Jump to content
UltravioletPhotography

Helicoids vs Extension Tubes vs Bellows for Close-ups and Macros


igoriginal

Recommended Posts

[ADMIN NOTE: I have split this post off from a UV flower post into its own topic so that we can discuss it fully.]

 

How do you prefer to do your UV *macros*, by the way?

 

Using extension tubes, or a focusing helicoid adaptor?

 

I initially gained experience / basic understanding about macro photography by using simple, cheaply-acquired extension tubes. However, as my work matured, I have developed more discerning taste for implementing variable-focusing (helicoid) based macro adapters, instead. That way, I can alter my magnification ratios, on-the-fly, without having to unscrew and swap-out solid tubes of various lengths.

 

(Granted, an adustable bellows device can offer the same variabilities in magnification ... but, being bulky, it can also be more combersome and less practical, especially in more tighter spots. Hence, my migration to using variable-focus / helicoid tube adapters, in place of bellows. Same flexibility, less heft and bulkiness.)

Link to comment

I like to use focusing helicoids as extension tubes. One of my initial UV lenses was the Zeiss UV-Planar which has an enlarging lens construction (no helicoid). To make best use of that lens close-up with minimum fuss, a focusing helicoid seemed the best way to go. Since then I've gotten a few more in both Nikon and M42 mount. I've had good luck so far with the (relatively) inexpensive helicoids from Hong Kong.

 

For the UV-Nikkor I have the Nikon PN-11 extension tube which seems well built. But I still detect a little bit of weakness at the tube-lens joint when using it.

 

I have never used a bellows ! I have a UV lens which came with a bellows, but I put the bellows aside and never tried it.

 

One thing that I do not have, but which I think would be very useful for close-up work, is a simple focusing rail.

Link to comment

A bellows device offers most flexibility in regard to what you can achieve. It also is bulky, usually not very suited for field work unless you happen to live in a dry climate (ie. *not* my neighbourhood) being vulnerable to rain, wear and tear, and imposes a constraint due to the the fact the bellows always add a significant amount of extension, even when it is fully closed. Thus, many lenses cannot focus to infinity when they are mounted on a bellows. Dedicated bellows lenses circumvent this issue by not having their own focusing helicoid and are delivered as naked lens heads. The benefits with bellows are you can get extreme control over the extension, they fit nicely on a tripod, and many units double as a focusing rail as well. Plus they tend to be quite cheap these days as they have faded from fashion. It is relatively simple to buy any sturdy bellows device and modify the mounts on either side so it fits your preferred camera system. You can have a different front vs rear mount too.

 

Focusing helicoids are perfect if you only require a limited amount of variable extension. Long helicoids tend to be wobbly and imprecise and in general, the focusing with these devices is much less smooth than with a bellows unless build quality is excellent (not always what you get with the cheap units offered on eBay and suchlike markets). It is very uncommon to see them with any kind of tripod mount.

 

Extension tubes are cheap and offer little flexibility, unless you happen to require the specific amount of extension they provide. Stacked together they can be wobbly as well, unless you use quality products. Tripod mount is seen (PN-1 as an example), but usually not provided for short tubes. So-called 'macro' lenses of older vintage frequently go to 1:2 and require a dedicated extension tube to reach 1:1.

 

No matter what approach you take to add extension to your lens, a "macro" focusing rail will be of great help in nearly all situations. However, when you need to have the camera at ground level, a rail adds to working height over ground and should be removed.

Link to comment
Johan, you have an interesting website! Thanks for the pointer to the bellows article.
Link to comment

No doubt you'll gain expertise in this field as well. UV is in fact even more suited for close-up work thanks to the added resolution you get by limiting the spectral range to shorter wavelength(s).

 

I read a lot of stuff on your site with considerable interest and might take one or two of the points raised there into actual service later this year.

Link to comment

Thank you, all, for the excellent responses! Much obliged!

 

Yes, I do consider using bellows ... when not at the mercy of impending / unpredictably bad weather. Especially indoors, where there is a better environment for control over surrounding conditions.

 

And while on the subject of macro extension options:

 

Do any of you experiment with "flat-field" lenses, for UV macro work?

 

From what I have gathered, some lenses (and especially many enlargers) are deliberately designed to provide a flat-field of view ... and this can prove to be advantageous when wanting to keep a "slice" of your subject in uniform focus, throughout the entire frame (no depth-of-field "drop-off" when moving away from the center of the image circle). Or, is that not the true premise behind this functionality?

 

And since the El Nikkor lenses (particularly the older, chrome-base variant of the 80mm F/5.6 - which is the most UV-capable of the bunch) are enlarger lenses, by design, are these units flat-field or not? Anyone have a definitive answer to this?

 

Finally, I believe that the Spiratone Macrotar Flat-Field 75mm F/3.5 lens is somewhat UV capable, if I am not mistaken? (Didn't I see a mention of it, in your "UV Sticky", Andrea?)

 

(I also have the Spiratone Macrotar Flat-Field 35mm F/3.5 in my possession, but have not tested it yet for UV photography ... but I plan to, soon.

 

For reference, both the 35mm and 75mm Spiratone Macrotar Flat-Field lenses come in T2 / T-Mounts, and thus are easily adaptable to virtually any lens mount with the proper adapter.

 

The 35mm Spiratone Macrotar has a 29.5mm filter thread. Coupling to a UV-pass and / or IR-block glass can be easily accomplished, by purchasing two step-up rings, and linking them together: A 29.5mm-37mm step-up ring, and then a second step-up ring of 37mm to whatever lens filter size you require (Ex: 48mm for the Baader U, or 52mm for a typically custom-cut filter stack).

 

(As for the 75mm Spiratone Macrotar, I do not know of its front filter-threading size, since I do not own it. Not yet, anyway.)

 

Thanks, all.

Link to comment

Interesting thanks Iggy

Is the "35mm and 75mm Spiratone Macrotar Flat-Field lenses come in T2 / T-Mounts" or M42 ?? Both are the same diameter 42mm but different thread pitches.

The T2 (usually telescopes) is 42mm X 0.75mm & the M42 is 42mm X 1mm. They are hard to tell apart & won't screw together !

Cheers

Col

Link to comment

I've also always thought enlarger lenses were flat field given their use in the darkroom, but I've have never 'researched' the topic. "-)

 

Col, good reminder about paying attention to thread pitch.

 

We do have a Spiratone 75/3.5 flat field macro listed in the UV Lens Sticky. It was initially mentioned as UV worthy by a Nikongear member.

Link to comment

35mm and 75mm Spiratone Macrotar Flat-Field lenses come in T2 / T-Mounts" or M42 ?? Both are the same diameter 42mm but different thread pitches.

The T2 (usually telescopes) is 42mm X 0.75mm & the M42 is 42mm X 1mm. They are hard to tell apart & won't screw together !

 

Yes, my friend. These lenses use T2 mount, and not M42. I take extra care to pay attention to mounts in particular, because one of the things that I spend the majority of my time doing is to assembling and rigging up custom-made mount solutions for non-native lens adaptation to other cameras. In fact, I have been cataloging over 450 lenses, thus far. I am doing this, because I am in the process of publishing and posting the most extensive UV lens test, to date (especially testing the UV viability of wide-angle lenses, which we UV photographers are in short supply of, and would like to see more options in UV-capable wide-angle lenses).

 

Thus, yes. I am very meticulous with paying attention to mounts.

 

(In fact, there is a Spiratone Macrotar 35mm F/3.5 offered on Ebay, right now this moment, with a Nikon-mount fitting for the T-mount. So this only confirms my own find).

 

Again, though, be aware that I do not know as of yet if the Spiratone Macrotar 35mm F/3.5 is of any substantial UV use, as I have not tested it out, yet. But I plan to test out my own copy (actually, I have three copies), as soon as possible.

Link to comment

UPDATE:

 

I went back, just to be sure, and check the mount of the my copies of the Spiratone Macrotar, again.

 

It looks like it might actually be an M42 mount, after all. However, what is confusing ... is that the lens fits both, M42 adapters and T-mount adapters, equally well! (without any stripping, jamming, or forcing!)

 

I kept scratching my head how this could be possible ... and then it dawned on me how it could be possible that an M42 and T-mount adapter can both work well with this lens: The Macrotar has a very shallow (short) line of threads, to begin with (just a few turns to completely screw it in). Thus, this explains why it can be easily confused for a T-mount, and not an M42 mount, since the first few initial turns of a thread circle will not lead to any detectable thread-pitch conflict (resistance), unless further turning is possible.

 

What this means, then, is that it is possible to use either one - an M42 or a T-mount adapter - to sufficiently secure the lens to an adapter. And this is because the Macrotar has such a short screw-in throw ... and so, there is no substantial risk of stripping the threading (unless you REALLY want to tighten it down, by a death grip. There's barely any threading left, to do that, anyway. Like I said: A very short screw-in throw on this lens. Which is most unusual and uncommon. But then, it's a very light lens, to begin with. So, the reasoning behind its manufacturing process might have been: "It's not going to take much threading to create enough mounting security / stability.").

 

So glad that I went back and checked yet again! ;) (I suppose after testing over 450 lenses, I have to understand that my memory is not that good. So, I need to recheck my catalog, instead. :D )

 

Well, in that case, it looks as if the Spiratone Macrotar 35mm F/3.5 on Ebay is actually a fixed Nikon mount (and not a T-2 mount with a Nikon adaptor).

Link to comment
I've also always thought enlarger lenses were flat field given their use in the darkroom, but I've have never 'researched' the topic. "-)

 

I have! You are correct. Remember that enlarger lenses are specifically designed to to take the flat pane of a negative onto a flat piece of paper underneath. So it's flat to flat, and better lenses give better flat performance at the periphery of the image.

 

This is especially important for me because I do macro stacking, and we like lots of sharp slices to stack. So reverse enlarger lenses are an obvious choice for us.

 

From what I have gathered, some lenses (and especially many enlargers) are deliberately designed to provide a flat-field of view ... and this can prove to be advantageous when wanting to keep a "slice" of your subject in uniform focus, throughout the entire frame (no depth-of-field "drop-off" when moving away from the center of the image circle). Or, is that not the true premise behind this functionality?

 

And since the El Nikkor lenses (particularly the older, chrome-base variant of the 80mm F/5.6 - which is the most UV-capable of the bunch) are enlarger lenses, by design, are these units flat-field or not? Anyone have a definitive answer to this?

 

Let me talk a little about this. My friend Savazzi did some research and found 63mm to be good. I have no personal experience yet of El-Nikkor for UV beyond the 2 50s, the 4 and 2.8 I already possess for extreme macro, which I will of course try in due course once my torch arrives from Germany. The 63 looks to be a little out of my pricepoint but I am a little unsure what the variants are so there is room for some research on this.

Link to comment

Let me talk a little about this. My friend Savazzi did some research and found 63mm to be good. I have no personal experience yet of El-Nikkor for UV beyond the 2 50s, the 4 and 2.8 I already possess for extreme macro, which I will of course try in due course once my torch arrives from Germany. The 63 looks to be a little out of my pricepoint but I am a little unsure what the variants are so there is room for some research on this.

 

The notion that the 63mm El Nikkor is a "good UV performer" has already been debunked, and shown to be an "urban legend" among the less-informed / beginner UV community, of which many people still wrongfully believe. (I was thrown off by this inaccurate and outdated information, too, until I enlightened myself. Not that I am accusing anyone of deliberately deceiving anyone, here. Truly, I am not. Old legends die hard, after all.)

 

Dr. Klaus Schmitt has already done a highly detailed transmission test of all the El Nikkors, and found that the 63mm is, in fact, quite inferior by comparison to the 80mm ... not just in UV transmission, but even in focus shift. Whereas, the El Nikkor 80mm has been shown to be the only one of the El Nikkor line to transmit deeply (down to about 325nm or so), and also display practically little to no focus shift.

 

Thus, the only El Nikkor worth trifling over, if you want truly satisfactory and sufficiently archive-level results, is the El Nikkor 80mm F/5.6 (first version, with the chrome base ... and not the second version, all black.)

 

All other focal lengths of the El Nikkor line - 50mm, 63mm, 75mm - are largely more inferior, do not transmit UV quite as well (contrary to that "urban legend"), and exhibit quite severe focus shift. The 105mm probably being the only other El Nikkor that comes close to the 80mm. Although still showing substantial focus shift, unlike the 80mm with is nearly focus shift-free.

 

(BTW: I have tested and compared my own copies of all the El Nikkors which I have acquired, and have generally drawn the same conclusions, albeit not as highly detailed of a test as Dr. Schmitt ... since I do not possess a spectrometer.)

 

And if the 63mm is "out of your price range", it is only because of all the unjustified hype which has artificially inflated its selling price. Whereas, the El Nikkor 80mm is still quite affordable - averaging $50 to $80 USD - well, while that still lasts. :D

 

Sure, the other El Nikkor focal lengths still transmit some UV, to be of some "draft" use in the field. But not archiving / formal-level presentation, in this day and age of higher-resolution cameras, as well as other options that actually offer a better response-versus-price ratio.

 

See this transmission graph, below, thanks to testing by Dr. Klaus Schmitt (source http://photographyof...ses-for-uv.html ):

 

post-34-0-23353700-1397673102_thumb.png

Link to comment

Hmmm.

 

Well, being that it transmits down to roughly 355nm or so (estimated), I suppose its UV transmission is "passable." But that also depends on who you ask, and what is considered "passable" by different individuals.

 

No doubt, you can finagle your way around post-photo processing of the image, by ramping up the color saturation to nearly ridiculous levels (as well as other edits), but we have to remember that overly-aggressive processing (in order to compensate for shortcomings) can also potentially degrade the quality of the original image (from my own experiences, anyway).

 

I guess what I am saying is that the 63mm El Nikkor might be "good enough" (or "so so", depending on who you ask), since it passes some useful UV. But, if its price offering has been artificially bumped up to unrealistic levels, then wouldn't that be unjustifiable, according to its sub-par UV performance compared to more capable lenses? Especially so, since the 80mm El Nikkor blows the 63mm out of the water by comparison, but at a much lower price offering? (For the time being, anyway).

 

No doubt, I can "just get by" with many sub-par lenses, too (and you can say that everything is relative, no doubt). However, I feel that we need to place ability-versus-price into relative proportionality (as well as provide realistic expectations for people, based on lens choice), rather than mere hype. No?

 

Admittedly, the real-world differences may not be as much of a big deal, if we are willing to implement other conpensative measures (such as increase exposure time), as well as other measures of adjustment.

 

I just don't see a reason to spend big on something where the output no longer matches the money spent (when asking price has been set too unrealistically high, based on what you get in return). That's all.

 

For the same reasons why I purchase Kyoei / Kuribayashi 35mm F/3.5 "clones" (same optical formulas as the original lens), such as Soligor, Super Lentar, Hanimex, Optomax, etc ... but for a fraction of the overly-inflated prices of the actual Kuri-branded version.

 

(Just last month, I saw a 35mm F/3.5 Kuri / Kyoei sell for $400, USD! Seriously? When I found the same identical optical formula and UV performance in lesser-popularized lenses, for $25 USD. It makes me sad for those who throw their money away for just a hyped-up name or a pop-culture trend. :D )

 

Either way, all I really mean to say is: I am trying to put things in perspective. The 63mm has been irrationally praised (and its price ridiculously gouged), whereas the even better performing 80mm has been under-appreciated or even overlooked. Otherwise, yes, I've been able to obtain some decent images with all of the El Nikkors. That's true. (Although compensating for focus shift can be a pain, sometimes.)

Link to comment

Nobody questions the oddities and ridicule of market pricing. Be ensured I did not in any way pay an inflated asking price for the 63/3.5. I wonder whether there are variations between batches of these lenses as I never observed issues with significant focus shift for the 2-3 samples of the 63/3.5 I acquired in the beginning of the '00s.

 

We should never forget that the "raw" transmission of these lenses is *not* what we use. One needs to factor in the filter transmission as well. Plus the spectral properties of the light source(s) used.

Link to comment

Very true, Mr. Rørslett. There are so many other factors and variables to account for.

