Photocameras

Yes, I can see it coming: here there is one pan who, looking at the drops, will start a hurdy-gurdy about soap, mud and GMOs, for him I specifically explain: in fact, this is the specifics of cooking kamZhopeg in the first Neks, for this they are scolded by many. With a single lens at a macro station, I did not see ringing sharpness at 100% scale at any aperture, and I am sure that even if I screwed Panov's secret detour from my secret grandfather, I would not have received it. I have to go to the RAV for her, but I'm too lazy. Although I overcame it, I showed one, among the previous ones-the third from the bottom, 100% crop:



In subsequent Nexes, including the one that Bomka takes pictures of. this case seems to have been corrected.

By the way, Pan has GMOs everywhere in the last series of pictures, except for a homemade ultra-specific lens, F=92 and, lo and behold, Vega-11U. And DM-3 in general only women to take pictures. I have a T-3 - the same complete lack of sharpness, but only eggs in the side without a germ in the center.

This post was edited by ENO-04.11.2019 21: 31

Strange thing in general, it turns out to get more or less norms. Do I need to take a picture in RAV? Well, this is exactly for photooligarchs, so many disks and cards are not enough, I do not use RAV at all, and even in the RPG I shoot with a decrease in resolution even in the camera.
Macro rings are not expensive at a regular flea market, usually 1-2 pupaars, you need at least three sets to have

I shot the deer in such a way that it was a full frame for any objects, so of course with macro rings, with different numbers according to the situation.

I still don't have bumblebees, there are wasps, but there is also such a fly that I found on the road in the steppe (no stains and pins) like bombymia stiktik, well, almost a bumblebee
I say right away, the front sight was shot on Jupiter-8 on 2.0, just to outline the dimensions. The size of the fly is about 1.2 cm in length, its head is about 2.5 mm.

I shot with a homemade secret objective, which, by the way, consists of two identical objects, so okodemic is on the right track, with three of the largest and one medium macro rings + a trunk at most, from the front lens to the front sight about 10 cm. The first image is taken at a max.aperture of approximately 2.2, the second at an aperture of 5, and the third at 16. In nature, I usually take pictures somewhere where 4.5 or 4.
Three shots full frame and acc. three 100% drops.

Pictures:

P2450100.jpg — (74.76к)


P2450101.jpg — (90.7к)


P2450102.jpg — (104.86к)


1P2450100.jpg — (73.59к)


2P2450101.jpg — (100.32к)


2P2450102.jpg — (109.8к)

Oh, yes, and here is a fly close-up of Jupiter-8 on 2.0, by the way, I decided to take a picture of it on a secret object on 2.2 for comparison

Pictures:

P2450086.jpg — (67.51к)


P2450106.jpg — (80.75к)

You can immediately see that the photo expert is marking everything ready)) If two identical objects are crossed, this does not mean that a) there was no shifting of lenses before, and b) there was no shifting of lenses in these two objects
And macro rings are also needed as shanks of homemade objects, I have 7 sets and that's not enough.

And now-Vega 11U
I have it upgraded, from Vega there was only an untouched lens block. But now there is an infinity on Panasonic, and a helicoid, and the weight has become almost twice lighter, because it is a "zebra", in the original it is huge.
The first snapshot is 2.8, the second is 5, and the third is 11+ (max value).
Of course, it can be taken macro photos, but for os images it would not be suitable even if it is sharp, and for micro-macro it is in fact not sharp enough

Pictures:

P2450099.jpg — (90.42к)


P2450096.jpg — (62.87к)


2P2450096.jpg — (104.8к)


P2450097.jpg — (127.26к)


2P2450097.jpg — (67.58к)


P2450098.jpg — (550.37к)


2P2450098.jpg — (139.01к)

Wasps are not just polysts
There are for example such, and such, many such nafotkal photoexpert? Just do not fill in what ikhtamnet Is. They just won't let you get closer than 50cm
I probably picked up this Vega for the first time in two years, I only took a macro photo on Panasonic, I really need to try it, suddenly there will be landscape shidevry. Only here in general, if they are on FF, this Vega is so cool that it is suitable for FF and yes, they write that its diffraction is weak, but the aperture of 11+ is exactly what pin dohlikov fotkat only

