|
spongepuppy posted:The Nikon CFI 10x BE PLAN arrived today. No time for a proper test, but I did locate one tiny victim for a quick resolution test: Nice! My 4x arrived yesterday, but I bought the wrong drat step down adapter. I have to wait another few weeks for a new $2 RMS->M58 adapter to ship from China. Correct me if this is wrong, but my understanding is that your 10x and my 4x are both at their nominal magnification on a 160mm tube lens. I'm not sure that's right though, since you say on a 135mm tube lens you get 7x where I would have guessed 8.5x (135/160). In any case, I was planning to put my 4x on the front of a 100-400 L as a tube, so I could then move the magnification up and down. Plus the only other longish lens I have is a 100mm macro which seems too short. In related news I spent five hours re-working my garden to plant all native species that are supposed to attract bugs.
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2013 16:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 18:00 |
|
|
Graniteman posted:Correct me if this is wrong, but my understanding is that your 10x and my 4x are both at their nominal magnification on a 160mm tube lens. I'm not sure. The old DIN/JIS specs were mostly for finite lenses, and used a 160mm long tube between objective and eyepiece. Once most manufacturers moved to infinity corrected systems, the focal lengths of the tube lenses diverged, since the design of the optical systems mean that the tube lens FL only impacts on magnification. All of the Nikon literature I have found says that they use 200mm tube lenses for their CFI objectives, but there is precious little documentation on the BE series (that I could find). They don't seem to be touting compatibility with 3rd party systems, so it's possible that they're 200mm because that how they roll at Nikon. When I have some time to test I'll work out what the actual magnification is (and hopefully what FL Nikon uses for these lenses). Graniteman posted:In any case, I was planning to put my 4x on the front of a 100-400 L as a tube, so I could then move the magnification up and down. I haven't tried my 80-200 2.8 yet. I'm unsure what impact the zoom lens design will have in terms of vignetting (if any), since I did find that cheap yum-cha brand objectives tended to vignette badly on my zooms. Will post results when I do some tests - being able to zoom would be a boon!
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2013 22:23
|
|
|
While I wait for my adapter, here is a spider taken with my enlarging lens today Spider on paper by http://www.flickr.com/people/93703706@N07/ Feedback is welcome! I see some halos on the legs, especially near the top. I think that may be a byproduct of the pmax stacking?
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2013 05:14
|
|
|
Nice! I often comp together a Dmap and Pmax stack, because the Dmap image has cleaner margins/background. Sometimes it's problematic on hairy things though. Incidentally, the boffins on the microscopy forum have confirmed that Nikon uses 200mm tube lenses on all of their CFI objectives  Edit: Have done a couple of fairly deep stacks with the CFI 10x. If these are representative of the 4x, then I'm buying one ASAP. This one was 167 images:  Newly moulted White-tail spider by spongepuppy, on Flickr And this was 176 images (and I still didn't get all of it):  Woodlouse Carapace Detail by spongepuppy, on Flickr Dia de Pikachutos fucked around with this message at 08:43 on Mar 31, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2013 06:18
|
|
|
 Those 10x shots are incredible.I just upgraded to extension tubes with these cheap Vello ones. They seem absolutely solid so far, and the two larger ones together make for about 0.5-2x range with a 100mm.  Whirlygig Mite by Icybacon, on Flickr  Ironclad Beetle by Icybacon, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 06:29
|
|
|
I wish someone made really long extension tubes. It would be better than stacking multiple sets. Maybe I’m supposed to buy an MP‐E.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 08:40
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:I wish someone made really long extension tubes. It would be better than stacking multiple sets. Really long extension tubes are called bellows.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 09:12
|
|
|
alkanphel posted:Really long extension tubes are called bellows. EOS requires automatic bellows, but those are super expensive. I might as well get an MP‐E. e: Christ, I just price‐checked them, and they’re $950. That’s worse than I remember. I could probably wire up some poor‐man’s bellows with contacts from an auto extension tube and some ribbon cable, but  .
