Canon 35mm Macrophoto - questions

Have questions about the equipment used for macro- or micro- photography? Post those questions in this forum.

Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau

Smokedaddy
Posts: 1953
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 10:16 am
Location: Bigfork, Montana
Contact:

Canon 35mm Macrophoto - questions

Post by Smokedaddy »

For those of you in the know,

I just purchased this lens to be used on my Canon 50D (although I do have a Nikon D700 but would rather not use it for this). I'm interested in 2x to 3x magnification. I've never owned a bellows either, so I haven't a clue what to look for or what would be the best to purchase for my particular setup. I will be using it with my horizontal setup. Questions, specifically what do I need to buy to make this lens work on my 50D, meaning all components/accessories. Also what should I beware of if and when I purchase used on eBay (like what questions to ask regarding a particular bellows condition). If you have a picture of your setup configured for a Canon I'd like to see it too.

Thanks,
-JW:

ray_parkhurst
Posts: 3416
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 10:40 am
Location: Santa Clara, CA, USA
Contact:

Post by ray_parkhurst »

You have a few options. If you are already mounting the camera on a copy stand/tripod/Stackshot, you can continue doing that by using extensions to set the magnification. This is a cheap way to go as well. I'd suggest the following:

Camera -> EOS-M42 adapter -> M42 helicoid -> extensions of various lengths -> M42-RMS adapter -> 35MP lens.

The above system can also work well for microscope objectives. Another advantage is you can achieve a shorter overall extension than with most (maybe all) bellows, so you can get to lower mags. It's tough to get to 2:1 with the 35MP with a bellows. Lowest I could get with a Pentax was 2.4:1. With the extension method you can get to perhaps 1.8:1 with the helicoid in place, or much lower without it but with less flexibility.

If you are interested in this path I can point you to the components needed for purchase on eBay.

If you go bellows route, I recommend the Pentax. The lineup is the same as above, except instead of the helicoid and extensions, you use the bellows.

Smokedaddy
Posts: 1953
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 10:16 am
Location: Bigfork, Montana
Contact:

Post by Smokedaddy »

Thanks RP,

I'd rather go with no bellows setup. Links would be appreciate. Like I said, for now somewhere in the 2x to 3x range (2x being my first choice).

-JW:

ray_parkhurst
Posts: 3416
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 10:40 am
Location: Santa Clara, CA, USA
Contact:

Post by ray_parkhurst »

Smokedaddy wrote:Thanks RP,

I'd rather go with no bellows setup. Links would be appreciate. Like I said, for now somewhere in the 2x to 3x range (2x being my first choice).

-JW:
Here are some examples of the components you need:

EOS adapter:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/For-Black-Alum ... 5051!US!-1

edited to add: the inner surfaces of the extensions may be a bit shiny, and this can cause contrast or hotspotting problems. You may need to make a tube of absorptive material like doodlebug or protostar or even just flat black card stock to fit inside the tubes to minimize reflections and maintain contrast. The bellows naturally takes care of this but extensions usually need additional assistance.

Helicoid:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/US-M42-M42-mou ... xy7MtRrbhp

Extensions:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/Camrea-Macro-E ... JH9rAuSNrA

RMS adapter:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/US-Camera-Adap ... SwMvtZQjG1

I'd recommend buying two or even three sets of the extensions. Each set gives 49mm max in 7mm increments.

Note the helicoid gives fine control of extension length from 17mm to 31mm so you can set a precise magnification, but they are often a bit "wobbly", so you will generally not us it for focus stacking. Might be OK, but it's still better to use a stackshot or a manual rail for moving the whole system.

You can also just use the fixed extensions and no helicoid, but your precision in setting the magnification will not be as good. The 7mm increments of the extensions will give you magnification increments of 0.2, ie 1.9:1, 2.2:1, 2.4:1, etc when using your 35mm lens. If this is precise enough, then you don't even need the helicoid.

edited to add: the extensions may be too shiny on inner surfaces and can cause hotspotting or contrast problems. A sheet of protostar or even just flat black card stock from the stationery story will minimize this. Bellows are naturally built to handle this, but extensions may not be. Some are rough and non-reflective on inside but most are not.

Smokedaddy
Posts: 1953
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 10:16 am
Location: Bigfork, Montana
Contact:

Post by Smokedaddy »

Sweet, I ordered everything. Thanks for taking the time to lookup and post all the links Ray. I will be using this on my horizontal setup, with a few modifications of course (ignore those red tags)

Image

Lou Jost
Posts: 5945
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2015 7:03 am
Location: Ecuador
Contact:

Post by Lou Jost »

Wow, that is a good sturdy-looking set-up!

enricosavazzi
Posts: 1474
Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2009 2:41 pm
Location: Västerås, Sweden
Contact:

Post by enricosavazzi »

An example of a subassembly, rather than a complete system. The RMS objectives are mounted on a modified Zeiss microscope head attached to a Nikon PN-11 extension ring. The ring is in turn attached to an Arca-compatible plate (for attachment to a stand with focuser) and a Nikon to Micro 4/3 adapter that also has a built-in, rather short helicoid to change magnification somewhat.

