Jump to content
bmyates

Getting more than 1:1 macro from 1:1 lenses

Recommended Posts

Way to go Chris - we'll be interested to see the results from the 200mm. I'm assuming it's the newer AFS model ($$$$)

 

Cheers

James

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For the intense macro up to 10:1 teleconverters are required, In the future I plan to put the 200 mm micro lens to use. I will experiment with the (+) filters when using that lens

 

It's awfully tough for you Nikon users to get higher magnifications...

 

Canon makes a lens that does 1x-5x straight out of the box...

 

~Matt Segal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Way to go Chris - we'll be interested to see the results from the 200mm.  I'm assuming it's the newer AFS model ($$$$)

 

Cheers

James

 

Yes it is the AFS, I got it over 3 years ago and have yet to dive with it. may need a sherpa to carry the rig!

 

Chris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's awfully tough for you Nikon users to get higher magnifications...

 

Canon makes a lens that does 1x-5x straight out of the box...

 

~Matt Segal

 

snake oil I think, Matt san! I notice that this "wonder" lens is not in your line-up;-)

 

All the best

chris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
snake oil I think,  Matt  san!  I notice that this "wonder" lens is not in your line-up;-)

 

I'm but a mere student. :D

 

Snake oil, hardly - it's proven topside. The one caveat about the lens is that it is not internal focusing, that is, the lens extends as you move towards 5:1 (5x lifesize)...this complicates port selection. I'm working on getting my hands on a copy to try and figure out the logistics.

 

~Matt Segal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm but a mere student. :D

 

Snake oil, hardly - it's proven topside. The one caveat about the lens is that it is not internal focusing, that is, the lens extends as you move towards 5:1 (5x lifesize)...this complicates port selection. I'm working on getting my hands on a copy to try and figure out the logistics.

 

~Matt Segal

 

Hi Matt

 

Ok, I was only kidding,

 

I think all true macro lenses do not internally focus. at least all my nikon one don't!

 

due to the VERY narrow field of view a flat port that will accommodate the lens at its maximum extension will work. the drawback would be lighting the subject as the lens shortens at lower reproduction ratios.

 

My Aquatica uses a extension ring system which is great for extreme macro as this allow me to fine tune the port length to whatever lens combination I want to use. I generally try to have the front of the lens as close to the inner port face as possible in order to maximize the working distance.

 

 

James started a topic long ago where I went into detail. the thread deals with using teleconverters but most of it would apply to general super macro shooting.

 

http://wetpixel.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=3318

 

I have a few small galleries on another board with some high reproduction macro images as well as a shot or two the rig I used. the link is below, just scroll down until you see the macro galleries.

 

http://dive.scubadiving.com/members/profil...=3&dir_id=51925

 

all the best

 

chris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few comments.

 

Canon's 100mm usm macro lens is a true internal focussing macro lens which does not physically alter its external dimensions between infinity and 1:1. The Canon 50mm macro lens only reproduces at half lifesize without an extender, whilst Nikon's 60mm goes right to 1:1 (a Canon 60mm FF going to 1:1 is on my wish list - I know Sigma make one but I haven't had good experiences with Sigmas so far).

 

Most manufacturers (used) to produce tables showing magnification of their lenses with both extension tubes and their own diopters fitted - but perhaps more importantly, they also showed the recommended magnifications for each combination - that is where the combinations produced their optimum results. I'm not sure whether they still do but no doubt this information will be somewhere on the web.

 

One point which has not been mentioned is exposure. Exposure increases as magnification increases. For those interested the formula is E = (1+m) x (1+m) where m is the magnification. So at 1:1 E = (1+1) x (1+1) = 2 x 2 = 4, ie 2 stops shift. Practically this simply means using powerful enough flash units! The cameras show this shift in different ways it would appear, and this is why the effective stop shown is not the one set.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Paul

 

learned a little about Canon today.

 

Thanks for the formula. My solution on stuff greater than 8:1 iwas add more narrow beam strobes and fine tune with strobe to subject distance. with film this was an expensive trial and error techneque. Digital as made it a one dive job. also having the ability to adjust ASA is a very welcome feature

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting lens. Thanks for posting Matt. Fill a 35mm frame with a grain of rice....hmmm.