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 09:20
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:EOS requires automatic bellows, but those are super expensive. I might as well get an MP‐E. e: Christ, I just price‐checked them, and they’re $950. That’s worse than I remember. Well depends on what you want. A bellows would probably give you a range of magnifications and the use of different focal lengths while the MPE is just 65mm and starts at 1:1 already.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 09:55
|
|
|
Bellows units are bulky, and the effective aperture of most lenses at long extensions/high magnifications means you have a very dark viewfinder. It's not impossible to do, just difficult. I can't use my PB-6 bellows hand-held, but that's probably more a reflection of my spaghetti arms than anything else. Some people do some superb high magnification work with reversed enlarger lenses or short focal length primes stopped down. I have had some success using LED torches as focus aids with reversed enlarger lenses (and it costs $20-40 for a cheap 40mm enlarger lens). Where the MPE would shine is being able to compose and focus wide open, and then stop down when making the shot. TTL flash metering is also rather nice. I haven't used an MPE myself, but some owners I know have complained about the fact that it's sometimes difficult to light subjects over the wide, blunt barrel. Sticking a teleconverter on macro lenses works to increase maximum magnification, since the minimum focus distance remains the same. Since you're usually stopping the lens down to f/11 or more the loss in quality is pretty marginal. I have used a 1.4x TC on my Tamron 90mm to go up to 1.4x life size with great [optical, not artistic] results. I imagine that you could also throw extension tubes there to push things even more. The Raynox DCR-series macro close-up lenses can increase maximum magnification, too. This guy even managed to make the Canon 100mm macro into a telecentric lens at some magnification ratios with one.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 10:56
|
|
|
Or you can go hardcore like this guy:  Focus stacking rig by johnhallmen, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 14:10
|
|
|
alkanphel posted:Or you can go hardcore like this guy: John does amazing work. I really recommend following him on Flickr.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 17:58
|
|
|
Graniteman posted:John does amazing work. I really recommend following him on Flickr.  quote:The working distance at 20x is 5.7mm which is pretty good.  http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4020/4231338056_e3c5984fee_o.jpg
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 19:06
|
|
|
You'd probably get gunned down by the police if you try taking that thing out in public.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 19:53
|
|
|
Graniteman posted:John does amazing work. I really recommend following him on Flickr. Yeah I really love his work and respect that he's using those crazy rigs out in the field.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2013 00:01
|
|
|
William T. Hornaday posted:You'd probably get gunned down by the police if you try taking that thing out in public. People get the police called on them when people mistake tripods for rifles every once in a while. How the two look enough alike to trigger false alarms, I’ll never know.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2013 01:11
|
|
|
Long and skinny, obviously a gun.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2013 01:47
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:People get the police called on them when people mistake tripods for rifles every once in a while. It's happened to me more than once. Also I've had the cops called on me because I have a camera in general and look suspicious I guess?
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2013 03:06
|
|
|
spongepuppy posted:The Raynox DCR-series macro close-up lenses can increase maximum magnification, too. This guy even managed to make the Canon 100mm macro into a telecentric lens at some magnification ratios with one. Now I want a telecentric lens.I knew that they existed, but I’d always thought of them as custom‐built optics.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2013 14:44
|
|
|
 Bark by HelloWorldEp1, on Flickr  Lichen by HelloWorldEp1, on Flickr Just my 50mm f/1.4D and a kenko 20mm extension tube, handheld.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2013 20:36
|
|
|
 Untitled by Eeek5127, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2013 16:55
|
|
|
So I have a question to concering extension tubes. I am trying to digitize my film negatives by shooting them against a light source with an 85mm lens on a fat stack of extension tubes. What I get is crisp center with image getting blurrier as I get to the left and right edges. It is as if I have a column of sharpness coming right down the middle of my frame. This is happening at f8. Stopping down to f22 helps a lot with the edge blurriness. I have checked the film flatness, and it seems ok. Am I missing anything? Do tubes exaggerate inherent lens flaws?