Image
--ES

Lou Jost
Posts: 5945
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2015 7:03 am
Location: Ecuador
Contact:

Post by Lou Jost »

Enrico, that's interesting. Is the Nikon-to-MFT helicoid fairly sturdy? If so, what brand is it? I have bad luck with helicoids which often are loose. Does it allow infinity focus when fully closed?

enricosavazzi
Posts: 1474
Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2009 2:41 pm
Location: Västerås, Sweden
Contact:

Post by enricosavazzi »

The helicoid is just ordinary Chinese quality (there are also "high quality" helicoids made in China, which are better and moderately more expensive - mainly because of the internal brass mechanics). However, the subassembly attaches to a stand by the 1/4-20 socket of the extension ring, so the helicoid only carries the weight of the camera body.

The Olympus OM Telescopic Auto Tube 65-116mm (once equipped with adapters at the front and rear) is also an alternative, and sturdier than Chinese helicoids: http://savazzi.net/photography/olympustelescopic.html
--ES

dickb
Posts: 342
Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2010 1:54 am

Post by dickb »

enricosavazzi wrote:The Olympus OM Telescopic Auto Tube 65-116mm (once equipped with adapters at the front and rear) is also an alternative, and sturdier than Chinese helicoids: http://savazzi.net/photography/olympustelescopic.html
I agree, the Olympus 65-116 is very sturdy, but it can be inconvenient due to its long minimum length, especially with added adapters. Also I find it less convenient for small adjustments. One option I really like is a Vivitar Macro teleconverter in your favourite mount with the optics removed, very smooth focussing action. Or for shorter extensions, a Pentax M42 helicoid variable extension ring, but these are fairly hard to find.

Smokedaddy
Posts: 1953
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 10:16 am
Location: Bigfork, Montana
Contact:

Post by Smokedaddy »

Thanks to Ray for all the help on the components. This is my first test shot with the 35mm MP. This is a 10 image stack with the lens at 2x. This is a 100% crop on the date. Even though Rik has posted information on calculating the the approximate steps at a particular magnification I was still a little confused. I'm happy with the my first attempt.

Image

rjlittlefield
Site Admin
Posts: 23562
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
Contact:

Post by rjlittlefield »

Smokedaddy wrote:Even though Rik has posted information on calculating the the approximate steps at a particular magnification I was still a little confused..
The image looks good.

Can you explain more about what is confusing for calculating step size?

--Rik

Smokedaddy
Posts: 1953
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 10:16 am
Location: Bigfork, Montana
Contact:

Post by Smokedaddy »

rjlittlefield wrote:
Smokedaddy wrote:Even though Rik has posted information on calculating the the approximate steps at a particular magnification I was still a little confused..
The image looks good.

Can you explain more about what is confusing for calculating step size?

--Rik
Rik,

Your page, DOF Estimates For Macro/Micro (depth of field, step sizes) is laided out excellent. I am not complaining whatsoever, just confused and overwhelmed with all the information I have encountered here the last year. I suppose I am trying to do to many things at once.

Ballpark wise, should my step size be 0.079 mm (79 um) at 2x magnification at f/4 with my Canon 50D?

-JW:

rjlittlefield
Site Admin
Posts: 23562
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
Contact:

Post by rjlittlefield »

Smokedaddy wrote:Ballpark wise, should my step size be 0.079 mm (79 um) at 2x magnification at f/4 with my Canon 50D?
Yes, exactly. Table 2A, the 2X row, center bold entry because of APS-C sensor size.

I'm very sympathetic to the problem of information overload. If you have any good ideas for how to make things as simple as possible, but no simpler, please let me know.

--Rik

Smokedaddy
Posts: 1953
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 10:16 am
Location: Bigfork, Montana
Contact:

Post by Smokedaddy »

rjlittlefield wrote:
Smokedaddy wrote:Ballpark wise, should my step size be 0.079 mm (79 um) at 2x magnification at f/4 with my Canon 50D?
Yes, exactly. Table 2A, the 2X row, center bold entry because of APS-C sensor size.

I'm very sympathetic to the problem of information overload. If you have any good ideas for how to make things as simple as possible, but no simpler, please let me know.

--Rik
It's not a website issue, just me. I wasn't schooled in any of this so everything has been a struggle and still is. It's difficult to play catch up when you're 70 and have a ton of hobbies.

Another issue screwing me up was I purchased a Thorlabs single axis stage with 1" of travel and .5um graduations for my horizontal setup. The one I was using for this penny test. Instead I received one with 10um graduations (like a huge difference). <g> I wasn't paying attention and thinking I received the .5 version so none of this made any sense.

-JW:

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic