Jump to content
Timmoranuk

INON UCL-165 v UCL-330 comparison - Canon G9

Recommended Posts

In an attempt to objectively compare the two INON closeup lenses I setup a comparison exercise to determine the minimum and maximum focus distances (topside) at three different zoom settings. Measurements were taken from the front of the lens and the Ikelite housing was fitted with the long (standard port).

 

The zoom settings were:

 

a) Wide - as wide as possible without vignetting

B) Med - at the longest macro setting on the G9

c) Max - Max zoom beyond the camera's macro setting

 

UCL-330

 

1. Wide - 1 cm to 26 cm

2. Med - 13.5 cm to 21.5 cm

3. Max - 19 cm to 35 cm

 

UCL-165

 

1. Wide - 1 cm to 15.5 cm

2. Med - 8.5 cm to 10 cm

3. Max - 10 cm to 13 cm

 

I think the UCL-330 will be the glass of choice...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In an attempt to objectively compare the two INON closeup lenses I setup a comparison exercise to determine the minimum and maximum focus distances (topside) at three different zoom settings. Measurements were taken from the front of the lens and the Ikelite housing was fitted with the long (standard port).

 

The zoom settings were:

 

a) Wide - as wide as possible without vignetting

B) Med - at the longest macro setting on the G9

c) Max - Max zoom beyond the camera's macro setting

 

UCL-330

 

1. Wide - 1 cm to 26 cm

2. Med - 13.5 cm to 21.5 cm

3. Max - 19 cm to 35 cm

 

UCL-165

 

1. Wide - 1 cm to 15.5 cm

2. Med - 8.5 cm to 10 cm

3. Max - 10 cm to 13 cm

 

I think the UCL-330 will be the glass of choice...

 

Well, you did prove that the UCL-165 is the stronger diopter, but that is what is advertised. Why, based on these results do you prefer the UCL-330?

 

Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, you did prove that the UCL-165 is the stronger diopter, but that is what is advertised. Why, based on these results do you prefer the UCL-330?

 

Mike

 

Hi Mike,

 

Initally I felt the 330 offered better flexibility, more 'strobe room' and provided a more circumspect distance from shy critters. Since I first wrote I've captured some example images at the mean focusing distances for each lens. Clearly the 165 wins out on power but offers little flexibility. I guess its horses for courses...

 

The first three images are taken with the 165 at 8.5 (wide), 9.5 (med) and 11.5 (max) and the next three are taken with the 330 at 13.5 (wide), 17.5 (med) and 27 (max).

 

Oh and BTW, the grid is 1 cm.

post-13968-1202596508_thumb.jpg

post-13968-1202596565_thumb.jpg

post-13968-1202596586_thumb.jpg

post-13968-1202596604_thumb.jpg

post-13968-1202596622_thumb.jpg

post-13968-1202596652_thumb.jpg

Edited by Timmoranuk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clearly the 165 wins out on power but offers little flexibility.

The 165 offers plenty of flexibility... When you want to focus further away, you take it off! :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The 165 offers plenty of flexibility... When you want to focus further away, you take it off! :(

 

Thanks for helping me see the glaringly obvious Dave! :wacko::)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for helping me see the glaringly obvious Dave! :guiness::guiness:

I can't imagine it would be an issue ... but I'll ask anyway ...

 

Are there any issues with using the macro lenses with the short port on the G9/Ikelite?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sponsors

Advertisements



×
×
  • Create New...