Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,548   Posts: 1,544,577   Online: 934
      
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 42
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    580
    Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/3.5
    Micro Nikkor 200mm f/4
    Canon FD 100mm f/4

  2. #22
    Chazzy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    South Bend, IN, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,854
    Images
    5
    I'm surprised that no one has mentioned the Zeiss Luminars, although I know that they are very expensive.
    Charles Hohenstein

  3. #23
    Rol_Lei Nut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Hamburg
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,118
    Also, no one has mentioned the effect of a camera optimised for autofocus but used for manual focus as opposed to one optimised for MF in the first place.

    Probably much more significant for the end result than the differences between various good lenses....
    M6, SL, SL2, R5, P6x7, SL3003, SL35-E, F, F2, FM, FE-2, Varex IIa

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    OH
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,789
    Images
    2
    I've been looking for one of these for a good price, so I shouldn't say anything, but the Rodenstock Apo-Rodagon D 75mm is an 39mm thread mount lens optimized for 1:1 reproductions. It might fit the bill for what you want.

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Westport, MA.
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    1,058
    Quote Originally Posted by Chazzy View Post
    I'm surprised that no one has mentioned the Zeiss Luminars, although I know that they are very expensive.
    When I read the title that is the first thing that came to my mind..

  6. #26
    nsurit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Texas Hill Country
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,268
    Images
    17
    First answer would be Olympus, but then I'm an OM kind of guy.

    Second answer would be, "Why don't you look for a dedicated slide duplicator?" With a little patience one could probably be had for less than what the lens and bellow would cost for you 35mm.

    Bill Barber

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    5,686
    Quote Originally Posted by Chazzy View Post
    I'm surprised that no one has mentioned the Zeiss Luminars, although I know that they are very expensive.
    Most of them are made for magnifications far beyond 1:1.

    And they are not just very expensive.
    They also are rather awkward in use: you need adapters to fit them to any camera; no focussing mount; no focussing to infinity with most of them (the 100 mm and 63 mm will, depending on the adapter and the camera's flange to film distance), but then no good at infinity anyway; manual setting of the aperture, without click stops; no f-numbers on the lens, but exposure factors instead.

    They are great performers. But rather 'specialist' lenses.

    For more general photomacrography, i also would recommend the Olympus lenses. Both the 80 mm and 135 mm bellow heads, and the 50 mm and 90 mm camera mount lenses.
    And for 1:1 again not their 20 mm and 38 mm 'versions' of the Luminars (though the later versions of these at least have an OM mount and an 'automatic' diaphragm).

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    5,686
    Quote Originally Posted by Rol_Lei Nut View Post
    Also, no one has mentioned the effect of a camera optimised for autofocus but used for manual focus as opposed to one optimised for MF in the first place.

    Probably much more significant for the end result than the differences between various good lenses....
    You mean the viewfinder?
    At 1:1, the thing doesn't get that dark. And if the screen is interchangeable, there probably is one suited for manual focus too.

  9. #29
    cmo
    cmo is offline
    cmo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    1,457
    Images
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by Q.G. View Post
    Most of them are made for magnifications far beyond 1:1.

    And they are not just very expensive.
    They also are rather awkward in use: you need adapters to fit them to any camera; no focussing mount; no focussing to infinity with most of them (the 100 mm and 63 mm will, depending on the adapter and the camera's flange to film distance), but then no good at infinity anyway; manual setting of the aperture, without click stops; no f-numbers on the lens, but exposure factors instead.

    They are great performers. But rather 'specialist' lenses.

    For more general photomacrography, i also would recommend the Olympus lenses. Both the 80 mm and 135 mm bellow heads, and the 50 mm and 90 mm camera mount lenses.
    And for 1:1 again not their 20 mm and 38 mm 'versions' of the Luminars (though the later versions of these at least have an OM mount and an 'automatic' diaphragm).
    Well, the disadvatages of the Luminars except from potentially high prices are less important for my purposes. The last 5% between "outstanding" and "ultimate perfection" are never cheap when buying photographic equipment.

    The Luminars would be attached to a bellows, fixed aperture, almost fixed exposure and that's it... for the highest quality, that might really be a hairsplitting, nit-picky choice between an 80mm Olympus macro head and a Luminar.

    So, for a maniac like me, will there be a difference if I look at huge enlargements from shots taken with these lenses?

    I am sure only very few people will be able to reply to this without guessing.

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    5,686
    Quote Originally Posted by cmo View Post
    The Luminars would be attached to a bellows, fixed aperture, almost fixed exposure and that's it... for the highest quality, that might really be a hairsplitting, nit-picky choice between an 80mm Olympus macro head and a Luminar.

    So, for a maniac like me, will there be a difference if I look at huge enlargements from shots taken with these lenses?
    Luminars (and the equally good Olympus 20 mm and 38 mm macro lenses) and the Zuiko 80 mm are made for different magnifications.
    If you want to work around 1:1, keeping close to it, get the 80 mm lens. It is just as good. In that range, better even than most Luminars.

    Quote Originally Posted by cmo View Post
    I am sure only very few people will be able to reply to this without guessing.
    I am not so sure about that.
    People who like photomacrography like Olympus and the Olympus lenses as well (because the system is so versatile, very helpful. And the lenses are among the very best).
    And they also like Luminars.
    So there is a good chance that many who have experience with one will have experience with the other too.

    And i am indeed not guessing.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin