Steve's Digicams Forums

Steve's Digicams Forums (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/)
-   Panasonic / Leica (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/panasonic-leica-29/)
-   -   [Recovered Thread: 91976] (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/panasonic-leica-29/%5Brecovered-thread-91976%5D-89770/)

simonbratt99 May 14, 2006 6:15 PM

can someone tell me if this is any good, because the prices seems good.

I want to take real close macro shots

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/MACRO-Close-Up...QQcmdZViewItem


or anyone recommend a better option?

simonbratt99 May 15, 2006 4:17 PM

if no bodys had any experience of something like this i think ill order them as there not too expensive and try them

Rayko May 15, 2006 4:56 PM

1 Attachment(s)
You would likely be happier with one or more achromatic macro lenses. The achrormatics usually consist of two elements rather than the low priced single lense closeups.

I use a Nikon 6T 2.9 diopter, an Elpro 2 4..9 diopter, and a Sigma 1.6 diopter. These can be stacked on top of each other to increase maginfication.

If I could only have one, I'd go for the 6T. The same lense is also sold as the 4T with 52mm threads.

Here's a link to some others with approximate prices.
[align=left]
[/align]
Available 2 Element (Achromatic) Close-up Lenses

Here's a shot with the 6T and Elpro stacked.



simonbratt99 May 15, 2006 5:39 PM

dont want to be rude but if my macros turned out like that i would not be pleased, very noisey. the examples in the link i gave are quite clear. do you think mine would be worse then than , with those cheaper lenses?



what cameras that?

Rudo May 17, 2006 5:30 AM

Maybe the picture of Rayko is a 100% crop.......

I wouldn't be to sure that the pictures on your link are really made with that macro lens. The info of that picture tells that teh photo was made with a sigma camera, with an exposure time of 1/6000........

But for that price on ebay, it won't harm you, but the ^t that rayko mentioned is known for a good macro lens for the FZ30.

Rudo

robby.naish May 17, 2006 12:12 PM

Hi

look at here for sm FZ30 good macros

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=18154029

ciao

Alex

Narmer May 18, 2006 4:36 AM

I recommend a 6T (eventuaLLY + a 5T) for normal macro, and reversed WA 50mm for extreme macros like this one (head of an ant):
http://www.macrophotography.org/albu..._P1260484a.jpg

for my Nikon 6T + 5T stuff see my pages:
Narmer Macros



simonbratt99 May 18, 2006 5:11 AM

please if posting pics, say what camera the pic was taken with

simonbratt99 May 18, 2006 5:17 AM

DOF is incredibly shallow isint it, i bet many times things are out of focus

Seedubs May 18, 2006 2:01 PM

Narmer wrote:
Quote:

I recommend a 6T (eventuaLLY + a 5T) for normal macro, and reversed WA 50mm for extreme macros like this one (head of an ant):

for my Nikon 6T + 5T stuff see my pages:
Narmer Macros


When you say you use a WA 50 mm reversed, which lens is that? I think I remember you mentioning using an old Canon FD F1.8 lens, is that the one? If so can you still get hold of these, are these lenses old 35 mm film lenses and I assume you could just get a step down ring to fit the FZ30?

Many thanks

Peter_with_digicam May 18, 2006 3:41 PM

Simon

I was very interested in your question. If you do get these inexpensive lenses, I would be very much like to see what results you able to achieve with them. Could you post some in due course please?

seemolf May 18, 2006 3:55 PM

a strange discussion on cheap lenses..

Please read this:
http://home.planet.nl/%7Eheuv0283/achromats.html
and this
http://www.cs.mtu.edu/~shene/DigiCam...A95/index.html
and perhaps this:
http://www.geocities.com/seemolf/ach...chromats2.html
http://www.geocities.com/seemolf/ach...achromats.html


regards Sven

..don't buy single lenses, just use them if you have them already!

Narmer May 18, 2006 4:56 PM

Simon

you're right the DOF is nearly absent... especially from 7x t0 12x.
50mm reversed is = +20 magnification.

I use that Canon lens on theFZ20 via a male-to-male ring (inversion rings are only useful to mount reversed lenses on dSLR). The male to male ring is52 to 62: 52 fits with the diameter of the inversed WA and 62 fits on the FZ20 stock plastic adaptor via a 62-72 step down ring.

