kino lenses

[bob2]

I am thinking of buying a macro lens for my konica t3 but I don`t know if its worth the $150.It is a 55mm 1:1.feedback anyone?

 

[dmax]

Bob,
You can get an entire setup going for far less than that. For instance, a set of camera specific extension tubes for your camera, a good enlarger lens, and a modified lens cap (to mount the enlarger lens) and you're up and running. I consider$150 too much for a 50mm macro lens, regardless of brand. As a side note, I have been shooting scientific material for publications for decades, and so I'm more than familiar with the cost of equipment.

 

[bob2]

It did seem a little steep.I think ill use the $75 konica bellows (I think I paid too mucheven if it is like new)and 55mm hexanon when it arrives.

 

[RoBBo]

That lens came on my FT-1 when I got it, 100$ for the whole setup.
Which is a bit nuts, considering it's probably one of the sharpest lenses I've ever seen.
I'd say it's definitely worth that much, even if Konica gear isn't that sought after anymore, think about how much you'd have to pay for a lens of comparable quality from a different kit?

 

[polaski]

I beg to differ. If the lens is a true 1:1 Kino Precision lens, it's an excellent lens. Kiron (Kino's private brand) lenses were also marketed under Vivitar labels. They were used also as Lester Dine lenses (of the dental photography specialty) in the 105mm focal length.

In 50mm, a true macro lens is highly versatile, from slow and steady macro work to landscapes and portraits. If anything, the flat focus plane can be used with considerable precision. If you are taking a picture of a pit viper, I'd suggest the longer focal length, but for much work, 50mm is fine. I've found that I use it more that the 105mm simply because it's easier (snaller, lighter) to have on the camera.

 

[dynachrome]

A 50mm lens which has its own focusing helicoid and which goes from 1:1 or 1:2 to infinity is more correctly referred to as a purpose built macro lens. A true macro lens is one which has no helicoid, which is optimized for a limited range of magnification and which has an RMS thread mount. The Zeiss Luminars and Leitz Photars and Macro Summars are the best known of this type. In some cases the shorter lenses were in RMS mount while the longer ones were in Leica 39mm mount. This is true of the Macro Nikkors, not to be confused with the oddly named Micro Nikkors.

 

[Dan Fromm]

A 50mm lens which has its own focusing helicoid and which goes from 1:1 or 1:2 to infinity is more correctly referred to as a purpose built macro lens. A true macro lens is one which has no helicoid, which is optimized for a limited range of magnification and which has an RMS thread mount. The Zeiss Luminars and Leitz Photars and Macro Summars are the best known of this type. In some cases the shorter lenses were in RMS mount while the longer ones were in Leica 39mm mount. This is true of the Macro Nikkors, not to be confused with the oddly named Micro Nikkors.

Canon MP-E 65/2.8, anyone?

There's another artificial but somewhat useful and widely adopted dichotomy: photography at magnifications <= 1:1 is closeup photography, at magnifications > 1:1 is photomacrography. If you buy this, lenses for use above 1:1 are macro lenses, regardless of mounting hardware.

All lenses are optimized for relatively limited ranges of magnifications. Some types, usually but not always fairly symmetrical, hold their optimizations well, if not perfectly, at all distances.

Funny, the handful of 100/6.3 Luminars I've used are not in M39x26tpi and neither is my 100/6.3 Neupolar, a somewhat better lens.

Moral of this post? If you're going to lay down the law, be right.

 

[Robint]

How about a Vivitar macro-focusing teleconverter. A seven element unit built by Kiron. I have an article by Herb Keppler in Modern Photography in which he compares a Nikon 105mm f4 micro against a Nikon 50mm f1.4 and f1.8 lenses. His findings was that the f1.8 + teleconverter was the equal of the micro-Nikkor whilst the f1.4 wasn't far behind. Also a good 2x teleconverter. Uses a helicoid to move the 50mm lens away from the teleconverter section and goes from 1:10 to 1:1. I use mine with a Vivitar 135mm f2.8 Close Focusing lens for photographing butterdlies. They are cheap on ebay and would enable you try macro without spending a lot. There is also a Panagor version, also by Kiron, which moves elements inside the teleconverter to get to 1:1. Though it can't be used as a teleconverter.

 

[dynachrome]

Lenses which are classicly referred to as "true macro" do not have their own focusing mounts even if they are used for magnifications of 1:1 or higher. The 65/2.8 MP-E is a very interesting design. If I has an EOS mount camera I would get one. The test report I read on this lens showed that it was even sharper at 5:1 than at 1:1. There are many beautiful photos of plants and insects in the gallery section of photo.net which were shot with this lens. While it is true that lenses are typically optimized for a certain magnification it is not necessary to follow this advice in every case. With my Minolta Auto Bellows III outfit I find it easier to use the 25mm f/2.5 past the recommended magnification level than to use the 12.5 f/2. If I had to photograph an average size postage stamp at 1:1 I have many choices. I could use a 50 or 55 macro lens with a 1:1 tube (if needed), a 90 or 100mm lens, the 100/4 Bellows Rokkor-X, a 120/5.6 Macro Nikkor etc. All would give me good results because I am in a situation where I can control the lighting and where the subject is flat. If I need more working distance or of my subject is not flat then I might have to use something different. Robint mentions several items which I have and sometimes use. These include the Vivitar 2X Macro Focusing Teleconverter, the Panagor Auto Macro Converter and the Vivitar 135/2.8 Close Focusing lens. The Vivitar 135 goes to 1:2 by itself and is very handy when you can't get as close to a subject as you would like.

Some macro lenses like the 55/3.5 non-compensating Micro Nikkors are said to be optimized for 1:10 magnification. I find that they still work well all the way out to infinity. Two of my shorter macro lenses, the 55/2.8 AIS Nikkor and the 50/3.5 Zuiko have floating element designs and are very good over a wide range of magnifications. Just how far out of its optimized range a lens can be pushed is something you have to experiment with to find out. I don't think it would be practical to try to use my 12.5mm or 25mm Minolta micro lenses at infinity. I also enjoy using a variety of enlarging lenses, front forward and reversed, on bellows and extension tubes. Close-up and macro photography can be a lot of fun if you have the patience for it and if you like to experiment.

 

[ajrilo]

Minolta 25mm micro bellows and 12.5mm micro bellows

Hello,

Does anyone out there have any of these lenses for sale? or know where I can get hold of these lenses? if so please let me know, thanks

 

[dynachrome]

There were four Minolta bellows lenses in the last series (Rokkor-X) and an earlier 100/4 with a different optical formula. The 12.5 and 25 are seldom seen. I bought the 12.5 years ago at a camera show for $50. The seller probably did not know what it was used for. The 100 came from an ebay seller. The 50 came from a store in Metuchen, NJ and the 25 was purchased directly from Minolta when they had their headquarters in Ramsey NJ. There were two on display. After making sure no dealers had one and after reading my letter requesting an exception to their policy, they sold me the lens for a steep price. If you are not a collector then I suggest you consider some other "micro" lenses as possibilities too. Canon made 20mm and 35mm lenses. They are in RMS mount and would require adapters for use with popular camera mounts. Olympus made 20mm and 38mm lenses in RMS mount and than made different versions in these same focal lengths but in OM mount and with auto diaphragms. In addition to these, Olympus made 80mm and 135mm bellows macro lenses in OM mount. They are optimized for different magnifications and are supposed to be very good. Nikon made a set of Macro Nikkors for the Multiphot in 19mm, 35mm, 65mm and 120mm focal lengths. The 19 amd 35, if I remember correctly, are in RMS mount, the 120 is in Leica 39mm mount and I don't remember what mount the 65 has. I think it's also Leica 39mm. Many of the things you can do with the 12.5 and the 25 can be done with reversed wide angles, reversed cine lenses and enlarging lenses. I recommend a used copy of The Manual Of Close-Up Photography by Lester Lefkowitz. These can easily be found on internet websites specializing in used books. The book explains all of these possibilities and is an excellent reference for close-up and macro photography, however these are defined.

The usual sources for finding this equipment include eBay, KEH, B&H, Adorama, Woodmere camera, Henry's, Central Camera, Midwest Photo Exchange and some other advertisers in Shutterbug and Popular Photography.

 

[Q.G.]

Very, very good micro lenses, in RMS mount, not mentioned above, and that do pop up for sale regularly, are the Zeiss Luminars.

 

[dynachrome]

The Zeiss Luminars were mentioned. The reference appears on the previous page and was made in 2008.

 

[Q.G.]

Not necessarily.
Some true, and real, and veritable macro lenses come in a focussing mount.

As Dynachrome wrote only three posts up:

Olympus made 20mm and 38mm lenses in RMS mount and than made different versions in these same focal lengths but in OM mount and with auto diaphragms. In addition to these, Olympus made 80mm and 135mm bellows macro lenses in OM mount. They are [...]

 

[Anscojohn]

Very, very good micro lenses, in RMS mount, not mentioned above, and that do pop up for sale regularly, are the Zeiss Luminars.

****************
What means RMS?

 

[Dan Fromm]

Root Mean Square.

Use Google, search for Royal Microscopical Society.

 

[Q.G.]

****************
What means RMS?

You mean you don't know about the Royal screw?
RMS = Royal Microscopical Society. RMS mount is the screw mount they preferred and turned into 'the standard'.

 

[dynachrome]

The 20mm and 38mm Zuikos which were made with auto diaphragms and in OM mount still did not have their own focusing helicoids. There seems to be some misunderstanding concerning Kino Precision, the maker of Kiron lenses and Vivitar. Some Vivitar lenses were made by Kino and some weren't. The 55/2.8 macro and 90/2.8 macro Vivitars were made by Komine (28XXX...). The 90/2.5 Series 1 was made by Tokina (37XXX...). I read that there were prototypes of this lens made by Kino and with the 22XXX... serial number but haven't seen any of them or even photos of them. They may have been sold outside of the U.S. The 100/2.8 and 105/2.5 Series one Vivitars were made by Kino (22XXX...). Vivitar may have used some poetic license with the marked f/stop on the 105. The only one of these I don't have is the 105 Series 1.