magnification
> ratio around 4:1. That means using it in its normal position (back
> facing film) would perform best at circa 1:4, while reversing it would
> give best results around 4:1 circa.


Most 50mm enlarging lenses are optimized for 10x enlargement. In the
Schneider Componon-S line for example, lenses 80mm and below are
optimized for 10x and lenses 100mm and above are optimized for 4-6x.

James Meckley



From: Paul van Walree info@vanwalree.com
Newsgroups: sci.optics,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Regarding lens reversal
Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 

The Robert Feinman robertdfeinman@netscape.net wrote:
>Generally normal focal length lenses work the best reversed. There are less
>optical compromises than in wide angle and tele designs.

Excellent results can also be obtained with reversed short-focus lenses
of the retrofocus type. The magnification is high and the working
distance feasible. Distortion flips sign (barrel becomes pincushion
and vice versa) but that would only be of concern with reproductions.

>The focal length and the f stops are the same as in the regular position, but
>since you are using it closer than infinity you need to compensate for the lens
>extension. For example 2 stops at 1:1.

That is only true for symmetrical designs. The F-numbers after reversal
depend on the lens design, as does the exposure compensation. Even in
normal mode a 2-stop compensation at 1:1 is often an oversimplification.
A retrofocus lens requires less than 2 stops, a telephoto lens more. In
reversed mode, it's the other way around.


From manual nikon mailing list:
Date: Sat, 09 Aug 2003 
From: "kds315" kds315@yahoo.com
Subject: Micro Macro Lens Database

This is the first version of my Micro macro Lens Database;
will be extended, reworked and grouped in august/september.

Have a look and comment please:

http://home.t-online.de/home/Klaus_D_Schmitt/Lens.html

Regards

Klaus D Schmitt


From: "David Ruether" rpn1@no-junk.cornell.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: teleconverters for Nikon
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 


"patton paul" ppatton@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu wrote
> I have a Nikon N90s camera and do lots of photos of insects and other
> small animals, lately mostly butterflies and dragonflies. I have a Nikon
> AF 70-300mm zoom lens and a Nikon 28-105 mm zoom. I mostly use the
> 70-300mm lens for close ups, in combination with Kenko 36, 20, or 12 mm
> extension tubes, or Nikon 5T or 6T closeup lenses. I'm thinking of adding
> a teleconverter to my collection of accessories, since this would allow me
> to be at a greater distance from the butterfly, but still have it fill the
> frame. I have two decisions to make. First, I need to decide whether to
> get a 1.4x or 2x teleconverter, and I need to decide what brand to buy.
> Unfortunately, Nikon doesn't seem to make an autofocus teleconverter that
> is compatible with my camera. I'm seriously considering Tamron
> teleconverters, which are available at a local photography shop with the
> 1.4x for $139.00 and the 2x for $179.00. Does anyone have an opinion on
> the quality of Tamron lenses, or have any suggestions about what other
> brands I should consider? With the 1.4x converter I would lose one stop
> worth of light, and with the 2x converter two stops. Loss of light may be
> an important consideration for closeup photography, because I usually use
> f16
> or greater to maximize depth of field. If I use film with ISO greater
> than 200 to compensate for loss of light, will I have problems with
> graininess in enlargements to 8x10 or larger (I use slide film and have a
> Polaroid SprintScan 4000 slide scanner. With my Epson 1270 printer I can
> print digital enlargements up to 13x17, and so would be concerned about
> preserving image quality up to this size, although I more frequently print
> 8x10s). Comments on this issue of 1.4x vs. 2x and the consequences of
> light loss would be highly welcome, especially from people who have tried
> butterfly photography with similar lens combinations. Thanks.

If the magnification is very high, AF does not work very well (what is in
focus is selective due to DOF issues, and unless you like the sharp part
always near the center, AF will not do...
For me, converters are VERY useful for macro work, but only
because I use TTL flash (one placed at the end of the lens, pointed
at the subject, and placed close to the subject provides high effective
shutter speeed, the gives the ability to use very small effective stops,
permits using the better slow films, and provides surprisingly soft
and natural-looking lighting). See www.ferrario.com/ruether/phun.html,
"Bugs" (the higher-magnification images are flash). Tubes often
provide poor optical results with zooms unless small stops are used,
as do 2X converters and simple close-up lenses - but at small stops
I may combine tubes, achromats, and tele-converters for high-magnification
images that are also sharp. (This does not directly answer your questions,
but may give you the info needed...;-) BTW, I do not use the
N90/N70 due to their relatively soft-looking viewing screens - the
F3/N8008/F100 viewfinders are noticeably sharper and easier
to use for MF...
--
David Ruether
rpn1@cornell.edu
http://www.ferrario.com/ruether



