philzucker
Forum Pro
Detail of a Winter Rose:
Doesn't look that bad, does it?
But it was done quite senseless. I stacked two complete sets of manual tubes and put the Bigma 50-500 on that, then set it to max focal length of 500mm and minimum focusing distance. This way I got roughly a 1:2 magnification, a working distance of about 1.10 meters (measured from the front element), some serious corner vignetting, a bit of a low contrast, soft edges, but surprisingly enough quite acceptable sharpness in the middle.
Another one from this setup - detail of an tiny ornamental owl, focus on the beak:
The contraption to take it looked like this:
I even added another tube in form of a macro tele converter to this, but even if corner vignetting went away and magnification was increased, more glass was introduced and sharpness was kind of lost on the way:
But at least it looked funny enough:
Be warned: don't try that at home! Or at least at your own risk ...
Phil
--
GMT +1
Gallery: http://photosan.smugmug.com
Doesn't look that bad, does it?
But it was done quite senseless. I stacked two complete sets of manual tubes and put the Bigma 50-500 on that, then set it to max focal length of 500mm and minimum focusing distance. This way I got roughly a 1:2 magnification, a working distance of about 1.10 meters (measured from the front element), some serious corner vignetting, a bit of a low contrast, soft edges, but surprisingly enough quite acceptable sharpness in the middle.
Another one from this setup - detail of an tiny ornamental owl, focus on the beak:
The contraption to take it looked like this:
I even added another tube in form of a macro tele converter to this, but even if corner vignetting went away and magnification was increased, more glass was introduced and sharpness was kind of lost on the way:
But at least it looked funny enough:
Be warned: don't try that at home! Or at least at your own risk ...
Phil
--
GMT +1
Gallery: http://photosan.smugmug.com
Last edited:
