A "VERY RARE" macro lens?

Given that some mirror-less interchangeable-lens cameras these days - especially the micro-4/3 and NEX / E-mount systems on the market - are capable of "universal" lens adaptability of many non-native / exotic lens from just about almost any other mount (WITHOUT requiring image-degrading corrective-glass adapters, given their short flange distances between the sensor and the mount plane), I have been on a sort of legacy lens "binge" over the past year, buying up various old primes (and some zooms) from the bygone film era ... giving them a resurrected life. If nothing more, to gain an insight into the strengths and weaknesses of each, by evaluating them, and selling back any of the "dogs" that aren't worth keeping / shooting with.
.
Just recently, while pouring through the Ebay auctions, I stumbled across something that REALLY caught my eye: A 55mm 1:1 macro (true-to-life reproduction) prime lens, with a maximum aperture of F/2!
.
Once again, for those who's missed the stand-out spec, let me emphasize: A maximum aperture of "F/2."
.
I knew right away that this was a strange anomaly, amid the sea of 1:1 macro primes from the film era, since many legacy lens with 1:1 macro capabilities start with a maximum, wide-open aperture of F/3.5 ... while less common 1:1 macro primes (which fetched a heftier price at the time) were endowed with an F/2.8 at the widest end.
.
Thus, I have never seen a 50mm or 55mm 1:1 macro prime with an F/2 aperture. And just to make sure that the Ebay listing was not posted in error (this happens more often that many of us are aware, especially people selling photographic equipment, but whom otherwise have little to no experience with the subject), I decided to inspect the auction item in question with greater attention, including scrutinizing the accompanying photos.
.
The auction title read: "Super rare & fast Quantaray / Sigma 55mm F/2, 1:1 Macro, in M42 Screw Mount. Mint condition!"
.
Sure enough, based on the included photos, this specimen really DID have an F/2 aperture at the wide end!
.
The detailed listing read as follows:
.
"Quantaray did not generally manufacture lenses of their own. They rebadged Sigma lenses.
This Sigma-made, 55mm 1:1 (true to life) Macro lens was designed with an F/2 aperture at the widest end, which is almost UNHEARD of among 1:1-reproduction lens in this focal length!
Most 1:1 reproduction macro lens from the film era usually started at F/3.5 (some at F/2.8), which makes this F/2 1:1 macro lens very unique and extremely rare.
.
Very hard to find, either well-used or mint. This copy that I am selling is in mint condition! Don't let this one slip away. 14-day return policy if not fully satisfied, no questions asked."
.
I was exceedingly tempted to cast my bid, especially seeing that the seller had a 100% rating. But, in spite of all the right signals I was getting here, I nevertheless decided first to scour the internet for any relevant information / reviews concerning this lens.
.
NOT. ONE. SINGLE. THING. ANYWHERE.
.
Nada.
.
I could not find even a SHRED of information on these specs. Sure, there was plenty of information to be had on a Quantaray / Sigma 50mm 1:1 macro with an F/2.8 aperture ... but, obviously, these were FAR from the same lens.
.
So, as the auction time ticked down, I could feel the pressure building: Should I, or shouldn't I take the plunge? Was this an extremely rare GEM ... or an extremely rare DOG?
.
(I have learned from painful, financial experience ... that just because something is very rare, doesn't necessarily make it very good)
.
And how could there be ABSOLUTELY NO INFORMATION WHATSOEVER on this specific lens? Was I missing something?
.
With a "BUY IT NOW" price of $249.950 USD, I wasn't dealing with a mere song, here.
Ultimately, I decided to roll the dice, because I HAVE been a collector of obsolete, unusual, curious (and even rare) lenses. After all, the listing DID list a 14-day return policy. So, in the end, what did I really have to lose, besides inspecting the item for myself?
.
Now I sit here, and impatiently wait, for this "very rare" 1:1 macro to arrive in the mail, in order to give it a test run and see just EXACTLY what we have here.
.
Meanwhile, I am posting a collage of the photos from the original Ebay auction. I would greatly appreciate, however, if someone can shed light on this seemingly "UNKNOWN" specimen, which seems oddly missing from any info database on the net.

.
Another very unusual (though seemingly useful feature), is that this lens COLLAPSES to nearly 1/3 its size, when locking it in "STANDARD" shooting mode (instead of 1:1 macro mode). See the top-right and bottom-right frames in the accompanying photo collage, for this comparison.
<p/>



Quantaray (Sigma) 55mm F/2 Standard + Macro 1:1

By the way ... sorry for all the "." (periods) wedged between each paragraph. I have tried in VAIN to create paragraphs in this forum (using HTML <br />, <p />, and just about NOTHING works. What am I missing here? And why doesn't dpreview have a "forum syntax index" here, for proper forum syntax help?

.

Thanks, in advance, if someone can shed light on this one as well.

I can't answer your questions, but a couple of observations:

- It is not so uncommon for macro lenses to extend a lot when going to macro mode: the Zuiko Digital (Olympus) 50 mm for FTs does that, to a large extent. The Sigma 100 mm f/2.8 macro (I know the version for FTs, but there are other mounts) also extends considerably, and the extreme macro from Canon MP-E 65 mm f/2.5 that goes up to 5:1 also does that by considerably extending the body.

- I know at least one 50 mm f/2.0 - the ZD i mention in the other paragraph. It is not a very old lens, it appeared in 2003, but the specs are there.

I think we consider it "odd" because the wide open use is restricted almost exclusively to non-macro work. Indeed the ZD 50 is also considered a very good portrait lens, for its system (FTs).

I just don't understand what your difficulty is. As far as I am concerned (I use a Mac with OS 10.8.2 and browser Safari, but have used also Firefox and Chrome with the same result) the editor is more or less WYSIWYG. For paragraph, I just hit the return key and the insertion point promptly changes to the beginning of next line.

I am not aware of anybody else complaining about that, either.

Pedagydusz said:

I know at least one 50 mm f/2.0 - the ZD i mention in the other paragraph. It is not a very old lens, it appeared in 2003, but the specs are there.

Click to expand...

Right. There are at least a handful of 50mm / 55mm primes out there, these days, that exhibit an F/2 aperture. But I am strictly talking about "legacy lens" here (film era, 30+ year old, fully-manual focusing) ... that were built like tanks, with their heavy glass and all metal / brass bodies ... and not the modern, digital-age 1:1 macros with auto-focusing capabilities, but cheap, plastic bodies.




Hence, this remains a "freak show" in my mind (possibly even a one-of-a-kind
"unicorn"), until I get my hands on it and have a first-hand account of what I am dealing with, here.



Thanks so much for the input, by the way!

Oh, believe me ... I am a proficient web designer / HTML coder, so this is FAR from "amateur" territory to me. That's why it had me scratching my head (I am using Google Chrome).
Apparently, I have to include 3 full paragraph spaces, between paragraphs, in order to render a single carriage return after hitting "post", when typing in this forum using Google Chrome.
Don't ask me. Ask the browser.



Thanks.

Interesting, I had not remembered a quite old (circa 1970) Macro Takumar (sitting on my shelve, attached to the SP 1000) that extends to twice the initial length when going to 1:1. It's aperture is only f:4, but it extends just in the way that your picture shows. And it is solid metal, too!

BTW, in my editor I hit the return key only once for each paragraph. That is how this paragraph was created!

Pedagydusz said:

Pedagydusz wrote:

Interesting, I had not remembered a quite old (circa 1970) Macro Takumar (sitting on my shelve, attached to the SP 1000) that extends to twice the initial length when going to 1:1. It's aperture is only f:4, but it extends just in the way that your picture shows. And it is solid metal, too!

BTW, in my editor I hit the return key only once for each paragraph. That is how this paragraph was created!

Click to expand...

Increasing the "extension" is the normal way to make lenses focus closer. This is why old cameras have stretchy bodies made of leather bellows.

The closer you go, the more the lens must be extended away from the image plane. Macro lenses have a built in extension mecahnism, on which scales are typically engraved.

With a lens of 55mm racked out to same size reproduction... (1:1)... that will be exactly twice the focal length in extension.. (2f). When at 2f extension (110mm) the lens will be exactly midpoint between image plane and subject plane...

... therefore the distance from the optical centre of the lens to the subject will ALSO be 110mm...

...meaning the whole setup is 2 x 110 about 10" from subject to back of camera.

This was how things were before so many modern lenses, even macro ones, had floating elements inside to to do the focusing... in fact, if the lens doesn't "grow" as you focus closer, it is actually growing shorter in focal length, instead... which is NOT quite the same thing.

Thanks so much for that very useful bit of technical info!

How often we seem to forget that photography, like just about any other tangible pursuit, is nevertheless an empirical science, and based on the laws of physics.