From: Jim Townsend xjwt@mts.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: magnifying glasses for 50mm - question
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 

dan wrote:

> I'm thinking of buying a magnifying glass for my Nikkor AF 50mm/1.8D for
> taking pictures of flowers, butterflies and so on. Could anyone please
> advise me on the subject ? How strong magnifying glass do i need to do that
> sort of thing ? Has anyone had any experience with this paricular lens ?

You're looking for a close-up-lens, or diopter as it's sometimes called..

Read all about it here:

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/nikonf2/macro/index3a.htm

Another inexpensive option for macro work is the extension tube:

http://www.shutterfreaks.com/Tips/ExtensionTube.htm



From: "Alan Browne" "Alan Browne"@videotron.canospam
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Making a ringflash
Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2003 

Martin Francis wrote:
> I've been thinking lately of making my own ringflash using a set of four or
> five cheapo flashguns mounted on a homemade circular bracket and some kind
> of diffusing material. I was looking for some tips- how best to diffuse the
> flash, how to link the guns etc. The guns I looked at (Jessop 150M, GN 15m)
> have PC sockets- is it possible to link five units to one PC terminal
> safely? Or to link them in series? Unfortunately Jessops no longer show the
> version with integrated slave on their website.
>
> Anything else I should have thought of?
> --
> Martin
> Staring at C:\ prompts since 1993


Difusers:
Cheap white cotton sheets;
White plastic film (thin)
White translucent coffee can tops (may have color in them, test). A
large one could be part of your bracket with a hole in the middle for
the lens...?


PC Sync link up : no. The flash PC sync supplies a voltage and the
camera shorts it to trigger the flash. Putting them in parallel won't
work (maybe with the use of diodes, but I wouldn't risk it). The
voltages on some flash units on this circuit can be very high
as well, depending on the model. (eg, some Vivitars go 250V and more on
older models).

You coud PC sync one flash and use slave triggers for the other 1 2 or 3
lights. Will simplify your wiring as well.


If you have access to "Chasseurs D'image" there is a novel home-brew
close up flash device featured in Oct 2003 (No. 257). It is not a ring
but a large flat panel (about 7" x 7") that you put above the sibject
and drive with a macro flash controller. Renders very soft light...

Cheers,
Alan.


From: hickster0711@aol.com (Hickster0711)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 09 Oct 2003 
Subject: Re: Making a ringflash

Never did this; but what I would do is, put 3 flashes thru a gang plug and plug
the gang plug into a slave. Then put only one lite into the camera socket. This
way you could move each lite around independently and not stress the camera
circuit. For diffusion, I use 3' x 3' flourescent diffusers. "ice" works
nicely. It costs about $2 and it's easy to cut. Loses about 1 1/2 - 2 stops,
but it's a better effect. Bob Hickey


From: rmonagha@engr.smu.edu (Bob Monaghan)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: closeup photography: what possibilities in med format?
Date: 11 Feb 2004 

you didn't specify the range of macro and closeup magnifications you need:

see http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/macro.html table at top highlights range of
magnification vs. type(s) of macro setups recommended (per Muir et al.)
in some cases, diopters will provide the coverage, in other cases, tubes
or bellows are needed, then more specialized setups in higher
magnifications...

in the $350-ish budget range, not many SLRs outside the Kiev60 ;-)

grins bobm

PS see mf/diopter.html on diopter lens options; these are excellent for
nature subjects where the center is critical subject area, not the corners
and yield higher resolution than many macro lenses which are optimized for
a flatter field response; Derek Fell in How to Photograph Flowers, Plants,
and Landscape (HP books) is one of the world's best selling flower/plant
photographers, and he uses a MF SLR with closeup lenses over more pricey
MF kits due to higher central resolution, something I didn't appreciate
until I saw tests at http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/diopter.html#beat This high
performance with 2 element closeup lenses is esp. impressive when you
compare it to actual macro lens performance at macro distances, which drop
significantly (as in 40-50%) over infinity, despite the general view that
these macro lenses are optimized for macro work (see charts on macro vs
magnification at http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/macro.html ).

