RE: Question #2: Macro related
-Original Message- From: Lon Williamson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] I will speak up on the defensive for the Cosina-made Pentax/Phoenix/Vivitar/Soligar 100mm f3.5 Macro: It's cheap, it flares (in everything but mebbe the Pentax SMC version - I have the Phoenix), it is light weight, and it _definately_ gives bang for the buck. I have the Pentax version, and can vouch that it's a good value. Haven't noticed any flare with mine, but I don't think I've used it in many flarey situations. tv
Re: Question #2: Macro related
On Wednesday, December 11, 2002, at 12:13 PM, Lon Williamson wrote: Dan, you a resourceful Texan and all with no doubt, a big-ass Cowboy hat, should have no problem. Use your big paw, and if that ain't enough, the brim of your hat. LOL Dan Scott
RE: Question #2: Macro related
At 02:11 PM 12/11/2002 -0500, you wrote: I have the Pentax version, and can vouch that it's a good value. Haven't noticed any flare with mine, but I don't think I've used it in many flarey situations. Ditto with mine. (Vivitar version) Gary J Sibio [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.earthlink.net/~garysibio/ Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like bananas.
Re: Question #2: Macro related
Hi! Thanks for you replies. My understanding would be that 1. Anything but the proper macro lens is of less than perfect quality. Being satisfied with results that I get from SMC FA 50/1.7 with macro converter makes me think that I can accept certain quality loss resulting from use of optical attachments. 2. There're good and bad close up filters (lens attachments). Good are made by N-n or C-n and usually they are two piece lenses. I will have to wait and see what kind of price and manufacturer my local shop proposes. I have to mention it explicitly. At the moment I intend to shoot macro handheld. So such thing as weight of the whole installment is important. I have a question that still remains unanswered. Is it a good idea to have all filters (or most filters) fit the (e.g.) Cokin filter bracket, say for 58 mm and then use all kinds of matching rings for other lenses. Or it would be a much better idea to have dedicated filter set per lens diameter... I have one more kind of sub-question. Several people mentioned 100/3.5 macro lens that with provided attachment goes to 1:1. Such lenses AFAIK are made by Vivitar and Pentax, and probably others. How good such lens for portrait work? Is there anyone here who switched to Pentax 100/2.8 known to be great (yet expensive) and why? Is there anyone using both lenses? Thanks in advance. --- Boris Liberman www.geocities.com/dunno57 www.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=38625
Re: Question #2: Macro related
Hi! Thanks for you replies. My understanding would be that 1. Anything but the proper macro lens is of less than perfect quality. Being satisfied with results that I get from SMC FA 50/1.7 with macro converter makes me think that I can accept certain quality loss resulting from use of optical attachments. 2. There're good and bad close up filters (lens attachments). Good are made by N-n or C-n and usually they are two piece lenses. I will have to wait and see what kind of price and manufacturer my local shop proposes. I have to mention it explicitly. At the moment I intend to shoot macro handheld. So such thing as weight of the whole installment is important. I have a question that still remains unanswered. Is it a good idea to have all filters (or most filters) fit the (e.g.) Cokin filter bracket, say for 58 mm and then use all kinds of matching rings for other lenses. Or it would be a much better idea to have dedicated filter set per lens diameter... I have one more kind of sub-question. Several people mentioned 100/3.5 macro lens that with provided attachment goes to 1:1. Such lenses AFAIK are made by Vivitar and Pentax, and probably others. How good such lens for portrait work? Is there anyone here who switched to Pentax 100/2.8 known to be great (yet expensive) and why? Is there anyone using both lenses? Thanks in advance. --- Boris Liberman www.geocities.com/dunno57 www.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=38625
Re: Question #2: Macro related
Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] I have a question that still remains unanswered. Is it a good idea to have all filters (or most filters) fit the (e.g.) Cokin filter bracket, say for 58 mm and then use all kinds of matching rings for other lenses. Or it would be a much better idea to have dedicated filter set per lens diameter... from a cost point of view, you will quickly want to standarize. high quality filters are expensive. based on what i shoot and my results comparing multicoated and non-multicoated, my uncoated neutral density filters are all going to be replaced with multicoated ones and i am seriously thinking of doing the same for all my single-coated ones. you have to be using a high enough quality lens to notice the difference, but it is there. Herb...
