[cyberjunkie]

I have several lenses for "deep macro."......
For tiny lively subjects, requiring DOF in a single exposure; I usually use a 200mm SMCA Pentax or a Voigtlander 180mm f4 with a reverse-mounted 100mm f4 Bellows Pentax or one of the Raynox macro attachments. The latter mounted on either the 200mm Pentax or 180mm Voigtlander can be used @ f16, and roughly 2X magnification and give remarkably good results. So good, in fact, that I've considered retiring all of the enlarging & microscope lenses.

This is what I like about this forum!
You just gave me a very welcomed new perspective. Sometimes we need a suggestion that stimulates us to experiment something new, leading us off the beaten track of the usual techniques and creative opportunities.
I've never tried to use a reversed objective as a diopter, on top of a tele. I've never tried a Rainox either, but I understand that it could be a great way to get a decent lens to subject distance and use the flash more easily. Would be great when trying to go past 1:1 outdoors.

Luminars and Photars are great, but I'm not sure they are worth the price premium for amateur use. Other top level lenses, like those that were made by Olympus and Canon, should perform at the same level, but unfortunately they are not that cheap. The kind of solutions you propose are well worth checking.
Some microscope optics are quite good for photographic use. Online I've seen great pictures taken with old, cheap microscope lenses, like those made by Swift and Watson, optimized for around 4:1.
I still have to try a Reichert 4x with diaphragm that I bought for very cheap. Sometimes this kind of microscope lenses seem to work better than modern ones, $ either finite or infinity (for tube).
The main problem is always the extremely thin DOF... so I think I will soon follow your advice and try the 100mm Bellows on top of the Pentax-A 4/200mm.

[BigMackCam]

Just had the mailperson drop off my newest family member, Weighing in at a robust 1750g, my new Sigma APO 120-400 f4.5-5.6 DG HSM lens!

Nice! And the shots look great. Certainly sharp enough

Took a look at the box and was a bit worried but Zman had packaged her well so the Post Office couldn't get through to damage her.

I get lenses shipped to me by customers that scare me to death. Poor packing and crushed boxes are not the norm but they aren't totally unheard of.

Although it's fair to say I've bought more lenses from Ukraine, Russia and other Eastern European / Baltic countries than from anywhere else, it's also true that I consider their packaging to be amongst the best.

A great example is that Industar-22 lens I posted about in this forum a couple of days ago... This was a cheap lens, in only "fair" condition - yet the seller wrapped it in two layers of bubble wrap, placed it inside a reusable Tupperware-style drinks container with screw lid, bubble wrapped that, placed it in a box and packed the remaining space with scrunched-up newspaper. The box itself was taped up so well that it took me at least a couple of minutes to get into it, even using my trusty Victorinox knife.

This was a particularly good example, but frankly none of the lenses I've had from that region of the world has been anything other than superbly packed...

[kadajawi]

As for limitations of old lenses, AFAIK there's another one that wasn't mentioned here... (at least I didn't see it). Old lenses were designed for film, which is less sensitive to the angle of incoming light. Especially older DSLR sensors needed the light to hit it at a 90° angle, which complicates lens design. With old lenses this wasn't a consideration, as the film would pick up the light as long as it hit the film at all. You may be getting more vignetting etc. when mounting the lens on a digital camera versus a film camera.

Packing... oh boy. I've had a tablet shipped in only the original box, which really wasn't designed to take a beating. There was no cushioning for the tablet. Fortunately it survived, which was surprising since I already owned the same model, but a very minor drop destroyed that devices screen. And Amazon has been particularly bad... one graphics card (which these days are as elusive and expensive as diamonds it seems...) was wrapped in a clear plastic foil. Not only was the device poorly protected, but it was also absolutely clear what the content was. The second one was in a box, but cut to size so there was no wiggle room. And from what I heard they also ship hard drives like that, which is absolutely deadly.

[BigMackCam]

Packing... oh boy. I've had a tablet shipped in only the original box, which really wasn't designed to take a beating. There was no cushioning for the tablet.

I was horrified when I received my DA*60-250, which I bought new two or three years ago from a major and very reputable Pentax reseller here in the UK (a company I've used many times before and since). Their shipping team had placed the retail box in a plastic posting bag with no additional padding. When it arrived with me, three corners of the box were quite badly bashed in. Of course, the lens was protected inside the retail box, but I still feared for it. I spent an entire day testing it at each focal length and looking for de-centering and other issues, but it was perfect. In the end, I negotiated a small but welcome discount with the supplier, and was informed that they would be speaking with their shipping team to ensure any valuable items were always packed more securely. I haven't had any problems since, so I guess they were sincere...

EDIT: That 60-250 has continued to perform superbly, so I made the right choice... but I sometimes think it could have been quite a different outcome

[WPRESTO]

This is what I like about this forum!
You just gave me a very welcomed new perspective. Sometimes we need a suggestion that stimulates us to experiment something new, leading us off the beaten track of the usual techniques and creative opportunities.
I've never tried to use a reversed objective as a diopter, on top of a tele. I've never tried a Rainox either, but I understand that it could be a great way to get a decent lens to subject distance and use the flash more easily. Would be great when trying to go past 1:1 outdoors.