 

Heck, one could end up paying $4,000 for a dedicated, fully-corrected UV / IR lens ... and still get bad results, if they do not understand what they are doing (other techniques involved in the entire workflow of the UV photographic process, from start to finish).

 

Likewise (and on the flip side), a very experienced UV photography can squeeze some incredible UV images from a non-dedicated ("circumstantial") UV transmittive lens, on a budget.

 

Thus, all so very true.

Link to comment

Be ensured I did not in any way pay an inflated asking price for the 63/3.5.

 

Well, that's because you were early to the "UV party."

 

On the other hand, some of us came later to that party. :D So, we are being heavily "taxed" for our lateness. Haha.

 

I wonder whether there are variations between batches of these lenses as I never observed issues with significant focus shift for the 2-3 samples of the 63/3.5 I acquired in the beginning of the '00s..

 

Also very possible and rational considerations.

Link to comment
I purchased my first UV-Nikkor in 1990. So have been pottering around the UV scene for "some" years ... First decade of which doing UV on film, thereafter exclusively digital.
Link to comment

I purchased my first UV-Nikkor in 1990. So have been pottering around the UV scene for "some" years ... First decade of which doing UV on film, thereafter exclusively digital.

 

And many of us "new comers" are immeasurably grateful for your pioneering work!

 

I, in fact, was greatly inspired and motivated to enter the UV scene, after reading some of your available on-line articles and guides. So, for this, I am immensely grateful.

 

When you switched to digital, did you start with the Nikon DSLRs, first? (D40, D70, etc.) Also, how did you go about discovering the UV viability of digital cameras, in the late 90's / early 2000's?

 

Did you stick to unconverted (but UV capable) Nikon DSRLs, or did you find a way to fully-modify other camera models in those earlier years?

Link to comment
D1, D1H, D40, D70 not modified. D200, D40X modified. Fuji S3 UV/IR LE. D3 modified (not useful due to the shutter LED issue), followed by D600 (excellent). I have used various Panasonic cameras (G2, GH-2 modified) for some years as well.
Link to comment

If the notion that the EL-Nikkor 63 is good for UV has been debunked, then I must now debunk the debunking. Which returns us to this: The EL-Nikkor 63 is OK for generic UV photography. Really it is. Used on a typical broadband converted camera with a Baader-U, this lens will give you a *good enough* UV shot.

 

It is overly obsessive, imho, to worry about the differences between an EL-Nikkor which can transmit from 325nm versus one which cuts in at 350nm unless you are doing some kind of specialized research and have filters and UV illumination and a sensor to support sub-350nm. Of course, I'm not going to deny anyone their fun factor who wants to try shooting below 350nm. Tried it myself a couple of times. "-)

 

But it is *very* misleading to call a 350nm lens "inferior" to a 325nm lens. Seriously, 25nm somehow makes a difference ? Especially when a lens like the UV-Nikkor can reach 200nm ??

 

"Processing", by which I guess is meant "editing", is irrelevant to to this discussion.

Link to comment

What I would like to establish is, what wavelength gives the best UV response in flowers & / or landscapes.

I ask this because in IR photography, 720nm & above gives the white vegetation, below 720nm won't.

I am not interested in the false colour response, just the mono response from different UV wavelengths.

The reflection of UV off a flower is what we are looking for here (UV photography). Is the pattern that a flower gives off in UV any different at different wavelengths that our cameras are able to see at. Like is a 405nm, image any different to a 385nm image or a 365nm image or even a 325nm image, in mono.

Is there anything showing differently Please ?

Cheers

Col

Link to comment

Floral signatures are well developed around 360 nm. You will detect them higher up, perhaps as high as 390 nm. In fact, on a cloudy day I can just barely discern the UV-dark centres of say a dandelion (Taraxacum) or a silverleaf (Potentilla) with the naked eye (no details, just the impression of the shape). This is not possible on a sunny day, though.

 

Virtually identical floral patterns are seen at 340 or 350 nm as compared with 360 nm. So I for one am not convinced hunting for the lowest reaching lens is worth the efforts. More important than the lower attainable UV range is the image quality the lens can deliver. I am not convinced there is a significant correlation between low UV response and UV image quality. In this case, the UV-Nikkor is a statistical outlier.

Link to comment

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...