Re: Question #2: Macro related
In a message dated 12/8/02 8:14:51 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I have to mention it explicitly. At the moment I intend to shoot macro handheld. So such thing as weight of the whole installment is important. That's not a good idea. In macro mode everything is magnified including camera shake. I don't know why you would even think of doing this. If you are going to take the time and spend the money to take a picture use a tripod and make the whole thing worthwhile Vic
Re: Question #2: Macro related
On Sun, 8 Dec 2002 15:15:41 +0200, Boris Liberman wrote: [...] Is it a good idea to have all filters (or most filters) fit the (e.g.) Cokin filter bracket, say for 58 mm and then use all kinds of matching rings for other lenses. Or it would be a much better idea to have dedicated filter set per lens diameter... Personally, I do a little of both. I've got common round glass filters (rather than Cokin, etc.) in 58mm and 77mm and step-down rings to the other sizes I need (49, 52, 55, 72). But I don't use filters very often, so I'm surely no expert. TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
Re: Question #2: Macro related
On Sunday, December 8, 2002, at 09:19 PM, Doug Franklin wrote: On Sun, 8 Dec 2002 15:15:41 +0200, Boris Liberman wrote: [...] Is it a good idea to have all filters (or most filters) fit the (e.g.) Cokin filter bracket, say for 58 mm and then use all kinds of matching rings for other lenses. Or it would be a much better idea to have dedicated filter set per lens diameter... Personally, I do a little of both. I've got common round glass filters (rather than Cokin, etc.) in 58mm and 77mm and step-down rings to the other sizes I need (49, 52, 55, 72). But I don't use filters very often, so I'm surely no expert. TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ Doug, How do you shade your filters when using a big one on a little lens. Not being able to use hoods has kept me from doing that myself (and kept me with mostly with lenses bereft of filters). Dan Scott
Re: Question #2: Macro related
On Sun, 8 Dec 2002 21:34:54 -0600, Dan Scott wrote: How do you shade your filters when using a big one on a little lens. Not being able to use hoods has kept me from doing that myself (and kept me with mostly with lenses bereft of filters). Usually with my hand. Occasionally with my hat, if I'm wearing one. On occasion, by putting some innocent bystander between me and the sun. TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
Re: Question #2: Macro related
Flavio Minelli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Boris, closeup filters are a cheap and easy way to start into macro. Single elements attachments often suffer from optical aberrations while 2 elements ones are much better in this respect. The cost of quality closeup attachments is quite high, though. At least enough to make the acquisition of a macro lens a feasible alternative. There are 3rd party manual focus macros in the 100 mm range widely available used at very interesting prices, maybe 100-200 USD, edpending on model and conditions. You don't need autofocus for macro, anyway. It all depends on funds availability and what you really want to do. A couple years ago I bought a 100/2.8 FA from KEH for about 200 USD and that's about the best you can get from Pentax. Tubes are another cheap alternative but not so flexible, IMO. My preference for macro work is, in decreasing order of preference and optical quality, but increasing order of convenience and versatility: A true macro lens Extension tubes Achromatic (2-element) close-up attachment I think the extension tube is optically preferable to the add-on lens, but not as convenient. The best thing about the add-on lens approach is that you're able to use it on a zoom, which allows you to change framing easily without moving your tripod around. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Question #2: Macro related
Many people rank the way Mark does, and I don't see it that way. Let's say you have a lens with a screw-on rubber hood and you want to take a closup using a supplementary closeup lens. You a) unscrew the hood b) unscrew the closeup lens from the other filters of its size c) screw in the closeup lens d) screw in the hood Tubes are about 3 times faster, in my hands. Locking bayonets is easier than all that screwing around. grin. I think the only advantage to supp. lenses is small package and no light loss. They're certainly not as convenient as tubes to actually _use_. -Lon Mark Roberts wrote: My preference for macro work is, in decreasing order of preference and optical quality, but increasing order of convenience and versatility: A true macro lens Extension tubes Achromatic (2-element) close-up attachment I think the extension tube is optically preferable to the add-on lens, but not as convenient. The best thing about the add-on lens approach is that you're able to use it on a zoom, which allows you to change framing easily without moving your tripod around. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Question #2: Macro related
