Redrock Macro adapter on SurplusShed

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

Moderators: Pau, rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S.

ray_parkhurst
Posts: 2773
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 10:40 am
Location: Santa Clara, CA, USA
Contact:

Redrock Macro adapter on SurplusShed

Post by ray_parkhurst »

Has anyone tried one of these? They are on half-price sale til Thurs...

https://www.surplusshed.com/pages/item/PL1297.html

Lou Jost
Posts: 4644
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2015 7:03 am
Location: Ecuador
Contact:

Post by Lou Jost »

It looks much like the Precision Optics closeup lenses, similar thickness and similar kind of caps.

ray_parkhurst
Posts: 2773
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 10:40 am
Location: Santa Clara, CA, USA
Contact:

Post by ray_parkhurst »

How well do the Precision Optics achromats perform?

Lou Jost
Posts: 4644
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2015 7:03 am
Location: Ecuador
Contact:

Post by Lou Jost »

Very well.

ray_parkhurst
Posts: 2773
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 10:40 am
Location: Santa Clara, CA, USA
Contact:

Post by ray_parkhurst »

Thanks. I bought one to try.

dolmadis
Posts: 755
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 1:51 pm
Location: UK

Post by dolmadis »

Assume you saw this Ray................

https://www.provideocoalition.com/get-a ... acro-lens/

BR

John

ray_parkhurst
Posts: 2773
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 10:40 am
Location: Santa Clara, CA, USA
Contact:

Post by ray_parkhurst »

dolmadis wrote:Assume you saw this Ray................

https://www.provideocoalition.com/get-a ... acro-lens/

BR

John
I did not see that review, thanks for posting...Ray

Lou Jost
Posts: 4644
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2015 7:03 am
Location: Ecuador
Contact:

Post by Lou Jost »

I ordered one too. It could be interesting, and the price is right.

Thagomizer
Posts: 66
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2019 2:24 pm
Location: London Ontario

Post by Thagomizer »

I've ordered one. I'm hoping it might be a cheaper Raynox susbstitute I can use on my 55-300 zoom for those occasions I don't want to carry an actual macro lens with me. I'm very curious to see what everyone here does with this, too. It's good to have multiple ways to do the same or similar things as not all set-ups are going to be eqwually useful in all circumstances. (It's also fun to play with interesting combinations of bits and pieces to see whnat they do!)

kaleun96
Posts: 195
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2018 3:47 pm
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

Post by kaleun96 »

Had my eye on these earlier as well and can't turn it down at this price! Hopefully will work better than my Raynox 250 for infinity objectives given the longer FL.

Thagomizer
Posts: 66
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2019 2:24 pm
Location: London Ontario

Post by Thagomizer »

UPDATE 1

My Surplus Shed order arrived a couple of days ago. This thing is big and heavy, glass and metal, about the size of of a hockey puck. Hanging this much weight off the front of some lenses (as is my intended use) may be problematic. I can imagine some lightweight, modern, plasticky zooms protesting this added burden. It could possibly overtax the autofocus on non-IF lenses where the front elements extend from the main lens body. Not that I'm going to use AF with this achromat, but you have been warned.

A very quick hand held test on my Pentax DA 55-300 4-5.8 ED led me to conclude that this will work better reversed. Screwed in the normal way, the image in the viewfinder is quite foggy looking, like I'm shooting through a haze or diffusion filter. Not the look I was after. I made a 72mm lens coupler by epoxying two 55-72 step-down rings so that each end of the assembly has male 72mm threads, allowing me to mount the achromat on the 55-300 like a reversed SLR lens. A quick look through the viewfinder once the achromat was threaded onto my DIY coupler confirmed the huge improvement in clarity with the Redrock reverse mounted. (I had encountered a similar difference in performance with experiments I conducted using a scavanged binocular objective mounted on the same 55-300 in an attempt to cobble together a cheap Raynox alternative; one direction produced a very soft, foggy image. Reversing this optic avoided the fogginess.) Having had this prior experience with earlier lens play, I hoped that the Redrock Achromat would respond in a similar fashion to being mounted in reverse. It did. YAY! This purchase looks like it's going to be money well spent. Thank you Ray Parhurst for bringing this item to our attention! I'm curious to see how others use it in their own set-ups, as a tube lens or whatever.

Once I've had a chance to actually shoot with it, I'll post photos. If this works as well as I think (and hope) it might, I'm going to be very pleased, as it will make a great accessory to carry along when I don't necessarily want to haul both the 55-300 (when I'm out shooting larger creatures from a distance) and a dedicated macro. It should make a nice auxiliary for my 16-85, too. Stay tuned...

Lou Jost
Posts: 4644
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2015 7:03 am
Location: Ecuador
Contact:

Post by Lou Jost »

I'm surprised it was foggy when mounted normally. It was designed for that, so it shouldn't be foggy.

But I like big and heavy. The thickness and mass suggests more than just two elements, and that would be good.

dickb
Posts: 263
Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2010 1:54 am

Post by dickb »

I just received my Surplus Shed order. Some quick initial impressions:

- the weight is 191 grams for the achromat, just for the mounted lens, not including the nice screw in metal front and rear caps

- the glass can easily be removed or flipped inside the 72mm barrel by unscrewing the retaining ring, no need for reverse mounting rings

- it is a two element achromat

I ordered a couple of these lenses as buying a single one would be uneconomical because of the relatively high shipping and import charges. If anyone in the EU is looking for one let me know.

Lou Jost
Posts: 4644
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2015 7:03 am
Location: Ecuador
Contact:

Post by Lou Jost »

Dick, that's good info, sorry to hear there are only two elements.

dickb
Posts: 263
Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2010 1:54 am

Post by dickb »

Lou Jost wrote:Dick, that's good info, sorry to hear there are only two elements.
Surplusshed described it as being a cemented doublet so anything other than two elements would have surprised me.

Anyway, a quick test with this lens as a tube lens looks good, I'll post some results when I feel more confident that the differences I see are due to the optics used and not just random mistakes on my part.

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic