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

Micro-NIKKOR 200mm f/4 via Rodenstock 150mm f/5.6 Rodagon
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Mon Mar 09, 2020 11:29 pm    Post subject: Micro-NIKKOR 200mm f/4 via Rodenstock 150mm f/5.6 Rodagon Reply with quote
I am preparing for the summer insects macro season (if the Lord would save me from the coronvirus of course). So, I decided to prepare some proper tools for the job.

I already had been in possession of the Rodenstock 150mm f/5.6 Rodagon lens for enlarger. I put it to the M42 macro bellows, to test it. There is what I obtained at the F8.0

https://scontent.fiev21-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/88331208_2825734044180581_1254544614128353280_o.jpg?_nc_cat=102&_nc_sid=e007fa&_nc_oc=AQlt4pv938fvufR3k5uBw3qsnCepjdN3cex_zuadJ1SZveEFOmow5zrPZBwaaog4aaY&_nc_ht=scontent.fiev21-2.fna&oh=2120f927b69ed751fd8ed73773a940f3&oe=5E93CCD1

It is not so bad. But I believed it has to be much better. So, then I started to consider, that the proper macro lens might be much more convenient. Searched for something with the longer focus, and discovered the Micro-NIKKOR 200mm f/4 AI-s in the great shape, which I bargained for $180. There is the result at F11.0

https://scontent.fiev21-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/89512342_2825739070846745_945627390556504064_o.jpg?_nc_cat=109&_nc_sid=e007fa&_nc_oc=AQnVbsIpo5ORZ947i4syDiW3QbbmUDAEkuop9hmUePcpVR4XZ2vhpyVZgPoZ1jw45G8&_nc_ht=scontent.fiev21-1.fna&oh=39dd62a0a90fab610bcea00f3480ea38&oe=5E8EAF23

However, the Nikon lens permits only 2 times size extension. In the manual for the lens Nikon recommends to use for the magnification 1 to 1 the extender. I had in my storage long ago the N-AF Kenco TELEPLUS MC7 AF 2x a teleconverter, which I picked up occasionally for $25 without any clear idea way (I am not the Nikon man). Purely for the price sake. So, I decided to try that one. There is the result at F11.0

https://scontent.fiev21-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/88369648_2825737050846947_7190153171971342336_o.jpg?_nc_cat=109&_nc_sid=e007fa&_nc_oc=AQm3xNfFspe1G488joYsS4j0IlsiFYp967XVjRUQvoGNKhafC8O625HitArJ_KC0ggg&_nc_ht=scontent.fiev21-1.fna&oh=9b1e371aa5dd1623c90ebf308263da33&oe=5E8F0723

Maybe native Nikon extender would do the better job. But at least it is acceptable.

Maybe even I will need something like the Extension Tubes.

I need to mention, that the NIKKOR is much more convenient for the use. It has the internal focusing, so it doesn’t proceed far and long, like Rodagon does on the bellows. So, looks that I did the right choice starting to look for the true macro lens.

The above test were performed with the camera Sony a7s. However I have an intention to use for the macro work rather Canon 5D, to which I have the proper macro flash.


PostPosted: Mon Mar 09, 2020 11:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Only a note, with 2X TC f/11 becomes f/22, in case that makes a difference.


PostPosted: Mon Mar 09, 2020 11:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
visualopsins wrote:
Only a note, with 2X TC f/11 becomes f/22, in case that makes a difference.


Well, it becomes so for the exposition. But optically it is yet steel 11.


PostPosted: Tue Mar 10, 2020 9:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
If you have an AF adapter or adapter with mechanical aperture link, the Sigma 180mm F2.8 APO Macro is a beast of a lens, and it will gain you another stop. It focuses down to 1:2 internally, and you can add a Kenko MC7 2x to improve that, or even bellows, since the focus ring on this lens is mechanical. You will want to focus to the minimum focus distance when using it for macro since it uses multiple floating element groups to maintain the edge performance. This is probably the best macro lens under $200. Alternatively they made a 180mm F5.6 based on the same design but which takes much smaller filters, and also a 90mm F2.8.
Of course, you can find these lenses in native EOS AF mount, so no adapter needed at all! Unfortunately, not many of these lenses were produced so they can be hard to find, but most dismiss them for price due to the Sigma ZEN coating that most often deteriorates and turns sticky, and even worse the markings on the lenses are only screen printed onto that coating, and not engraved. In good condition, the ZEN coating is actually very nice.
I've noticed a few 180/2.8's with a totally hazed centre element, but I doubt it is separation of the elements but probably just grease from the many moving focus groups. In any case, the lens is extremely well built, all-metal, and could be cleaned by you or another professional I suspect, rather easily.