Lon Williamson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Many people rank the way Mark does, and I don't see it that way. Let's say you have a lens with a screw-on rubber hood and you want to take a closup using a supplementary closeup lens. You a) unscrew the hood b) unscrew the closeup lens from the other filters of its size c) screw in the closeup lens d) screw in the hood Tubes are about 3 times faster, in my hands. Locking bayonets is easier than all that screwing around. grin. I think the only advantage to supp. lenses is small package and no light loss. They're certainly not as convenient as tubes to actually _use_. They are if you don't have that lens hood! ;-) -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Question #2: Macro related
In a message dated 12/5/02 1:07:25 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: N*K*N sells 2 element diopter close up lenses in several strengths (5T, 6T) all I believe are 58mm. The two element diopter is supposed to be superior (sharper images) than the single element. Haven't done any testing but I have used the N*K*N diopters for several years and have no complaints. I too have these and use it on my 100-300 power zoom with very good results because the lens is so long at the 300 end it renders the background just beautiful Vic
Re: Question #2: Macro related
At 08:04 AM 12/5/2002 -0500, you wrote: My preference for macro work is, in decreasing order of preference and optical quality, but increasing order of convenience and versatility: A true macro lens Extension tubes Achromatic (2-element) close-up attachment From an optical point of view, you are right on. However there is another consideration that tends to get overlooked in these discussions: practicality. Extension tubes are great when you are working in the studio. In the field they are close to useless. By the time you get the right combination of tubes mounted between your lens and your camera, whatever little creepy-crawly you wanted to photograph has long since vanished. Of course flower photographers wouldn't have to concern themselves with disappearing subjects. Accessory lenses are a little better since you don't have to remove the lens from the camera. A real macro lens if your best choice and the Vivitar 100mm/3.5 lens is very good for its price, especially when you consider the price of extension tubes. Gary J Sibio [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.earthlink.net/~garysibio/ Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like bananas.
Re: Question #2: Macro related
Actually, there's another solution for decent light: the good ole Vivitar 2x macro TC and a lens from 50mm to 135. Talk about a quick setup! My favorite lens to mount the Vivitar on is the K 135mm f2.5. Anyone else do this? Gary J Sibio wrote: At 08:04 AM 12/5/2002 -0500, you wrote: My preference for macro work is, in decreasing order of preference and optical quality, but increasing order of convenience and versatility: A true macro lens Extension tubes Achromatic (2-element) close-up attachment From an optical point of view, you are right on. However there is another consideration that tends to get overlooked in these discussions: practicality. Extension tubes are great when you are working in the studio. In the field they are close to useless. By the time you get the right combination of tubes mounted between your lens and your camera, whatever little creepy-crawly you wanted to photograph has long since vanished. Of course flower photographers wouldn't have to concern themselves with disappearing subjects. Accessory lenses are a little better since you don't have to remove the lens from the camera. A real macro lens if your best choice and the Vivitar 100mm/3.5 lens is very good for its price, especially when you consider the price of extension tubes. Gary J Sibio [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.earthlink.net/~garysibio/ Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like bananas.
