"Bill D. Casselberry" wrote:
> Hmmm - your limitation is now clearer.
> Do you happen to have a 35mm lens?
Does a bear poop in the woods? <g>.
> Your 68mm of tubes plus its own
> helical extension would allow 2:1
OK, I'll give that a try right now.
Well, you were pretty darn close. 68mm takes the image just
to the edge of the viewfinder with the 12mm object, and works
great with the 10mm object. Using 56mm of extension gives me
a little more working room and just about fills the viewfinder
with the 12mm object. The working distance is quite close,
and I think the lighting may be a problem, but I'll play
around with it a bit. The 50mm/1.4 is nice because the image
is pretty bright, even with the full 68mm of extension, but
it's not that much different in size than the 100mm macro, if
memory serves me correctly.
> I suspect your quality concerns
> will be OK if all details of technique
> are tended to.
Yes, this is pretty amazing. There's much more to macro and
close-up photography than I realized, and it's quite
challenging, especially with a minimum of equipment, such as
copy stands and the like. Lots of improvisation is going on
- if this all works out well I feel as though I should get
the Bill Casselberry Medal of Improvisation.
> another option is reversing a
> 50mm to your 100mm ... or gathering
> up more tubes to take your 100mm to 2:1
I may go ahead and get a reversing ring at some point, but for
the time being I want to fiddle with just what I have on
hand. I like the idea of having to figure all of this out,
even with the help of list members, as it is giving me a
greater understanding of what I'm trying to do.
> hmmm, if the 100mm goes to 1:1 you
> may get near 2:1 w/ 68mm of tubes
Bingo! I just tried that and it seems to result in an almost
perfect image size, the background is nicely out of focus, and
the working distance is more acceptable than with the 35mm
lens. I don't know why I didn't try that before - I was so
fixated on the 200mm lens. Thanks for the boot in the butt
and getting my brain to start functioning again. Now, I
suppose, I'll just shoot various combinations and see which
gives the best quality image.
> sounds like your subject is likely
> to be a small flat object,
Sort of ...
> so you may be able to rig a
> staging platform even w/ the
> close distance you'll end up with.
The platform is the easy part. Lots of options here for that.
> on the humor side - if you just
> want to fill the frame, use
> an APS or a 110 !8^D
Is that an example of Oregonian humor? <vbg>
Thanks so much, Bill.
--
Shel Belinkoff
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
visit http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions.