One thing that I would like to add (and correct me if I am wrong): Not all 1:1 macro lenses are capable of shooting well, in "STANDARD" mode (meaning, what talents their element configurations gain on the CLOSE-UP focus ability, they seem to inversely sacrifice that same level of sharpness / IQ on the side leaning towards infinity focus.

And, just because they can "collapse" to a smaller configuration, doesn't mean that they are necessarily going to rival the sharpness / IQ of the best non-macro primes out there. Correct?
There usually seems to be a trade-off there, when speaking on the topic of laws that govern optical physics.

However, I failed to mention that there seem to be some EXCEPTIONS to that rule, although they don't really BREAK the physical laws, they merely push them ("bend" them) to the max.
In the case of this Quantaray / Sigma 55mm 1:1 F/2, the owner who has just sold them to me expressed his enthusiasm in particular about how this specific lens shoots VERY SHARP, both - in the 1:1 macro mode, AND in the standard / collapsed mode.

Of course, "very sharp" is a statement that is RELATIVE, and contextual. So, once again, we shall see, when this thing gets here.

(And I will post photos, after doing an extensive field test, too)

igoriginal said:

igoriginal wrote:

Thanks so much for that very useful bit of technical info!

How often we seem to forget that photography, like just about any other tangible pursuit, is nevertheless an empirical science, and based on the laws of physics.

One thing that I would like to add (and correct me if I am wrong): Not all 1:1 macro lenses are capable of shooting well, in "STANDARD" mode (meaning, what talents their element configurations gain on the CLOSE-UP focus ability, they seem to inversely sacrifice that same level of sharpness / IQ on the side leaning towards infinity focus.

And, just because they can "collapse" to a smaller configuration, doesn't mean that they are necessarily going to rival the sharpness / IQ of the best non-macro primes out there. Correct?

Click to expand...

They are not "collapsing" as you put it. There isn't "lens" in the extension... it is just fresh air in there... space between the back of the lens and the image plane that allows for closer focusing. All that is folding up is the mechanism of focusing, a telescoping tube. Any lens can be made to focus closer by extending the empty space behind it. Special "extension rings" are sold for this purpose. They can be added to macro lenses, as well, if you choose. Their use will increase the magnification ratio above 1:1.. say, 2:1 or 3:1 etc. At a push you can even lash-up your own, from a cardboard tube held between lens and body.

igoriginal said:

There usually seems to be a trade-off there, when speaking on the topic of laws that govern optical physics.

Click to expand...

High grade macro lenses are good performers throughout their focusing range, near AND far. However, very often what is compromised for this extended performance is maximum aperture, which is often modest. You mentioned it yourself.. (f/3.5). Then again, we don't know how well your f/2 lens will perform at ANY distance, normal or macro distances...

... but it will be interesting to find out...[??]

igoriginal said:

However, I failed to mention that there seem to be some EXCEPTIONS to that rule, although they don't really BREAK the physical laws, they merely push them ("bend" them) to the max.
In the case of this Quantaray / Sigma 55mm 1:1 F/2, the owner who has just sold them to me expressed his enthusiasm in particular about how this specific lens shoots VERY SHARP, both - in the 1:1 macro mode, AND in the standard / collapsed mode.

Of course, "very sharp" is a statement that is RELATIVE, and contextual. So, once again, we shall see, when this thing gets here.

(And I will post photos, after doing an extensive field test, too)

Click to expand...

I look forward to seeing them....and hope that the lens is as good as you've been told it is.

Pedagydusz said:

Pedagydusz wrote:

I can't answer your questions, but a couple of observations:

- It is not so uncommon for macro lenses to extend a lot when going to macro mode: the Zuiko Digital (Olympus) 50 mm for FTs does that, to a large extent. The Sigma 100 mm f/2.8 macro (I know the version for FTs, but there are other mounts) also extends considerably, and the extreme macro from Canon MP-E 65 mm f/2.5 that goes up to 5:1 also does that by considerably extending the body.

- I know at least one 50 mm f/2.0 - the ZD i mention in the other paragraph. It is not a very old lens, it appeared in 2003, but the specs are there.

Click to expand...

Before that, there was also the 50mm f2.0 Zuiko for the OM system, although that was in a 2:1 mount. Oly has had a fast macro in their line for forever.

You may have the first "unit focusing" f2.0 macro mounted in a 1:1 mechanical mount that I have ever seen. "Unit focus" means that all the optical components move as one "unit", there's no "internal focusing" or "close range compensation". Like Baz mentioned, such lenses need to be extended by their focal lengths to get to 1:1. In order to make a compact barrel that extends that far, you need three threaded focusing tubes inside the lens, one to carry the lens, one to attach to the camera (threaded in the opposite direction) and one with the focusing ring that is double threaded to turn both of the other rings.


Typically, a fast macro either goes to 2:1 (the modern Zeiss 50mm and 100mm f2.0, the old Oly f2.0) or it doesn't have any focusing helicoid at all, and has to be mounted on a bellows to work. I have several ultra fast macros like that, including the Ultra-Micro Nikkor 28mm f1.8, and an f1.0 oscilloscope lens. I've seen that sort of lens down to f0.75.

Pedagydusz said:

I think we consider it "odd" because the wide open use is restricted almost exclusively to non-macro work.

Click to expand...

It's not odd, at all. Have you ever heard of the "bellows factor" and how it interacts with the diffraction limits of an optical system?

When you extend a unit focusing lens, your effective aperture drops in proportion to the magnification. fe = f*(1+M). So, at 1:1, your f2 is now f4. Add 110mm of bellows or tubes to get to 3x, and you've hit an effective f8, the aperture at which diffraction becomes noticeable in a micro-four thirds camera. Not to mention things are getting dim and hard to focus.

Those f3.5 macros mentioned earlier are OK at 1x (effective f7) but pretty squiffy at 3x (f14).

Pedagydusz said:

Indeed the ZD 50 is also considered a very good portrait lens, for its system (FTs).

Click to expand...

It's quite a lens. All the modern f2 macros seem to be: the Zeiss are also formidable.

Thank you (all of you, for that matter) for "schooling" me in the ways of macro photography. This is still a relatively new region of exploration for me! So I am very grateful for the contribution on the matter here!

Barrie Davis said:

They are not "collapsing" as you put it. There isn't "lens" in the extension... it is just fresh air in there... space between the back of the lens and the image plane that allows for closer focusing. All that is folding up is the mechanism of focusing, a telescoping tube.

Click to expand...

I have no idea why I didn't realize this from the start, right from the get-go, seeing as I am an amateur astronomer (as well as being involved with astro-photographic work with high-end telescopes) ... so you would think that it would dawn upon me that the same optical physics that govern LARGER tubes still apply to smaller tubes.
Hence, that was a "D'OH!" moment for me. (accompanying smack on forehead)
I suppose I have to start applying my logic / critical reasoning skills, again, just as I apply them elsewhere in other scientific matters. Shame on me.

Barrie Davis said:

"Ahh... But the thing is, these guys were no ORDINARY time travellers!"

Click to expand...

Speaking of which, the seller (previous owner) finally got back to me, after an additional inquiry about where there is a web-based resource on this particular lens:
Quoting his email back to me:

"I do not know of any websites that have information about this lens. I have been in the photography equipment business for 20 years. I know that Ritz and Wolf camera here in the USA were putting there name on Sigma lenses as 'Quantaray.'

I also know that a macro screw mount lens with a Fast aperture of F/2 was made to be a Pro lens.The fast aperture lenses and constant aperture zoom lenses are the lenses that were very high cost and considered pro lenses as only pro photographers could afford them. A lens like this would have cost someone 3 months salary back when it was introduced. The coatings of the lens are made of exotic and rare earth metals. This lens has a very distinct green coating unlike any I have ever seen. Early lenses used Thorium a radioactive metal that was used in coatings and left a Yellow color on the lens glass. This green material may also be slightly radioactive as the only other time I have seen such a color is when people I know have left quartz rocks next to nuclear reactors and after a day or so have turned this color. The idea behind this is that the radioactive coatings play a role in bending the certain colors of the light spectrum allowing them to be focused onto the same plain. Leica had included a radioactive material in the glass structure called Lanthunum to get what we now call Apochromatic glass which focuses all three colors of the light spectrum onto the same plain. These other materials were used in the same way. What you get is a much sharper lens. In some cases you can make the lenses faster as the corrections of the glass or coatings allow you to engineer such a product. in today's market these materials cannot be used as they are a problem with the environment. Therefore, lenses such as leica, Kodak Earo Ektar, Voigtlander Septon, Early Pentax Screw Mount Lenses and some others are considered to be lenses that are highly sought after in todays market.


If you have the financial resources, then get as many of these lenses as you can [to play around with, and evaluate how they work on a modern system]. Because for the time being, they are less expensive, better built and far superior in sharpness and micro contrast compared to many of the more modern lens, particularly the "kit" lens.


The collector's demand [especially for the more rarer, higher-quality, pro-targeted lens] will only increase over time. Any investment you make, you will get to use the lens and when needed you can sell the lens at a later date, often for 2x, 3x or even 4x as much money as your initial investment. That cannot often be said for new lenses, which only depreciate over time, rather than APPRECIATE.


In fact, investing in KNOWN "cult"-following legacy lens is in some cases better than having money in the bank, by far. They are a long-term investment that is due to appreciate [as their public availability dwindles and demand accordingly goes up], not much different than investing in collectible coins, stamps, or other valuables that only appreciate over time.


I used to sell Leica, Zeiss, and other more exotic lenses this way. In an average time of 2 years, many people that bought my Leica lenses had 2x (doubled) their money, and had the joy of using the lens. In an average if 5 years, some of them had 3x - 4x their money. The early lenses and screw mount lenses have already done this on the used market, and have steadily appreciated in prices that are now even exceeding modern, fully-automatic lens equivalents - not only because of their collectible appeal, but because their optical designs [and especially their durability] actually exceed some modern offerings.


Eventually, the more sough-after, higher-quality specimens will greatly surpass what a new lens of the same focal length costs, even as they lack auto-focus and other electronically-controlled amenities.


So, put your money in these lenses, just as you would invest in other appreciable goods. You won't be sorry, and you will at the very LEAST break-even, if you have to sell them back. That cannot be said of new, modern lenses.


Take care"




End quotation of letter to me.

Hmmmm... [enter]

Also using Chrome. [enter][enter]

Doesn't seem to be an issue.










Ok, so it does appear to drop extra lines, but I don't see any periods.

I am also considering doing a "reverse mount" configuration, for macro work.

From what I understand, reverse-mount methods create some INSANE magnification ratios (2:1, 3:1, even 5:1!!!) ... but at the expense of rendering the depth of field at 1/3 or less of the lens's native depth of field specs when mounted traditionally.

I cannot even IMAGINE what a 135mm 1:1 macro would do, in a reverse-mount configuration! It boggles my mind.

I, for one, definitely plan to test my incoming investment from both ends.

Below is a photo taken with a REGULAR (non-macro) lens ... which in this case, was a reverse-mounted Super-Takumar 50mm F1.4 (on a Pentax K-5).

Imagine then, what kind of magnifications I could attain with a 50mm / 55mm 1:1 that is reverse-mounted!

ryansholl said:

ryansholl wrote:

Hmmmm... [enter]

Also using Chrome. [enter][enter]

Doesn't seem to be an issue.

Ok, so it does appear to drop extra lines, but I don't see any periods.

Click to expand...

Actually, I fixed it.




The problem was that I had some crappy, buggy, extension ("tool") somehow added to my browser, which was messing with my posting. I have subsequently removed it.


And this thing was seemingly added, after downloading a "demo" program from a "REPUTABLE" site. Go figure.

igoriginal said:

igoriginal wrote:

I am also considering doing a "reverse mount" configuration, for macro work.

Click to expand...

Are you talking about reversing it directly on a camera, or on a bellows?

igoriginal said:

From what I understand, reverse-mount methods create some INSANE magnification ratios (2:1, 3:1, even 5:1!!!) ... but at the expense of rendering the depth of field at 1/3 or less of the lens's native depth of field specs when mounted traditionally.

Click to expand...

Nope, there's no optical magic. DOF is determined entirely by magnification and aperture. Any 4x magnification image taken at effective f5.6, for example, has exactly the same DOF, weather the lens is a 50mm micro-Nikkor, a reversed 20mm, or a really extended 100mm.

igoriginal said:

I cannot even IMAGINE what a 135mm 1:1 macro would do, in a reverse-mount configuration!

Click to expand...

It would work poorly. Reverse mounted directly on the camera, it would not produce an image: it would focus "past infinity".

On a bellows, it would have a working distance of 160mm at 1:1, probably about 20mm worse than it would have if forward mounted.

igoriginal said:

It boggles my mind.

Click to expand...

Let me unboggle you. Reversing lenses on a camera is a technique used only for wide angle lenses, typically shorter than 28mm. Longer lenses won't focus at macro distances, and some won't focus at all. The magnification is proportional to the extension. The lens mount is already about 45mm from the sensor, the reversing ring adds another 5mm. A typical wide angle has its "front node" (where light focuses in front of the lens when the light source is infinitely far from the rear of the lens) inside the lens, behind the front element. So, when you reverse a 28mm lens, you put that node maybe 70mm from the sensor, and get about 2x magnification. That's "fun" magnification, with low resolution and high distortion.

If you take your new toy and put it on a bellows set to 55mm, you'll get 2x magnification much sharper, lower in distortion, and with better contrast. Extend the bellows to 110mm, and you get 3x magnification.


Reversing "conventional" lenses on a bellows is a technique used for lenses 55mm and shorter. The mounting mechanism of longer lenses uses up all your working distance. And of those lenses 55mm and shorter, reversing them is to improve resolution and distortion, which doesn't happen with all lenses. So, check yours to see if it should be used reversed or forward for the best results.

igoriginal said:

I, for one, definitely plan to test my incoming investment from both ends.
Below is a photo taken with a REGULAR (non-macro) lens ... which in this case, was a reverse-mounted Super-Takumar 50mm F1.4 (on a Pentax K-5).
Imagine then, what kind of magnifications I could attain with a 50mm / 55mm 1:1 that is reverse-mounted!

Click to expand...

--
Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008. Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed. Ciao! Joseph www.swissarmyfork.com

igoriginal said:

igoriginal wrote:





Quantaray (Sigma) 55mm F/2 Standard + Macro 1:1

Click to expand...

can't help it, but this lens looks very much like my old Komine made Vivitar 55/2.8 1:1 macro lens or its bigger brother, the 90/2.8 1:1 macro lens.

More or less always exactly the same lens, they were sold under many different brand names like Panagor, Soligor, Admiral, Elicar, ....

Apart from minor cosmetical differences they often even changed the 2.8 to 3.0 or 2.5 in order to hide the true origin of the lens. The Vivitar version was called 2.8, the Elicar 2.5, the Panagor 3.0 ...., seemed to be common practice in those days, always the same 2.8 lens with 62mm filter threads!


Not sure, lol, but maybe the Quantaray folks simply thought 2.0 looks even better than 2.5, 2.8 or 3.0 so they decided to go with 2.0. What looks a little suspicious here is that it only says F2 and not F2.0 or 2.8! (some black color textmarker, maybe ... ;-) )

But no matter if 2.0 or whatever, if it is what I think it is, it is a very good lens!

http://olypedia.de/Vivitar_1:2,8/55_mm_MC_Macro

http://olypedia.de/Vivitar_Auto_Telephoto_Macro_1:2,8/90_mm

(Both links German language only, sorry.)









René

René Schuster said:

can't help it, but this lens looks very much like my old Komine made Vivitar 55/2.8 1:1 macro lens or its bigger brother, the 90/2.8 1:1 macro lens.

More or less always exactly the same lens, they were sold under many different brand names like Panagor, Soligor, Admiral, Elicar, ....

Apart from minor cosmetical differences they often even changed the 2.8 to 3.0 or 2.5 in order to hide the true origin of the lens. The Vivitar version was called 2.8, the Elicar 2.5, the Panagor 3.0 ...., seemed to be common practice in those days, always the same 2.8 lens with 62mm filter threads!

Not sure, lol, but maybe the Quantaray folks simply thought 2.0 looks even better than 2.5, 2.8 or 3.0 so they decided to go with 2.0. What looks a little suspicious here is that it only says F2 and not F2.0 or 2.8! (some black color textmarker, maybe ... ;-) )

But no matter if 2.0 or whatever, if it is what I think it is, it is a very good lens!

Click to expand...

While I am not an expert in terms of macro photography, I can tell you for certain that this specimen is not even remotely like the 50mm / 55mm Vivitars, Soligors, etc., or other focal length "clones" that you mentioned, per the letter that I received from the previous owner.




It is an entirely different (and uniquely-designed) article, which is not even closely related to the others.


Here, read this previous response, quoting the previous owner's response to an inquiry I sent to him about the lens, within this thread.




http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/50881859




(I have no reasons to doubt the claims made by the owner, given his 100% seller rating, and life-long experience in the matter, unless proven otherwise)

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

Are you talking about reversing it directly on a camera, or on a bellows?

Click to expand...

On a camera, using a reverse-mounting ring.

(See this: http://digital-photography-school.c...prime-lenses-for-affordable-macro-photography )

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

It would work poorly. Reverse mounted directly on the camera, it would not produce an image: it would focus "past infinity".

Click to expand...

Not if it is coupled, end to end, with yet another lens. This can correct for the problem.

(See this: http://digital-photography-school.com/reverse-lens-macro-close-up-photography-lesson-3 )

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

Let me unboggle you. Reversing lenses on a camera is a technique used only for wide angle lenses, typically shorter than 28mm. Longer lenses won't focus at macro distances, and some won't focus at all. The magnification is proportional to the extension. The lens mount is already about 45mm from the sensor.

Click to expand...

Not if you are utilizing mirror-less systems, which have drastically shorter flange distances (19.25 mm or even less), which is how I am doing my reverse-mounting macros with lenses with larger focal distances,

The newly-emerging mirror-less standard is permitting one to do things that ordinarily would be impossible with traditional (mirror box / assembly) DSLR's.


I, for one, have been producing some IMMACULATE images, using a 50mm, and even a 90mm prime.


I can post some more, as an example.


Not trying to trump anyone's advice, especially those far more experienced than me ... however ... it appears that many seasoned photographers are not taking newer standards in consideration, which allow for things not previously imagined.

Thanks so much.

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

Joseph S Wisniewski wrote:

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

Pedagydusz wrote:

I can't answer your questions, but a couple of observations:

- It is not so uncommon for macro lenses to extend a lot when going to macro mode: the Zuiko Digital (Olympus) 50 mm for FTs does that, to a large extent. The Sigma 100 mm f/2.8 macro (I know the version for FTs, but there are other mounts) also extends considerably, and the extreme macro from Canon MP-E 65 mm f/2.5 that goes up to 5:1 also does that by considerably extending the body.

- I know at least one 50 mm f/2.0 - the ZD i mention in the other paragraph. It is not a very old lens, it appeared in 2003, but the specs are there.

Click to expand...

Before that, there was also the 50mm f2.0 Zuiko for the OM system, although that was in a 2:1 mount. Oly has had a fast macro in their line for forever.

You may have the first "unit focusing" f2.0 macro mounted in a 1:1 mechanical mount that I have ever seen. "Unit focus" means that all the optical components move as one "unit", there's no "internal focusing" or "close range compensation". Like Baz mentioned, such lenses need to be extended by their focal lengths to get to 1:1.

Click to expand...

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

In order to make a compact barrel that extends that far, you need three threaded focusing tubes inside the lens, one to carry the lens, one to attach to the camera (threaded in the opposite direction) and one with the focusing ring that is double threaded to turn both of the other rings.

Click to expand...

Aha! THANK YOU for that detail.

I suspected something of the kind, but despite close association with Nkon Micro Nikkor-P macro lenses across many years, I never quite worked out exactly how they managed to get such considerable and rapid extension from relatively small rotation of the focusing collar.

Now I know. [Ta everso.]

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

Typically, a fast macro either goes to 2:1 (the modern Zeiss 50mm and 100mm f2.0, the old Oly f2.0) or it doesn't have any focusing helicoid at all, and has to be mounted on a bellows to work. I have several ultra fast macros like that, including the Ultra-Micro Nikkor 28mm f1.8, and an f1.0 oscilloscope lens. I've seen that sort of lens down to f0.75.

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

I think we consider it "odd" because the wide open use is restricted almost exclusively to non-macro work.

Click to expand...

It's not odd, at all. Have you ever heard of the "bellows factor" and how it interacts with the diffraction limits of an optical system?

When you extend a unit focusing lens, your effective aperture drops in proportion to the magnification. fe = f*(1+M). So, at 1:1, your f2 is now f4. Add 110mm of bellows or tubes to get to 3x, and you've hit an effective f8, the aperture at which diffraction becomes noticeable in a micro-four thirds camera. Not to mention things are getting dim and hard to focus.

Those f3.5 macros mentioned earlier are OK at 1x (effective f7) but pretty squiffy at 3x (f14).

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

Indeed the ZD 50 is also considered a very good portrait lens, for its system (FTs).

Click to expand...

It's quite a lens. All the modern f2 macros seem to be: the Zeiss are also formidable.

Click to expand...

My fingers are crossed for the OP.
It would be nice to hear that the man on ebay has sold him a gem.