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2013 08:16
|
|
|
quote:Do tubes exaggerate inherent lens flaws? Extension tubes push a lens a long way past their intended design envelope. quote:What I get is crisp center with image getting blurrier as I get to the left and right edges... This is happening at f8. Stopping down to f22 helps a lot with the edge blurriness. I have checked the film flatness, and it seems ok. Putting a regular SLR lens on extension tubes violates the lens designer's assumptions about the distance relationship between subject and imaging plane. Increasing extension magnifies the image, and any aberrations it has. This generally means increasing spherical aberration (and CA if relevant). Enlarger lenses are designed the opposite way - the distance to the subject was constant, and the distance to the imaging plane varied. Consider buying an old enlarger lens and doing the same thing - the field will be much flatter, although you may need to reverse it for best results. You can score EL-Nikkor 50 and 75mm's for a song on ebay (added bonus: and they also make great macro lenses). You could also try reversing the 85mm lens, since this would reverse the distance relationship in the right direction (because most lenses are designed on the assumption that the front element is further away from the subject plane than the rear element is from the imaging plane). Dia de Pikachutos fucked around with this message at 08:45 on Apr 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2013 08:39
|
|
|
spongepuppy posted:Extension tubes push a lens a long way past their intended design envelope. Ah, thats exactly what I have been looking for. Spherical aberration is what I am seeing. Quick search for EL-Nikkor shows that the slr mounting might be hard to find for these lenses. Would 55mm 2.8 micro nikkor AIS work in its stead? Supposedly it has unparalleled image flatness and was used for slide copying with a 27mm extension tube.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2013 09:18
|
|
|
Sorry, I keep forgetting that most people don't stuff about with bellows units. I guess you could try extension tubes with the enlarger lenses, but it might be difficult to get exactly the right reproduction ratio. Pretty much any macro lens would be great for slide copying - 1:1 and 1:2 are where they're optimized for best performance. I doubt you'd be able to find a macro lens without a very flat field.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2013 10:04
|
|
|
Putrid Grin posted:Ah, thats exactly what I have been looking for. Spherical aberration is what I am seeing. True (1:1) macro lenses are as good as it gets for copying slides. They were designed to image 36 mm by 24 mm scenes on 36 mm by 24 mm planes, and that’s exactly what copying slides involves. The 55 mm Micro Nikkor is designed for 1:2 work, but 1:1 is a lot closer to its design specifications than it is to the 85 mm’s, or even an enlarger lens’s. Nikon engineers knew people were likely to use it with extension tubes. This is especially true you are copying with a DX sensor, where you don’t actually want life‐size.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2013 10:08
|
|
|
Testing a reversed takumar 35/3.5 on my om-d.  P4070409.jpg by MrDespair, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2013 01:14
|
|
|
First day testing out my extension tubes:  This little guy was about half the size of my pinky nail. Unfortunately I don't have extension tubes that let me set aperture so the DOF was super shallow (50mm @ 1.8) which is why the focus is on his midsection rather than the face. It's gonna take a lot of practice but I really enjoyed trying these things out. Still no flash yet, and I'd like to upgrade to the 100mm sometime soon too, but for $12 I can't complain at all with the results from the day.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2013 03:12
|
|
|
GobiasIndustries posted:First day testing out my extension tubes: pro-tip: put your lens on the camera normally, stop down to whatever aperture you want, then take the lens off while holding down the depth of field preview button. Voila!