 

Has anyone actually used this one underwater? The internal focusing is a non-issue for underwater use. All lenses are "internally focusing" once you add the port--sized to the maximum extension.

 

I have my doubts though if this would be a practical way to get beyond 1:1 underwater. AS I read it, this is basically a 60mm with a very close focus. So the problems of getting beyond 1:1 with the 60mm are the same here (think 60mm with a huge diopter). The minimum focus distance is 0.78"(5x) to 1.02"(1x). By the time you add in the port I can't imagine getting closer than 1" from the subject and lighting it is another matter. So perhaps its better just to use the 105mm/100m and get 1:1 at 12" which is a reasonable distance to light the subject and not spook it. I think if you are planning to go beyond 1:1 in a practical sense you need to start with a long focal length (via teleconverters or long lenses) then bring in the close focus with a diopter. Perhaps this is why I haven't heard of anyone here using this lens?

 

Opinions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, that's correct. Eric and I have both looked at this lens and rejected it because it has no working distance. It's made for scientists photographing static subjects, not nature photographers.

 

But it sure is cool.

 

Cheers

James

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The extension tubes will allows closer focusing resulting in higher magnification, this without loss of opticall quality ...

 

Extension tubes can be seen as a slide projector put further away from the wall/screen. The image circle becomes bigger but darker. You loose light with extension tubes because just a part of the bigger image circled is captured. Further more, every little error in image quality is magnified too. Extension tubes are often considered to have no influence on light and image quality because there is no optical element inside. But extension tubes strongly intervene into the optical system resulting in light loss and image quality degradation. I’ve experienced that image quality becomes more critical with internal focusing lenses and zoom lenses.

 

Teleconverters increase magnification but different to extension tubes you still can shoot at infinity. OK, different thing, but if you don't want to shorten working distance a teleconverter might be more interesting.

 

Here is a nice comparison between different Teleconverters. Kenko 1,5x looks really good:

http://www.traumflieger.de/objektivtest/te...erter_check.php

 

The site is in German but the pictures say a lot.

 

Julian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think decent image quality far beyond 1:1 can be obtained by turning around the lens. But difficult to house and working distance is around camera’s flange focal lens. This would require a macro ring strobe and lots of port / gear modification.

 

The second image (uncropped) is around 6mm x 4mm in reality. Please don’t evaluate contrast and noise, I’ve tried with ISO3200.

 

turnaround.jpg

 

Julian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Note that Sigma has just announced two new Teleconverters:

 

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0510/05100501...econverters.asp

 

Sigma converters work similarly to the Canon ones. They are specifically designed for long tele lenses (protruding element). I think the only Sigma macro you can use with these converters is the 180mm macro. Or you can try with an extension tube leaving enough space to mount another macro lens.

 

Basically the Kenko (or Tamron) converters are mechanically compatible to all lenses. And they are not bad at all.

 

Julian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here is a nice comparison between different Teleconverters. Kenko 1,5x looks really good:

http://www.traumflieger.de/objektivtest/te...erter_check.php

The samples with the 2X converters are terrible :D

In samples I sow with the Kenko 2X its looks much better, but that was with prime lens. If I remember correctly its mentions that thus converters are best with prime lens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes. these are 100% crops. But still visible that all those converters harm image quality. That's why I preffered the Canon 100-400, which is a zoom, topside over the 70-200 + converter. I think the Kenko x1.4 performs better because the others are 2x converters.

 

Julian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok I am trying to wrap my head around all these different options.

 

Can someone tell me if I am right in the following assumptions:

 

1) 60mm + 2x Tele = 2:1 at same working distance as 60mm 1:1

2) 105mm + 2x Diopter = 2:1 at same working distance as above.

 

So depending on the length of the Teleconverter both should be able to fit in the same port ?

 

So which is a preferable way to go to get 2:1.

 

Sorry if I've got this all wrong but I find the subject quite confusing.

 

Is there a primer anywhere on diopters and Teles ?