PPS what's the best low cost MF SLR macro kit? IMHO it is the later
classic bronica S2A/ECTL series, which had a nifty tilt/shift bellows
($200+) which is great for placing available DOF where you need it, also
modest cost auto extension tubes ($50+), nikkor optics ($50-75+ normal
lens..)..

The older classic bronicas were unique in having removable helical lens
mounts, so the tilt/shift bellows could focus to infinity, making all the
lenses macro to infinity optics ;-) Other tilt/shift bellows in MF don't
preserve infinity focus AFAIK, and most MF bellows don't have tilt/shifts

Since it is a focal plane SLR, it is easy to convert lots of lenses to
work with the system in macro mode too ;-) I use a body cap drilled out to
mount a rear lens cap for nikkor 35mm lenses
(http://medfmt.8k.com/bronhb.html and
medfmt.8k.com/jpegs/bronbroc/bronnikon2.jpg for homebrew examples). The
57mm diameter by 1mm pitch threaded lens mount inside the bronica lens
mount makes it easy to create your own lens mounts too ;-) The ECTL even
has auto-exposure modes, or you can use metering prisms on S2A/EC series.



From: Stacey fotocord@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: closeup photography: what possibilities in med format?
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 


 
Bandicoot wrote:
> "Stacey" fotocord@yahoo.com wrote
>>
>> They might even be surprised as how well the 80mm arsat works reversed on a
>> bellows/ext tube. It's a sharp lens that works very well for close up
>> work but a macro/enlarging lens would be better.
>
> The Rodenstock and Tominon macro lenses for the Polariod copy cameras are
> fairly plentiful and make good macro lenses used like this. You can also
> get them for not much more money with a leaf shutter, if you want the
> lower vibration this offers.

Like this? :-)

http://miss_stephe.tripod.com/ysaron.html
--
Stacey	 


From: "Bob Knowlden" nkbob@comcast.net
Newsgroups: sci.optics
Subject: Re: Focal length of microscope objectives
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 

A lot of modern microscope objectives have an infinite back conjugate, to be
used with a "tube lens" to form the image.

I used some Nikon objectives a few years ago that used 200 mm focal length
tube lenses. So, a 50X objective would have a 4 mm focal length, a 100 mm
objective a 2 mm FL, etc. Other manufacturers may use other tube lens focal
lengths; I believe that Olympus uses 180 mm.

Also, make sure to get an objective corrected for zero cover slip thickness
(which is no cover slip at all), unless you wish to get some residual
spherical aberration (if you aren't using a cover slip).

You may want a compound objective if you really need NA 0.9. There are some
fairly fast molded aspheric lenses available, like the Geltech lenses
available from www.thorlabs.com, but the fastest one that they claim is NA
0.68. If you can use a low enough NA to use an aspheric singlet, It'll be a
lot cheaper than a microscope objective.

Address altered to avoid spam. Replace nkbob with bobkn.

"Alessandro Del Bianco" nope@nope wrote
> Dear all,
>
> I have to focus a laser beam into a small spot. In first approximation
> (neglecting all aberrations, etc.) the spot diameter should be focal
> length times the beam divergence.
>
> Does anybody know some "typical" values of the focal length of
> microscope objectives 30X, 50X, 100X? The numerical aperture should be
> large (0.75-0.90)
>
> Cheers,
> Alessandro


From: Andrew Resnick andy.resnick@NOSPAM.grc.nasaDOTgov
Newsgroups: sci.optics
Subject: Re: Focal length of microscope objectives
Date: 12 Feb 2004 

Abe wrote:
> Thanks, that helps. I'll take a look at the theory and determine the
> correct FWHM diameter.
>
> With respect to the alignment of the optics, I am confident that the
> full beam was centered on the lens. I am not confident that the laser
> was giving a perfect mode though: after going through the lens, the
> image at approximately 5 cm from the focus was distorted, with a
> couple of maxima and minima. Is this caused by the lens, or by the
> laser?


If you had spatially filtered the HeNe, I would guess the aberrated beam
spot was from an angular misalignment between the optical axis of the
beam and the microscope objective.

Another poster had a good insight I forgot about- a coverslip is
designed into the microscope objective (so to speak). Without a
coverslip, your focused beam will display spherical aberration.