Pictures:

P2230595.jpg — (141.96к)


P2230571.jpg — (130.43к)

Well, a little bit of horror at night.
Yes, this is IT

Pictures:

2P2450095.jpg — (146.88к)

 
Yes, this is IT  

Beauty
---
MNU also has several pairs of Soviet lenses,
we will have to try to connect them with "muzzles".
And what is the distance between the" front " lenses to do?
They are also convex...
---
I didn't like the focus system
with manual lenses at the Fujiks - the screen was terribly slow...
I tried it on X-A2. Disgusting! Don't take it.
Definitely inferior to the Sony NEX system.

I experienced Vega 11U today, well, in general, in principle, you can take a macro photo on it, so I shouldn't have said so much about it)
But you can take pictures normally with an aperture of 5, and above. In general, this Vega is so good that it is suitable for FF, and it keeps the aperture closed very well, which is excellent there, a lot of petals.
On 2.8, there is only the first picture of the landscape and the last picture of the flower. Mosquitoes on 5 and 8 respectively, and a beetle on 5.
MDF in the case of a mosquito-about 5 cm, with a bug even smaller, two large and an average macro ring. Dragonfly just chyudom on 10cm podpostila )
In general, not such a bad object, but the aperture of more than 4.5 needs to be "brewed", and not for pictures of cautious oss, which okodemeg did not see simply because they run away from it
You can try it upside down, but it is unlikely that a miracle will happen and something will change much.

Pictures:

P2450148.jpg — (127.17к)


P2450151.jpg — (198.64к)


P2450152.jpg — (251.4к)


P2450167.jpg — (137.23к)


P2450196.jpg — (114.07к)


P2450189.jpg — (137.02к)


2P2450189.jpg — (171.38к)


P2450206.jpg — (113.53к)


P2450225.jpg — (243.55к)


P2450157.jpg — (84.92к)


P2450169.jpg — (92.64к)

And this is a macro on Telear 200

Pictures:

P2450234.jpg — (153.51к)


P2450249.jpg — (183.61к)


P2450135.jpg — (342.11к)

No, to Panov all winter siskretnopereblozhennogo these lenses, of course, very far. And of course, she can compete with my secret one. But my helicoid is already in the "factory configuration" and MS. And a hole 2. Only the diaphragm sucks.

I wonder what Pan did with the full-size photos of the mosquito that turned his eyes into a Cubist masterpiece at the exit?

What was Theliar's diaphragm like? In principle, of course, it is possible to shoot with them, in the absence of the U-37,but the drawing is a bit nauseating, I don't say anything about sharpness.

I don't know what was done there, the eyes are like eyes On the Body, the diaphragm is 5.6 on the mosquito, and the rest is 3.5 of course.
Macro on Y37 is the same as macro in fact, all these zonnarovskie TVs are not suitable for macro, biometar / planar is needed

Is Telear a planar? Macro on the U-37A in the field, I laid out. It's far from perfect, of course, but it's much better than with this hollow fool.

An interesting scientific idea is okodemic, where from my message it is clear that Telear is planar, it is not clear, but I am not okodemic)) Judging by the drawings, Telear is just like Sonnar, the same 5 lenses, only there is no gluing. And macro of course, he shoots worse than Yu37 at least because there is 200mm, which can not but affect the Yu37 and the birds something is not uh-huh, in general, the most unfortunate IMHO scale. For a long macro, 80-90 is ideal, for birds 200 is already not enough.

I tested the I-502+I-96U-1 binder in the field. On the 3.5 hole, there is some contrast and sharpness, but there is no GRIP:



At 5.6, the GRIP is still insufficient, and the area of blurriness is so full that it sometimes becomes counter-sharp:



At 8, some kind of life begins, but who needs it out there in the dark?



