Cheap but high performance macro lenses

[iangreenhalgh1]

Hi folks

I've become interested in macro with bw film, upto 1:1. I have a nice Schneider Componon-S 5.6/100 that works well on a set of bellows:



I'm wondering if there are better macro lenses than this enlarger lens available without paying too much.

Schneider C-Claron 135mm are easy to find cheap, a barrel repro lens (C for Copying) with no iris, and there are plenty more repro/copying lenses in barrel that turn up from time to time.

Just wondering what people recommend?

[martinsmith99]

Those Schneiders are pretty hard to beat, so I'm not sure you'd see much improvement.

Member Poolhall has produced some very sharp images with his 100mm macro Tak, but I'm not sure that they're too cheap these days.

[twinquartz]

Hi Ian!

Well, the VCAN /a brother of the VNEX system/
might be of interest to you. Haven't I mailed you
a photo of my German Toys?

[Attila]

In macro shoots not lens is critical, seek member Renseh shoots, he made awesome macros with any lens vivitar, panagor etc. Key is technic, light stacking etc.

[danfromm]

Ian, it all depends on what you mean by macro. I've tried a number of enlarging lenses at a variety of magnifications. Some were terrible, others ok, a very few superb.

In the Schneider range, Schneider insists that for lowish magnification -- 1:6 to 6:1, Componons are usable but Comparons are better.

[Excalibur]

Well I have the Vivitar Komine 55mm f2.8 macro, but have no idea how good it is as I've only used it a few times and you wont learn much if I posted the shots. But the lens might be worth checking out as I would say it would be cheaper than Nikon, Canon etc macros.

[kds315*]

Dan, as long as a lens is taped to a bellows lens (read: decentered, off-axis, you name it),
just any focusing lens should do. No need for any recommendation.

[Lloydy]

How about one of the lenses that comes with a dedicated converter such as the Minolta 100 / 3.5 or the Tamron 90 / 2.5 ? Sadly, I don't have correct OEM converters for either, but I get some very good results with third party converters.
I was using a crappy Miranda 70-210 macro zoom the other day on bellows and was very surprised at the results, but I have no idea what the magnification was. I'm sure that pixel peeping macro enthusiasts would justifiably criticize the results from the Miranda, I doubt very much that details of a insect eye would be as good as is possible with a 'good lens' - but for what I was doing it was surprising.

[kansalliskala]

Sigma 50/2.8 EX DG (AF!).

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=133

[jun]

cheap & high performance do not go together.

[iangreenhalgh1]

I'm not sure if macro is the correct term for what I'm doing, maybe 'close-up' is more appropriate?

Micro-Nikkor 3.5/55, Agfa Copex HDP13 microfilm, lens was set to f8, but the bottom of the frame is slightly out of focus, a problem I've had in all the close-ups I've done with this lens, so I need to stop down more to get more dof it seems, although I'm wary of the resolution killing diffraction that might result. I'm only just beginning to learn about this kind of shooting, something new to me.



I have M42 and M39 bellows, the Componon is M39, but I have misplaced my M39-M42 adapter ring so the only way to get the Componon on a set of M42 bellows that will mate with my EOS was to pack the 3mm difference in the threads with some tape. Not elegant but works well enough for me to try the lens while I await the postman delivering some more M39-M42 rings from China.

Rummaging in my big box of unusual and arcane things I found a couple of lenses that I suspect were used in some sort of microfilm device, large things that have the names Olympus and 3M on them and no info about focal length, aperture etc. They have fixed apertures that look to be about f5.6 to me. Anyways, I unscrewed them from their heavy metal mounts and the smaller one fits perfectly into the end of my bellows after removing the M42 ring (held in by grubscrews) so I'll give that a try today, working distance appears to be about 20cm.

[Pontus]

I don't know your budget and inexpensive is a relative term but for not a lot of money you can find a Rokkor 100/4 with 1:1 converter or a Hexanon 55/3.5 with a 1:1 converter. If you need a longer lens, there's always the Vivitar 135/2.8 close focus but it tends to be a bit more expensive (but sometimes the sellers don't know what they have and sell the lens cheaply as a normal 135mm) but you need a extension tube to get to 1:1. The SMC Super Takumar 50/4 is nice (but 1:2) and can be found at a good price sometimes, the preset 1:1 version is usually more expensive. The Tamron 90/2.5 with 1:1 glass extender can be had cheaply and is excellent with film but some users have reported hot spot problems on digital.

I doubt that any of the lenses I have mentioned are any better than your Micro-Nikkor 3.5/55.

[iangreenhalgh1]

Thanks Pontus, that's useful info. Macro lenses are something I know almost nothing about, hence this thread.

Sadly the roll of Kodalith I shot yesterday with the Componon didn't develop right, but I have a roll of Copex microfilm I also shot with the Componon, I'll develop that later. I shot a roll of FP4 today with the Olympus 3M lens, I'll develop that too. DOF is a bit thin for my tastes and max working distance mounted on these bellows is about 50cm but it seems to be an interesting lens. Not sure what the focal length is, at a guess I'd say around 100mm. It says 21x on the barrel so I think it's probably optimised for that magification.

[iangreenhalgh1]

Here's a shot with the Componon-S 5/6/100 on bellows. I think this was at f8. Lens is very sharp but lower contrast. Agfa Copex HDP13 microfilm rated at ISO 25, developed in Kodak Microdol-X 1:3 for 30mins at 25C.

[kuuan]

[ludoo]

[iangreenhalgh1]

Or modify a set of bellows to allow movements on 35mm. I might try it one day.

Here's a couple more with the Componon on Agfa Copex, not bad, but I think my Micro-Nikkor is sharper at distance, obviously, the Componon is optimised for close range.

#1

#2

[iangreenhalgh1]

Well, the Olympus mystery lens turned out to be really disappointing, it looked sharp through the viewfinder but the results with Ilford FP4 are really soft. Oh well, it will make a nice paperweight.

#1

#2

[iangreenhalgh1]

One with the Componon on FP4, I think my Micro-Nikkor is better, so I'll probably just stick with that, but i do find playing with unusual lenses on bellows fun so I will try again with some other interesting lenses.

[Attila]

http://forum.mflenses.com/a-mask-bee-from-my-garden-t50255.html#1236436
Low priced lenses, nothing special , result is great.

[iangreenhalgh1]

Those pictures are a very convincing argument.

I think I'll stick with my Micro-Nikkor 3.5/55 and work on improving my technique.

[Katastrofo]

Love my non-Ai 3.5/55 Micro-Nikkor, haven't bought the M-2 tube for 1:1, yet.

[Attila]

[iangreenhalgh1]

[bernhardas]

edited