At least with a F2.8 lens, and a 2x TC to bring it to 1:1, you would maintain the high potential resolution with an effective aperture of only F5.6 at 1:1. On your 5D, the diffraction limit at the 100% pixel view is about F5, so shooting at F11 gives you an effective aperture of F22 and presumably ruins fine details. For photos of jewellery, you might consider finely resolved point details important, but of course you have to balance it with the consideration for depth of field.

The only other way around this inherent limit is to use a 'View' camera with movements or a very expensive, potentially non-macro lens with tilt and shift.

Macro is difficult, I like the challenge of the subject, especially if it's moving, but I also hate the physical limitations, particularly if you can't afford equipment to stack images. Laugh 1


PostPosted: Tue Mar 10, 2020 8:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Teemō wrote:
it will gain you another stop.


For macro lens the lower is the stop – the better. There is a rule – diffraction in the lens starts to work after three or four stops from its maximal stop. For the macro, where you are going to stop as much as possible to gain the depth of field. And the lower the maximum stop of the lens, the lover you would be able to close it without the notable diffraction. I even would prefer rather 5.6 for the maximum opening.
And for macro I really don’t carry for the “native” lens system. Anyway at macro you focus, and close the diaphragm manually/ To the what will be the real depth of field


Teemō wrote:

On your 5D, the diffraction limit at the 100% pixel view is about F5,


I have the first 5D with 12 megapixels. I believe the diffraction limit for that camera was something around f11. Exactly for that reason I was looking for Sony a7s with its “fat” 12 megapixels.


PostPosted: Tue Mar 10, 2020 9:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Opaque paint the aperture on the front element to slow down lens, increase dof? How do you see dof changes with closed apertures? That's my problem. Smile. Sometimes direct sunlight not enough! I have 5d classic too. Maybe is easier to see with a7s?


PostPosted: Tue Mar 10, 2020 11:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
LittleAlex wrote:

For macro lens the lower is the stop – the better. There is a rule – diffraction in the lens starts to work after three or four stops from its maximal stop. For the macro, where you are going to stop as much as possible to gain the depth of field. And the lower the maximum stop of the lens, the lover you would be able to close it without the notable diffraction.

This is... not how these things work.

1) diffraction affects any lens, straight from the wide open. No matter how wide that would be.
2) diffraction begins to effect image once the diffraction pattern gets big enough to affect adjacent same-colour subpixels and exceeds lens resolving power
3) diffraction pattern size depends only on wavelength and aperture. It does not matter at all how the opening was created.


PostPosted: Wed Mar 11, 2020 7:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
visualopsins wrote:
How do you see dof changes with closed apertures?


Well, it is a problem with the mirror cameras, to the certain way. But only if you are going to use the flash. If you do use tripod, you are able to cover your head with something. And anyway, if the light is too scarce, it is quite doubtful that there will be any possibility for the exposition at all.
Anyway I have the adapter for Nikon lenses, which permits to close the diaphragm to the proper number by the single stroke of the thumb. Which helps very much at the macro work.

visualopsins wrote:
Maybe is easier to see with a7s?


Oh, with the mirorless cameras it is no problem at all! You always have the bright screen. So long your battery is charged of course.


PostPosted: Wed Mar 11, 2020 8:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
[quote="aidaho"]
LittleAlex wrote:

1) diffraction affects any lens, straight from the wide open. No matter how wide that would be.
opening was created.


Theoretically – yes. Howeverб only if you have the ideal lens. In the real lenses the residual aberrations are much worst evil, which overdrives the diffraction till the certain f-stop, which is called for that reason “optimal” to the each lens

[quote="aidaho"]
LittleAlex wrote:



3) diffraction pattern size depends only on wavelength and aperture. It does not matter at all how the opening was created.

Because a lens is the complicated optical construction, but nit the simple hole, the diffraction in it works far more complicatedly. It have been known very long ago that the brighter is your lens, the earlier the diffraction starts to affect the image. I am lazy now to dig for the quotations, but I believe this information might be discovered very easily.


PostPosted: Wed Mar 11, 2020 9:05 am    Post subject: Re: Micro-NIKKOR 200mm f/4 via Rodenstock 150mm f/5.6 Rodago Reply with quote
LittleAlex wrote:
I am preparing for the summer insects macro season (if the Lord would save me from the coronvirus of course).


