1:20 to 1:5 (0.05x to 0.2x)

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

Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau

lothman
Posts: 959
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2009 7:00 am
Location: Stuttgart/Germany

Re: 1:20 to 1:5 (0.05x to 0.2x)

Post by lothman »

jvanhuys wrote:
Thu Feb 16, 2023 9:13 am
To Chris Ma, Lou Jost and everyone else who keeps recommending the Sigma; are you guys working for Sigma or something? Coz you sound like salesmen:)
Probably because we all have been there where you intend to go. So we try to give you a honest advice and all we can get from you is to be considered as a salesman :cry: what a waste of time.

Lou Jost
Posts: 5948
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2015 7:03 am
Location: Ecuador
Contact:

Re: 1:20 to 1:5 (0.05x to 0.2x)

Post by Lou Jost »

Have you thought about flipping your view camera around back to front, and then, with movements on the back standard, mount a 35mm camera in the plane of the ground glass, a good medium format or large format lens in the now-front (formerly back) standard, and use x-y shifting of the back (with 35mm camera) to stitch the aerial image? This eliminates the most bothersome kind of distortion (because the distortion is the same across the whole aerial image, and you would be stitching from that single aerial image).

And if this seems reasonable for you, it opens up medium format macro lenses for consideration. These are optimized for something close to your desired magnification, and some of them are VERY good.

I have done this a couple of times. In the end, a single pixel-shifted shot with the Sigma 105 Art (16k pixels across) at f/4 would be my choice unless I needed ultra-high resolution.

simplejoy
Posts: 46
Joined: Mon May 02, 2022 12:28 am
Contact:

Re: 1:20 to 1:5 (0.05x to 0.2x)

Post by simplejoy »

jvanhuys wrote:
Thu Feb 16, 2023 9:01 am
simplejoy, Thanks so much for this, I really appreciate it. I have to say this lens just blows me away. How did you mount it? What mount does it use? Please share with the rest of the group.

Lastly, can you sell it to me already? I did send you an email to that effect, but didn't get a response. Shall I take that as a "I'm keeping this gem"? Please answer yes or no, so my soul can rest. I need to pursue this lens as in yesterday:)
I'm not sure if it's just my particular Dokumar, but it has a thread which is close enough to get into my M42 lens board on my bellows. It's not an exact fit though, so it's a bit loose.

I'm sorry about not responding to your email - just saw it and must have missed it before. I won't sell the Dokumar 47 mm, but I'm sure you can find another (maybe even better) sample, if you look and ask around on a couple of forums. I've seen the lens mentioned a couple of times, mostly by people wondering what they should do with it and how to adapt it, so there might be some of those lying around unused. I can show you how I mounted it on my bellows when I have time to take some shots, but I'm sure it could be improved a lot.
jvanhuys wrote:
Thu Feb 16, 2023 9:13 am
To Chris Ma, Lou Jost and everyone else who keeps recommending the Sigma; are you guys working for Sigma or something? Coz you sound like salesmen:)

I did some tests tonight disregarding the back standard of my camera and mounting only to the front standard, so I'm still keeping my geared X,Y and Z movements, which are really important to me. I popped on the Micro Nikkor 105mm into a M39 adapter, then the M39 into a special adapter Rafael from RAF made for me to mount M39 to Copal 1 lensboard. It's not ideal, but it works. Because I can't control the back standard and the IC is small, I can of course only see straight. No more wiggle room anymore. So in a sense, my movements/ angle of view (sorry it's hard to explain) is now limited.... so are my stitches....(my tripod is mounted to a camera dolly on the floor, so I can only move forward and backwards, not left/right (only my LF camera does those)

BUT I'm willing to give the Sigma 105/ 150 a go. Is anyone on the thread selling theirs? Which one has less distortion and CA? I'm hoping that the lens is so sharp, that it might outresolve (with 4 stitches) an image taken with a top large format lens, doing 6-12 stitches.

Also, any honest comparison to the Laowa 90mm or longer focal appreciated. I shoot strictly manual, so hope that helps too. See this is why I come here guys, to learn and change (if it adds up)... if I had all the answers, I wouldn't have bothered (and who really has all the answers anyway). Stay safe and chat tomorrow. It's now 1:11am in Seoul. Neon everywhere. Puts me at ease.
I was one of the people mentioning the Sigma lenses. Firstly, because I have used the 150 mm Macro for several years and considered it to be among the very best lenses until I got out of AF lenses altogether. The 105 mm Art Macro should be even better, however it seems to be affected by some distortion, as Lou Jost pointed out.

I'm sure no one here wants to sell you a specific lens and the people contributing to this topic are among the most knowledgable I know, so I would take their advice seriously - each of them knows vastly more than a mere photographic experimenter like myself. Sometimes it's worth it to try on your own, I absolutely get that, but I'm sure there are good reasons for each of the suggested lenses or methods.

RobertOToole
Posts: 2627
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:34 pm
Location: United States
Contact:

Re: 1:20 to 1:5 (0.05x to 0.2x)

Post by RobertOToole »

Lou Jost wrote:
Thu Feb 16, 2023 6:47 am
What about the Sigma 150mm f/2,8 EX DG Macro for example or the 105mm Art F2,8 DG DN Macro?
The 105 Art is an extremely sharp lens with virtually no CA, but it has (correctable) distortion, a deliberate decision by Sigma to optimize the lens for CA-resistance and leaving distortion to be corrected by the automatic lens profile.
The Sigma 150 EX and the 105 Art are from different generations, so much has changed since the 150 EX. The Art lens was made with different design goals. The 150 EX is a good lens, I've tested it and posted the results on my site.

The 105 Art (and Laowa 100) is something else entirely, right behind the Printing NIKKOR 105A as a matter of fact and the performance gap is closing. Lou is 100% correct. Distortion is the biggest difference now and that is being left to the lens profile and auto-correction.


FYI: https://www.closeuphotography.com/1x-ma ... -test-2022

Canon MP-E 65mm 1-5x macro lens (MPE)
Laowa 100mm f2.8 APO Ultra Macro APO Macro lens (LA100)
Nikon Printing-NIKKOR 105mm f2.8A (PN105A)
Sigma Art 105mm F2.8 DG DN Macro lens (Art105)

Best,

Robert

RobertOToole
Posts: 2627
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:34 pm
Location: United States
Contact:

Re: 1:20 to 1:5 (0.05x to 0.2x)

Post by RobertOToole »

jvanhuys wrote:
Thu Feb 16, 2023 9:13 am
To Chris Ma, Lou Jost and everyone else who keeps recommending the Sigma; are you guys working for Sigma or something? Coz you sound like salesmen:)
This same comment has been said to me so many times, so this is really amusing. The really funny part of this is that I was under contract with Sigma to speak at trade shows and give wildlife/macro talks they never asked and it was not in any of my contracts, to promote the brand, to sell anything, or even say anything nice about Sigma. (I was offered a Canon contract and turned it down for this same reason)

Best,

Robert

jvanhuys
Posts: 49
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2023 9:24 pm
Location: Seoul, South Korea

Re: 1:20 to 1:5 (0.05x to 0.2x)

Post by jvanhuys »

lothman wrote:
Thu Feb 16, 2023 10:24 am
jvanhuys wrote:
Thu Feb 16, 2023 9:13 am
To Chris Ma, Lou Jost and everyone else who keeps recommending the Sigma; are you guys working for Sigma or something? Coz you sound like salesmen:)
Probably because we all have been there where you intend to go. So we try to give you a honest advice and all we can get from you is to be considered as a salesman :cry: what a waste of time.
Just for the record, what you're saying is false (I was having a poke and joking).

Furthermore, I won't fall for this clear bigotry/ power-trap.

Lastly, please don't take things too personally. Life is too short!
Last edited by jvanhuys on Thu Feb 16, 2023 7:38 pm, edited 3 times in total.

jvanhuys
Posts: 49
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2023 9:24 pm
Location: Seoul, South Korea

Re: 1:20 to 1:5 (0.05x to 0.2x)

Post by jvanhuys »

RobertOToole wrote:
Thu Feb 16, 2023 11:52 am
Lou Jost wrote:
Thu Feb 16, 2023 6:47 am
What about the Sigma 150mm f/2,8 EX DG Macro for example or the 105mm Art F2,8 DG DN Macro?
The 105 Art is an extremely sharp lens with virtually no CA, but it has (correctable) distortion, a deliberate decision by Sigma to optimize the lens for CA-resistance and leaving distortion to be corrected by the automatic lens profile.
The Sigma 150 EX and the 105 Art are from different generations, so much has changed since the 150 EX. The Art lens was made with different design goals. The 150 EX is a good lens, I've tested it and posted the results on my site.