 

Confused !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mark, your assumptions are close but not completely accurate.

 

60mm + teleconverter = 120mm f/5.6

105 + diopter = ~90mm f/2.8

 

So the 60mm + teleconverter will have more working distance.

 

BUT the 105 + diopter will have larger aperature thus AF will work better and the viewfinder will be brighter making MF easier.

 

Which method is better is somewhat personal prefrence but I would argue that the 105mm + diopter is better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which diopter is required to produce 2:1 on the 105 mm? I do not use diopters very much therefore I have no clue. I would think it would have to be a +4 or better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are some good calculation scripts in the net (FOV, DOF, reproduction ratios, etc.), but it is not easy to calculate dioptre for 2:1 as some lens data, etc. are required.

 

I don't have a +4 dioptre but just placed my old Nikonos closeup lens (which is about +4,2) in front of a Canon 100mm macro.

 

from frame size (width) +4 was not enough to reach 2:1. pics shot with full frame sensor.

 

100mm macro @1:1 only:

post-2081-1141129908_thumb.jpg

 

100mm macro @1:1 + nikonos closeup lens:

post-2081-1141129943_thumb.jpg

 

Julian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

here are a few shots using the 105 with a 4t diopter. Full magnification. Whatever the math says, this combo and the added combo of a TC2x can provide nice results. Like Rand says, you just have to keep trying so you can learn the systems quirks.

 

Joe

post-1513-1141135466_thumb.jpg

post-1513-1141135484_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the Canon 500D closeup adapter is much better corrected than a single element diopter (Nikon has something similar but maybe not in the selection of sizes)

 

i have used it topside with and without the Canon 1.4x (which requires a 12.5 extension to make it work) on the 105 macro - for prints up to 13x19 you'd have a very hard time telling either one (or both) is present

 

my recommendation is:

1 - Kenko TC so you have full focus range (the Kenko pro gets very good recommendations and costs almost as much as the Canon)

2 - if that doesn't get close enough, add the 500D which should still let you focus out to about 3 feet (as i recall)

3 - the Canon 2x with 12.5 extension tube is not terrible, and again you can add the 500d (if you've got the right port extension and can find a focus gear -- do not expect this combination to autofocus -- actually, the 105 doesn't autofucus for macro well in any configuration) - and i'd be suspect of the 3rd party 2x extenders

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chiming in a bit late here, but I shoot a lot with more than 1:1 using the old Nikon 105 macro in film days, and now with the Canon 100 USM macro.

 

Kenko teleconverters and extension tubes all work fine. A few sample images, all uncropped:

 

Canon 100+ 3x teleconverter + diopters to achieve approximately 5x magnification:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tonywublog/17...57594174625480/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tonywublog/18...57594174625480/

 

Canon 100 + 3x teleconverter:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tonywublog/18...57594174625480/

 

Nikon 105 + 3x teleconverter:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tonywublog/18...57594191585362/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tonywublog/18...57594191585362/

 

The most difficult challenge with teleconverters is finding the appropriate port extensions and manual focus gears to permit manual focusing. Once you've got that tackled, you just need to keep your hands steady and squint really hard!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chiming in a bit late here, but I shoot a lot with more than 1:1 using the old Nikon 105 macro in film days, and now with the Canon 100 USM macro.

 

Kenko teleconverters and extension tubes all work fine. A few sample images, all uncropped:

 

Canon 100+ 3x teleconverter + diopters to achieve approximately 5x magnification:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tonywublog/17...57594174625480/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tonywublog/18...57594174625480/

 

Canon 100 + 3x teleconverter:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tonywublog/18...57594174625480/

 

Nikon 105 + 3x teleconverter:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tonywublog/18...57594191585362/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tonywublog/18...57594191585362/

 

The most difficult challenge with teleconverters is finding the appropriate port extensions and manual focus gears to permit manual focusing. Once you've got that tackled, you just need to keep your hands steady and squint really hard!!!

 

Wow!!! Very impressive results in the links and also in your site.

Do you find a significant decrees in quality because of the teleconvertors?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sponsors

Advertisements



×
×
  • Create New...