Another problem: on the I-50-2, the thread for light filters and the diaphragm installation ring are one detail, and therefore it is only necessary to slightly touch an object screwed into it with a nozzle, as the diaphragm gets lost, as a result, you will understand exactly what it was at the time of shooting figs, you have to guess by the degree of vignetting and excerpt.

I washed the I-96 thoroughly (without an index), it turned out that it was still better than the whole I-96U-1 not only in sharpness, but also in contrast, despite the fact. that's a good scratch on one side. However, there is also a fly in the ointment-the front lens, which in the inverted position becomes the back, is sunk deeper into the frame, which is why the vignette is much larger. For comparison, the first photo is with I - 96-U1, the second is with I-96U (both are mounted in an inverted position on I50-2), hole 16:




Their 100% drops:




When (or rather if) you get some free time, you will need to try pouring the lenses from the I-96U into the I-96U-1 case.

A secret lens without additional strays is still cool! That's what it does on hole 2!












U-37A on the open (3,5) is also not bad, no matter how some people call it there:





But before going to bed, I did make something more interesting. Remember the bumblebee's eyes? Is it weak on this scale?




And, most importantly, it turned out without any calculations and wisdom with such a combination of glass beads, from which I did not expect any sharp image at all, so, purely out of hopelessness, I applied it. I wonder if Mr. khvotograkhv will guess what kind of glass they were? Hint: pan definitely has such pieces of glass. But considering how many different things he dragged into the house, you can go through the options indefinitely. And yes, it is quite possible to use it for photos of live insects, even if not from half a meter away, but at least you don't have to stick the object in the lens

This post was edited by ENO-07.11.2019 15: 53

  
But before going to bed, I did make something more interesting. Remember the bumblebee's eyes? Is it weak on this scale?

It's like an electronic melkoscope!
---
But it is interesting, if I-96u and I-50-2 have 50 mm of focal length,
then the common "bundle" will have a focal length - also 50 or already 100 ?

Rather, an optical microscope of reflected light. But only without a tripod and all the other charms that make it impossible to photograph live objects in a natural environment through a regular microscope.

Usually, the focal length is determined at infinity. If this bundle can somehow be pushed to infinity, then, on the contrary, the FR will decrease. And, of course, there will be a vignette. If you determine the FR not at infinity, but at the focusing distance, then in my case it will remain 50 mm. But I didn't understand what kind of FR 70-80cm Pan Stepovoi wrote about in relation to his superpupramkroobjetivu. If you are talking about the correct one, at infinity, then in theory, the lens should consist of two 35-40 mm ones. But there are still lenses shifted all winter... Although pan did not report (and did not illustrate with pictures) whether his creation can go to infinity at all, so, M. B. there is each of a pair of lenses of 70-80 mm

It certainly looks good, but now it would be something from nature, well, at least nogohvostochku
And then yes, at home you can at least attach the entire head from the MBS instead of the objective, but how it will work in nature is the question

When adding up objects, the focal length always decreases, but I don't know what pattern or how to calculate it, so I probably just compare it with the existing regular ones.
And my self-made object perfectly takes pictures on infinity, only I don't take pictures of landscapes for them, but recently I took a picture of the feeder for them

Pictures:

P2460081.jpg — (273.3к)

And at what aperture is it? And isn't there a single picture of the infinite preserved?

What kind of head is this? My electron melkoscope (C) is much smaller in size and weight than the bundle and-50-2+I-96U. True, in the case of the above images, it turned out a little more due to one large macro ring M42 (but it is empty and light). Against this background, even the G-44 looks and feels like a monster.

In the current version, taking pictures in nature is not yet worth it - the connection of structural elements is too unreliable. But it is temporary, I will make it permanent - then, M. B., natural Shidevry will be trampled. But in fact, there is not much to shoot in nature on such a scale, and if it is mobile, it is almost impossible (stupidly catching it in the field of view will not work, not to mention getting into the GRIP), but, so to speak, in the laboratory, someone's egg is photographed or small details of the morphology of the insect for scientific article-quite. Ants again for definition. But did Pan ever reach such a scale during his time as a mega-photographer, if you don't count photos through microscopes? Yes, he posted some pretty good pictures of dead polist's eyes here a couple of years ago, but there the scale was much smaller, like that, by an order of magnitude. And we haven't seen a micromacro from him since. Drosophila and marbles with bubbles in balsam are no longer a cake.

For calculations, artisanal objective builders use a certain Zemax. Here one considered how to make 263/2,4 out of the shit and sticks of lenses of public lenses, but in the end he made monocles And his Crimea also hurts. So sign up and open KB-it will count, and pan-cut

If only encritida chi chalcididu what would show, or at least, senoedika ... And then some facets of dohlikov

Pictures:

P2460382.jpg — (81.32к)


P2460475.jpg — (92.97к)


P2460408.jpg — (99.31к)

Without a lathe, the connection of the unconnected takes a long time and through hard brain sex, so wait, pan, wait.

Good photos, a lens from a secret grandfather? At least intersecting straight lines. although circles (I finally figured out what pan meant by giving such a clumsy description), but I still don't understand where such a GRIP comes from on such diafrgms, this is something supernatural. I had this only on the soap dish on the diafrgam 5,5-6,3. Panova matrix of course less Nexovskaya will be, but not so much. Mysticism...

However, the scale is not comparable to my shemel. I'll wait for the third photo test announced by Bomka, maybe something similar (or better) will work (or maybe not, because my melkoscope does not consist of one lens).

This post was edited by ENO-07.11.2019 23: 57

Without a lathe, the connection of the unconnected takes a long time and through hard brain sex, so wait, pan, wait.

Glue gun to help
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68U3ibHmtpI

I didn't understand. what kind of place is he here anyway? Make an adapter from a large thread to a small one out of glue? This is unlikely.

As for the pictures of small animals, there is not only on the "grandfather" lens block , but also a picture on Vega 7-1 is

But what about the famous "Russian savvy"? Every time you run to the lathe - you need to buy a factory, 90% of all my items are made at home on the knee without any machines
Transition rings from 39 to 42 are sold, they cost 1-2 pupaars, various parts from different objects, macro rings for making threaded bayonets, well, glue, yes, but I glue everything to epoxymetal. And by the way, yes, the adapter from Panasonic to M42 I also did not buy, homemade As with the Telear-N and Jupiter 36B Bayonets. So if you really do okodemiku such a collective farm, then "Russian ingenuity" will have to be shown constantly, so much so that not on snot, otherwise you will need so much money that it is easier to buy modern objects

I didn't understand. what kind of place is he here anyway? Make an adapter from a large thread to a small one out of glue?

1. Take a macro ring with a larger thread, for example m42 (thread inside).
2. Lightly lubricate the thread with engine oil.
3. Put the greased macro ring on a piece of plywood.
4. Place a macro ring (or lens) with a smaller thread in the center.
The stump is clear that here the thread should be outside and also slightly oiled.
5. Center the inner smaller macro ring relative to the larger one (you can center it with matches).
6. Fill the cavity between the rings with heated thermoplastics from a glue gun.
7. You wait for complete hardening.
8. Unscrew the inner macro ring / lens.
9. Twist the outer macro ring.
10. You will still have a ready-made adapter in your hands.

Today, for 1.5 ue, I bought an Indus 96U-1 3.5/50mm at the Indian market, I've never seen such things before, and those options for I50U and I96U without units that I used to buy were just terrible.

But this option, despite the terrible general condition, turned out to be just cool!

Pictures of the half-road inflorescence for comparison of the I96U-1 with a photographic lens of I50 3.5/50mm, the difference is simply amazing, and the question is, why make photographic lenses so terrible?
All photos are at 3.5 aperture

Pictures:

P2460573.jpg — (131.75к)


P2460567.jpg — (116.65к)


P2460563.jpg — (177.35к)


P2460547.jpg — (143.63к)


P2460537.jpg — (139.13к)


P2460530.jpg — (63.58к)


P2460534.jpg — (58k)

Bomka, thank you, I'll adopt a cool method. How does match alignment work? And what kind of plastic is the gun rod made of? They are different. In my case, the truth is somewhat complicated by the fact that the threads are not on the rings, but on the lenses. And if one can still be disassembled and the threaded ring temporarily removed, then the second one can't. So you will have to protect the rear lens with something from glue, and this is a bit dumb, because it is not at all I-96U-1, which is full of everywhere (although Pan Stepova managed not to meet to this day). I took my own for 50 rubles. in a new state. He, however, has a small factory defect - a small drop of enamel got on the front lens. But this does not affect anything, except that it can get out in the glare from the back light. However, in my case, this I-96U-1, as opposed to the panov one, turned out to be worse than the scratched I-96U, so in Soviet lenses everything is still solved, But the I-50U is much worse, they have a resolution twice as low on the passport. But the I-50U-1 is declared almost the same as the I-96U, but the 96th is much more common.

Panov photographic I-50 is quite creepy, mine is sharp in the center with an open one, despite the fact that it has been sorted out a hundred times before and there is literally not a single scratched surface left in it. That's why there is no contrast, alas.



I wonder if the lenses from the 96th will fit it?

I look at my above photo of a fly with an I-50-2 and a full set of rings and think: fuck it with contrast, but the sharpness is too good to be true for a 3.5 hole. Knowing how easily that hole gets lost in this lens, I decided to double-check. And a miracle happened with a minus sign: there is no sharpness at 3.5! Although she was without rings, I remember exactly. I went through other apertures, the sharpness is most similar to 5,6 - 8, but the GRIP and illumination are still 3,5. Mystique...

Here is toto same, and then I think that for And50 that on 3.5 gives such sharpness
In fact, the lack of contrast is a feature of all I50 with and without 2, so no scratches have anything to do with it, the lenses on the I50 are completely different, they won't fit from the I96, and besides that, the inter-lens gaps are probably not the same.
And by the way, I50 I have exactly I50, without nikai 2, a rarity, without the letter P, such as here
http://radojuva.com/2013/04/obzor-industar-50-3-5-50/
And instead of the adapter, a thread is screwed from the Zenith to the native mount, which makes it possible to photograph at infinity from almost any objective With a purchased adapter, it would be impossible to use the Mir11M.

Bomka is back with you, which means that now you will see
new tests of lenses for macro photography!
---
A gorgeous photo of a bumblebee's eye from a brilliant macrophotographer
from the heroic city of Donetsk slightly changed my plans.
Today we will look at a comparison of three other lenses,
namely:
Canon MP-E, Industriar-69 and Industriar from the KGB.
The following additional equipment is used:
1. Tripod "Giottos MTL 9361B" with head "MH 7001".
2. A Sony NEX-C3 carcass with a 16 Mpx matrix.
3. Two table lamps for illumination - "JazzWay PTL-1215c", 4 w, 250 Lm, 3000 k.
4. The subject of the survey is the head of a female bumblebee from Siberia (Irkutsk region, Lake Baikal, Cape Ryty).
The total length of the bumblebee is ~21 mm, the head length is ~6.9 mm (from the back of the head to the top of the upper lip).
5.Electronic/autofocus adapter "Fotga" EF-NEX.
6. A set of metal macro rings M39 (2 narrow, 2 medium, 1 wide) and an adapter L39-NEX.
- - -
Sit back and enjoy!
Let's go!
- - -
1. Canon MP-E 65mm, magnification 1x, distance to bumblebee ~ 10cm.
Shooting mode "P", ISO 800, F: 10-did not follow..., 1 / 640s.




Results:
The entire frame, reduced.

Crop without reduction.

2. Canon MP-E, 2x magnification, bumblebee distance ~ 7cm.
Shooting mode "P", ISO 200, F:-- not recorded, 1 / 160s...


The entire frame, reduced.

Crop without reduction.

3. Canon MP-E, 3x magnification, bumblebee distance ~ 5.8 cm.
Shooting mode "P", ISO 200, F: 11, 1 / 80s.


The entire frame, reduced.

Crop without reduction.
"Blah, I got the sharpness wrong

4. Canon MP-E, 4x magnification, bumblebee distance ~ 5.2 cm.
Shooting mode "P", ISO 200, F:-- not recorded, 1 / 40s...


The entire frame, reduced.