Re: Question #2: Macro related
Gary J Sibio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Accessory lenses are a little better since you don't have to remove the lens from the camera. Especially important you're in conditions in which there's danger of dirt/debris blowing into the camera or if you only have one hand available. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Question #2: Macro related
- Original Message - From: Gary J Sibio [EMAIL PROTECTED] From an optical point of view, you are right on. However there is another consideration that tends to get overlooked in these discussions: practicality. Extension tubes are great when you are working in the studio. In the field they are close to useless. By the time you get the right combination of tubes mounted between your lens and your camera, whatever little creepy-crawly you wanted to photograph has long since vanished. I disagree. The key to macro field work is to know what combination of devices gives you the magnification you desire. Prior to spending heaps of money on gear I used the Nikon 6T and 5T suplementary lenses (62mm) on a crappy 60-300mm f4-5.6 zoom. The results were not bad considering the zoom lens was a cheap Kalimar. Now I use tubes or a bellows or a Vivitar S1 105/2.5 macro lens and I also stack a 100mm bellows lens (reverse-mounted) on a 200mm prime (2x magnification). The 100mm bellows lens acts like a multi-element close-up lens in this case (for 4x I'll reverse mount a 50mm on the 200mm). Stacking lenses requires extension tubes to avoid vignetting. The key to all of my setups is knowing which one gives the magnification I want and knowing which combination of strobe or natural light is needed. It takes a lot of testing and burns a lot of film but in the end it allows me to work quickly in the field with all sorts of gear. Accessory lenses are a little better since you don't have to remove the lens from the camera. This is true but even with the Nikon multi-element lenses you get some softness. I don't use mine anymore. A real macro lens if your best choice and the Vivitar 100mm/3.5 lens is very good for its price, especially when you consider the price of extension tubes. I use the Series 1 105/2.5 Macro extensively. It's an awesome lens that gives 1x magnification without adapters or tubes. Extension tubes are cheap! You can get a set of Vivitar auto Tubes that work with A lenses for US$50 or less sometimes. Macro lenses (even my beloved Vivitar) are the most expensive way to shoot macro. The Nikon 5T and 6T were not cheap either when I bough them new a few years ago. Christian
Re: Question #2: Macro related
At 01:22 PM 12/5/2002 -0500, you wrote: Actually, there's another solution for decent light: the good ole Vivitar 2x macro TC and a lens from 50mm to 135. Talk about a quick setup! My favorite lens to mount the Vivitar on is the K 135mm f2.5. Anyone else do this? Yes, it does work well. I used the TC with the 135 to photograph some dragonflies a while ago. It was fantastic. Used a Viv 283 flash so that I could use 100 speed film. Gary J Sibio [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.earthlink.net/~garysibio/ Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like bananas.
Re: Question #2: Macro related
At 01:44 PM 12/5/2002 -0500, you wrote: Gary J Sibio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Accessory lenses are a little better since you don't have to remove the lens from the camera. Especially important you're in conditions in which there's danger of dirt/debris blowing into the camera or if you only have one hand available. Excellent points. I should have thought about the former since I often take close-ups at the beach here in Chicago where it tends to et a bit windy.
Re: Question #2: Macro related
At 01:55 PM 12/5/2002 -0500, you wrote: I disagree. The key to macro field work is to know what combination of devices gives you the magnification you desire. Prior to spending heaps of money on gear I used the Nikon 6T and 5T suplementary lenses (62mm) on a crappy 60-300mm f4-5.6 zoom. The results were not bad considering the zoom lens was a cheap Kalimar. With time you do learn that but, in the field where speed matters, extension tubes and bellows are the slowest to work with. In addition, the accessory lenses make more sense to carry with you for those times when macro shots are not your primary focus (pardon the pun) but you want something just in case. When I first got started in photography (1970) I had my Spotmatic, a set of automatic extension tubes, the auto-bellows and a reversing ring. I even invested in a couple of enlarger lenses and the Leica thread mount adaptor to use with the bellows. Going out in the field to photograph quickly turned into a burden. Now I use tubes or a bellows or a Vivitar S1 105/2.5 macro lens and I also stack a 100mm bellows lens (reverse-mounted) on a 200mm prime (2x magnification). The 100mm bellows lens acts like a multi-element close-up lens in this case (for 4x I'll reverse mount a 50mm on the 200mm). Stacking lenses requires extension tubes to avoid vignetting. I bought one of those rings a while back because I wanted to try using my 28 50mm lenses on my 200mm. I just haven't gotten around to playing with it yet. The key to all of my setups is knowing which one gives the magnification I want and knowing which combination of strobe or natural light is needed. It takes a lot of testing and burns a lot of film but in the end it allows me to work quickly in the field with all sorts of gear. Again, even if you know the exact combination of equipment, it is still slow to set up and you risk your subject taking off for the wild blue yonder. Accessory lenses are a little better since you don't have to remove the lens from the camera. This is true but even with the Nikon multi-element lenses you get some softness. I don't use mine anymore. Keep in mind that you used yours with a crappy zoom lens. My zoom lenses focus to .5x by themselves so my use of accessory lenses tends to be restricted to single focal length lenses. A real macro lens if your best choice and the Vivitar 100mm/3.5 lens is very good for its price, especially when you consider the price of extension tubes. I use the Series 1 105/2.5 Macro extensively. It's an awesome lens that gives 1x magnification without adapters or tubes. Extension tubes are cheap! You can get a set of Vivitar auto Tubes that work with A lenses for US$50 or less sometimes. Macro lenses (even my beloved Vivitar) are the most expensive way to shoot macro. The Nikon 5T and 6T were not cheap either when I bough them new a few years ago. The macro lens I mentioned was only $100 and gives excellent results. If you're going to do any amount of macro, I'd say pay the extra $50 and get it instead. The tubes will still be slow to work with in the field. Gary J Sibio [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.earthlink.net/~garysibio/ Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like bananas.
