A twist: Does the excessive eyepiece generate empty magnification if you have bad eyes?

JKT, Rereading this old thread from April https://www.photomacrography.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=273237 I see that you already are one step ahead of us, and that you promised: Maybe I should try the FDn 500mm f/4.5 one day. :D Might be a bit much for vertical StackShot, though. I guess it wasn't to...

Adalbert wrote: ↑

Sat Dec 18, 2021 7:58 am

Really nice was EF 17-40L reverse with the range 1:4 till 4.2:1.

If that one is good, I definitely have to test the EF 16-35mm f/4. Though the use of full frame camera could be an issue.

I doubt any modification is needed, the FDn 300/2.8 and FDn 500/4.5 share the same lens hood extension (EH 123) that clamps onto the same part as your lens cap /adapter does. I measure the external diameter of the front rubber ring of the FDn 300/2.8 to be 122mm. If the part number is the same, the...

Thanks Adalbert!

I like it too even though it is not designed for object sizes and working distances needed here. Thus the noise in the images. For butterflies and moths it works much better.

Nobody was interested, but it was a fun test. The adapter looks rather similar to the lens cap - a bit thicker and a hole in the middle. Z_MG_2175.jpg Z_MG_2174.jpg The combination would definitely need something like Qioptiq Mag-X for a balanced look. :D ZIMG_20211217_172855.jpg The adapter fit per...

Maybe, but the working distance is a bit on the low side for a full diameter objective. Besides, I haven't checked how it behaves without in-camera corrections. Those two seem the principal handicaps for RF lenses.

I have the same Hejnar clamp - works exactly as expect, clamps nice and firm to an Arca plate. Yes, its a bit pricy ($75) as compared to random imported stuff, but well worth it. They are also very friendly and will answer questions and custom machine parts as needed. I'll second that - or at least...

Then it would be appropriate to retract or revise the posts you've made indicating a one stop difference between extension and coupled lenses over the past years. FAQ entries also merit updating. Since MN and (M + 1)N has been in place for some time and is in good agreement with my effective apertu...

The optical design of the RF 1.4x is 7 elements in 4 groups, the EF1.4XIII is 7 elements in 3 groups but I'm sure they use a newer design with good glass to match the RF lenses. Not that the early glass 1.4x TCs compare, but I remember most, even in the 1980s touted that they used a modern 7 elemen...

No did not try TL + TC. If I get a chance and I find my M42 1.4x I will try that. I don't think that will work. Not with M42 TC:s. The progress in TC:s over the years has been huge. Canon FD 1.4x has good reputation, but it is pretty bad in my opinion. Canon EF 1.4x II is much better, but still cau...

Scarodactyl wrote: ↑

Sat Nov 13, 2021 10:20 am

I'm also curious about the 2x--if it somehow beat out the mitty it would be a very convenient lens.

So am I - just waiting for someone to take the chance. Ploum's idea would also work...

Here's what I've tried to use: Formula.png The only special part should be the combination of the two resolutions. What has so far been mentioned equals n=infinity in this formula. Otherwise it should be the same as what has been discussed ... unless there is yet again another error. :roll: Let's no...

yeah, that's the equivalent question if the aim is to capture an object of 2.4mm height on a full frame sensor, ie the intended magnification is 10x rather then 5x. True, but it seems more relevant to compare the HR to higher magnification. In order for the comparison for the pushed-up 2.5x to be r...

Try switching the wired one and the slave and see what happens. If it is then the slave that misfires, you likely have a problem in that strobe. I would have suspected overheating - even with 1/16 - but then both flashes should show the symptoms.