Sorry, I missed this one. Seems a bit narrow to, I am not sure if that would cover FF but at that price point may be worth trying.
The Raynox seems like a solid option.
I am going to be away for a couple of months, so it will have to wait
Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau
Sorry, I missed this one. Seems a bit narrow to, I am not sure if that would cover FF but at that price point may be worth trying.
I think they did not test many medium format lenses as tube lenses.Tests for chromatic aberration, center sharpness, edge sharpness, and vignetting on more than 30 configurations led us to select a macro lens (Raynox DCR-5320PRO) to use as a tube lens.
Did you manage to estimate the focal length of 5320Pro when use A and B part standalone?
I have just one measurement for +3 and that gave 343.4 mm. It was against Mitutoyo 10x, which has several measurements so the result should be reasonably accurate. The +2 I have not tried alone. Combination +5 in normal configuration has also one measurement giving 201.9 mm. The odd part is that adding a pair of stepping rings between the two changes the result to 203.4 mm. Is there a theoretical explanation to that or does that indicate measuring error? There is also some uncertainty in the correct sensor distance and that definitely affects the results.PhotogrAzure wrote: ↑Wed Jan 05, 2022 9:55 pmDid you manage to estimate the focal length of 5320Pro when use A and B part standalone?
It look like the +3 part is about 330mm?