--
Andrew Resnick, Ph. D.
National Center for Microgravity Research
NASA Glenn Research Center


From: danielwfromm@att.com (Dan Fromm)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: closeup photography: what possibilities in med format?
Date: 11 Feb 2004 

jcpere@aol.com (JCPERE) wrote 
> >bilities in med format?
> >From: "curious dude" dontspamme@whatever.com
> 
> >Hi all,
> >I want to know what choices one has for closeup and macro photography in
> >medium format?
> >
> >Two criteria:
> >1) Cost. I cannot afford more than $300-350 for used camera + lens.
> >2) Flexibility and reliability. i would like to grow the system a bit over a
> >period of time.
> >3) Tote-ability. It shouldnt weight me down completely.
> >
> >I currently own a Mamiya C330 with 80, and with a paramender, i do get
> >decent shots, but its slow, cumbersome work with this tank of a camera. I
> >like the square format and the waistlevel finder, but am very open to 645.
> >
> >Any other options? Considering my budget constraints, i doubt if anything
> >beats my C330. Pentax 645 is very tempting, but lens seem pricey?,......The
> >Mamiya 645 is nice modular, but again.....
> >Many thanks in advance,
> >Sri
> >
> If you can handle the view camera mentality a 2x3 Graphic camera works great.
> Use any type of closeup lens. Cheap. But camera is sort of large. Lenses are
> much smaller then most other medium format cameras.
> Chuck

Close, but no cigar.

2x3 Graphic with Graflok back. The best (= least expensive) will be a
Century Graphic with NO range finder and NO lens.

Depending on magnification desired, 50/4.5, 75/4.5, or 105/4.5 Tominon
as fitted to Polaroid MP-4. These lenses screw into a #1 shutter,
have their own diaphragms. These lenses aren't up to the best macro
lenses, but they'll do.

If you want to work in the range 1:10 to 1:1 and aren't much
interested in going above 1:1, any decent six element roughly 100 mm
enlarging lens will do, but putting one in front of a #1 shutter
requires an adapter. Ask skgrimes.com about one. Given your budget,
a 105 Tominon is probably a better bet.

Copal #1 Press shutter as used on, yes, Polaroid MP-4.

Roll holder. If all you want to shoot is b/w and the emulsions
available in 2x3 from, say, jandcphoto.com will do you, a couple of
sheet film holders instead.

With care, you can get all this for less than $350.

I do basically this but with better lenses than Tominons. But the
Tominons will do, and below 1:1 its hard to tell the difference
between good and better lenses.

Cheers,

Dan


From: Stacey fotocord@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: closeup photography: what possibilities in med format?
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 

jjs wrote:
>  Stacey fotocord@yahoo.com wrote:
>> http://www.geocities.com/kievgurl/hack.html
>>
>> Shots of the P-6 bellows (about $100) on a K-60 with a hacked 35mm macro
>> lens installed. An enlarging lens would work well too. With a focal plane
>> shutter you can use about anything on it.
>
> Now _that's_ what usenet is all about. Resourceful, inventive ideas
> shared. I was close to telling the poster that with his budget he was out
> of luck. I love to be wrong in that way. :) Thanks, Stacey.


You're welcome.

On mounting an enlarging lens, get a reversing ring (the kiev ones are 62mm
male threads) and a metal 62mm filter stack cap. Make a hole in the stack
cap for the enlarging lens and then screw the combo onto a reverse ring.
For their budget, an ARAX K-60, a pentacon bellows and an 80mm f5.6
enlarging lens should give them good results and even have TTL metering!

They might even be surprised as how well the 80mm arsat works reversed on a
bellows/ext tube. It's a sharp lens that works very well for close up work
but a macro/enlarging lens would be better.
--

Stacey



From: cambridge_room@hotmail.com (Abe)
Newsgroups: sci.optics
Subject: Re: Focal length of microscope objectives
Date: 11 Feb 2004 

I did a similar measurement last week. I used a M plan apo 20
objective (Mitutoyo) with a focal lenght of 10 mm. The HeNe that I
used had a beam width of 5 mm, so from theory I expected to find a
diffraction limited spot of 3.1 micron (FWHM), using Dspot =
2.44*lamda*fnumber = 2.44 * 633*10^-9 * 10^-2 / (5 * 10^-3). I
measured a spot size of 4.0 micron (FWHM). What could be the reason
for the difference in measured and calculated value?