Re: Question #2: Macro related
This one time, at band camp, Gary J Sibio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A real macro lens if your best choice and the Vivitar I myself use a belows and have never used a 'real macro lens'. What is that makes a real macro lens? Kind regards Kevin -- Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments. See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html Kevin Waterson Byron Bay, Australia
Re: Question #2: Macro related
I think flat field with low barrel/pin distortion, sharp to the edges defines a macro lens, not just its ability to close focus. If you take photos of flat objects, macros are a good thing. If you take lots of closeups in the field, macros are a good thing because you don't have to mess with attachments. Kevin Waterson wrote: I myself use a belows and have never used a 'real macro lens'. What is that makes a real macro lens?
Re: Question #2: Macro related
Have you tried using them with the 100mm lens? I like the reults I get with them on my 200mm f4.0 ED Macro A lens. Ken Waller - Original Message - From: Gary J Sibio [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 1:03 AM Subject: Re: Question #2: Macro related At 05:25 PM 12/4/2002 -0500, you wrote: N*K*N sells 2 element diopter close up lenses in several strengths (5T, 6T) all I believe are 58mm. The two element diopter is supposed to be superior (sharper images) than the single element. Haven't done any testing but I have used the N*K*N diopters for several years and have no complaints. I have them and the results have been excellent although I don't use them much since I got the Vivitar 100/3.5 macro. Gary J Sibio [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.earthlink.net/~garysibio/ Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like bananas.
Re: Question #2: Macro related
Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Is it a good idea to buy macro filter set? how much sharpness are you willing to lose? according to many people, either a real macro lens, extension tubes, or the Canon or Nikon multielement closeup lenses are the only real choices for high quality results. Herb... For the 50/1,7 with a 49mm ring, the Minolta lenses are the ones to look for. About 10-15$ each on eBay. There are three: no 0, no 1 and no 2. They were made in 49mm, 52mm and 55mm. Achromatic (2-lenses) with... achromatic coating. That's the way Minolta called their pre-multi-coating (2 coatings). Andre --
Re: Question #2: Macro related
N*K*N sells 2 element diopter close up lenses in several strengths (5T, 6T) all I believe are 58mm. The two element diopter is supposed to be superior (sharper images) than the single element. Haven't done any testing but I have used the N*K*N diopters for several years and have no complaints. Ken Waller - Original Message - From: Lon Williamson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 9:18 AM Subject: Re: Question #2: Macro related I tried to buy the Sigmal 58mm 2-element about 6 months ago and NOBODY had it in stock. I think it may have been discontinued. I've got a 2-element diopter (came with the Phoenix 100mm f3.5 Macro), and it works quite well. Many people think that the 2-element diopters are the way to go: they certainly take up less space than tubes or TCs. -Lon Boris Liberman wrote: Hi! Is it a good idea to buy macro filter set? There're two options - 58 mm for Sigma that can go to f/32 in 135 mm giving supposedly more DOF, or 49 mm for 50/1.7. I am leaning towards 49 mm because I hope to collect more Pentax primes that feature same filter thread. Or such thing is not worth the money anyway - poor optical quality... What do you say? Thanks in advance. --- Boris Liberman www.geocities.com/dunno57 www.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=38625
Re: Question #2: Macro related
At 05:25 PM 12/4/2002 -0500, you wrote: N*K*N sells 2 element diopter close up lenses in several strengths (5T, 6T) all I believe are 58mm. The two element diopter is supposed to be superior (sharper images) than the single element. Haven't done any testing but I have used the N*K*N diopters for several years and have no complaints. I have them and the results have been excellent although I don't use them much since I got the Vivitar 100/3.5 macro. Gary J Sibio [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.earthlink.net/~garysibio/ Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like bananas.
