A "VERY RARE" macro lens?

igoriginal said:

igoriginal wrote:

igoriginal 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 ... ;-) )

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

In the photographs the diaphragm setting (aperture ring) of the lens in question has a fully discrete f/2.0 setting. It is clearly visible.

Moreover, I have seen plenty of f/2.0 lenses in my time, and have to say that the actual visible opening in the lens, as it appears, is quite large enough to be a genuine f/2.0...
--
Regards,
Baz
"Ahh... But the thing is, these guys were no ORDINARY time travellers!"

igoriginal said:

igoriginal wrote:

igoriginal 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 )

Click to expand...

K. That won't do anything with your lens. It will focus past infinity, and you can't focus it because you've fixed the lens to the camera body.

igoriginal said:

igoriginal 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 )

Click to expand...

This is true. Although that explanation is pretty poor. Here's a better one. part 1 , part 2 , part 3 , part 4


This is interesting, too.

As I've pointed out dozens of times over the years, coupling is a good, effective technique. It is also a technique that is non-optimal with a 55mm, and works best with lenses 35mm and shorter. You can use a 50, but you get 39mm working distance.

Your 55, like any deeply recessed lens, will perform poorly. Aside from that problem, the rear lens has to be longer than the front lens for this to work, so making the front lens longer just limits your magnification range.

igoriginal said:

igoriginal 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),

Click to expand...

Which will make things worse. The problem is that the lenses you're using reach focus behind the sensor. The thing you need to do to counter that is to move the sensor farther away from the lens, not closer.

igoriginal said:

which is how I am doing my reverse-mounting macros with lenses with larger focal distances,

Click to expand...

How you "intend to do it"? Because, seriously, it will not work with long focal length lenses.

igoriginal said:

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

Click to expand...

True. Just not the things you're describing.

igoriginal said:

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

Click to expand...

Reversed? Directly on the camera?

igoriginal said:

I can post some more, as an example.

Click to expand...

If you've mounted the 90 on the camera and reversed the 50 in front of that, don't bother, I've been doing that for 35 years.

If you've reversed the 90 directly on a mirrorless body, no extension, sure, I'd like to see that.

igoriginal said:

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.

Click to expand...

Hardly. I've done most of the things you describe with industrial cameras, "mirrorless" before the word came into vogue.

igoriginal said:

Thanks so much.

Click to expand...

You're very welcome.

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

K. That won't do anything with your lens. It will focus past infinity, and you can't focus it because you've fixed the lens to the camera body.

Click to expand...

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

Which will make things worse. The problem is that the lenses you're using reach focus behind the sensor. The thing you need to do to counter that is to move the sensor farther away from the lens, not closer.

Click to expand...

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

How you "intend to do it"? Because, seriously, it will not work with long focal length lenses.

Click to expand...

Here is a photo, taken using a 55mm F/1.4 Super-Takumar lens, reverse-mounted on a mirror-less micro-4/3 camera (Olympus EP-1). Tell me how this can't work, because as you can see ... it works beautifully.


(Seriously, not trying to be smart or coy. These are real. And there is no post-photo editing, whatsoever. The shot is straight out of the camera, no retouching or alteration. The exception being that I added my watermark in the upper right corner)

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

... you can't focus it because you've fixed the lens to the camera body.

Click to expand...

I can focus it just fine, actually, Just as I can focus with the lens mounted traditionally.

(Maybe we are somehow misunderstanding each other, and you may be thinking of a different technique than the one I am using. I am not sure why what you are saying doesn't match up with what I am doing, but focusing for me works the same exact way as it is does with the lens mounted the traditional way. It's just more "touchy" and requires more careful, "fine focusing" skills.)

But even so, focusing with the focusing ring is not the only way to bring your subject into your depth of field. You can also move YOURSELF slightly closer or further way, hence changing the focused-in point.

In fact, with reverse-mounted macro work, moving YOURSELF (and your camera) slightly toward or away from the subject is the much more EFFICIENT way to "focus", rather than fumbling with the focusing ring on the lens.

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed.

Click to expand...

Noticed this at the bottom of your responses.


Seems we are two peas in a pod. My step-grandmother is Armenian too! Amazing character, she is. And captivating story-teller. I bet yours was really something, too. Good memories, eh?

Barrie Davis said:

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

Click to expand...

I sincerely hope so, too. So does my bank account.

René Schuster said:

René Schuster wrote:.

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!

Click to expand...

I have Panagor 55mm macro that is f2.8, also i have seen quantaray 55mm macro on ebay that was f3

as for f2 macro lenses that go 1:1 there is also Steinheil Munchen Macro- Quinon 55mm f1.9

igoriginal said:

igoriginal wrote:

igoriginal said:

K. That won't do anything with your lens. It will focus past infinity, and you can't focus it because you've fixed the lens to the camera body.

Which will make things worse. The problem is that the lenses you're using reach focus behind the sensor. The thing you need to do to counter that is to move the sensor farther away from the lens, not closer.

How you "intend to do it"? Because, seriously, it will not work with long focal length lenses.

Click to expand...

Here is a photo, taken using a 55mm F/1.4 Super-Takumar lens, reverse-mounted on a mirror-less micro-4/3 camera (Olympus EP-1). Tell me how this can't work, because as you can see ... it works beautifully.

Click to expand...

It can't work.

The only way it can work is with some extension. I'm betting you reverse mounted your lens on a micro four thirds adapter for some SLR system that you have a reversing ring for.

In that case, you are not doing what you were talking about, utilizing a mirrorless system for its "drastically shorter flange distances". Because, honestly, that only hinders the use of reversed lenses.

igoriginal said:

(Seriously, not trying to be smart or coy. These are real.

Click to expand...

Not doubting that. Just doubting the physics of what you claim to be doing. Reversed lenses only work if you get some distance between the sensor and the lens's front node. Shorter flange distances hinder this. You need to add the 'lost" distance back, typically in the form of an adapter from micro-four-thirds to M42, Pentax K, Nikon F, etc.

And longer lenses (you mentioned 135mm earlier, not 55mm) require even more distance: extension tubes or a bellows. That's a lot of work for poor performance.

igoriginal said:

And there is no post-photo editing, whatsoever. The shot is straight out of the camera, no retouching or alteration. The exception being that I added my watermark in the upper right corner)

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:

igoriginal said:

... you can't focus it because you've fixed the lens to the camera body.

Click to expand...

I can focus it just fine, actually, Just as I can focus with the lens mounted traditionally.

Click to expand...

No, you really can't. The lens's "traditional" focus mechanism moves the lens's "optical capsule" (the tube full of lens elements) farther away from the mount. The lens's filter ring is attached to the optical capsule. So, when you mount the lens on a reversing ring, the optical capsule is fixed rigidly to the camera, and you can't change that distance.

When you turn the lens's focus collar on a reversed lens, the mount now extends away from the optic capsule, but that doesn't matter, because there are normally no optical components in the mount. It's just a tube extending past the rear element.

Try it with out new 55mm f2. All the optics will stay near the camera, and that incredible extending tube will turn into a 55mm long "lens hood".


That's one reason bellows exist, to give you a new focusing mechanism.

igoriginal said:

(Maybe we are somehow misunderstanding each other, and you may be thinking of a different technique than the one I am using.

Click to expand...

Possibly.

igoriginal said:

I am not sure why what you are saying doesn't match up with what I am doing, but focusing for me works the same exact way as it is does with the lens mounted the traditional way. It's just more "touchy" and requires more careful, "fine focusing" skills.)

But even so, focusing with the focusing ring is not the only way to bring your subject into your depth of field. You can also move YOURSELF slightly closer or further way, hence changing the focused-in point.

Click to expand...

Yes, I mentioned techniques for doing exactly that in the posts I linked. I own several nice focus rails to move camera in relation to subject, and mechanical stages to move subject in relation to camera.

igoriginal said:

In fact, with reverse-mounted macro work, moving YOURSELF (and your camera) slightly toward or away from the subject is the much more EFFICIENT way to "focus", rather than fumbling with the focusing ring on the lens.

Click to expand...

True. Now we're talking the same language.

And, if you have a bellows, there's another "efficient" way of focusing, called "bellows draw", where you keep the lens in the same position relative to the subject, and simply draw the camera farther away from the lens. That has major advantages for "focus stacking" techniques.

Are you exploring focus stacking?

igoriginal said:

igoriginal wrote:

igoriginal said:

Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed.

Click to expand...

Noticed this at the bottom of your responses.

Seems we are two peas in a pod. My step-grandmother is Armenian too! Amazing character, she is. And captivating story-teller. I bet yours was really something, too. Good memories, eh?

Click to expand...

Indeed. My grandparents were always full of stories. I miss them.

Although not as old and interesting, there is also Tamron's current 60mm f/2 1:1 macro. It is the only "mainstream" 1:1 macro faster than f/2.8 that I'm aware of.

Not a Sigma.
Possibly a Komine or Kino product.
Can't find any details but yes it is possible that the F2 designation was a bit optimistic.
You can just check that by setting the lens at F2 and compare that reading with another lens set at F2 (making sure you are metering the same area, like a dull wall)
Both Komine and Kino also made lenses for Vivitar , generally medium to high quality lenses.

FrancoD said:

FrancoD wrote:

Not a Sigma.
Possibly a Komine or Kino product.

Click to expand...

Can't find any details but yes it is possible that the F2 designation was a bit optimistic.
You can just check that by setting the lens at F2 and compare that reading with another lens set at F2 (making sure you are metering the same area, like a dull wall)
Both Komine and Kino also made lenses for Vivitar , generally medium to high quality lenses.


For Vivitars, this is true. In fact, Vivitar used suppliers from Komine, Kiron (a Nikon spin-off company), Cosina, Tokina, and Kobori, among some others.


Now THIS sector of photography, I AM quite knowledgeable with. And I can tell you, with near 100% certainty, this Quantaray is a Sigma re-badge ... exclusively designed to be sold by Ritz and Wolfe camera Co. during the promotional roll-out period.


However, there is really no reason to debate origin, anyway, since this won't really change the reality of how this lens ends up performing, once I get my hands on it.

Really its Nice. Thanks for your nice sharing.

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

The only way it can work is with some extension. I'm betting you reverse mounted your lens on a micro four thirds adapter for some SLR system that you have a reversing ring for.

Click to expand...

Well, NOW I know where we crossed our wires.

Of COURSE, I have to use Micro-4/3 adaptors to adapt non-native lens. That's just an implied given ... especially when recalling the original topic of this post, which deals with a supposedly rare macro lens with an M42 mount (and an M42 "screw mount" Macro lens will NOT fit on a Micro-4/3 mount, without a designated adapter).

However, I may have also not mentioned that some Micro-4/3 adapters have adjustable centers, via hex-nut tightened inner collar, and this can permit for some further fine-tuning of focal distances.



And then, that doesn't even factor in the reverse-mounting adapter, ahead of THAT.



I also failed to mention that I sometimes add on a 7-element, high-end tele-converter to the stack ... especially one of those Vivitar fine-focusing tele-converters that can transform a 50mm "NON* 1:1 macro lens into a 1:1 macro lens.

We also may have not factored in the 2x crop factor, that occurs when adapting lens to a Micro-4/3 system. In reality then, I am {assuming} that a 1:1 macro lens, adapted to a 2x crop-factor system, would be equivalent to using a 2:1 or 1:1/2 macro lens. No? Or is this another uninformed assumption made by an newcomer to the macro world?

It is quite possible, then, that with the combination of an adapter, a macro 1:1 fine-focusing 7-element tele-converter, AND a 2x crop factor to boot ... the optical dynamics will be vastly different. No?

Also, if you implement a macro fine-focusing 1:1 tele-converter to a 1:1 macro lens (even though it was designed to convert a NON 1:1 lens into a 1:1 lens), then would this make the 1:1 macro lens magnify even MORE than a 1:1 ratio? No?


Thanks so much for your patience, in schooling me, and showing me the error of my ways. I am highly appreciative of this.

Getting back to all of you, now that I have had the lens, and have been able to extensively take it through its paces.

Yes, this 55mm 1:1 macro lens DOES turn out to be of a genuine f/2.0 aperture design. This one question can now be laid to rest.

So, how are the optics, then?

Surprisingly sharp! Even at f/2.0

While I am far from an optics "expert", but I do recognize the characteristic "softness" - especially at the edges of the fame - that can be typically associated with some lenses when shooting "wide open." This one seems to hold a relatively respectable sharpness throughout, even at f/2. I believe that part of the reason for this, is because the film-era design of this lens was manufactured for full-frame camera image circles. Being full-frame, when such a lens is adapted to a smaller digital sensor, such as an APS-C or even a 4/3 sensor, the edge softness can be negated if not significantly reduced. This is, of course, based in part on the "crop factor" effects of smaller sensors. And since the camera that I am particularly working with and have adapted this lens to is a micro 4/3 system (Panasonic G2), then I am utilizing the 1/3 sharpest sector of the image circle - essentially "cropping out" the softness.

Here is a sample of a photo I shot, aperture wide open at f/2.0, and macro 1:1.

Note: My Panasonic G2 is a "full-spectrum" converted camera, meaning that it has had its internal "hot mirror" filter removed and replaced with a clear, quartz / fused-silica glass. This allows me to obtain exposures in any electromagnet spectrum, from Ultraviolet-A (315 to 400 nanometers), to near-infrared bandwidths ranging from 700 to as far as 2,000 nanometers ... and anything else in between ... depending on what type of "cut filter" or "bandpass" filter that I screw onto the front of the lens threading.

The exposure below is a "full-spectrum" exposure (ultraviolet + visible + infrared combined)



Again, shot at f/2.0 (wide open), and ISO 100. Shutter had to be very fast (1/4000) to avoid overexposing. And this was on a grey and rainy day! This is because a full-spectrum modified camera is a LOT more light sensitive, on MANY magnitudes / multiples above a non-modified camera.

Hi



Great to see you are having fun with it...nice.

Have you tried reversing the lens ONTO the 2x macro converter? It can be a lot of fun...just make sure your sensor is CLEAN.

I have tried it with a few 50mm/55mm lenses (not macro) and a 28mm for variable macro sometimes at quite large magnifications. Not all 50mm lenses will give the same magnification though...my 50 1.2 is much differernt to a 50 1.7

I think this is basically what Canon did to make the MP-E and just put it in a tube.

Very happy this worked out for you, sometimes it doesn't but it sounds like you have a jew in your hands. Good find.

igoriginal said:

igoriginal wrote:

Getting back to all of you, now that I have had the lens, and have been able to extensively take it through its paces.

Yes, this 55mm 1:1 macro lens DOES turn out to be of a genuine f/2.0 aperture design. This one question can now be laid to rest.

So, how are the optics, then?

Surprisingly sharp! Even at f/2.0

While I am far from an optics "expert", but I do recognize the characteristic "softness" - especially at the edges of the fame - that can be typically associated with some lenses when shooting "wide open." This one seems to hold a relatively respectable sharpness throughout, even at f/2. I believe that part of the reason for this, is because the film-era design of this lens was manufactured for full-frame camera image circles. Being full-frame, when such a lens is adapted to a smaller digital sensor, such as an APS-C or even a 4/3 sensor, the edge softness can be negated if not significantly reduced. This is, of course, based in part on the "crop factor" effects of smaller sensors. And since the camera that I am particularly working with and have adapted this lens to is a micro 4/3 system (Panasonic G2), then I am utilizing the 1/3 sharpest sector of the image circle - essentially "cropping out" the softness.

Here is a sample of a photo I shot, aperture wide open at f/2.0, and macro 1:1.

Click to expand...

It looks fairly apochromatic, but there are mitigating factors. Being wet and overcast kills UV and probably suppresses IR. And being wide open it is not at its sharpest, obscuring any UV or IR bloat. Can you repeat this on a sunny day, not necessarily wide open?

Even so, it looks great. Looks like you got a steal.

Member said:

Have you tried reversing the lens ONTO the 2x macro converter?

Click to expand...

Neil!

Thanks for the reply!

Funny, I have a good friend, with the same identical name as you. For a second, I thought you were him ... but then, I saw that you hail from Australia.

Anyway, I often tend to abstain from using additional "glass" in order to increase magnifications (ex: macro converters"). I prefer quality tubes and / or bellows, because this forces the lens to focus closer (and with greater magnification) without any image degradation, given no extra [foreign] glass tacked on to the effect.

Call me a stickler (or even "OCD") in that regard, but IMAGE QUALITY is of utmost importance to me, and comes first. Everything else takes a second position.

Now, REVERSE mounting, I have not tried yet (although I have tried it with many of my NON 1:1 macro lenses, in order to "force" a higher reproduction factor out of them). However, given that this 55mm lens is already a dedicated 1:1 reproduction design throughout, is it really necessary? Unless, of course, one wants to get EXTREMELY close to something, that is (then, this would border on the fringes of MICRO, rather than MACRO).

But, yes, I will try all other methods, anyway, because experimentation is always a good thing (provided you don't damage something valuable in the process, by doing something outright bizarre).

For the record, some of my experimentations with other lens (reversing, tubes, added glass, or even combos / hybrids) have yielded reproduction rates to as high as 10:1 or even 20:1 (to my best guess, anyway). I may be wrong on my estimations, I admit, but my guesses are based on "sight-spotting" the differences between exposures taken at different magnification factors. I do realize that the eyes can deceive, so again ... ESTIMATES.

Yet, at those EXTREME magnifications, things get quite dicey. Depth of field is about as thin as a single-cell organism, for one. Haha. And then, lighting will also obviously be an issue under many situations. And let's not forget holding YOURSELF as still as possible (and not just your subject).