Hassy Closeup Options Other Than Makro Lens

[jmooney]

I'm looking at doing some plant portrait type work with spme orchids and a 500cm and 80mm lens. What are my options for doing this kind of work. I know a macro lens is ideal but that's too spendy at this point. Please feel free to share pics if you have any.

Thanks,

Jim

 

[Mark Fisher]

Tubes? I have a 16mm tube and find that to be a good size for the 150mm and 80mm.

 

[Q.G.]

The 80 mm lens is perfect for what you want. You just need something to allow you to get closer.

Try a 8 mm (or 10 mm) extension tube, to start with. The 8 mm will take you down to 1:4.75.

Next would be the 16 mm tube. It alone will take your 80 mm from 1:5 to 1:3.
Combined with the 8 mm tube, the range will be from 1:3 to 1:2.45.

The next tube would be the 32 mm one.
It alone will take the 80 mm lens from 1:2.5 to just under 1:2 (1:1.97).
All three tubes mentioned combined will produce a range from 1:1.49 to 1:1.28.

You could also use Proxar close-up lenses. But the image quality will not be as good.

 

[Allan Swindles]

The Proxar 1 and 0.5m C/U lenses are probably the lowest cost option and no exposure adjustment to worry about. The alternative would be extension tubes or bellows, the latter being the most versatile and also the most costly. Both of these would require exposure increase depending on the degree of magnification. I would be inclined to try the Proxars initially, a 0.5m would give a 1:3.6 scale of reproduction and a lens to subject distance of just under 12 inches.and a subject area around 7.5 inches with the 80mm Planar set to the closest focussing point.

Regards - Allan.

 

[Ed Sukach]

I've used the Proxars for years. Depending on one's "anality" I am confident that the quality would be MORE than sufficient for 99.44% of those involved..
Interesting - How 'in' the use of a disaster camera (i.e. Holga) can be for "Artisitc" work - and how quick some are to condemn the use of supplementary - close up - lenses.
Best advice: Try them, or if not Proxars, ANY close up lenses ... Tiffen, B&W, ... If yoiu like them - use them.

 

[Q.G.]

Re bellows extension: too much to begin with.
Put that between the 80 mm lens and the camera, and you start at 1:1.27 (going from there to 2.6x magnification).
So don't let the variable extension of it make you think a bellows is more versatile. Unless you want to get real close (or use long lenses), tubes offer more versatility than bellows.


Ed,

Proxars can be good for "artistic" work too. Just like Holgas.
But if you like image quality (and why else would you be anal and buy expensive Zeiss lenses and Hasselblad cameras instead of cheap Holgas and their top of the range plastic globes?), Proxars are the least desirable option.

You make a good point about trying other close-up lenses.
Zeiss Proxars are really simple devices. Not even achromatic doublets, like those of some other manufacturers. Such achromats other brands offer should produce better image quality.
Yet still not as good as when puting a tube between camera and lens.

 

[Allan Swindles]

To clarify, my preference would be tubes in terms of ultimate quality, well no, the 120mm macro would be better, but for ease of use without TTL metering? Are we talking studio, out in the wilds or somewhere else? Tripod, flash or natural light and final requirement image size? No point using a sledge hammer to crack a walnut.

 

[Q.G.]

The 120 mm will need tubes too. Without, it allows you to get as close (in terms of scale - obviously it as an a bit longer working distance) as the 80 mm with 8 mm tube. No closer.

The 80 mm Planar is very good as a macro lens as well. So no need to worry about the lens.

 

[bdial]

Tubes work well, here is an example, I think I was using my 55mm on this, with an 80mm lens.

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[Sirius Glass]

Proxars, close up tubes, and bellows - how close do you want to get, the quality you want, and how much money can you afford?

Steve

 

[alanrockwood]

Just an untested suggestion, but what about using one of the two element (achromatic) supplementary (diopter) lenses, such as those manufactured by Canon or Nikon? The 500mm lens (+2 diopter) from Canon might be worth a try, and if that doesn't get you close enough then the 250mm (+4 diopter) lens might work.

These would be more likely to work well with your 80mm lens than your 500mm lens.

You might have to stop down a bit control the off-axis aberrations, but these two element lenses are fundamentally better than using simple (single element) supplementary lenses, and you are probably going to stop down to get depth of field anyway, so the two element supplementary lenses are not likely to hurt the image quality much.

 

[Ed Sukach]

Ed,
Proxars can be good for "artistic" work too. Just like Holgas.

Absolutely *NO* comparison - the Proxars, made by Zeiss, are two or three orders of magnitude more accurately made than the coke bottle lenses found on el cheapo cameras. I am/ was not comparing optics, only commenting on the preconditioning that exists among photographers.

But if you like image quality (and why else would you be anal and buy expensive Zeiss lenses and Hasselblad cameras instead of cheap Holgas and their top of the range plastic globes?), Proxars are the least desirable option.

Y' know - this riles me! If I express *MY* opinion that supplementary lenses, if done "right", are entirely satisfactory to MY STANDARDS , it must therefore follow that I am easily satisfied and/ or I don't really care about quality. NOTHNG could be further from the truth.

The truth is (yet, at best, necessarily my opinion) I do not think the usual photographer, who does not attack the work with heavy magnification would be able to determine the difference between a photograph taken with a supplementary lens and those produced with extension tubes or bellows. If one considers the design criteria of a lens, adding extra distance between lens and film plane takes the lens performance out of the intended design parameters, anyway, and therefore WILL negatively affect the performance.

There is *NO* free lunch ... If push comes to shove, the **BEST** lens for close photography will be a "process" lens - designed expressly for CLOSE work, and probably inferior for all else.

I would love to see a thorough study of close up work... Comparative MTF analyses of lenses with "extensions", and lenses equipped with supplementary atachments. As far as I know, they have not been done- or at least, I have never seen them.

Zeiss Proxars are really simple devices. Not even achromatic doublets, like those of some other manufacturers. Such achromats other brands offer should produce better image quality.

... Careful... I will not accept as blind proof the idea that adding two elements to a lens system, instead of one, will result in invariably better performance. It seems to me that other factors would have a greater effect on lens perforamnce than the sheer number of elements.

 

[Joachim_I]

I will not accept as blind proof the idea that adding two elements to a lens system, instead of one, will result in invariably better performance.

Sorry, there is simply no discussion, at least when we talk about achromats from reputed optical companies. I used to have a simple close-up lens from Hoya which I later replaced with a Pentax T132 achromat. The achromat is in a completely different league than the simple close-up lens (it is also 10x as expensive). This becomes particularly evident outside the center. By the way, according to my experience, for moderate magnifications (1:3) the achromats provide better image quality than an extension tube using the same lens (a 2.8/165mm Pentax 67 lens in my case).

 

[ic-racer]

Virtual Rolleicine (Frame in the center and crop )

 

[Q.G.]

Ed,

Noone said that the results you get with Proxars are in the same league as those a Holga produces.
You pointed out that some people accept Holga-level images, in support of accepting the lesser image quality Proxars produce, calling it 'anal' to want something a bit better.

Which is rather puzzling, reading now how you get riled.
You like to have your opinion and standards treated with respect, after implying that someone who doesn't share your level of expectations is not "the usual photographer", even is excessively 'anal'???

Anyhow: yes, independent of whether anyone would mind, Proxars' lesser quality does show indeed.
That's how things are.

And no, it's not the number of elements. It is (should not come as a surprise) what these elements do.
Close-up lenses introduce a fair bit of colour abberations. Using an achromat does lots to remedy that.

And no again: a process lens is not necessarily the best lens. Those are made to take pictures of flat copy. And their designs are usually highly scale sensitive, i.e. good for a rather limited range.

Which takes us back to what you say about the design criteria of a lens. There are reasons why Zeiss based their makro lenses on the Planar design. And one important one is that the Planar design retains high correction over a very wide range of distances.
Adding extension is by far the best thing you can do to retain high image quality. Much better than adding a teleconverter behind the lens, or adding close-up lenses in front of the lens.

 

[Ed Sukach]

Ed,

You pointed out that some people accept Holga-level images, in support of accepting the lesser image quality Proxars produce, calling it 'anal' to want something a bit better.

Not true - or at very least, not intended. I was trying to say that it is very difficult to discern the difference between supplementary lenses and extensions of various tpyes without extremely close inspection, as might be done by someone unreasonably critical ... and I'll hold to that opinion.

Which is rather puzzling, reading now how you get riled.
You like to have your opinion and standards treated with respect, after implying that someone who doesn't share your level of expectations is not "the usual photographer", even is excessively 'anal'???

Oh, pick every word to death. There ARE those out there who are excessively "anal" ... I estimated ... uh... 0.56% (100.00% - 99.44%) and deliberately did NOT leave clues as to who they were.

Do I see a repition of the idea that EVERY ONE **MUST** always knock themselves out to acheive absolute perfection, at all any any costs? I fried myself out working that way in the past; I know not what course of action others may take, but as for me - I will expend a great deal of energy to manage imperfection, as best as I can.

Anyhow: yes, independent of whether anyone would mind, Proxars' lesser quality does show indeed.
That's how things are.

No, they are not "lesser". Do you have objective information? - or is this one of those "everybody knows" statements?

And no, it's not the number of elements. It is (should not come as a surprise) what these elements do.

Interesting statement. I've come across quite a few "surprises" in the study of optics, one of the least being lens performance when used out of their design criteria. To tell the truth, I LIKE the surprises - additional opportunities to learn!!

Close-up lenses introduce a fair bit of colour abberations. Using an achromat does lots to remedy that.

I assume you mean "Chromatic abberation...", and no, I havene't noticed anyithing I would not expect froom stretching a lens beyond it design criteria.

And no again: a process lens is not necessarily the best lens....

They usually ARE *very* good for what they are designed. Outside of the diesign ...

Oh the hell with it. I'm tired of all this repeitition.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Hasselblad also makes/made a variable extension tube, 64-85mm. This might be a very good option- it gets you very close, and is more flexible than a single tube, but less expensive and less bulky than the bellows. Although, if you can live with a little more manual interaction, the original Hasselblad bellows work just fine and can be had for the price of a few shorter tubes.

 

[jeffreyg]

I vote for tubes as well. They can be stacked and don't add another piece of glass. They do require an exposure adjustment depending on the lens and length of the tube(s). Hasselblad has a chart with that information.

 

[Allan Swindles]

I should think jmooney is well confused by now and besides we really need more info. ie. end product, mono/colour print, 5x5 inch or 5x5ft., colour slides for reproduction or projection? Whilst it is obviously desirable to aim for maximum image quality there is no point if the subjects are to be photographed with a hand held camera on location on a breezy day.

 

[jmooney]

I should think jmooney is well confused by now and besides we really need more info. ie. end product, mono/colour print, 5x5 inch or 5x5ft., colour slides for reproduction or projection? Whilst it is obviously desirable to aim for maximum image quality there is no point if the subjects are to be photographed with a hand held camera on location on a breezy day.

I dare say folks feel strongly about macro photography

To answer these questions the end product will either be color slides or 10X10 or 12X12 mono prints (inches that is) depending on my mood. Mostly will be done indoors with tripod, cable release, et. al.

It's looking like tubes may be the way to go.

Thanks for all the info!

 

[André E.C.]

Good discussion here, pretty much everything have been "said", yet another vote for the tubes, budget and quality wise, seems to be your best shot IMHO.

PS- 5* exchange from Ed and Q.G, bring it on boys, nothing better than 2 heavy-weights on the mood for a good exchange of knowledge or/and skepticism.

 

[Ed Sukach]

PS- 5* exchange from Ed and Q.G, bring it on boys, nothing better than 2 heavy-weights on the mood for a good exchange of knowledge or/and skepticism.

Thanks!!!

I've been accused of making waves... True!

But ... waves are what purify the wters ... otherwise one is left with a swamp, and eventually, a solidified muck hole.

 

[Q.G.]

I'll decline (for now) to continue the exchange.
The counter-arguments lack quality ...