My personal macro and tele lens comparison

[Anders W]

CrisPhoto wrote:

Hmmh, I will have a closer look at the 7-300 back-focus thing. I will focus manually and watch the contrast changing ...

And I should take a second look at the 75-300 with Meike rings. You seem to have good results ...

Yes. Let us know what you find.

With Close-Up lens, it is similar or slightly better than the 40-150. But above 150mm it is barely useful. For macro work, the 40-150 would be sufficient. But I bought the 300mm lens for other purposes.

My preliminary theory when it comes to close-up lenses is that they do worse the more of their area is actually utilized (with more spherical aberration as a result). Longer FLs (like the long tele zooms) and wider max aperture (75/1.8) are both bad from that point of view (big front elements in both cases). If you stop down the 75/1.8, it will of course do better (as it does) but you'll have trouble setting focus correctly with AF as well as MF (unless you try to MF in stopped-down preview, which is doable but rather tricky).

There might be more than this to the story as far as the 75/1.8 is concerned. It appears to dislike being taken out of its proper territory more than most other lenses. The theory might be more directly applicable to the 40-150 versus the 75-300 or 100-300.

With Meike rings, the zoom ring changes also the focus distance, quite confusing when coming from a Close-Up lens with constant distance. Therefore I tested the rings with primary lenses only...

Yes, you have to back out as you zoom in (with the magnification remaining roughly the same as a result). On the other hand, that may be an advantage at time. Great flexibility with regard to working distance.

 

[CrisPhoto]

OK, you both convinced me. Your tulip festival and the fly where quite impressing.

I should overcome the zoom-focus issue and give the big-zoom-meike combo a second chance ...

Where is the old wristwatch and my flash ...

 

[CrisPhoto]

As promised, I took my Meike rings on the 75-300 zoom.

I took the usual picture of the wristwatch. But I noticed a strong red color shift in the dark tones. I noticed bad contrast in other pictures, but red was new as was the red cloth. Here is the picture, identical exposure settings, same Lightroom settings:

100% crops, @85mm/f11 Meike left, 124mm/f11 Marumi right.

I took the rings off and looked at the rings, they are black but very reflective. The contrast problems seemed familiar now: I had a microscope adapter for my OM-D which was essentially a black tube with mFT mount. But the black was reflective and gave very bad light effect in the center of every picture.

Same is with the Meike rings. You get a strong cast from the inner ring surface.

To give you an impression haw bad the rings shine on the sensor, I took a picture of the lens mount: normal light with simply a white sheet of paper before the lens. Note, the pictures do not exaggerate the reflection: The white paper you see through the lens is not overexposed and no other light source was in front of the lens, only paper.

Strong reflection inside the Meike rings, essentially no reflection on the lens mount without rings.

I think the current findings are very, very discouraging for the extension rings. Maybe other rings have better structured surface. Maybe I have a bad replica of the Meike rings? Anyhow, my rings are near to unusable, have to say it ...

Maybe someone has better rings and can post a photo how they are build?

Chris

--
OM-D + Sam7.5, PL25, O60, O75
P12-35, O75-300

 

[jalywol]

I was wondering why they had made them this way....

Seems to be a bit better than the version you have, in terms of inner reflection.

-J

 

[Anders W]

jalywol wrote:

I was wondering why they had made them this way....

Seems to be a bit better than the version you have, in terms of inner reflection.

Good observation! I just took a look at mine and can add that the ridged interior is also shaped as a vase. The inner diameter is smallest about midway, slightly closer to the rear end than the front end.

-J

 

[Anders W]

CrisPhoto wrote:

As promised, I took my Meike rings on the 75-300 zoom.

I took the usual picture of the wristwatch. But I noticed a strong red color shift in the dark tones. I noticed bad contrast in other pictures, but red was new as was the red cloth. Here is the picture, identical exposure settings, same Lightroom settings:

100% crops, @85mm/f11 Meike left, 124mm/f11 Marumi right.

I took the rings off and looked at the rings, they are black but very reflective. The contrast problems seemed familiar now: I had a microscope adapter for my OM-D which was essentially a black tube with mFT mount. But the black was reflective and gave very bad light effect in the center of every picture.

Same is with the Meike rings. You get a strong cast from the inner ring surface.

To give you an impression haw bad the rings shine on the sensor, I took a picture of the lens mount: normal light with simply a white sheet of paper before the lens. Note, the pictures do not exaggerate the reflection: The white paper you see through the lens is not overexposed and no other light source was in front of the lens, only paper.

Strong reflection inside the Meike rings, essentially no reflection on the lens mount without rings.

I think the current findings are very, very discouraging for the extension rings. Maybe other rings have better structured surface. Maybe I have a bad replica of the Meike rings? Anyhow, my rings are near to unusable, have to say it ...

Maybe someone has better rings and can post a photo how they are build?

On top of what you have already found yourself and what jalywol and I have already pointed out concerning the difference between your extenstion tubes and ours, you should perhaps additionally consider the impact of diffraction. Note that when you use extension rings, you effectively use a smaller f-stop than the one you set. See here under "lens extension & effective f-stop".

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/macro-lenses.htm

Note that the source I link to is far from always reliable but I think it's right in this particular case and don't have the time to find something better right now. Note also that the idea of diffraction is just an upshot. I haven't looked specifically for overall contrast differences in my own comparisons between close-up lens and extension tubes, and would like to take a second look at this when I have the opportunity. However, it may be a while before I have the opportunity to get it done.

 

[micksh6]

Anders W wrote:

CrisPhoto wrote:

As promised, I took my Meike rings on the 75-300 zoom.

I took the usual picture of the wristwatch. But I noticed a strong red color shift in the dark tones. I noticed bad contrast in other pictures, but red was new as was the red cloth. Here is the picture, identical exposure settings, same Lightroom settings:

100% crops, @85mm/f11 Meike left, 124mm/f11 Marumi right.

I took the rings off and looked at the rings, they are black but very reflective. The contrast problems seemed familiar now: I had a microscope adapter for my OM-D which was essentially a black tube with mFT mount. But the black was reflective and gave very bad light effect in the center of every picture.

Same is with the Meike rings. You get a strong cast from the inner ring surface.

To give you an impression haw bad the rings shine on the sensor, I took a picture of the lens mount: normal light with simply a white sheet of paper before the lens. Note, the pictures do not exaggerate the reflection: The white paper you see through the lens is not overexposed and no other light source was in front of the lens, only paper.

Strong reflection inside the Meike rings, essentially no reflection on the lens mount without rings.

I think the current findings are very, very discouraging for the extension rings. Maybe other rings have better structured surface. Maybe I have a bad replica of the Meike rings? Anyhow, my rings are near to unusable, have to say it ...

Maybe someone has better rings and can post a photo how they are build?

On top of what you have already found yourself and what jalywol and I have already pointed out concerning the difference between your extenstion tubes and ours, you should perhaps additionally consider the impact of diffraction. Note that when you use extension rings, you effectively use a smaller f-stop than the one you set. See here under "lens extension & effective f-stop".

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/macro-lenses.htm

Note that the source I link to is far from always reliable but I think it's right in this particular case and don't have the time to find something better right now. Note also that the idea of diffraction is just an upshot. I haven't looked specifically for overall contrast differences in my own comparisons between close-up lens and extension tubes, and would like to take a second look at this when I have the opportunity. However, it may be a while before I have the opportunity to get it done.

I also got these Meike macro tubes (bought as Ideal DG extention tubes) and I think I fixed them.

Note "I think" and take it with grain of salt as I don't really shoot macro, I bought them just in case I would want a macro shot.

The Meike tubes were originally very reflective

1

Then I got Krylon 4290 camouflage non-reflective paint (about $9 on Amazon)

2

Loosely covered electrical contacts and lens mount with duct tape and sprayed internals with that paint.

The result looks much less reflective, although the paint isn't as black as black hole.

3

Did a few test shots in opposing light and although I had to increase contrast when light was reflected into the lens I don't think the shots were ruined.

4

One more, without directly reflected light but it's a glossy magazine paper. Just a little contrast bump.

5

So, I think it can work, but again, I don't have any experience shooting macro.

 

[CrisPhoto]

Good idea using a black paint.

I have a microscope eye piece adapter which was also very reflective.

I put a black velvet adhesive foil into it and it improved the reflection very much.

But i have no velvet foil left and even if I had, I would not like to bring the foil this near to the sensor.

 

[macautio]

Closet focusin is 23cm (1/4).

This photo take f2







--
markku

 

[Zensu11]

Very interesting thread. I've been thinking of buying some Kenko extension tubes, does anyone know what their internal opening is lined/painted with?

 

[Michael Geary]

CrisPhoto wrote:

Oly 60/f2.8:

• Pro: Very compact, nice handling, usable focus distance, focus pre-selection, fast AF, 1:1 and sharp
• Con: Working distance at 1:1 is only 5cm, little bit of softness at f8 and above

Forgive a dumb question, but when you say "f/8 and above" do you mean "f/8 and wider" or "f/8 and narrower"?

My guess was "wider", but then I realized you could possibly be talking about diffraction at narrow apertures, so figured I'd better ask.

Thanks!

 

[Anders W]

Zensu11 wrote:

Very interesting thread. I've been thinking of buying some Kenko extension tubes, does anyone know what their internal opening is lined/painted with?

I don't have any personal experiences with the Kenko tubes. But when I google them and ask for pictures, it looks like they don't have the shape/surface on the inside designed to reduce reflections, as the Fotga tubes do. A bit surprising in view of the fact that they are more expensive.

Perhaps someone who knows more about the Kenko tubes can verify (or reject) my somewhat provisional observation.

 

[ASR45]

Some interesting observations.