[luftfluss]

... with winter setting on here .... i am thinking of digitizing a big box of old film prints, negatives and slides ... anybody tried any of our "" macro "" ... adapt-all lenses for this ?? .... i tried an old $15 " slide copier " from e-bay that screws onto the camera body with very poor results. one you-tuber says beware of barrel distortion, but maybe i could use about the middle 3/4 of the lens ?? ... not needing Smithsonian quality.

I think as long as you are not using a wide angle lens, barrel distortion should not be a serious issue. IIRC you have the 01A, which I think would be one of the best Adaptalls for your project.

[cg57]

Back out with the 28mm, f/2.5, 02B
Cross posted in Daily In Forums:

[stevebrot]

... with winter setting on here .... i am thinking of digitizing a big box of old film prints, negatives and slides ... anybody tried any of our "" macro "" ... adapt-all lenses for this ?? .... i tried an old $15 " slide copier " from e-bay that screws onto the camera body with very poor results. one you-tuber says beware of barrel distortion, but maybe i could use about the middle 3/4 of the lens ?? ... not needing Smithsonian quality.

For prints, a flat-bed scanner, even an all-in-one, is your best option.

What format are you planning to copy your 35mm slides/negatives to? If 24x36mm FF, you will need 1:1 (1X) reproduction. If APS-C, you will need will need 1:1.5 (.67X); 1:2 (0.5X) will work, though there will be some cropping. The main issue, other than distortion, is flatness of field and making sure your setup has the original flat and parallel to the camera sensor. Light source may also be a concern.

I don't believe any Adaptall lenses other than those offering 1:1 macro are capable of doing either format without addition of close-up tube or the dedicated teleconverter. My 90/2.8 Macro (72B) will do 1:1.5 at a focus distance of about 1 foot.


Steve

[fuzzyphoton]

thanks Steve ...i am a machinist, so got the flat field necessity checked ... but everything else is pretty much kindergarten level for me. i find you-tube helpful but i notice you have to watch a dozen or so and then take the average ( g ) . and yes, so far i haven't improved, at least consistently, what i can get from prints on my $65 HP all-in-one scanner.

[stevebrot]

.i am a machinist, so got the flat field necessity checked .

By flat field, I meant optical flatness of field for focus between the center and edges.


Steve

[fuzzyphoton]

hi steve ... yep, same consideration in machining ... especially in milling ... sometimes takes 4 hours to get ready, and 5 minutes to machine. with a lens, probably need a flat test target ... something with small dots ... or maybe the grain in a certified flat marble plate. i am thinking my biggest challenge will be the lighting ... isn't it always ? ( g ) ... but should be fun .

---------- Post added 09-09-19 at 06:17 AM ----------

Cindy ... the 02B is one of the desirable adapt-alls i haven't snuck a hot deal on yet .... i did find a lucky Kiron vivitar 28mm that is pretty good so i am waiting to snipe a tamron 28 just to expand the family. i guess one way to value a lens is if it takes a pic that makes me feel like i was there, and the 28 is good for that. after battling the telephotos that are usually just out of focus it is fun to use the 28mm that are usually nearly in focus.

[luftfluss]

Deer Carcass Day, celebrated by the usual party-goers...

31A

[goatsNdonkey]

Deer Carcass Day, celebrated by the usual party-goers...

31A

You know, to a turkey vulture mother, each one of them was a beautiful baby.

[marcusBMG]

This lens does tend I think to be overlooked in favour of other lenses like the SP 70-210mm 19AH, the SP 60-300mm 23A, vivitar series 1's and others. It hasn't really acquired any "rap" as a "good" lens and is easily acquired very cheaply. I recently acquired a minty example of this lens and have been taking it out to get a better impression of it.

A more worn example of this lens didn't do too well in my vintage 70-210mm tamron vs vivitar test. Revisiting those test pics I note again that it's behind many or most of the other lenses on the images that most discriminated between the lenses: the landscape pic of the castle at 70mm, the close focus images of the banknote. One image it showed well on was the castle turret at 210mm where it was one of the best. The banknote close focus was particularly disappointing IMO because that's 52A's USP: close focus to 1:2!

So I've been looking for close focus opportunities particularly.



Crop:


Biking along the cycle path on the estuary shore I noticed I was startling a good few butterflies, so I hopped off the bike to have a look. It was all a bit hit-and-miss, the butterflies were quite co-operative but the breeze was wafting flower and butterfly around all the time. These are a couple of the best efforts with the 52A, lens at or near 210mm, f11, K3 (lesser tortoiseshell).







For comparison I also took some pics with a 52BB 90mm macro, these of a painted lady.






To a large extent the conditions (handheld, subject movement in the breeze) have levelled things I think but nevertheless I think 52A is showing some good results.
To be continued...

[luftfluss]

It does look like there was some movement by the butterfly... focusing on such a creature can be difficult, when depth of field is a matter of millimeters.

Here's my 52BB, 100% crop:





And here's a 100% crop from the 19AH. This butterfly was fairly deep in tall grass, so light was not bright and I had to push the ISO by a stop.

[marcusBMG]

This time 52A with my samsung NX20 for a different look. F8, ~180mm.

[marcusBMG]

This time a co-operative darter provided close focus pics. The competition/comparison for the 52A is provided by a 60-300mm 23A - even better close focus (to 1:1.55) but achieved quite differently (built in extension tube, max macro @ 60mm focal length).







The 23A did produce some sharper pics, but it had the advantages of much greater depth of field (and easier focus) from 60mm focal length and bigger crop because I didn't move particularly closer to the darter (I was using a bean bag perched on my binocs):




I also took some pics of some ?fake bees (entomologists ahoy...), all 52A.



This one linked to full sized image.

[pepperberry farm]

sock yarn




embossed pottery

[tim60]

sock yarn




embossed pottery

Sock yarn, in those colours reminds me of my grandmother knitting socks in the 70s. She began as a church activity knitting socks for the soldiers in WWI.

[marcusBMG]

I spent a wee while trying to photograph some flies but most turned out front focussed. I think I used LV with this one. This is 1:1 pixel peep crop, f11.



Back at the ranch I set up a tripod to control things more and get a better idea of the iq ceiling. Prefocussed, remote shutter cable. it ws therefore a bit hit and miss if I caught the bees in the plane of focus. Zoom just shy of 210mm, focus just shy of 1:2 cfd, f11.







For comparison I took a few images with the vaunted vivitar 105mm (kiron) macro at f8, similar macro ratio.




I'm ready to draw a conclusion and suggest that 52A has earned its spurs as a practical, economy 200mm 1:2 macro! In practical circumstances it's movement, light, shake, focus etc that limits the iq. Dedicated macro lenses like the Viv 105mm show more resolution and detail than 52A, but you have to work to realise that. With 52A you can maintain twice as much distance from the subject as with the Viv.