Luminars and Photars are great, but I'm not sure they are worth the price premium for amateur use. Other top level lenses, like those that were made by Olympus and Canon, should perform at the same level, but unfortunately they are not that cheap. The kind of solutions you propose are well worth checking.
Some microscope optics are quite good for photographic use. Online I've seen great pictures taken with old, cheap microscope lenses, like those made by Swift and Watson, optimized for around 4:1.
I still have to try a Reichert 4x with diaphragm that I bought for very cheap. Sometimes this kind of microscope lenses seem to work better than modern ones, $ either finite or infinity (for tube).
The main problem is always the extremely thin DOF... so I think I will soon follow your advice and try the 100mm Bellows on top of the Pentax-A 4/200mm.

If you have a 100mm bellows lens and a 200mm SMCA macro, by all means use that combo for 2X magnification, If you do not have a 100mm bellows, I would strongly recommend the Raynox "macro explorer" two lens set. They give startlingly good results for such inexpensive and convenient attachments. Do not pass judgement on them on the basis of other close-up filters, even the achromatic designs from Nikon & Canon. The Raynox are something quite different.

[UncleVanya]

Do not pass judgement on them on the basis of other close-up filters, even the achromatic designs from Nikon & Canon. The Raynox are something quite different.

Interesting. I have the Raynox 150 and 250 and the Nikon and Canon APO filters. I find them all about equal optically. I am curious what you have seen different. These all blow away cheap closeup filters and are really nice.

[ffking]

Kirk L-bracket for K-1 - well made and really came in useful on recent trip to Devon - The only problem (known) is that have a Manfrotto plate ball head, so I pressed my old (real!!) Arca Swiss monoball into service again - something I bought back in the 67 days because it locks heavy set-ups solid. L-brackets really come into their own with portrait orientation stitched panoramas, so I'll miss the spirit level on the Manfrotto ball head, but otherwise very happy with the purchase - a well made (if somewhat pricey) bit of kit

[jeallen01]

Interesting. I have the Raynox 150 and 250 and the Nikon and Canon APO filters. I find them all about equal optically. I am curious what you have seen different. These all blow away cheap closeup filters and are really nice.

Sorry to be a "wet blanket" but a Close-Up LENS is NOT a FILTER :

[BigMackCam]

Sometimes I'm amazed at how the smallest things can put a smile on my face...

A few days ago, I bought on eBay a front cap for a recently-acquired MMZ-factory Helios-44 that came with no caps (I'm not obsessive about such things, but where possible I like to have the correct caps for my Soviet lenses). Well, I received an envelope today with a cap inside, but it was the wrong one... a Zenit KMZ-logo cap for a later 44-Mx series lens. I contacted the seller and got a response back within an hour or so... He apologised for the mistake, and is sending me the correct cap as advertised in the eBay listing. He doesn't want the Zenit cap back, so I get two caps for the price of one. I don't have any lenses requiring the now-spare cap (they're all fully-dressed ), but it's only a matter of time

Like I said... it's a small thing, but I'm rather happy about it. Perhaps more because of the seller's gracious attitude than anything else, but still...

[boriscleto]

Mike Eckman wrote a review of the PC35AF last week and I had to have one. It's a bit grungy...



Pentax PC35AF (1982) - mike eckman dot com

[BigMackCam]

Mike Eckman wrote a review of the PC35AF last week and I had to have one. It's a bit grungy...

I've wanted one of those for the longest time

[WPRESTO]

Interesting. I have the Raynox 150 and 250 and the Nikon and Canon APO filters. I find them all about equal optically. I am curious what you have seen different. These all blow away cheap closeup filters and are really nice.

What I see is 1) deeper close-ups, that is, the Raynox allows greater magnification; 2) on the average, the images taken with the Raynox seem to me sharper, on the average more satisfying than those taken with either Nikon or Canon close filters (of which I have quite a few). This is not something I can quantify.

---------- Post added 04-18-18 at 05:42 PM ----------

Sorry to be a "wet blanket" but a Close-Up LENS is NOT a FILTER :

I always (for about 50 years) referred to them as "close-up lenses," but I noticed that a few years ago, both dealers and users began calling them "close-up filters" presumably to indicate that these thread into the filter threads, and to distinguish them from a "close-up lens" which might mean a prime camera lens = a macro lens. I have had trouble calling them "close-up filters" just as I have trouble with the term "analog clock."

[BigMackCam]

I have had trouble calling them "close-up filters" just as I have trouble with the term "analog clock."

But Walt, do you have any photos of analog clocks taken with close-up filters??

[Marcus Rowland]

A Canon conversion lens adapter with a 58mm polarizer for £1 - the adapter is plastic crap, but it's worth it for the polarizer.

Well, it appears that plastic crap sells. I listed the tube at £1.50 plus postage this evening, setting the price slightly below various Raynox metal tubes I'm selling new (ex-bankrupt stock with damaged boxes) at £2, someone bought it an hour later.

And today's charity shop bargain was three filters for a fiver - a 67mm UV, 67mm polarizer, and 55mm UV. Already used the 55mm UV on a lens I'm selling, the others should be useful soon enough.

Mike Eckman wrote a review of the PC35AF last week and I had to have one. It's a bit grungy...

Attachment 395738

Pentax PC35AF (1982) - mike eckman dot com

I wish I'd known - I gave one away a couple of weeks ago, it's not really the sort of thing I sell so I took it along to a Freegle swap meet. Gave away the camera, a board game, and some DVDs, got a saucepan, some blackboard paint for the inside of cameras etc., two other DVDs and a book.

[WPRESTO]

But Walt, do you have any photos of analog clocks taken with close-up filters??

Not that I can think of, but I am sure I don't have any digital images of digital clocks.