Cheers,

Abe

Alessandro Del Bianco nope@nope wrote
> Dear all,
>
> I have to focus a laser beam into a small spot. In first approximation
> (neglecting all aberrations, etc.) the spot diameter should be focal
> length times the beam divergence.
>
> Does anybody know some "typical" values of the focal length of
> microscope objectives 30X, 50X, 100X? The numerical aperture should be
> large (0.75-0.90)
>
> Cheers,
> Alessandro


From: Andrew Resnick andy.resnick@NOSPAM.grc.nasaDOTgov
Newsgroups: sci.optics
Subject: Re: Focal length of microscope objectives
Date: 11 Feb 2004 

...
> Does anybody know some "typical" values of the focal length of
> microscope objectives 30X, 50X, 100X? The numerical aperture should be
> large (0.75-0.90)
>

http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/anatomy/tubelength.html

The formula for the front focal length of a microscope objective is the
'tube length' divided by the magnification, and is valid, by convention,
even for infinity-corrected objectives, as another poster has pointed
out. The 'default' tube length is 160 mm, but I do not know of any
current microscope manufacturer who uses that. To the best of my
knowledge, the current 'standards' are:

Leica 200 mm
Nikon 200 mm
Olympus 180 mm
Zeiss 165 mm

I don't know what Mitutoyo or the generic ones purchased with spatial
filtes use, I would just ask what the back focal length is.

A word of caution, tho- as another poster pointed out, many microscope
objectives are not infinity corrected, and thus require a precisely
diverging beam entering the backside to "meet spec".
--
Andrew Resnick, Ph. D.
National Center for Microgravity Research
NASA Glenn Research Center



From: "Klaus D Schmitt" kds315@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: sci.optics
Subject: www.macrolenses.de
Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2003 

For all optics afficionados: My special macrolens site is up and running:

www.macrolenses.de

Any contibutions/comments/etc. welcome!

My best

Dr Klaus Schmitt


From bronica mailing list:
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 
From: lawrence reiss lawrencereiss@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: doubler


The use of a good quality, coated, low diopter close up lens generally yields really excellent results. 
For 3 dimensional objects in some cases, the results can equal or exceed the those of a macro lens. 
Macro lenses are optimized for flat field reproduction, and a closeup lens combo is usually not able 
to deliver a really flat field. But in the "real" world, the results with low diopter lenses will surprise you. 
You don't lose any f-stops the way you would with a tube or doubler. You have a shorter, lighter, easier
 to control system with less vibration problems, and focussing is brighter. Because the lens doesn't get
 racked out as far, especially as compared with a lens on a tube, there is less internal flare. Use a long 
hood whenever you can, but especially in macro work. In macro, the hood should generally be longer 
because more of the lens image circle is not used and can be cut off by the hood without vignetting. The 
major downside of using a closeup lens for me is that one has to remove or change the diopter to get to 
different focus ranges. In so, in this regard it is more versatile, cheaper, etc then the other alternatives. 


Incidently, I also use the 180ps for the sqa, which I believe is the same lens for the etr series. It is very 
close focusing, (1:4) and quite excellent. The sqa 110 ps macro (old version) that I have is also very good, 
but I don't think that particular lens was also made with an etrs mount.


Larry



From: Q.G. de Bakker [qnu@tiscali.nl] 
Sent: Sun 3/14/2004 
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net 
Subject: Re: [HUG] flowers

Bob Adler wrote:
> One thing I am going to try, and that others may be
> able to lend their experiences to, is a flexbody.
> Theoretically, by tilting the back (film plane) you
> can increase the depth of field.
> [...] However,
> based on my few experiences, the plane that the depth
> of field is increased, with close-up photography using
> film tilt, is very narrow. Therefore, aperture must be
> used in conjunction with film plane tilt.

The thing is, by tilting the lens and/or film plane you don't increase the
depth of field, but merely change the position of the plane of focus, and
with it the position of the narrow band of depth of field.

By tilting the planes, magnification in the in-focus plane will indeed vary
across the image, and with it so does depth of field (a bit more in one
part, a bit less in the opposite part). But only a tiny bit.

So while tilting and moving the plane of focus can be very useful when
dealing with the typical tiny amounts of depth of field you get in
macrophotography, do not expect it to solve this too-little-dof problem. The
only thing that will increase depth of field appreciably is stopping down.


From: "Klaus D Schmitt" kds315@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: sci.optics
Subject: New forum on macrolenses online
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 

Have a look here:

http://www.macrolenses.de/forum/index.php?lang

Regards

Dr K D Schmitt


From: "SKR" kramersteven1@hotmail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature
Subject: link for close-up photography or macro photography
Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2004 

Here, you can find a list of site of close-up photography.

in english
http://www.macrophotographie.be/lien_macrophotographie.htm

In french
http://www.macrophotographie.be/favorite.htm

if you find a good site in this subject you can send the link.

If hope that you help you to known this technical.


SKR
(Belgium)
Sorry for my english)



[Ed. note: thanks to Stacey for these ideas on low cost Kiev tube & MF bellows conversions...l]
From: Stacey fotocord@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Mounting 80mm Enlarger Lens over Pentax 6x7 - Any Ideas How?
Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 

jjs wrote:
> Stacey fotocord@yahoo.com wrote:
>> Helical ext tube
> [...]
>> and a set of tubes
> [...]
>> get a "reverse ring" that will fit into the end of the tubes
> [...]
>> Drill the cap
> [...]
>
> That's one spendy toilet paper tube.

Guess I'm used to kiev prices. A used P-6 bellows, reverse ring and cap was
less than $75 and little easier to use/focus than a toilet paper tube! :-)
Maybe you missed where I said he could hack something up if they are handy
(and cheap like me)?

That said maybe a P-6 bellows would be a good starting point? Certainly much
cheaper than a pentax 6X7 one and should work. Maybe hack a pentax tube to
the back of it?
--
Stacey


From: Stacey fotocord@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Mounting 80mm Enlarger Lens over Pentax 6x7 - Any Ideas How?
Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 

Nelson Win wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am shooting macro images and have just bought a used Pentax 6x7
> body, no lens. Instead of using Pentax's lens, I'll be placing an
> 80mm El-Nikkor enlarging lens over the P67.

Helical ext tube

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A;=details&Q;=&sku;=41078&is;=REG

and a set of tubes

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A;=details&Q;=&sku;=41075&is;=REG

get a "reverse ring" that will fit into the end of the tubes

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A;=details&Q;=&sku;=41517&is;=REG

, then screw a filter stack cap onto that.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A;=details&Q;=&sku;=101708&is;=REG

Drill the cap for a enlarging lens and you have a nice all metal solution.
The other less elegant way is to put a body cap on the end of the
bellows/tubes and mount the lens to that. Another very handy accessory for
close up/copy work is a bogen micro positioning plate.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A;=details&Q;=&sku;=162665&is;=REG

Of course much of this can be bought used much cheaper, just pointing out
the items avalible. And if you are "handy" you can hack up something using
plastic pipe and glue etc. A reverse ring might be a good starting point
for a project like this to attach it to the camera.

--
Stacey


From: "RSD99" rsdwla.NOSPAM@gte.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: zoom tubes etc. Re: Mounting 80mm Enlarger Lens over Pentax 6x7
Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 

"Bob Monaghan" posted:
"... there are lots of potential macro lenses out there, including low cost 8mm and 16mm
glass lenses used as bellows lenses for a few $,
..."

Excellent point.

In fact I think I remember someone making a test of a good quality standard movie camera
lens versus the highly rated Zeiss Luminar macro lens... that concluded they were roughly
equal in all areas of performance (IIRC).

The Zeiss Luminar was essentially a Tessar pattern lens that was reversed in it's mount,
and used (IIRC) the RMS (Royal Microscope Society) mounting screw thread ... aka "the
Royal Screw" ... as used on most microscope objectives.

Microscope objectives also make excellent macro lenses ... and at least one bellows unit
(the old Canon FD-mount bellows) will mount them directly.

The following is quoted from a page titled
"Medium Format MacroPhotography"
http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/macro.html

= = = = = Begin Quote = = = = =

In fact, you can often convert some of your microscope screw-mounted objectives into
pretty decent macrolenses, especially the wide-field variety. An even cheaper but less
optically refined macrolens may be lying in your junk box, if you have an old 8mm or 16mm
camera.


These older 8 or 16mm movie cameras used glass lenses of good quality which can be
recycled for use as bellows lenses. Many of these lenses can be bought for only a few
dollars, as there is very little demand. The fixed lenses are usually optically superior
to the zoom lenses. These movie-macro lenses can be centered and mounted in a body cap
which matches your bellows lens mount. Mounting the lenses in reverse can also provide
additional magnification. Due to the bellows extension, these lenses can easily cover
35mm, 6x6, and even 4x5 plates with enough extension (e.g., 10X bellows lens on 4x5).
= = = = = End Quote = = = = =

See also
http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/microlen.htm






End of Page