Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!

SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Focusing with macro lenses ...
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Wed Oct 14, 2009 8:54 pm    Post subject: Focusing with macro lenses ... Reply with quote

Hi all,

I need an advice about macro lenses ...
I have noticed that when focusing with "standard" lenses, i'm quite fast and since i mounted a Katzeye focusing screen rarely miss the focus on an image.
My issue is that this is no longer true when using macro lenses ...
It is not an issue about the barrel thread length, but i find a bit difficult to get the proper focus on a subject with a macro lens rather than with a normal lens ...

As an example, if i use my Pentax 105/2.8, i will focus and see the subject in focus in the viewfinder.
If i use my Phoenix 100 or my Kiron 105, it takes a bit longer to spot the right focus in the viewfinder ... It is quite a kind of "feeling" about the right focus (sorry, don't know how to explain this in english), but, again, not an issue with the longer focusing thread of the barrel ...

Is this the nominal behavior, or i have an issue with my eyes ? Before you ask, i have verified the diopter corrector of the viewfinder against a white wall and without a lens ...

All the advices are welcome ...

Thanks in advance for your replies (and especially for explanations, if you have some).

Cheers


PostPosted: Wed Oct 14, 2009 9:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I am not sure to understand the question but it is a fact that focusing is more easy with a better lens
With good lens, you have 1 point of focus and you know when you have it
with not so good lens you have to move barrel many times and guess the better position


PostPosted: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:19 pm    Post subject: Re: Focusing with macro lenses ... Reply with quote

indianadinos wrote:
Hi all,

I need an advice about macro lenses ...
I have noticed that when focusing with "standard" lenses, i'm quite fast and since i mounted a Katzeye focusing screen rarely miss the focus on an image.
My issue is that this is no longer true when using macro lenses ...
It is not an issue about the barrel thread length, but i find a bit difficult to get the proper focus on a subject with a macro lens rather than with a normal lens ...

As an example, if i use my Pentax 105/2.8, i will focus and see the subject in focus in the viewfinder.
If i use my Phoenix 100 or my Kiron 105, it takes a bit longer to spot the right focus in the viewfinder ... It is quite a kind of "feeling" about the right focus (sorry, don't know how to explain this in english), but, again, not an issue with the longer focusing thread of the barrel ...

Is this the nominal behavior, or i have an issue with my eyes ? Before you ask, i have verified the diopter corrector of the viewfinder against a white wall and without a lens ...

All the advices are welcome ...

Thanks in advance for your replies (and especially for explanations, if you have some).

Cheers


Hi,

don't know the lenses your are talking about (Phoenix 100 or my Kiron 105). Did only have the Pentax 2.8/105mm Super Takumar long time ago.

Whats exactly your problem?

Its normal that a macro lens with a ratio of 1:2 or extremly 1:1 has a very small DOF.

First of all.. use a tripod.

Freehand, each breath you take will change the "in focus" area...

Whats the problem with the Katzeye screen for you?

Its a normal behavior to get serious problems with a Split image/microprism collar focusing screen if you want to do macro's with micropsism and split image screen like the Katzeye's. The split image collapse at F/4-5.6, maybe a bit later..

Thats one of the reasons, why you should do macros better with a mate screen instead of a split image or microprism.

But the main reason for the difference is very, very small DOF Area.

Cheers
Hinnerker


PostPosted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 12:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think that the longer the "throw" the easier it is. When focusing takes a lot of turns it is easier to get it right when in macro. Most macro specialist lenses have this long throw



patrickh

PS the rest of the advice is very good


PostPosted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 12:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Freehand, each breath you take will change the "in focus" area...


Thank you this makes sense....always learning!


