www.photomacrography.net :: View topic - Zhongyi (Mitakon) Super Macro Lens (1 - 5x)
www.photomacrography.net Forum Index
An online community dedicated to the practices of photomacrography, close-up and macro photography, and photomicrography.
Photomacrography Front Page Amateurmicrography Front Page
Old Forums/Galleries
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Zhongyi (Mitakon) Super Macro Lens (1 - 5x)
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 16, 17, 18  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    www.photomacrography.net Forum Index -> Equipment Discussions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Macro_Cosmos



Joined: 15 Jan 2018
Posts: 632
Location: Sydney

PostPosted: Sat Feb 29, 2020 2:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mjkzz wrote:
with extended holidays, finally got some time to do some work. But today a big BUG caught me, spent 2 hours debugging it, it turns out at 1:1 with Zhongyi Super Macro Mk II, magnification is NOT 1:1, it is 1.16:1, or 1.16x. I thought I had some bug in my software and it is "good" for others to be aware of it, instead of pulling your hair out Very Happy Very Happy

Here is a video about it

Interesting video! Mag. calibration is always useful. This information is pretty crucial too, 1.16x is pretty far off from 1x, I'd accept 1.02x but not 1.16x. I would not have thought to measure the mag. of such lenses and simply believe the manufacturer's claim.

Always be sceptical I'd say.
_________________
Personal Flickr page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/133023063@N04/
Blog still under construction
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mjkzz



Joined: 01 Jul 2015
Posts: 1237
Location: California/Shenzhen

PostPosted: Sat Feb 29, 2020 6:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Macro_Cosmos wrote:
mjkzz wrote:
with extended holidays, finally got some time to do some work. But today a big BUG caught me, spent 2 hours debugging it, it turns out at 1:1 with Zhongyi Super Macro Mk II, magnification is NOT 1:1, it is 1.16:1, or 1.16x. I thought I had some bug in my software and it is "good" for others to be aware of it, instead of pulling your hair out Very Happy Very Happy

Here is a video about it

Interesting video! Mag. calibration is always useful. This information is pretty crucial too, 1.16x is pretty far off from 1x, I'd accept 1.02x but not 1.16x. I would not have thought to measure the mag. of such lenses and simply believe the manufacturer's claim.

Always be sceptical I'd say.


Thanks.

Yeah, I was pulling my hair out, I kept saying my computation can not be this inaccurate, on the contrary, it should be pretty good . . . after hours of struggle, I decided to measure magnification manually, it turns out my computation is right on.

Shot with Sony A7 III and Zhongyi Super Macro set at 1:1, I made sure the lens did not slide down.

Maybe somebody else can verify this, as mine is close to "enginerring" copy.

_________________
https://www.facebook.com/groups/mjkzzfs/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
RobertOToole



Joined: 17 Jan 2013
Posts: 1589
Location: United States

PostPosted: Sat Feb 29, 2020 9:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Macro_Cosmos wrote:
mjkzz wrote:
with extended holidays, finally got some time to do some work. But today a big BUG caught me, spent 2 hours debugging it, it turns out at 1:1 with Zhongyi Super Macro Mk II, magnification is NOT 1:1, it is 1.16:1, or 1.16x. I thought I had some bug in my software and it is "good" for others to be aware of it, instead of pulling your hair out Very Happy Very Happy

Here is a video about it

Interesting video! Mag. calibration is always useful. This information is pretty crucial too, 1.16x is pretty far off from 1x, I'd accept 1.02x but not 1.16x. I would not have thought to measure the mag. of such lenses and simply believe the manufacturer's claim.

Always be sceptical I'd say.



Hi Guys,

Well I have some bad news for you guys, when I ran that 1x test earlier this year, for Ref: https://www.closeuphotography.com/1x-test-2020

I think the only lens that was actually at 1x was the Printing Nikkor and that is only because I set the extension to focus at 1x. The rest of the lenses were almost all away from 1x, some like the Sigma was something like 1.05 or 1.1x. In fact I tested something like 5 sigma macros for that test, each model was a different ratio.

Maybe its something that is designed into the lens for expansion for shooting in hot and humid, and frigid conditions?

When is 200mm ever 200mm, more like 190mm, or f/2.8 ever f/2.8, more like f/3.5 or f/3.8, and 1x is rarely ever 1x in my experience.

Best,

Robert
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Macro_Cosmos



Joined: 15 Jan 2018
Posts: 632
Location: Sydney

PostPosted: Sat Feb 29, 2020 9:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mjkzz wrote:

Maybe somebody else can verify this, as mine is close to "enginerring" copy.

Hmmm, so it's 31mm horizontally, FF ~ 36mm. 36/31=1.16129x
That's certainly odd. Could be an engineering copy issue... or at least I would hope. If they didn't goof up the image quality on the first one and now the second one, I'd firmly believe it's just an engineering copy issue.

I'll ask someone I know with the "Ver. 2" lens, hopefully he's willing to snap a ruler pic.
_________________
Personal Flickr page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/133023063@N04/
Blog still under construction
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mjkzz



Joined: 01 Jul 2015
Posts: 1237
Location: California/Shenzhen

PostPosted: Sun Mar 01, 2020 12:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

RobertOToole wrote:
Macro_Cosmos wrote:
mjkzz wrote:
with extended holidays, finally got some time to do some work. But today a big BUG caught me, spent 2 hours debugging it, it turns out at 1:1 with Zhongyi Super Macro Mk II, magnification is NOT 1:1, it is 1.16:1, or 1.16x. I thought I had some bug in my software and it is "good" for others to be aware of it, instead of pulling your hair out Very Happy Very Happy

Here is a video about it

Interesting video! Mag. calibration is always useful. This information is pretty crucial too, 1.16x is pretty far off from 1x, I'd accept 1.02x but not 1.16x. I would not have thought to measure the mag. of such lenses and simply believe the manufacturer's claim.

Always be sceptical I'd say.



Hi Guys,

Well I have some bad news for you guys, when I ran that 1x test earlier this year, for Ref: https://www.closeuphotography.com/1x-test-2020

I think the only lens that was actually at 1x was the Printing Nikkor and that is only because I set the extension to focus at 1x. The rest of the lenses were almost all away from 1x, some like the Sigma was something like 1.05 or 1.1x. In fact I tested something like 5 sigma macros for that test, each model was a different ratio.

Maybe its something that is designed into the lens for expansion for shooting in hot and humid, and frigid conditions?

When is 200mm ever 200mm, more like 190mm, or f/2.8 ever f/2.8, more like f/3.5 or f/3.8, and 1x is rarely ever 1x in my experience.

Best,

Robert


It is not a bad news for me at all, I guess this is a "common" practice among lens makers. But just be aware of it, instead of 1x, it is 1.16x when doing come work that depends on it -- for example, when doing stack and stitch, the true magnification is needed to calculate overlap so that calculation will match reality.
_________________
https://www.facebook.com/groups/mjkzzfs/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Macro_Cosmos



Joined: 15 Jan 2018
Posts: 632
Location: Sydney

PostPosted: Sun Mar 01, 2020 4:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mjkzz wrote:

It is not a bad news for me at all, I guess this is a "common" practice among lens makers. But just be aware of it, instead of 1x, it is 1.16x when doing come work that depends on it -- for example, when doing stack and stitch, the true magnification is needed to calculate overlap so that calculation will match reality.

My idea of utilising this lenses' telecentricity for inspection purposes is out of the window now I guess Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes
_________________
Personal Flickr page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/133023063@N04/
Blog still under construction
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ultima_Gaina



Joined: 28 Jan 2017
Posts: 108

PostPosted: Sun Mar 01, 2020 1:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mjkzz wrote:
Macro_Cosmos wrote:
mjkzz wrote:
with extended holidays, finally got some time to do some work. But today a big BUG caught me, spent 2 hours debugging it, it turns out at 1:1 with Zhongyi Super Macro Mk II, magnification is NOT 1:1, it is 1.16:1, or 1.16x. I thought I had some bug in my software and it is "good" for others to be aware of it, instead of pulling your hair out Very Happy Very Happy

Here is a video about it

Interesting video! Mag. calibration is always useful. This information is pretty crucial too, 1.16x is pretty far off from 1x, I'd accept 1.02x but not 1.16x. I would not have thought to measure the mag. of such lenses and simply believe the manufacturer's claim.

Always be sceptical I'd say.


Thanks.

Yeah, I was pulling my hair out, I kept saying my computation can not be this inaccurate, on the contrary, it should be pretty good . . . after hours of struggle, I decided to measure magnification manually, it turns out my computation is right on.

Shot with Sony A7 III and Zhongyi Super Macro set at 1:1, I made sure the lens did not slide down.

Maybe somebody else can verify this, as mine is close to "enginerring" copy.


I checked mine on a FF camera, by (manually) focusing on a school ruler. Then I used the window ruler in PS to accurately measure the dimensions.

The magnification in my case is 1.06x, instead of 1:1:



I also checked the other magnifications, by aligning the column (":") between the numbers with the mark on the lens:

2:1 is 2.03x
3:1 is 3.01x
4:1 is 3.96x
5:1 is 4.93x
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mjkzz



Joined: 01 Jul 2015
Posts: 1237
Location: California/Shenzhen

PostPosted: Thu Mar 05, 2020 6:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ultima_Gaina wrote:
mjkzz wrote:
Macro_Cosmos wrote:
mjkzz wrote:
with extended holidays, finally got some time to do some work. But today a big BUG caught me, spent 2 hours debugging it, it turns out at 1:1 with Zhongyi Super Macro Mk II, magnification is NOT 1:1, it is 1.16:1, or 1.16x. I thought I had some bug in my software and it is "good" for others to be aware of it, instead of pulling your hair out Very Happy Very Happy

Here is a video about it

Interesting video! Mag. calibration is always useful. This information is pretty crucial too, 1.16x is pretty far off from 1x, I'd accept 1.02x but not 1.16x. I would not have thought to measure the mag. of such lenses and simply believe the manufacturer's claim.

Always be sceptical I'd say.


Thanks.

Yeah, I was pulling my hair out, I kept saying my computation can not be this inaccurate, on the contrary, it should be pretty good . . . after hours of struggle, I decided to measure magnification manually, it turns out my computation is right on.

Shot with Sony A7 III and Zhongyi Super Macro set at 1:1, I made sure the lens did not slide down.

Maybe somebody else can verify this, as mine is close to "enginerring" copy.


I checked mine on a FF camera, by (manually) focusing on a school ruler. Then I used the window ruler in PS to accurately measure the dimensions.

The magnification in my case is 1.06x, instead of 1:1:



I also checked the other magnifications, by aligning the column (":") between the numbers with the mark on the lens:

2:1 is 2.03x
3:1 is 3.01x
4:1 is 3.96x
5:1 is 4.93x


This is great, it also saves me from more testing as it would be useless to test something that is SO different from public version.
_________________
https://www.facebook.com/groups/mjkzzfs/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Ultima_Gaina



Joined: 28 Jan 2017
Posts: 108

PostPosted: Thu Mar 05, 2020 6:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mjkzz wrote:


This is great, it also saves me from more testing as it would be useless to test something that is SO different from public version.


One observation: the above photo was made with Canon 5D mk3 and, in my calculations, I used 35mm for the sensor size.
However, I later noticed that, the sensor width is said to be 36mm, not 35mm, as I assumed..
If that's the case, the above magnifications must be proportionally adjusted (1.06x becomes 1.09x)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dhmiller



Joined: 11 Nov 2019
Posts: 183

PostPosted: Tue Mar 24, 2020 12:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Taking this back to the top, it appears that the modified Mitakon Creator 85mm f/2.8 1-5X Super Macro is not yet shipping. Has there been any announcement about when it is expected? In the meantime, does anyone know of another lens that covers the 1x - 2.5x range? Thanks for any info.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Ultima_Gaina



Joined: 28 Jan 2017
Posts: 108

PostPosted: Tue Mar 24, 2020 12:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

dhmiller wrote:
Taking this back to the top, it appears that the modified Mitakon Creator 85mm f/2.8 1-5X Super Macro is not yet shipping. Has there been any announcement about when it is expected? In the meantime, does anyone know of another lens that covers the 1x - 2.5x range? Thanks for any info.


I got mine shipped straight from the vendor. I can see that they have it in stock:
https://zyoptics.net/product/mitakon-creator-25-85mm-f-2-8-1-5x-super-macro/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dhmiller



Joined: 11 Nov 2019
Posts: 183

PostPosted: Tue Mar 24, 2020 1:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Have you had a chance to shoot with it/ Would you post some pix when you have time? And if you know where I can find the story about what was modified, could you point me to a link? Thanks very much.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Ultima_Gaina



Joined: 28 Jan 2017
Posts: 108

PostPosted: Tue Mar 24, 2020 1:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

dhmiller wrote:
Have you had a chance to shoot with it/ Would you post some pix when you have time? And if you know where I can find the story about what was modified, could you point me to a link? Thanks very much.


I didn't shoot much with it, except for the test posted above on Feb 15.

It looks like the front element shrunk, but I don't have the details of the technical changes.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dhmiller



Joined: 11 Nov 2019
Posts: 183

PostPosted: Tue Mar 24, 2020 1:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

K- didn't know that shot was from the new version (didn't read carefully). Surprised that B/H doesn't have it yet ands reports only that it is coming.
Thanks much.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
dickb



Joined: 05 Jul 2010
Posts: 244

PostPosted: Tue Mar 24, 2020 2:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

dhmiller wrote:
Have you had a chance to shoot with it/ Would you post some pix when you have time? And if you know where I can find the story about what was modified, could you point me to a link? Thanks very much.


According to Micael Widell it is optically not as poor as the first version:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nx4tiNrw16g

but it still suffers from basic problems such as a lack of internal flocking. I can't tell you what the exact changes are though.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    www.photomacrography.net Forum Index -> Equipment Discussions All times are GMT - 7 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 16, 17, 18  Next
Page 17 of 18

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group