If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
[test] extension tubes on magnification of macro lenses
I've been meaning to do this for months. Finally took the
opportunity. Wanted to take shots of a measurable subject at different magnifications to: - show what 1:1 really means (even though I know) - measure the real magnification of extension tubes on my macro lens, other than saying it's about 2:1 - see what the magnification of extension tubes is at infinity focus on my macro lens. Lately I've been shooting with full set of extension tubes on, and I realise you lose infinity focus, but I've been wondering what the minimum magnification really is. All shot with Canon EOS 30D (sensor size 22.5mm x 15.0mm), EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM lens. Extension tube set was Kenko 68mm full set. I didn't bother testing individual tubes because I have never used less than the full set since I want them for maximum magnification, and also because testing the various combinations of 3 different length tubes would drive me nuts. I realise it's probably not the most accurate test. If I'd shot with the ruler across the diagonal it'd be a little more precise because when scaling things, the longest measurable distances are the best. I also could have used a tripod and made sure the scale was dead level. But I figure it's near enough for my purposes and still helpful for others. So here we go. Bare 100mm macro lens, 1:1 magnification. Near enough to 22-22.5mm on the scale, 22.5mm sensor width, so the 1:1 mag seems correct. http://piggo.com/%7Etroy/photos/00_e...n/img_8750.jpg 100mm macro lens with 68mm of tubes, focused to minimum distance. Near enough to 11mm, 22.5mm sensor width, so 2:1 mag seems about right. http://piggo.com/%7Etroy/photos/00_e...n/img_8748.jpg 100mm macro lens with 68mm of tubes, focused to infinity. Near enough to 34mm on the scale, 22.5mm sensor width, so around 2:3 or 1:1.5 magnification. Keep in mind the lens is focused to infinity, but this shot is all that is in focus due to the tubes. Everything more than a couple of millimetres behind it is out of focus. http://piggo.com/%7Etroy/photos/00_e...n/img_8749.jpg -- Troy Piggins I always appreciate critique. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
[test] extension tubes on magnification of macro lenses
"Troy Piggins" wrote in message
... I've been meaning to do this for months. Finally took the opportunity. Wanted to take shots of a measurable subject at different magnifications to: - show what 1:1 really means (even though I know) - measure the real magnification of extension tubes on my macro lens, other than saying it's about 2:1 - see what the magnification of extension tubes is at infinity focus on my macro lens. Lately I've been shooting with full set of extension tubes on, and I realise you lose infinity focus, but I've been wondering what the minimum magnification really is. All shot with Canon EOS 30D (sensor size 22.5mm x 15.0mm), EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM lens. Extension tube set was Kenko 68mm full set. I didn't bother testing individual tubes because I have never used less than the full set since I want them for maximum magnification, and also because testing the various combinations of 3 different length tubes would drive me nuts. I realise it's probably not the most accurate test. If I'd shot with the ruler across the diagonal it'd be a little more precise because when scaling things, the longest measurable distances are the best. I also could have used a tripod and made sure the scale was dead level. But I figure it's near enough for my purposes and still helpful for others. So here we go. Bare 100mm macro lens, 1:1 magnification. Near enough to 22-22.5mm on the scale, 22.5mm sensor width, so the 1:1 mag seems correct. http://piggo.com/%7Etroy/photos/00_e...n/img_8750.jpg 100mm macro lens with 68mm of tubes, focused to minimum distance. Near enough to 11mm, 22.5mm sensor width, so 2:1 mag seems about right. http://piggo.com/%7Etroy/photos/00_e...n/img_8748.jpg 100mm macro lens with 68mm of tubes, focused to infinity. Near enough to 34mm on the scale, 22.5mm sensor width, so around 2:3 or 1:1.5 magnification. Keep in mind the lens is focused to infinity, but this shot is all that is in focus due to the tubes. Everything more than a couple of millimetres behind it is out of focus. http://piggo.com/%7Etroy/photos/00_e...n/img_8749.jpg -- Troy Piggins I always appreciate critique. But testing the 100mm with tubes is sooooo much fun!!! http://www.jlkramer.net/Pictures/100mm/100mmTest.htm -Jim |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
[test] extension tubes on magnification of macro lenses
* jimkramer wrote :