I guess 70 and 100mm lenses are more easy to use, especially if F2 or larger apertures (less vignetting).
On the other hand 35 and 24mm WA are impossible to use "on the field", only blocked as a microscope.

Tchuanye uses a 50mm on a 4x zoom Canon A610, and this seems to provide more DOF and to be less easy to use then on ultra zooms-

Finally about dipoters I recommend to buy Nikon or Canon, not cheap ones.

simonbratt99 May 18, 2006 5:59 PM

thanks for that, and i sure will post results, luckily not too expensive a test eh

simonbratt99 May 24, 2006 2:58 PM

OK, here we go, i recieved the lenses ok, look pretty good, but then what do i know lol

Ive done some tests for someone to check so please read on.....

simonbratt99 May 24, 2006 3:02 PM

1 Attachment(s)
Here are two pictures of a coaster with and with out the lenses (i used the 10 and the 4 lens together

!st pic is as close as i could go without extra lens (no zoom, manual focus




simonbratt99 May 24, 2006 3:02 PM

1 Attachment(s)
this one is as close as i could go with a 10 and a 4 macro lens

simonbratt99 May 24, 2006 3:03 PM

1 Attachment(s)
Here is a pic of a wasp thing (dead) on my desk

simonbratt99 May 24, 2006 3:06 PM

1 Attachment(s)
and here is a pic of the wasp as best i could get with the 10 and the 4 lens on, indoors with artificial lighting

simonbratt99 May 24, 2006 3:07 PM

Love the new camera FZ30, had it a week, but its rained the whole time so far.



Iwould appreciate any comments on how good / bad these cheap lenses seem

Peter_with_digicam May 25, 2006 8:51 AM

I don't think the central part of the close-up of the coaster with 14 dioptre attached is bad at all in comparison with the picture taken with no add-on at all. Definition falls off outwards from the centre in both cases, but how much of this is due to your exposure combinations of 1/13 and 1/10 at f/2.8 (moderately long exposures at maximum aperture), I don't know. Depth of field is not much of an issue with this subject, if we're comparing how the top surface of the coaster is defined (I used to do these sort of comparisons of definition with a flat gridded chart, so that depth of field was irrelevant).

I suppose this would have improved in both cases with a much smaller aperture, but then you'd have needed a tripod. I take it you had no tripod but were using OIS mode 2.

Not a bad performance with the coaster on the face of it in my opinion, but of course the real comparison would have been against a single multi-element close-up lens. I don't think you've been sold a pup though, do you? - for £13.90 although your postage was steep!

Thanks for coming back with some sample comparisons so quickly.



simonbratt99 May 25, 2006 9:15 AM

hi

Sure was all hand held and a bit rushed.

I dont know why i expected a bit more magnification from the macro lenses. I cant see the point in using anything but the 10D to be honest.

And am i using them correctly? as ive heard mention of tubes n stuff. (i screwed it straight onto the FZ30 lens.

romerojpg May 25, 2006 3:34 PM

The Wasps head looks great to me a lot closer and clearer than I can get with the standard camera without any add ons :) looks great for that amount of cash.

Peter_with_digicam May 25, 2006 4:00 PM

Tubes? You only used to use those with SLRs. Yes, you just screw on to the front of the Leica, having removed any UV etc first. You can't use tubes with a fixed lens camera like the Lumix.

simonbratt99 May 26, 2006 3:30 AM

ah ok thanks, no tubes then.

Yes my conclusion so far is, they are well worth the money

Should i be taking the UV filter off? i havent yet.

Peter_with_digicam May 26, 2006 8:07 AM

Simon

Some will argue that for perfection of resolution you should never have a filter (eg UV) screwed on the front of the prime lens. I don't subscribe to that one, and I have yet to see published tests to show that it makes one jot of practical difference whether you do or don't. Using a UV filter primarily as a lens protector makes more sense to me.

I suggested that it was removed earlier purely from the point of view of getting your close-up filters as close as possible to the prime lens. Again, in practice it will probably make little practical difference. If you had the time to experiment, it may be interesting to see whether there is any difference in terms of magnification of image as a result of either leaving or removing the UV.

romerojpg May 26, 2006 11:46 AM

Get some more pictures taken so we can see more results with these cheap add ons :-) as nice bright outside insects should be the best test of the add ons. Just need some sun and some nice insects I guess


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 1:12 PM.