So, I did some experiment what magnification I would get using my Panagor 90/2.8 as basis. I mounted the lens in front of 68mms of tubes and on the other end I mounted a reversed Pentax-M 35/2. I know, these are not the best photos artistically spoken, but I'd like to show you some of the results.... These are handheld and none of these are cropped BTW!

My jeans - or at least a part of it....



Some aphids







A green weevil snout...



And some indication of the magnification...

[Rense]

Thanks, also for the last note!!!!

Theory is about perfect lenses, isn't it, so lenses with infinite small thickness..... Would that affect the outcome of the formula?

[newarts]

Thanks, also for the last note!!!!

Theory is about perfect lenses, isn't it, so lenses with infinite small thickness..... Would that affect the outcome of the formula?

I'm going to try some high mag macros; maybe I can see the effect of f-number on resolution. I'll also re-look at DOF theory.

The thickness of real lenses apparently makes a big difference in estimating parameters for macros. It is not easy to specify exactly where a thick, multicomponent lens is in space.

Dave

[codiac2600]

Holy macro batman!