Troy Piggins wrote : [---=| Quote block shrinked by t-prot: 41 lines snipped |=---] enough to 34mm on the scale, 22.5mm sensor width, so around 2:3 or 1:1.5 magnification. Keep in mind the lens is focused to infinity, but this shot is all that is in focus due to the tubes. Everything more than a couple of millimetres behind it is out of focus. http://piggo.com/%7Etroy/photos/00_e...n/img_8749.jpg But testing the 100mm with tubes is sooooo much fun!!! http://www.jlkramer.net/Pictures/100mm/100mmTest.htm Good tests. Wish I'd seen them earlier, but I still would have done my own. I don't understand inches, I'm all metric baby! I also wanted to understand it all in terms of magnification. Perhaps you could add that sort of info to your page. Thanks for sharing. Bookmarked. -- Troy Piggins I always appreciate critique. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
[test] extension tubes on magnification of macro lenses
"Troy Piggins" wrote in message
... * jimkramer wrote : Troy Piggins wrote : [---=| Quote block shrinked by t-prot: 41 lines snipped |=---] enough to 34mm on the scale, 22.5mm sensor width, so around 2:3 or 1:1.5 magnification. Keep in mind the lens is focused to infinity, but this shot is all that is in focus due to the tubes. Everything more than a couple of millimetres behind it is out of focus. http://piggo.com/%7Etroy/photos/00_e...n/img_8749.jpg But testing the 100mm with tubes is sooooo much fun!!! http://www.jlkramer.net/Pictures/100mm/100mmTest.htm Good tests. Wish I'd seen them earlier, but I still would have done my own. I don't understand inches, I'm all metric baby! I also wanted to understand it all in terms of magnification. Perhaps you could add that sort of info to your page. Thanks for sharing. Bookmarked. -- Troy Piggins I always appreciate critique. Inches are just like mm only 25.4 times as big. :-) -Jim |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
[test] extension tubes on magnification of macro lenses
Troy Piggins wrote:
* jimkramer wrote : Troy Piggins wrote : [---=| Quote block shrinked by t-prot: 41 lines snipped |=---] enough to 34mm on the scale, 22.5mm sensor width, so around 2:3 or 1:1.5 magnification. Keep in mind the lens is focused to infinity, but this shot is all that is in focus due to the tubes. Everything more than a couple of millimetres behind it is out of focus. http://piggo.com/%7Etroy/photos/00_e...n/img_8749.jpg But testing the 100mm with tubes is sooooo much fun!!! http://www.jlkramer.net/Pictures/100mm/100mmTest.htm Good tests. Wish I'd seen them earlier, but I still would have done my own. I don't understand inches, I'm all metric baby! I also wanted to understand it all in terms of magnification. Perhaps you could add that sort of info to your page. I have no series (and certainly no art g) to contribute but a few weeks ago I just had to see what this setup would do[1]: D60, 18-55mm (at 18mm) reverse-mounted on the front of 55-200mm (zoomed in until the image was no longer inside a black circle g). These are mm marks on a wooden ruler; the image is not cropped. http://blinkynet.net/stuff/mm_marks.jpg Thank God for the new rails. [1] There was probably math to do this, but, you know... -- Blinky Killing all posts from Google Groups The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org Need a new news feed? http://blinkynet.net/comp/newfeed.html |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
[test] extension tubes on magnification of macro lenses
* jimkramer wrote :
"Troy Piggins" wrote in message ... * jimkramer wrote : Troy Piggins wrote : [---=| Quote block shrinked by t-prot: 41 lines snipped |=---] But testing the 100mm with tubes is sooooo much fun!!! http://www.jlkramer.net/Pictures/100mm/100mmTest.htm Good tests. Wish I'd seen them earlier, but I still would have done my own. I don't understand inches, I'm all metric baby! I also wanted to understand it all in terms of magnification. Perhaps you could add that sort of info to your page. Thanks for sharing. Bookmarked. Inches are just like mm only 25.4 times as big. :-) You whacky Americans. What will they think of next. Sounds like a catchy system of measuring. It should really take off. Ok, I googled it. 12 inches to a foot. 3 feet to a yard. 1760 yards to a mile. It's so easy to remember. I don't know why us in the rest of the world are using this silly metric system where it's 1000mm to metre, 1000m to km. :-D -- Troy Piggins I always appreciate critique. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
[test] extension tubes on magnification of macro lenses
"Troy Piggins" wrote: Inches are just like mm only 25.4 times as big. :-) You whacky Americans. What will they think of next. Sounds like a catchy system of measuring. It should really take off. Ok, I googled it. 12 inches to a foot. 3 feet to a yard. 1760 yards to a mile. It's so easy to remember. I don't know why us in the rest of the world are using this silly metric system where it's 1000mm to metre, 1000m to km. :-D Overheard (really!) in a Navy ROTC course* at a well-know institute of higher education in the US. Professor: We will now compute the density of sea water in slugs per cubic yard. Cadet: Sir! Excuse me, sir! But, sir! Are you serious or making a joke, sir? Professor: I'm terribly sorry, but I'm serious. *: Air, Water, and Interface Vehicles. A seriously great course for anyone even vaguely interested in boats. -- David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
[test] extension tubes on magnification of macro lenses
* Blinky the Shark wrote :
Troy Piggins wrote: * jimkramer wrote : Troy Piggins wrote : [---=| Quote block shrinked by t-prot: 41 lines snipped |=---] But testing the 100mm with tubes is sooooo much fun!!! http://www.jlkramer.net/Pictures/100mm/100mmTest.htm Good tests. Wish I'd seen them earlier, but I still would have done my own. I don't understand inches, I'm all metric baby! I also wanted to understand it all in terms of magnification. Perhaps you could add that sort of info to your page. I have no series (and certainly no art g) to contribute but a few weeks ago I just had to see what this setup would do[1]: D60, 18-55mm (at 18mm) reverse-mounted on the front of 55-200mm (zoomed in until the image was no longer inside a black circle g). These are mm marks on a wooden ruler; the image is not cropped. http://blinkynet.net/stuff/mm_marks.jpg Thank God for the new rails. [1] There was probably math to do this, but, you know... That's pretty big magnification! Impressive. Understand now how hard it must've been to control. -- Troy Piggins I always appreciate critique. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
[test] extension tubes on magnification of macro lenses
Troy Piggins wrote:
* Blinky the Shark wrote : Troy Piggins wrote: * jimkramer wrote : Troy Piggins wrote : [---=| Quote block shrinked by t-prot: 41 lines snipped |=---] But testing the 100mm with tubes is sooooo much fun!!! http://www.jlkramer.net/Pictures/100mm/100mmTest.htm Good tests. Wish I'd seen them earlier, but I still would have done my own. I don't understand inches, I'm all metric baby! I also wanted to understand it all in terms of magnification. Perhaps you could add that sort of info to your page. I have no series (and certainly no art g) to contribute but a few weeks ago I just had to see what this setup would do[1]: D60, 18-55mm (at 18mm) reverse-mounted on the front of 55-200mm (zoomed in until the image was no longer inside a black circle g). These are mm marks on a wooden ruler; the image is not cropped. http://blinkynet.net/stuff/mm_marks.jpg Thank God for the new rails. [1] There was probably math to do this, but, you know... That's pretty big magnification! Impressive. Understand now how hard it must've been to control. Rails and remote IR shutter release. Won't be shooting any busy bees with that 12:1 setup. http://blinkynet.net/stuff/compound.jpg -- Blinky Killing all posts from Google Groups The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org Need a new news feed? http://blinkynet.net/comp/newfeed.html |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
[test] extension tubes on magnification of macro lenses
Troy Piggins wrote:
* jimkramer wrote : "Troy Piggins" wrote in message ... * jimkramer wrote : Troy Piggins wrote : [---=| Quote block shrinked by t-prot: 41 lines snipped |=---] But testing the 100mm with tubes is sooooo much fun!!! http://www.jlkramer.net/Pictures/100mm/100mmTest.htm Good tests. Wish I'd seen them earlier, but I still would have done my own. I don't understand inches, I'm all metric baby! I also wanted to understand it all in terms of magnification. Perhaps you could add that sort of info to your page. Thanks for sharing. Bookmarked. Inches are just like mm only 25.4 times as big. :-) You whacky Americans. What will they think of next. Sounds like a catchy system of measuring. It should really take off. Ok, I googled it. 12 inches to a foot. 3 feet to a yard. 1760 yards to a mile. It's so easy to remember. I don't know why us in the rest of the world are using this silly metric system where it's 1000mm to metre, 1000m to km. :-D Yours are all so similar...this-m, that-m, some-other-m. No wonder they're so confusing! -- Blinky Killing all posts from Google Groups The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org Need a new news feed? http://blinkynet.net/comp/newfeed.html |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Macro + extension tubes | Gordon MacPherson | Digital Photography | 2 | June 21st 07 12:38 PM |
macro equipment: macro lens or extension tubes? | [email protected] | 35mm Photo Equipment | 6 | July 14th 06 08:13 AM |
FS: Macro extension tubes - for screw mount 35mm SLR | Eric Snyder | 35mm Equipment for Sale | 0 | July 11th 06 10:37 AM |
Extension Tubes or Macro Lens? | Edward Holt | Digital SLR Cameras | 3 | March 3rd 06 10:26 PM |
for macro photography, which is better, extension tubes or macro diopter filters. | default | Digital SLR Cameras | 17 | January 20th 06 08:24 AM |