PostPosted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 2:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have noticed with my macro lenses that the longer throw results in an image that doesn't "pop" into focus the way it does with a normal lens. Thus, I really have to observe closely for that maximum point of sharpness. Also, given that I'm often working at higher magnifications with macro lenses, this means the depth-of-field is next to nothing, so any backward-or-forward movement I make can affect the image. For both these reasons, I prefer not to shoot with my macro lenses wide open, and a tripod is always a good idea. I consider f/8 to be a minimum useful aperture with them.


PostPosted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 9:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

patrickh wrote:
I think that the longer the "throw" the easier it is. When focusing takes a lot of turns it is easier to get it right when in macro. Most macro specialist lenses have this long throw
patrickh


I find the opposite works better for me ... for all focal lengths. I wonder if an optometrist might have some explanation connected with eye defects and corrective lenses?


PostPosted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 10:51 am    Post subject: Re: Focusing with macro lenses ... Reply with quote

It seems likely that the difficulty is due to a combination of several of the factors mentioned already:

- when taking macro the lens is at or near it's closest focus distance, so DoF is as small as it will ever be
- the long throw allows very fine adjustment by hand to accommodate the DoF
- since the focus adjustment is so fine (per degree of rotation of the barrel) the change from in focus to truly out of focus is gradual
- the human eye-brain function is poor at detecting absolute sharpness, and responds better to change.

This would explain why macro focusing doesn't 'snap' the way normal lenses do.

In summary, a long throw helix is very good physically for minute adjustment, and very bad perceptually for us humans to tell when it's right.

Regards

Angus


PostPosted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 12:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Unless you're shooting on a tripod (which only works with VERY stationary subjects), I don't use the focus ring for focus adjustment in macro work: I set the focus ring according to the general distance/magnification that I am working at, and then move myself forward and back to get into focus on the specific point I'm after. This is faster, you can make the image snap in and out as fast or as slow as you want, and release the shutter at the instant that you see it's right.

I find fine micrometer-like focus adjustments very difficult to work with ... I had a 50mm Schneider Xenon that took over 300 degrees of barrel rotation to get to minimum focus, it was a fine lens but I felt I could never find the focus point with it. Replaced it with a Zeiss Biotar that is probably not as good a lens but it works much better for me.


PostPosted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 12:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I personally think (very personal opinion) that for macro focusing, nothing beats a good bellows trail.

-


PostPosted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 12:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

rick_oleson wrote:
Unless you're shooting on a tripod (which only works with VERY stationary subjects), I don't use the focus ring for focus adjustment in macro work: I set the focus ring according to the general distance/magnification that I am working at, and then move myself forward and back to get into focus on the specific point I'm after. This is faster, you can make the image snap in and out as fast or as slow as you want, and release the shutter at the instant that you see it's right.


I don't do real macro work but only close-ups. But this is my approach also. For most of my subjects it's simply impossible to set up a tripod.


PostPosted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 3:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

A lot of good info, especially about the lens focusing throw and minute movement throwing focus out at higher magnifications! I learned a lot in this thread!

OP, have you tried a rough ground focusing screen? Basically, it makes the viewfinder images 'SNAP' in and out of focus much faster than a normally ground screen. I'm not familiar with the Pentax cameras, so you might have to look around different sources a bit. In Canon DSLRs, this screen goes by the post-fix of 's' (xx-s screen). Bear in mind, the rougher the grind n the screen, the darker the VF image. I usually can easily focus using this screen and lenses up to about f/4 or so.


PostPosted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 3:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

you have to check for backfocus
if you focus on eyes and get a result like mine, you probably need to shim your screen

backfocus sample


PostPosted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 3:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bellows is definitely the way to go though for precision. Some also like the focusing helicoids for rigidity.


patrickh


PostPosted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 4:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Would a well-made macro focusing rail work as well, if higher magnifications are not needed?


PostPosted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 9:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, a lot of really useful infos here ...

hinnerker wrote:
Freehand, each breath you take will change the "in focus" area...

Right, i knew that breathing could cause micro-blurring, but never thought before to associate this with focusing problems ...

hinnerker wrote:
Its a normal behavior to get serious problems with a Split image/microprism collar focusing screen if you want to do macro's with micropsism and split image screen like the Katzeye's. The split image collapse at F/4-5.6, maybe a bit later..

Well, here i would really like to know what happens with my screen: when i use my Pentax 105/2.8, the split image works perfectly. When i use my Kiron 105/2.8 (same focal length, same aperture) the split image collapse as if the lens was at f/4 or f/5.6 (which is not the case, tested more than once and lens verified by a pro lab) ...
Moreover, with my Phoenix 100/3.5, i have to find the right alignment between my eye and the viewfinder, to avoid darkening of one of the halves. Wonder why this doesn't happen when i mount a Pentax 200/4 or a Pentacon 200/4, which are slower lenses than the 100/3.5 ...

hinnerker wrote:
Thats one of the reasons, why you should do macros better with a mate screen instead of a split image or microprism.

Don't know matte screen for Pentax cameras, do you have some references ?


patrickh wrote:
I think that the longer the "throw" the easier it is. When focusing takes a lot of turns it is easier to get it right when in macro. Most macro specialist lenses have this long throw

Agree on this, my Kiron is built this way ...


cooltouch wrote:
I have noticed with my macro lenses that the longer throw results in an image that doesn't "pop" into focus the way it does with a normal lens.

This perfectly describes my issue ...


Photomac wrote:
It seems likely that the difficulty is due to a combination of several of the factors mentioned already:

- when taking macro the lens is at or near it's closest focus distance, so DoF is as small as it will ever be
- the long throw allows very fine adjustment by hand to accommodate the DoF
- since the focus adjustment is so fine (per degree of rotation of the barrel) the change from in focus to truly out of focus is gradual
- the human eye-brain function is poor at detecting absolute sharpness, and responds better to change.

This would explain why macro focusing doesn't 'snap' the way normal lenses do.

In summary, a long throw helix is very good physically for minute adjustment, and very bad perceptually for us humans to tell when it's right.

I'm starting to think that the last two points, fine focus adjustment and human eye-brain function, really spotted the reason why ... After all, with a "normal" lens the focus plane changes more quickly than with a macro lens ...


rick_oleson wrote:
Unless you're shooting on a tripod (which only works with VERY stationary subjects), I don't use the focus ring for focus adjustment in macro work: I set the focus ring according to the general distance/magnification that I am working at, and then move myself forward and back to get into focus on the specific point I'm after. This is faster, you can make the image snap in and out as fast or as slow as you want, and release the shutter at the instant that you see it's right.

Good advice ... Have to modify the arrangements in my "home studio", will try during this week-end ...


Orio wrote:
I personally think (very personal opinion) that for macro focusing, nothing beats a good bellows trail.

I have only an M42 bellows, can use it only with my M42s Crying or Very sad ... But, totally agree on this, verified with a Steinheil 135 and a Jupiter-35 ...
Nevertheless, you should admit that such a setup may be used in studio or at home, not while walking outdoor ...


poilu wrote:
you have to check for backfocus
if you focus on eyes and get a result like mine, you probably need to shim your screen

Well, i think i will have to do this too ... Thinking of using a Post-it to cut a shim, what do you think ?


Thanks to you all for your replies, i'm starting to be a bit more confident in my eyes Very Happy ...

Cheers


PostPosted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 10:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

indianadinos wrote:

rick_oleson wrote:
Unless you're shooting on a tripod (which only works with VERY stationary subjects), I don't use the focus ring for focus adjustment in macro work: I set the focus ring according to the general distance/magnification that I am working at, and then move myself forward and back to get into focus on the specific point I'm after. This is faster, you can make the image snap in and out as fast or as slow as you want, and release the shutter at the instant that you see it's right.

Thanks to you all for your replies, i'm starting to be a bit more confident in my eyes Very Happy ...


I've used Rick's method with very good results, for the reasons he describes. But if you're in a situation where your shutter speed is too low for handheld work, there's still a good option that involves a tripod. Get a macro focusing stage. Mount that to the tripod and the camera/lens to the stage. Good stages allow movements in both X and Y directions, so you can use the stage, not only for accurate focusing, but for framing of your subjects too. This is especially handy when shooting at high magnification levels, such as when using a bellows or macro lenses with extension tubes.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 9:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

poilu wrote:
you have to check for backfocus
if you focus on eyes and get a result like mine, you probably need to shim your screen

Laughing


PostPosted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 11:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="cooltouch"]
indianadinos wrote:

I've used Rick's method with very good results, for the reasons he describes. But if you're in a situation where your shutter speed is too low for handheld work, there's still a good option that involves a tripod. Get a macro focusing stage. Mount that to the tripod and the camera/lens to the stage. Good stages allow movements in both X and Y directions, so you can use the stage, not only for accurate focusing, but for framing of your subjects too. This is especially handy when shooting at high magnification levels, such as when using a bellows or macro lenses with extension tubes.


The tripod/rail is fine for studio work, but almost useless in the field. That's because almost every day, you have wind & even the slightest breeze plays havoc with focusing/composition....As for slow shutter speeds, just use a flash for additional illumination. Make sure you use a diffuser to cut down on hot spots on shiny subjects. Many of my field macros involve the use of a speedlight...


PostPosted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 1:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Screamin Scott wrote:
The tripod/rail is fine for studio work, but almost useless in the field. That's because almost every day, you have wind & even the slightest breeze plays havoc with focusing/composition...


It's called patience. I've used tripods and macro stages with bellows in the field many times, and got good results. Maybe I just didn't know any better, I dunno. Plus there are times, if you're doing very high magnification work, like with a bellows, that the stage isn't just handy, it becomes a necessity for any sort of convenience at all when it comes to framing.

The problem I've always had with using flashes is they change the color of everything, and often introduce harsh shadows. But I agree, sometimes they are just simply necessary.


PostPosted: Sun Oct 18, 2009 12:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I often find it best not to use a tripod for my macros and I focus by moving then lens closer to or further from the subject whilst looking through the viewfinder...Here's my handheld setup:



PostPosted: Sun Oct 18, 2009 7:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

And you pump iron on a regular basis? Smile Smile

patrickh

BTW I know you get superb results with that


PostPosted: Sun Oct 18, 2009 7:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sorry, but I can't help but find it a bit ironic that your "hand held setup" is mounted to what looks like a pretty stout tripod. Cool

What is that lens combo, by the way? A long Nikkor macro with a stack of extension tubes or something?

Also, I can't tell from the photo how your Metz flash is mounted to this hand-held setup -- what sort of bracket are you using?

Cool, it looks like your Sigma has a PC connector. Wish my Canon did. I'm guessing that's an older Metz, so you're not worried about trigger voltage, eh?


PostPosted: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cooltouch wrote:

What is that lens combo, by the way? A long Nikkor macro with a stack of extension tubes or something?


Exactly. It's an AI Micro-Nikkor 200mm f/4, circa 1982, with a shed load of extension tubes.


PostPosted: Sun Oct 18, 2009 10:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ChrisLilley wrote:
cooltouch wrote:

What is that lens combo, by the way? A long Nikkor macro with a stack of extension tubes or something?


Exactly. It's an AI Micro-Nikkor 200mm f/4, circa 1982, with a shed load of extension tubes.


Actually its a Micro Nikkor 200mm f4 IF Ai-S to be exact and in the pic its fitted to a Nikon PN-1, combined 52.5mm extension ring and rotating tripod collar, and between the PN-1 and the SD14 is a set of Chinese made Jin She Jie Quan Nikon extension rings and to mount this lot onto the camera a Roxsen Nikon-M42 adapter is used onto an M42-SA adapter.