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2013 03:46
|
|
|
dakana posted:pro-tip: put your lens on the camera normally, stop down to whatever aperture you want, then take the lens off while holding down the depth of field preview button. Voila!  That is..simply fantastic. Now that I know this magical trick, what's a good aperture to set the lens at to get, for example, the whole bug in focus? F11-16 or so?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2013 04:14
|
|
|
f8-f16 is probably good starting point, assuming you can see what you're doing through the viewfinder. You'll find that DOF decreases as magnification increases, though, so don't sweat getting everything in focus - I usually just try for the eyes. Alternatively, you can try focus stacking, unless you value your sanity.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2013 11:29
|
|
|
spongepuppy posted:Alternatively, you can try focus stacking, unless you value your sanity. I've tooled around with Zerene Stacker (and one that came about before it, but the name escapes me) and it's quite good at what it does. I haven't persisted since I haven't been doing anywhere near the amount of macro that I was and hence wasn't worth the cost to me. I'm wondering how well using Photoshop's auto align/auto blend layers would go to achieve this in comparison.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2013 12:09
|
|
|
dakana posted:pro-tip: put your lens on the camera normally, stop down to whatever aperture you want, then take the lens off while holding down the depth of field preview button. Voila! Question: The D5100 doesn't have a DoF preview button. Is there any way to pull a similar trick with it?
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2013 16:32
|
|
|
StarkingBarfish posted:Question: The D5100 doesn't have a DoF preview button. Is there any way to pull a similar trick with it? Hmm... Does the lens stop down when you go into live view at a small aperture? Other than that I'm not sure how else you'd go about it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2013 17:28
|
|
|
dakana posted:Hmm... Does the lens stop down when you go into live view at a small aperture? Other than that I'm not sure how else you'd go about it. As far as I can tell, no 
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2013 19:39
|
|
|
Just the kit lens until I make an upgrade Untitled by Pliv10, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2013 20:17
|
|
|
 Brown Bud by alkanphel, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2013 01:47
|
|
|
StarkingBarfish posted:Question: The D5100 doesn't have a DoF preview button. Is there any way to pull a similar trick with it? The trick isn’t applicable to any Nikkon lenses except the PC‐E series anyway. The “E” stands for “Electromagnetic” aperture; everything else has an aperture lever with a spring that will open the aperture when the lens is dismounted. With a PC‐E lens and no DoF preview, you could take a long exposure and dismount the lens in the middle of it. Just enough to break the electrical connection, of course. Obviously, on non‐G lenses, you can just set the aperture ring on the lens. With G lenses, you’re out of luck. If you really need to set the aperture on a G lens on tubes, there are adapters to mount G Nikon lenses on Canon cameras. These adapters have controls built in to them to manipulate the lens’s aperture lever. You’d need another adapter to switch the mount back to Nikon. They’re  on eBay.e: Apparently, I was mistaken about Nikon aperture operation. The spring actually closes down the aperture. The long exposure trick might work for G lenses, but I wouldn’t want to risk loving up the camera’s mechanical bits. You might be able to use some tape or blue tack or somesuch to hold the aperture lever, but then you risk loving up the lens’s mechanical bits. Platystemon fucked around with this message at 05:42 on Apr 10, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2013 05:26
|
|
|
Danoss posted:I'm wondering how well using Photoshop's auto align/auto blend layers would go to achieve this in comparison. As of Photoshop CS5.1 (which I am currently using), the auto align works really well, and the auto blend basically is the same as using DMap in Zerene stacker / Helicon Focus / CombineZ. Good for some things, but not for anything with hair/bristles. CS6 may have brought improvements that I don't know about. It's also limited in that you need a terrific amount of memory to stack more than a few photos, because each slice is loaded into a separate layer. It also (from memory) loads every image to be stacked before commencement. My home machine has 24 gigs of ram, and I brought it to its knees trying some fairly trivial stacking early on.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2013 06:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 18:00 |
|
|
Platystemon posted:e: Apparently, I was mistaken about Nikon aperture operation. The spring actually closes down the aperture. The long exposure trick might work for G lenses, but I wouldn’t want to risk loving up the camera’s mechanical bits. You might be able to use some tape or blue tack or somesuch to hold the aperture lever, but then you risk loving up the lens’s mechanical bits. I have just been sticking a little bit of folded paper to jam the lever open, easy to insert and remove and won't gum things up like blue tack or tape. This one is 10X magnification and about a 20 photo stack done in Zerene, I can see a few places that are out of focus. I'm just starting with macro and photography in general so I would appreciate some advice.  2013-04-06-21.07.08 ZS PMax by ajhic2001, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2013 05:32
|
|