Graflex.org

DAB · Joined: 26 Sep 2003 Posts: 9

I know some of you out there are into macro. Maybe you can help me think this through.

I’ve been tinkering with various homebrew methods to extend a lensboard for a telephoto for closer focusing.

I’ve also been considering getting a low power microscope, and an adapter to attach the camera.

So today, while cleaning up my shed, I came across an old Edmund telescope that I haven’t used for many years. The telescope tube is about three feet long and about 5 inches in diameter. Do you see where my mind went?

What would be the result if I went to the trouble of adapting this telescope tube as a super-long lensboard extension?

Getting past the fact that it would be very cumbersome to use, would it be worth the effort? If I used, say, a 210mm lens, and my extension from the film would be about 1200mm, would I get about 5:1 macro? With a 150 lens, about 8:1?

Would using a low power microscope have better or worse resolution than such a set up?

Am I nuts?

Thanks in advance for any insight.

45PSS · Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2003 3:31 am Post subject:

[ This Message was edited by: 45PSS on 2005-12-25 10:19 ]

Dan Fromm · Joined: 14 May 2001 Posts: 2148 Location: New Jersey

RichS · Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2003 3:25 pm Post subject:

I would deffinitely listen to Dan on this topic!

The problem of using the 210mm over the 17 or 35 (or even a 65 or 90) is depth of field. The longer the lens, the less depth of field. Your 210 extended out that far would have pretty much NO DOF. The 17 for the same magnification would have something at least useable.

I've shot at 3 to 3.5 to 1 indoors, on a tripod, using a 60 watt light bulb for illumination. Had to stop down a 90mm all the way just to get 1/4 inch of DOF and a long exposure. But it worked fine.

Now another thought. Maybe for Dan? Has anyone tried using less expensive 35mm macro lenses? Extended out, they would (might) cover 4x5 and they should be flat-field and maybe even f/1.4 or so? I only have one 35mm macro here and now that I've thought of it, might give it a try. Unfortunately, I think it's an f/4.5, but 100mm... Just a thought and another source of inexpensive lenses. But like Dan said, the Tominon's do have a good reputation for such things and they seem redily available...

Dan Fromm · Joined: 14 May 2001 Posts: 2148 Location: New Jersey

RichS · Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2003 8:04 pm Post subject:

Hmmm, I wouldn't argue with you cause I just don't know. Something I took for granted because longer lenses have less DOF in general use and I figured it would be the same for macro. Also what I vaguely remembered from 35mm work?
Never tried lens reversal myself. Always used tubes or bellows. But I've known people who like it...

Just curious. What do you mean by unusable? Gets fuzzy, lack of contrast, distortion, all of the above? Almost all of my macro work has been 35mm and with either a 50mm 'standard' lens or the 100mm macro-bellows-short focus lens. I'll have to try tohers just to see how bad it can get?

Dan Fromm · Joined: 14 May 2001 Posts: 2148 Location: New Jersey

RichS · Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2003 2:14 am Post subject:

Okay, you're not only smart but lucky too

Well, when I find out that none of my lenses work at 30 inches of bellows, I'll get you're opinion on what to buy. I'm hoping for some free time next week to try the 8x10 at full extension to see how much magnification I can squeeze out of it. Since it's almost twice as long as my GVII I have some hopes. But it all depends on the lenses, and how much light I can gather into one small spot. I may be limited to shooting metal objects only

And thanks for the offer on the Spiratone, but I have enough fuzz!

bertsaunders · Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2003 4:20 am Post subject:

I have used a Star D close-up zoom attachment lens that was bought to use on my 35mm cameras! Have used it with a 2x3 Speed with a 101mm lens with good results, and have used it with my digi camera as well! Also have the set of old portrait lenses that were used with the V1 style adapter, plus 1 and plus 2 lenses, been a long while since I've had them out....but they also worked with the 101mm mini Speed
Of coarse I bought about 5 step down rings before I ever came up with the right screw sizes to stack up on the old lenses! Never tried to see if I got down to 1:1 but it was >close! It's been a while since I used the zoom lens on the mini, but do not remember any fuzziness in the single flowers that I was photographing full frame??? For what it's worth, not brain dead yet, but getting close!! Bert

DAB · Joined: 26 Sep 2003 Posts: 9

Well, I’m certainly glad that I asked the question - that telescope is going to stay in the
shed. I’m actually on vacation at the moment - just got to spend some time on the
computer.

I like the MP-4 suggestion - It makes sense to use something already set up for macro
use, rather than reinventing the wheel.

I can already get about 5:1 with what I have, by using a 90mm lens with a series 6
adapter and adding Leitz A & B close-up filters to the front. I also have stepping rings to use my Nikon 5T and 6T with a 210mm lens - not as much magnification, but I like
the look you get with a longer lens, as well as the working distance you get.
Dan - can you explain this sentence: “FWIW, all of these things will cover 4x5 with
enough magnification.“ Do mean that if you get super-close to a subject, then any
wideangle macro lens will cover 4x5? I tried reversing an old, sharp Nikon MF 50mm
lens ON TO a 150 lens, using a reversing ring. That vignetted so severely, that I got
only a small circle of picture. So when you say to reverse a lens, do you mean using
ONLY that lens and mounting it, reversed, directly on to a lens board?

45PSS · Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2003 7:44 am Post subject:

[ This Message was edited by: 45PSS on 2005-12-25 10:18 ]

Dan Fromm · Joined: 14 May 2001 Posts: 2148 Location: New Jersey