Contrary to popular believe, it's quite possible to sense many bacteria and viruses before you actually get infected (i e in an early state of infection which will not lead to illness).

I have been working, for instance, at the Medical Institute of the Dalai Lama, in Dharamsala (India), where lots of Tibetan "newcomers" from Tibet arrive. Some of them have tuberculosis, which (at closer distances) felt as if you'd inhale the vapors of hydrochloric acid. Very easy to notice!! Other "clouds of viruses", such as the ordinary influenza, feel different of course, and the corona virus seems to feel different again: since last week i often recognized a slightly "sharp" smell (or better: feeling) in my nose when frequenting buses, trains or restaurants here in Switzerland. I strongly suspect this to be the virus, and i leave such places as soon as possible.

I've studied chemistry, and have been developing analytical methods for detecting very small amounts of dangerous chemicals. To my surprise, during this time, i have learned to detect equally small amounts of theses chemicals just by my senses (e. g. smell or certain strange feelings induced by these chemicals).

S


PostPosted: Wed Mar 11, 2020 6:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Bravo stevemark!

Here in US body odor parinoia has led to slathering Frebreeze everywhere numbing everybody's sense of smell.

Edit: also laundry soaps, air fresheners, scented oil diffusers, and for me worst of all is perfume with pheromones.

A fellow bus commuter boarded every day smelling like Frankincense from early morning mass... I liked it.

Last edited by visualopsins on Thu Mar 12, 2020 7:52 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Thu Mar 12, 2020 1:40 pm    Post subject: Re: Micro-NIKKOR 200mm f/4 via Rodenstock 150mm f/5.6 Rodago Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:


Contrary to popular believe, it's quite possible to sense many bacteria and viruses

S


I prefer to sense the bacteria and viruses exclusively through the high rank protective respirator. Laugh 1


PostPosted: Thu Mar 12, 2020 5:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
LittleAlex wrote:
aidaho wrote:
LittleAlex wrote:

1) diffraction affects any lens, straight from the wide open. No matter how wide that would be.
opening was created.


Theoretically – yes. Howeverб only if you have the ideal lens. In the real lenses the residual aberrations are much worst evil, which overdrives the diffraction till the certain f-stop, which is called for that reason “optimal” to the each lens

aidaho wrote:
LittleAlex wrote:



3) diffraction pattern size depends only on wavelength and aperture. It does not matter at all how the opening was created.

Because a lens is the complicated optical construction, but nit the simple hole, the diffraction in it works far more complicatedly. It have been known very long ago that the brighter is your lens, the earlier the diffraction starts to affect the image. I am lazy now to dig for the quotations, but I believe this information might be discovered very easily.

If I understand correct you say lens optics modify and improve diffraction limit?

Last edited by visualopsins on Thu Mar 12, 2020 7:44 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Thu Mar 12, 2020 7:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Alex, I've had two 200/4 AI and AIS MicroNikkors. The first was stolen, the second was a replacement. IMO they are the worst of the AI/AIS MicroNikkors. Lower contrast than, not as sharp as, the others.

On their own mounts my two went to 1:2. 2:1, impossible. Might you be thinking of some other lens?

For curiosity I tested the AIS against 210/9 Konica Hexanon GR II, a decent process lens. 1:2, 3 m, 10 m, far away. f/9, f/16, f/22. Flash illumination close up, steady tripod with cable release outside of flash range. The GR II was much better - sharper, better contrast -- at all apertures and magnifications. And this even though the GR II is somewhat flary, needs a hood and careful use out-and-about.


PostPosted: Wed Mar 18, 2020 4:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
danfromm wrote:
IMO they are the worst of the AI/AIS MicroNikkors. Lower contrast than, not as sharp as, the others.


Well, I posses also Micro-Nikkor 55mm/2.8 Which is evidently far more superior. But I needed something with the longer focus, and was not going to pay for it too much. So, I am not inclined to pay for the modern version of that lens. Which they asseverate is much better.

I have some options already. For example – the Nikon El-Nikkor 300mm f5.6, which I didn’t test yet for that purpose.
But the 200/4 AI is very convenient is use, without any doubt.

danfromm wrote:
On their own mounts my two went to 1:2. 2:1, impossible. Might you be thinking of some other lens?


I already obtained the set of macro rings for Nikon. With full length of it the lens gives 1:1 magnification.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1