The 105 Art (and Laowa 100) is something else entirely, right behind the Printing NIKKOR 105A as a matter of fact and the performance gap is closing. Lou is 100% correct. Distortion is the biggest difference now and that is being left to the lens profile and auto-correction.


FYI: https://www.closeuphotography.com/1x-ma ... -test-2022

Canon MP-E 65mm 1-5x macro lens (MPE)
Laowa 100mm f2.8 APO Ultra Macro APO Macro lens (LA100)
Nikon Printing-NIKKOR 105mm f2.8A (PN105A)
Sigma Art 105mm F2.8 DG DN Macro lens (Art105)

Best,

Robert
Awesome stuff Robert. Thank you so much for sharing the article and the anecdote about Canon and Sigma. I will absolutely study the article. I hope they offered you lots of money or lenses for free?

At any rate, for the price of the DHL-refunded Super Symmar HM, I could probably get the Dokumar AND the Sigma 105 and still have lots of money left to buy my boy all the ice-cream he wants:)
Last edited by jvanhuys on Thu Feb 16, 2023 6:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.

jvanhuys
Posts: 49
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2023 9:24 pm
Location: Seoul, South Korea

Re: 1:20 to 1:5 (0.05x to 0.2x)

Post by jvanhuys »

simplejoy wrote:
Thu Feb 16, 2023 11:20 am
jvanhuys wrote:
Thu Feb 16, 2023 9:01 am
simplejoy, Thanks so much for this, I really appreciate it. I have to say this lens just blows me away. How did you mount it? What mount does it use? Please share with the rest of the group.

Lastly, can you sell it to me already? I did send you an email to that effect, but didn't get a response. Shall I take that as a "I'm keeping this gem"? Please answer yes or no, so my soul can rest. I need to pursue this lens as in yesterday:)
I'm not sure if it's just my particular Dokumar, but it has a thread which is close enough to get into my M42 lens board on my bellows. It's not an exact fit though, so it's a bit loose.

I'm sorry about not responding to your email - just saw it and must have missed it before. I won't sell the Dokumar 47 mm, but I'm sure you can find another (maybe even better) sample, if you look and ask around on a couple of forums. I've seen the lens mentioned a couple of times, mostly by people wondering what they should do with it and how to adapt it, so there might be some of those lying around unused. I can show you how I mounted it on my bellows when I have time to take some shots, but I'm sure it could be improved a lot.
jvanhuys wrote:
Thu Feb 16, 2023 9:13 am
To Chris Ma, Lou Jost and everyone else who keeps recommending the Sigma; are you guys working for Sigma or something? Coz you sound like salesmen:)

I did some tests tonight disregarding the back standard of my camera and mounting only to the front standard, so I'm still keeping my geared X,Y and Z movements, which are really important to me. I popped on the Micro Nikkor 105mm into a M39 adapter, then the M39 into a special adapter Rafael from RAF made for me to mount M39 to Copal 1 lensboard. It's not ideal, but it works. Because I can't control the back standard and the IC is small, I can of course only see straight. No more wiggle room anymore. So in a sense, my movements/ angle of view (sorry it's hard to explain) is now limited.... so are my stitches....(my tripod is mounted to a camera dolly on the floor, so I can only move forward and backwards, not left/right (only my LF camera does those)

BUT I'm willing to give the Sigma 105/ 150 a go. Is anyone on the thread selling theirs? Which one has less distortion and CA? I'm hoping that the lens is so sharp, that it might outresolve (with 4 stitches) an image taken with a top large format lens, doing 6-12 stitches.

Also, any honest comparison to the Laowa 90mm or longer focal appreciated. I shoot strictly manual, so hope that helps too. See this is why I come here guys, to learn and change (if it adds up)... if I had all the answers, I wouldn't have bothered (and who really has all the answers anyway). Stay safe and chat tomorrow. It's now 1:11am in Seoul. Neon everywhere. Puts me at ease.
I was one of the people mentioning the Sigma lenses. Firstly, because I have used the 150 mm Macro for several years and considered it to be among the very best lenses until I got out of AF lenses altogether. The 105 mm Art Macro should be even better, however it seems to be affected by some distortion, as Lou Jost pointed out.

I'm sure no one here wants to sell you a specific lens and the people contributing to this topic are among the most knowledgeable I know, so I would take their advice seriously - each of them knows vastly more than a mere photographic experimenter like myself. Sometimes it's worth it to try on your own, I absolutely get that, but I'm sure there are good reasons for each of the suggested lenses or methods.
Hi simplejoy, all good and no worries. Thanks so much for sharing those helpful images again. Yeah, I'll try and find a good copy on ebay. Any information and or pictures you could pass along to the group about mounting the Dokumar would be much appreciated. Measurements even more so. But only if you feel you have the energy. I'll then pass that info on to Rafael from RAF cameras to help create an adapter.

Let me know if I can help you in any way. I'm selling my Printing Nikkor 95 and Makro Symmar HM 120 for example, because I literally almost never photograph anything at 1:1 or higher magnifications. If you are interested, maybe shoot me a PM or an e-mail so I don't contaminate this thread with off-topic stuff. If not, no worries and happy Friday.

jvanhuys
Posts: 49
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2023 9:24 pm
Location: Seoul, South Korea

Re: 1:20 to 1:5 (0.05x to 0.2x)

Post by jvanhuys »

chris_ma wrote:
Thu Feb 16, 2023 9:40 am
I don‘t think I ever spoke about the sigma, but about the laowa 100mm, which is absolutely stunning and an incredible value.

I never tried the sigma art 105mm macro but from what I‘ve seen and read from people whom I trust it‘s pretty much comparable to the Laowa and a great choice if you prefer autofocus.

You can also take the latest macro lens from Sony E mount or Canon RF mount and spend more money - I‘m sure they are also very good.

The main point is: ALL of them are MUCH better then your Nikkor 105mm, which is a horrible macro lens imo.
They are also all MUCH better at F8 in their corners then any vintage large format lens will be at F11 in the corners.

You say you don‘t care about sharpness, but what I don‘t get is: why put up with the hassle of creating a 600MP file anyway when you use a soft lens?

Seems much more practical to do a 400MP image with a sharp lens, or even a 200MP single pixel shift image with a really really good lens (which Lou already suggested twice)
Just a correction here. I never said I don't care about sharpness. I said it's lower priority than CA and distortion for me, coz I can make sharpness gains by stitching.

Also, disagree about 105mm Micro Nikkor. It's phenomenally sharp in the centre at normal to about 1:10 distances, but suffers from CA with extreme highlights and out of focus areas. I have no issue with cheap lenses. I like them a lot! Don't discriminate:)

jvanhuys
Posts: 49
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2023 9:24 pm
Location: Seoul, South Korea

Re: 1:20 to 1:5 (0.05x to 0.2x)

Post by jvanhuys »

Hi everyone, happy Friday!

I ended up pulling the trigger on a Dokumar 47 f/5.6 from Ukraine. It was about a quarter of the price of a used Sigma 105. The body was heavily worn, but the glass looked OK (you never know till it arrives though). Hopefully my copy is as good as simplejoy's lens.

Thanks for everyone's opinions so far, even the grumpy ones. It all helps and I appreciate your time. I'll post some tests when it arrives in or before April.

Until then, I think I'm gonna focus on some work for a few weeks. I'm falling seriously behind on the movie I'm currently working on!

simplejoy
Posts: 46
Joined: Mon May 02, 2022 12:28 am
Contact:

Re: 1:20 to 1:5 (0.05x to 0.2x)

Post by simplejoy »

jvanhuys wrote:
Thu Feb 16, 2023 6:46 pm

Hi simplejoy, all good and no worries. Thanks so much for sharing those helpful images again. Yeah, I'll try and find a good copy on ebay. Any information and or pictures you could pass along to the group about mounting the Dokumar would be much appreciated. Measurements even more so. But only if you feel you have the energy. I'll then pass that info on to Rafael from RAF cameras to help create an adapter.

Let me know if I can help you in any way. I'm selling my Printing Nikkor 95 and Makro Symmar HM 120 for example, because I literally almost never photograph anything at 1:1 or higher magnifications. If you are interested, maybe shoot me a PM or an e-mail so I don't contaminate this thread with off-topic stuff. If not, no worries and happy Friday.
Congrats on this unusual lens. I hope you get a good copy. Here is how I adapted mine, but it's probably far from the most effective method:

Here's the lens on a (custom) recessed lens-board for my Novoflex bellows:
Image
The lens-board got an M42 thread and the while it being recessed isn't necessary for this particular lens (which already prodrudes far beyond the mounting thread as it is), it helps keeping the lens stable. As I've mentioned the lens wobbles slightly inside of a regular M42 adapter. Because it's very heavy for its size, there would be a non-insignificant impact because of it. So the front of the lens touching the lens-board helps keeping it stable. Most of the Dokumar 47 mm lenses come with a massive silver metal retaining ring, so if yours has one as well (I seem to recall the Ukraine-based Dokumar I've seen on ebay had one...) this might help you to stabilizes it.

Here you can see the lens on my bellows:
Image

Image

As you can see it's possible to reach infinity with this setup, however I have to remember to be careful not to damage my camera accidentally. So if I decide to use this lens regularly, I will probably look for an alternative adaption, which eliminates this risk. For now I'm quite happy with it. Still, the Dokumar 38 mm f/5.6 will probably remain my favorite of the family, as it tends to be more capable at the magnifications I go for most of the time:

Image
https://flic.kr/p/2njU3qu

Image
https://flic.kr/p/2mAjgGy

Image
https://flic.kr/p/2mApo7d

jvanhuys
Posts: 49
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2023 9:24 pm
Location: Seoul, South Korea

Re: 1:20 to 1:5 (0.05x to 0.2x)

Post by jvanhuys »

My god the image quality is amazing! The lens is much bigger than I thought. Very helpful to hear it uses M42 threads thanks for confirming. I'll contact RAF for a way to stabilize it to one of my lens boards. I'm thinking Copal 3 for sure for that size!

I'm still waiting for mine from Ukraine, all things considered of course. As mentioned a few weeks ago, I'm trying to avoid the forums and focus on work till the lens arrives. I just couldn't resist peaking at your post. Thanks again!

lothman
Posts: 959
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2009 7:00 am
Location: Stuttgart/Germany

Re: 1:20 to 1:5 (0.05x to 0.2x)

Post by lothman »

there is just an article over compromises in lens design in dpreview, why it is easier (more economic) to obtain high resolution and give up on distortion. So the distortion corrected final result can be better due to higher resolution in the corners.
https://www.dpreview.com/articles/21281 ... orrections

Lou Jost
Posts: 5948
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2015 7:03 am
Location: Ecuador
Contact:

Re: 1:20 to 1:5 (0.05x to 0.2x)

Post by Lou Jost »

lothman wrote:
Wed Mar 08, 2023 8:08 am
there is just an article over compromises in lens design in dpreview, why it is easier (more economic) to obtain high resolution and give up on distortion. So the distortion corrected final result can be better due to higher resolution in the corners.
https://www.dpreview.com/articles/21281 ... orrections
I have mixed feelings about this. For those of us who use lenses in novel ways (reversed lenses, lens combos, or as tube lenses, for example), this trend is disastrous. I also don't like the loss of resolution that is inevitable when doing distortion correction. For normal uses, maybe it is not so bad, but I prefer a bigger and more expensive lens that produces an image that does not need to be corrected.

lothman
Posts: 959
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2009 7:00 am
Location: Stuttgart/Germany

Re: 1:20 to 1:5 (0.05x to 0.2x)

Post by lothman »

Lou Jost wrote:
Wed Mar 08, 2023 12:31 pm
I have mixed feelings about this. For those of us who use lenses in novel ways (reversed lenses, lens combos, or as tube lenses, for example), this trend is disastrous. I also don't like the loss of resolution that is inevitable when doing distortion correction. For normal uses, maybe it is not so bad, but I prefer a bigger and more expensive lens that produces an image that does not need to be corrected.
If I look at the Lomo 3,7x I had, what suffered from an spherical focal plane and therefore was not highly regarded as a microscope lens. You had to decide to get the center or the corners sharp but never both at the same time. But when applying stacking software this can be overcome and we have an affordable lens sharp from corner to corner, see here my waver pic on Sony full frame sensor.

So only the stacking software let such a lens shine. Of course a lens successfully corrected in every way is superior but there is no free lunch. Either paying a several times higher price or a compromise in another category. In my example above you have excellent corner resolution, if the lens would have been corrected for a plane focal layer we most probably would not achieve such sharp corners. On a modern highres sensor and a lens providing a sharp but distorted image, I don't think resolution loss due to distortion is a noticeable quality limiting factor any more.

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic