MP-E at 10X

This is my first attempt to use the Canon MP-E 65mm f/2.8 lens with a Canon 2X III teleconverter. This is a focus stack of Plusiodonta compressipalpus. Stacked using Zerene. I wasn't sure how successful using the converter would be.

Hi,

How many photo for your result, and for stack do you use

a micro rail? You have a great result

Thanks for share

Cariboou wrote:

Hi,

How many photo for your result, and for stack do you use

a micro rail? You have a great result

Thanks for share

There were 101 photos in the stack, but I think the first 8 or so were basically unused because my starting point was too close. I didn't use the calculator to determine the step size, which would have been 0.02mm by the calculator. I just guessed at 0.01mm. I used a StackShot rail drive by Zerene software. Illumination was by an LED household lamp so exposure time was 4 seconds per shot.
I tried doing a focus stack of some mold a similar way, and it didn't turn out because the mold moved around between frames. That was kind of interesting and surprising.

Tkanks

Victor for explanation, I will try of to do something but with manual rail and will see if working of I need something that take care the movement rail like you

Victor Engel wrote:

This is my first attempt to use the Canon MP-E 65mm f/2.8 lens with a Canon 2X III teleconverter. This is a focus stack of Plusiodonta compressipalpus. Stacked using Zerene. I wasn't sure how successful using the converter would be.

Thanks for sharing. What a beautiful texture this wing has. I've been using this lens for years but I've never tested it with a teleconverter. The magnification doubled; interesting!

Can you please tell us what effective aperture you got with a 10:1 magnification. It's just that I notice the image with lack of sharpness in general. High diffraction?

Attention, sharpeness is not everything. In addition, your image has a consistent smoothness. But I'd like to know if it was intentional or if it's diffraction or the teleconverter effect.

I hope to test it soon with a Novoflex BallPro 1 bellows (my camera is the GFX50R) to see results and possible magnification. Bellows will have a maximum span of 192mm.

Victor Engel wrote:

This is my first attempt to use the Canon MP-E 65mm f/2.8 lens with a Canon 2X III teleconverter. This is a focus stack of Plusiodonta compressipalpus. Stacked using Zerene. I wasn't sure how successful using the converter would be.

I find it very interesting - and I love the result -

I just wonder why there is detail on some scales and others nothing.

Very interesting, makes a change from eyes. I like drilling into detail so I’d have liked to see a picture of the moth and then what specific part you then examined

Pansottin wrote:

Victor Engel wrote:

This is my first attempt to use the Canon MP-E 65mm f/2.8 lens with a Canon 2X III teleconverter. This is a focus stack of Plusiodonta compressipalpus. Stacked using Zerene. I wasn't sure how successful using the converter would be.

Thanks for sharing. What a beautiful texture this wing has. I've been using this lens for years but I've never tested it with a teleconverter. The magnification doubled; interesting!

Can you please tell us what effective aperture you got with a 10:1 magnification. It's just that I notice the image with lack of sharpness in general. High diffraction?

Indicated aperture was f/2.8 and the formula Canon uses is (magnification + 1) * f-number for effective f-number, so 11 * 2.8 or about f/30. That's wide open. I could have stopped down half a stop or a whole stop to get the sweet spot of the lens, but I think the increased diffraction would counter that. I seem to notice less sharpness around the periphery, which is probably a result of using the teleconverter.

oneofone25 wrote:

Victor Engel wrote:

This is my first attempt to use the Canon MP-E 65mm f/2.8 lens with a Canon 2X III teleconverter. This is a focus stack of Plusiodonta compressipalpus. Stacked using Zerene. I wasn't sure how successful using the converter would be.

I find it very interesting - and I love the result -

I just wonder why there is detail on some scales and others nothing.

Probably mostly because of how Topaz Sharpen AI works. If it thinks the detail is unimportant, it squelches it. If it thinks it's important, it enhances it. I didn't play with the settings. It usually does a pretty good job of macro shots, though. This is my first time using it with a 10X image, though. The AI is probably not trained with this sort of photo.

jim mij wrote:

Very interesting, makes a change from eyes. I like drilling into detail so I’d have liked to see a picture of the moth and then what specific part you then examined

This one might be the same moth but it's quite likely it's a different one - same species though. https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/136883594

SigmaTog wrote:

Can the MPE65 be used with an electric extension tube ?

Extension tubes work fine, but the lens is basically a built in extension tube lens anyway, so you'd need a lot of length to make much difference.

Victor Engel wrote:

SigmaTog wrote:

Can the MPE65 be used with an electric extension tube ?

Extension tubes work fine, but the lens is basically a built in extension tube lens anyway, so you'd need a lot of length to make much difference.

Hi, what if it's a bellows with a maximum extension of 192mm like the Novoflex BallPro1? How will the MP-E 65mm perform?

Thanks.

Pansottin wrote:

Victor Engel wrote:

SigmaTog wrote:

Can the MPE65 be used with an electric extension tube ?

Extension tubes work fine, but the lens is basically a built in extension tube lens anyway, so you'd need a lot of length to make much difference.

Hi, what if it's a bellows with a maximum extension of 192mm like the Novoflex BallPro1? How will the MP-E 65mm perform?

Thanks.

An approximation is to use the lens equation: 1/d0 + 1/d1 = 1/f where d0 is the sensor distance to the lens and d1 is the subject distance. At 1:1 d0 = d1 = 2f
I think the magnification is basically d0/d1.
So the MPE at maximum extension would be 1/5D + 1/D = 1/f
Solving for D,
1/5 + 1 = D/f
f/5 + f = D
So at full extension, the distance from lens to focal plane is 5(6/5 f) or 6f.
The focal length f = 65mm so the extension is 6*65 = 390mm
So how much difference will a 192mm extension tube make? (192 + 390) * 5 / 390 = about 7.5x
The MP-E is not a simple lens, but I think this formula is close enough for this question.

Derivations were done while I was in a meeting, so there could be an error.

Victor Engel wrote:

Pansottin wrote:

Victor Engel wrote:

SigmaTog wrote:

Can the MPE65 be used with an electric extension tube ?

Extension tubes work fine, but the lens is basically a built in extension tube lens anyway, so you'd need a lot of length to make much difference.

Hi, what if it's a bellows with a maximum extension of 192mm like the Novoflex BallPro1? How will the MP-E 65mm perform?

Thanks.

An approximation is to use the lens equation: 1/d0 + 1/d1 = 1/f where d0 is the sensor distance to the lens and d1 is the subject distance. At 1:1 d0 = d1 = 2f
I think the magnification is basically d0/d1.
So the MPE at maximum extension would be 1/5D + 1/D = 1/f
Solving for D,
1/5 + 1 = D/f
f/5 + f = D
So at full extension, the distance from lens to focal plane is 5(6/5 f) or 6f.
The focal length f = 65mm so the extension is 6*65 = 390mm
So how much difference will a 192mm extension tube make? (192 + 390) * 5 / 390 = about 7.5x
The MP-E is not a simple lens, but I think this formula is close enough for this question.

Derivations were done while I was in a meeting, so there could be an error.

Thank you Victor. Even if there is a margin of error, it gives an idea of what can be expected in terms of magnification.

And by the way; your solution with the Canon extender x2 III produces more magnification than a 192mm bellows. Is this due to the nature of the extender which includes optics and the bellows is just empty space between the lens and sensor?

Victor Engel wrote:

Pansottin wrote:

Victor Engel wrote:

This is my first attempt to use the Canon MP-E 65mm f/2.8 lens with a Canon 2X III teleconverter. This is a focus stack of Plusiodonta compressipalpus. Stacked using Zerene. I wasn't sure how successful using the converter would be.

Thanks for sharing. What a beautiful texture this wing has. I've been using this lens for years but I've never tested it with a teleconverter. The magnification doubled; interesting!

Can you please tell us what effective aperture you got with a 10:1 magnification. It's just that I notice the image with lack of sharpness in general. High diffraction?

Indicated aperture was f/2.8 and the formula Canon uses is (magnification + 1) * f-number for effective f-number, so 11 * 2.8 or about f/30. That's wide open. I could have stopped down half a stop or a whole stop to get the sweet spot of the lens, but I think the increased diffraction would counter that. I seem to notice less sharpness around the periphery, which is probably a result of using the teleconverter.

What do you think is the sweet spot of the lens? Thanks.

Pansottin wrote:

Victor Engel wrote:

Pansottin wrote:

Victor Engel wrote:

This is my first attempt to use the Canon MP-E 65mm f/2.8 lens with a Canon 2X III teleconverter. This is a focus stack of Plusiodonta compressipalpus. Stacked using Zerene. I wasn't sure how successful using the converter would be.

Thanks for sharing. What a beautiful texture this wing has. I've been using this lens for years but I've never tested it with a teleconverter. The magnification doubled; interesting!

Can you please tell us what effective aperture you got with a 10:1 magnification. It's just that I notice the image with lack of sharpness in general. High diffraction?

Indicated aperture was f/2.8 and the formula Canon uses is (magnification + 1) * f-number for effective f-number, so 11 * 2.8 or about f/30. That's wide open. I could have stopped down half a stop or a whole stop to get the sweet spot of the lens, but I think the increased diffraction would counter that. I seem to notice less sharpness around the periphery, which is probably a result of using the teleconverter.

What do you think is the sweet spot of the lens? Thanks.

Not sure - for most of my photos taken at 1x-2x I use indicated f/16. There's a compromise, depth of field vs. sharpness. To get more of one you sacrifice the other. So for living subjects, which is mostly what I shoot, where focus stacking doesn't work because of movement, I prefer DOF to sharpness. For a static subject where I can do focus stacking, I open up the lens. It seems to be quite sharp wide open, but I've not really done any tests for that.