A penny for your thoughts. 105mm f/2.8 + 50mm f/1.4

I was able to pick up a 52mm reversing ring this evening for these two
lenses and tried adding an old 50mm F/1.4 AI Nikkor to my 105mm F/2.8D Micro
Nikkor and I must say I'm really impressed at the improvement of
magnification over just using the 105mm. These were shot at a 45* angle at
f/32 with both the camera and the flash handheld. The DOF is way too
shallow for handheld, but this was a quick experiment.

This was shot using the 50mm in front of the105mm.

http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2003/eBay/Penny_a.jpg

This is maximum magnification of the 05mm without anything in front of it.

http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2003/eBay/Penny_b.jpg

Thanks guys for the great tip, I'll be breaking the old tripod out during
the week when I have some free time.



Rita

Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:

I was able to pick up a 52mm reversing ring this evening for these two
lenses and tried adding an old 50mm F/1.4 AI Nikkor to my 105mm F/2.8D Micro
Nikkor and I must say I'm really impressed at the improvement of
magnification over just using the 105mm. These were shot at a 45* angle at
f/32 with both the camera and the flash handheld. The DOF is way too
shallow for handheld, but this was a quick experiment.

This was shot using the 50mm in front of the105mm.

http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2003/eBay/Penny_a.jpg

This is maximum magnification of the 05mm without anything in front of it.

http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2003/eBay/Penny_b.jpg

Thanks guys for the great tip, I'll be breaking the old tripod out during
the week when I have some free time.


Groovy. Thanks for the report on that combo. Do you know what the
magnification works out to? Looks super clean & sharp.

--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
san francisco native plants

Paul Furman wrote:

Groovy. Thanks for the report on that combo. Do you know what the
magnification works out to? Looks super clean & sharp.

Thanks, I've learned quickly to time the shutter release with the unstable
in and out movement of handheld shots. :^)

I think this will be great on a tripod and if shooting a flat object that is
90* to the plane of the lens.

I'm not sure what the magnification factor works out to; I was hoping
someone out here could tell me. I think there was a formula posted for this
a week ago?



Rita

Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:

Paul Furman wrote:


Groovy. Thanks for the report on that combo. Do you know what the
magnification works out to? Looks super clean & sharp.


Thanks, I've learned quickly to time the shutter release with the unstable
in and out movement of handheld shots. :^)

I think this will be great on a tripod and if shooting a flat object that is
90* to the plane of the lens.

I'm not sure what the magnification factor works out to; I was hoping
someone out here could tell me. I think there was a formula posted for this
a week ago?

The date measures 395 pixels and on a real penny, 4mm or 1/8" so
3160dpi. The D70 sensor is 23.7mm wide (3008 pixels) so 30mm wide =
1:1.3 (more than 1:1 magnification. Though I'm the world's wost
mathemetician. That's about what I get out of my 70-200 plus 2x TC & +2
diopter though the quality is pretty iffy on that arrangement. When I
add a reversed 200mm I get about 4x with fairly atrocious quality
depending on the subject.

--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
san francisco native plants

Paul Furman wrote:

The date measures 395 pixels and on a real penny, 4mm or 1/8" so
3160dpi. The D70 sensor is 23.7mm wide (3008 pixels) so 30mm wide =
1:1.3 (more than 1:1 magnification. Though I'm the world's wost
mathemetician. That's about what I get out of my 70-200 plus 2x TC &
+2 diopter though the quality is pretty iffy on that arrangement.
When I add a reversed 200mm I get about 4x with fairly atrocious
quality depending on the subject.

I just took the lazy way out and measured the date on the second picture,
which should be 1:1 since this is the maximum magnification of this lens and
was 2" on my monitor. Then I measured the first picture, which gave 5.5".
If I did this correctly I have a magnification factor of 2.75 X, which
really isn't bad. I just hate how close the front of the lens has to be
from the subject. Lighting is difficult.

Anyway, I had a chance to try this setup outside today. I'm finding it
really difficult to manage proper lighting, keeping the camera steady, and
staying focused on a moving insect. I got a shot of an inchworm; well this
guy was not much bigger than a half an inch and about 1mm in diameter. As
you can see some of the lighting issues I had since I had the camera in one
hand and the SB800 in the other.

http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2003/eBay/Inch_b.jpg

Do you know of a way I can keep the same magnification factor and increase
the subject/lens distance to several inches? I have to come up with a
better lighting technique that is easier to use. Thanks.



Rita

Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:

Paul Furman wrote:


The date measures 395 pixels and on a real penny, 4mm or 1/8" so
3160dpi. The D70 sensor is 23.7mm wide (3008 pixels) so 30mm wide =
1:1.3 (more than 1:1 magnification. Though I'm the world's wost
mathemetician. That's about what I get out of my 70-200 plus 2x TC &
+2 diopter though the quality is pretty iffy on that arrangement.
When I add a reversed 200mm I get about 4x with fairly atrocious
quality depending on the subject.


I just took the lazy way out and measured the date on the second picture,
which should be 1:1 since this is the maximum magnification of this lens and
was 2" on my monitor. Then I measured the first picture, which gave 5.5".
If I did this correctly I have a magnification factor of 2.75 X, which
really isn't bad. I just hate how close the front of the lens has to be
from the subject. Lighting is difficult.


Well, don't trust my math. Take apicture of a mm scale to make it easy.


It seems like lighting contrast becomes more extreme with macros. Anyone
know if that's real?



Anyway, I had a chance to try this setup outside today. I'm finding it
really difficult to manage proper lighting, keeping the camera steady, and
staying focused on a moving insect. I got a shot of an inchworm; well this
guy was not much bigger than a half an inch and about 1mm in diameter. As
you can see some of the lighting issues I had since I had the camera in one
hand and the SB800 in the other.

http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2003/eBay/Inch_b.jpg

Do you know of a way I can keep the same magnification factor and increase
the subject/lens distance to several inches?


A longer focal length is the only trick for that I believe. I'm a foot
away from the front element with the 70-200 plus diopter, that one only
goes to 5 feet without the diopter.


I have to come up with a
better lighting technique that is easier to use. Thanks.





--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
san francisco native plants

In article ,
Rita Ä Berkowitz ritaberk2O04 @aol.com wrote:

[ ... ]

Anyway, I had a chance to try this setup outside today. I'm finding it
really difficult to manage proper lighting, keeping the camera steady, and
staying focused on a moving insect. I got a shot of an inchworm; well this
guy was not much bigger than a half an inch and about 1mm in diameter. As
you can see some of the lighting issues I had since I had the camera in one
hand and the SB800 in the other.

It might help somewhat to set up a bracket to hold the SB-800 in
a fixed relationship to the camera and lens.

http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2003/eBay/Inch_b.jpg

Do you know of a way I can keep the same magnification factor and increase
the subject/lens distance to several inches? I have to come up with a
better lighting technique that is easier to use. Thanks.

What I would suggest will take some searching, but will handle
the lighting and the closeup all at once -- since IIRC you are using a
Nikon D70.

Look for an old Medical Nikkor. It is a 200mm f/5.6 lens, with
a set of screw-in diopter lenses and a built-in ring flash. It is too
old to work as an automatic exposure setup -- but it is designed to
handle that part for you. You set the ASA (ISO) on one ring, and the
reproduction ratio desired (determined by the selection of diopter
lenses), and this sets your aperture correctly.

You are fairly far away at the maximum ratio, and a lot more
distant at the lesser ones.

The only problem is that at a minimum ISO of 200, it is too
bright for the highest reproduction ratios. The solutions a

1) The special cord which connects the power supply to the flash
head which includes a resistance and reduces the brightness
of the flash. (I wish that I could find the information, so I
could make my own.)

2) Add a 2X ND filter between the lens and the stack of diopters.

Oh yes -- outdoors, you will need a *long* extension cord, or to
find the battery pack alternative to the AC powered supply, or to build
an inverter power supply to run from batteries which are more readily
available. With this, you could add a switchable resistor or switchable
capacitors so you can reduce the flash power without a special cord.

Aside from the built-in ring flash, there are also four small
incandescent bulbs turned on by a pushbutton on the housing for a
focusing light.

O.K. Here is a list of the reproduction ratios, with the
focusing distance from the front of the lens:


================================================== ====================
1/15 Master lens only 10' 11.99" 3350 mm
1/8 1/8x + master 5' 10.08" 1780 mm
1/6 1/6x + master 4' 4.64" 1337 mm
1/4 1/4x + master 2' 11.04" 890 mm
1/3 1/4x + 1/6x + master 2' 10." 635 mm
1/2 1/2x + master 1' 5.32" 440 mm
2/3 1/2x + 1/4x + master 1' 0.72" 232 mm
1x 1x + master 8.66" 220 mm
1.5x 1X + 1/2X + master 5.98" 152 mm
2x 2x + master 4.17" 106 mm
3x 2x + 1x + master 2.76" 70 mm
================================================== ====================

At 200 ASA (ISO) you are blocked from using 1:1 1.5:1 2:1 and
3:1 ratios, unless you can reduce the flash output.

The maximum distance will require an ASA (ISO) of 500 or
greater.

The standard battery power pack requires a 240V battery, and
four D cells to power the focusing lights.

There is another feature which will be useless with the D70.
That of imprinting the reproduction ratio (or a frame number) onto the
bottom-right corner of the image -- because this is in part of the area
not covered by the 1.5 crop factor of the D70's sensor. It can be
turned off, so there is no scattered light from it.

I have measured and verified that the flash sync voltage is
within the safe range listed for the D70 -- and the manual says that the
camera may be used with this lens -- with an AS-15 flash adaptor to
provide a PC connector.

If you want to see an example shot with this lens, the following
is one of a spider, which had taken up residence between the storm
window and the main window of our bathroom last summer, and who lasted
well into the fall.

This was taken through the bathroom window, and through some of
the webs woven by this spider. And it was handheld. It was at the
2/3:1 ratio -- the closest that I could get without a ND filter or the
modified power pack cord.

http://www2.d-and-d.com/misc/EXAMPLE/spider.jpg

Enjoy,
DoN.
--
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

Paul Furman wrote:

I just took the lazy way out and measured the date on the second
picture, which should be 1:1 since this is the maximum magnification
of this lens and was 2" on my monitor. Then I measured the first
picture, which gave 5.5". If I did this correctly I have a
magnification factor of 2.75 X, which really isn't bad. I just hate
how close the front of the lens has to be from the subject. Lighting is
difficult.


Well, don't trust my math. Take apicture of a mm scale to make it
easy.

LOL. It's not that. I glanced down on my desk and I had a ruler sitting
there, this sparked a brainstorm. I figured this should give me a decent
guesstimate of what the magnification factor would be since I know the
picture taken with the plain 105 should be pretty close to 1:1.

It seems like lighting contrast becomes more extreme with macros.
Anyone know if that's real?

I use the diffuser on the SB800 so I can make a reasonable attempt to not
get that "washed out" look.

A longer focal length is the only trick for that I believe. I'm a foot
away from the front element with the 70-200 plus diopter, that one
only goes to 5 feet without the diopter.

Do you know if changing the reversed lens to a different focal length will
increase/decrease the subject/lens front distance? My assumption is it will
not since this is a set parameter for the digital sensor or film plane.

I'm with you thinking the diopter might do the trick on the 70-200mm. I
really like learning while experimenting and I'm having fun doing it.
Thanks for all the wonderful tips.



Rita

DoN. Nichols wrote:

It might help somewhat to set up a bracket to hold the SB-800 in
a fixed relationship to the camera and lens.

This is what I currently use with the 105mm and it works great since I have
great subject/lens front distance.

http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2003/eBay/Bracket.jpg

I'll have to find some gooseneck material and rig something up if I want to
use the 50mm attached to the 105mm.

What I would suggest will take some searching, but will handle
the lighting and the closeup all at once -- since IIRC you are using a
Nikon D70.

Look for an old Medical Nikkor. It is a 200mm f/5.6 lens, with
a set of screw-in diopter lenses and a built-in ring flash. It is too
old to work as an automatic exposure setup -- but it is designed to
handle that part for you. You set the ASA (ISO) on one ring, and the
reproduction ratio desired (determined by the selection of diopter
lenses), and this sets your aperture correctly.

Thanks for the great tip, Don. I see one listed on eBay and it looks like
one hell of a kit that goes along with it. What is the current market value
for this setup?



Rita

Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:

LOL. It's not that. I glanced down on my desk and I had a ruler sitting
there, this sparked a brainstorm. I figured this should give me a decent
guesstimate of what the magnification factor would be since I know the
picture taken with the plain 105 should be pretty close to 1:1.

Can't remember what camera you're using, but if it's digital you
should be able to easily calculate the ratio from the number of
pixels between the millimeter marks. All you need to know is
the number of pix across your sensor and the size of the sensor.
[Okay, pixel positions aren't exactly the same as sensor cells,
but it all works out pretty much the same]

--
Ken Tough