Dan,
I was typing another reply while you were posting yours. Why do I have so many macro lenses? The first answer is that I like having and using them. The second answer might be a little longer. My first close-up device was one of those variable close-up lenses. It was in Series 7 size and needed an adapter to 55mm to fit my 57/1.4 Konica Hexanon standard lens. It wasn't too bad in the center if the lens was well closed down but the corners of the frame were cut off. Some time later I got a short manual bellows and used that with the same standard lens. I did not realize then that beyond a certain magnification, it was better to reverse the lens. Also, I had no focusing rail so the set-up was awkward to use. Later, using the Lester Lefkowitz book as a guide, I used a range of enlarging lenses on the bellows, with and without flash, with good results. It would be a while after that when I would get my first macro lens with a focusing helicoid.
A friend in High School had a Minolta SRT 101 with the 55/1.7 standard lens. His second lens was not a 135 or a 28. It was the 50/3.5 MC Rokkor QF macro. His uncle traveled to Japan for work and brought the lens back for him. I forgot to mention that I also had a set of Vivitar extension tubes while still in High School. I think I must have had macro lens envy for a long time. Now the Minolta part of my collection includes every version of the Minolta 50/3.5 macro except for an early pre-set version in Leica thread mount. How many 50/3.5 Rokkor, Celtic and plain MD lenses do I have. I don't really remember but it's more than a few. These are some of my favorites. I am still missing the first version of the Minolta 100/3.5 Macro.
Some people collect beer cans. Some collect coins or stamps. Others collect horses. What is the right number of each to collect? I can't say. I have one car, a Honda Odyssey. I have had and still have only one wife. I have one child and, so far, one granchilld. I don't have doubles and triples of everything.
Thanks for the reply. As I said, there's no disputing tastes. You're happy with what you do, so I'm happy with what you do. But I wondered.
Re macro lenses. I started out with a 50/1.4 Nikkor (pre-AI) and Nikon's own close-up lenses. Horrible results, absolutely horrible. When I could I got a 55/3.5 MicroNikkor, also pre-AI, and its extension tube. I was set, except that working distance was too short for some subjects and situations. Also got a PB-4 bellows, tried it with my Sonnar type 105/2.8 Nikkor. Great lens at distance, horrible close up. And the bellows was just impossible with moving subjects. When a 135/2.8 Steinheil Macro-Tele Quinar turned up at a reasonable price I bought it. I used Novoflex adapters to hang it in front of my Nikkormat. Good, not great, and far focusing distance was just a couple of feet. I used it until the 105/4 Micro-Nikkor came to market. And when the 200/4 AI/S Micro-Nikkor was released I got one. Not particularly good, as macro lenses go, but the working distance is useful. After my kit was stolen I got 55/2.8, 105/2.8 and 200/4 MicroNikkors, all AIS. And there I sit. I b'lieve there are now better lenses in F mount but mine are still better than good enough.
On one field trip to Costa Rica I observed
Rivulus isthmensis out of the water looking for terrestrial insects to eat. Couldn't stalk close enough to get usable photos. Went back three years later with a Celestron C-90 -- it would do 1:4 at ten feet -- and a strong enough flash. Everything had been cut down, found no
Rivulus in or out of water in that area. My C-90 was terrible, beautiful example or strong strong astigmatism. I now have a Questar 700 that will do 1:4 at ten feet and that's as good at 1:4 @ f/8 as my 55/2.8 at 1:4 @ f/8. Great working distance. I've never tried it on extension tubes or on the D810.
I've never had the money to get a Wild photographic stereo microscope, have used one in the Smithsonian and another different model in The Academy of Natural Sciences. I've cobbled together a rig that does somewhat the same. Polaroid MP-4 stand, Zeiss Luminars, various adapters, bellows, extention tubes, even a D-810. Sorry to say I've never used it.
I've gone berserk getting lenses for my 2x3 kit, most at surprisingly low prices. My late friend Charlie Barringer -- if you don't know who he is, google him -- once asked me what my rationale for getting them was. Partly to find out what they were, mostly to get good lenses at low prices. He appreciated good lenses cheap.
