Testing Macro lenses pt. 1

[iangreenhalgh1]

Thanks to the wonderful advice and guidance of Ray Parkhurst, I've built a macro setup, It uses an EOS 650D a set of Russian bellows, some ARCA Swiss bits, a chopping board, some aluminium extrusions and some cheap LED lights. Seems to work very well.



I have quite a few lenses that might work well in this application so today I tried out four different candidates to see which does the best job for shooting really tiny things. I used part of my spider's shed shell as the subject - the part where the eyes are, which you can see as white ovals. Two of the lenses did well one is a bit crap and one is awful. To make these images I had to take between 40 and 50 photos then stack them together in Zerene Stacker software, so it took a few hours. Most enjoyable way to spend a dull, wet day though.





The candidates, from left to right:

Carl Zeiss Projection Luminar 4.5/40
Olympus 3.4/40 (microfiche lens)
Wollensak 6.3/65 Microfilm Projection
Rodenstock Magnagon 5.6/75



I won't tell you which shot which, see if you can guess.

#1


#2


#3


#4

[marcusBMG]

Very interesting Ian, and compliments on your technique. I started doing a bit of a classic macro lens (mostly vivitars and tamrons) comparison, but that was just shots of a banknote. #4 looks clearly the best.
Which one....no idea!

[iangreenhalgh1]

Cheers, I can certainly improve my technique, at the moment I'm very much learning.

#4 is definitely the best, I think the two crappy ones may be due to using the lens outside the intended magnification range for that lens design, I'll try to figure out if that's the case as I learn more.

[Smoli4]

cool number 4 maybe rodenstock that one? but olympus also comes to mind

[Lightshow]

Kind of hard to tell with such different magnifications of the first two (40mm) vs the last two (65 & 75mm, the order you listed them).
Looks like you shot all 4 at full extension of the bellows, I wouldn't mind seeing the first one at the same magnification as the last two to better compare them.

[iangreenhalgh1]

[dickb]

[iangreenhalgh1]

Yes, I noticed the stacking issues on the Luminar image and I have no idea why as all four images were done the same exact way. I'll see if I can get better results from the Luminar.

Here's some other, unstacked shots with the Luminar.


#1


#2

[Lloydy]

Is the wooden table reflecting light and colouring the image?

[JMC]

The Luminars are quite susceptible to flare as well, which could be compromising your images - those are some bright lights close to the end of the lens. Could you rig up a little bit of a baffle to act as a lens hood?

[Gerald]

[iangreenhalgh1]

[iangreenhalgh1]

[JMC]

[iangreenhalgh1]

That's good to know. This one, the hood can be unscrewed and then you have a more normal looking Luminar, albeit without an iris.

I made a few more stacks with the Luminar and the results are not great, which I put down to operator error. I think this lens needs such tiny movements between each exposure when stacking that the bellows I'm using can't do it and it needs micrometer-like movements.


#1


#2

[JMC]

Ian, here are my Luminars - the 40mm one is in the middle.

#1


For those last 2 images, #2 looks really good to me. Are you not happy with that one?

Using these lenses takes practice. I'm still learning, but the Photomacrography forum which was mentioned above, would be worth a look if you're not on there already. And yes, as you mentioned, very small movements are required. I use an old microscope stage and fine focusing system as a basis for some of my macro work.

[iangreenhalgh1]

I am happy with that last one, yes, it was the only one of 5 stacks I did that day with the Luminar that I was happy with though, so I'm not sure what I'm doing right/wrong.

I shall indeed join that forum, best to ask the experts!

Lovely line up of Luminars, I am most jealous.

I am really enjoying the Magnagon 5.6/75 though, it seems perfect for my setup and skills, here's the same subject - Teasel spikes, done with the Magnagon and a single frame from that stack that I kept as I really liked it for it's 'artsy' aesthetic.


#1


#2

[JMC]

Thanks Ian, it's taken me a while to get all 5. I got the 25mm one first, and found it had really good UV transmission, which made me interested in the others. There's a quick writeup on that here if you're interested - https://jmcscientificconsulting.com/uv-macrophotography-with-zeiss-luminar-25mm/

The 100mm had pretty rubbish UV transmission unfortunately, but was nice for macro work in the visible (http://forum.mflenses.com/garden-shots-with-zeiss-luminar-100mm-f6-3-t81567,highlight,%2Bluminar.html).

Then a few weeks ago a microscope dealer I know contacted me to say he had the other 3. They all turned out to be between the 25mm and 100mm in terms of UV transmission - https://jmcscientificconsulting.com/uv-transmission-of-zeiss-luminar-lenses/

Your stacking is much better than mine. I only recently got Zerene, and need to spend more time with it.

That Magnagon looks pretty good - nice find.

[iangreenhalgh1]

I have read that the Schneider & ISCO cine projection lenses have very good UV transmittance. They are generally 20-50 quid on ebay, I have several, very good lenses indeed.

I've had the Magnagon 7 or 8 years, bought it NOS on ebay for about 25 quid, the seller had loads, they sold out fairly quickly I seem to remember. It's basically the APO-Rodagon-D with a fixed iris, apparently it's got exotic low dispersion glass inside. It certainly works well, so I'm very happy I got one so cheap.