Crop without reduction.
"Hello," I said... where is the sharpness?

Here, I didn't check it right away... and the sharpness is gone.
Well, it doesn't matter, next weekend I'll retake it when I test the lenses from the microscope.
You just need to put an adapter without electronics,
then all the pictures will definitely have an open aperture of 2.8.
And is there really a 4x magnification here?
I check the zoom level on my last year's tablet.

Everything is fine - there is a 4x magnification.

---
5. Now let's see what Industriar-69 can do.
We will wind the lens on two m39 rings (wide and medium).
In this case, we get a survey scale of ~ 1.5: 1. The distance to the bumblebee is ~ 3.8 cm.
Shooting mode "P", ISO 200, F:5,6, 1 / 100s...



The entire frame, reduced.

Crop without reduction.

6. Add a narrow ring m39.
Shooting scale ~ 1.8:1. Distance to bumblebee ~ 3.2 cm.
Shooting mode "P", ISO 200, F:5.6, 1 / 80s...


The entire frame, reduced.

Crop without reduction.

That's how it is... "simple Soviet" Industriar-69.
Almost complete absence of chromaticism and
blurring/halos from overexposed parts...
IMHO, very good lens.
- - -
7. How will Industriar respond to him from the KGB?
Here he is, a silver handsome man, with a taped shank on the m39 thread
(from an old ebony macro ring), next to the Industriar-69:

So, let's wind up one wide macro ring m39.
The shooting scale is ~ 1.4:1. The distance to the bumblebee is ~ 4 cm.
Shooting mode "P", ISO 200, F:5,6, 1 / 80s...

The entire frame, reduced.

Crop without reduction.

+
Check for blurring (with on-camera flash illumination):
The entire frame, reduced.

Crop without reduction.
- everything is quite decent.

8. Wind up two macro rings - one medium and one wide.
The distance to the bumblebee is ~ 3.7 cm. Shooting scale ~ 1.9:1.
Shooting mode "P", ISO 200, F:5.6, 1 / 80s...

The entire frame, reduced.

Crop without reduction.

9. We take three macro rings - narrow, medium and wide.
The distance to the bumblebee is ~ 3.5 cm. Shooting scale ~ 2.2:1.
Shooting mode "P", ISO 200, F:5.6, 1 / 80s...

The entire frame, reduced.

Crop without reduction.

10. Four macro rings - narrow, two medium and wide.
Shooting scale ~ 2.7:1.
Shooting mode "P", ISO 200, F:5.6, 1/80s...

The entire frame, reduced.

Crop without reduction.
- either missed the sharpness or a wiggle...

11. Wind up five macro rings m39 - two medium, two narrow and one wide.
The distance to the bumblebee is ~ 3 cm. Shooting scale is ~ 3: 1.
Shooting mode is "P", ISO 200, F:5,6, 1 / 50s...

The entire frame, reduced.

Crop without reduction.
- Oh, the sharpness again went by, and so close was the result
obtained on a dual lens ENO...

--"
That's all.
Write comments.

Something MPE somehow clearly not so hot, and also such aggressive diaphragms, maybe it does not work well on them and it should not close more than 8

As for the "melkoskopov", here, please, homemade object + Vega7-1 In general, it's time to call this object something, given its secrecy, the belonging of some parts to certain brands, as well as a decent number of cryptoheiluses and takhins photographed on it, will it be called Crypto-Takhinar, or just takhinar

Pictures:

P2470053.jpg — (95.28к)


2P2470053.jpg — (266.21к)


P2300465.jpg — (96.18к)


52P2190784.jpg — (124.76к)

Well, that he is crypto, everyone has already understood this for a long time. And Vega that at least as a nozzle went well. Of course, you can't compare it with my melkoscopes in detail, but without a vignette. But the stars of David instead of facets are still a little annoying. In general, fly eyes are too easy a target, the eyes of obstacles for checking the quality of lenses are much more informative.

Judging by this one the MPE test is not only 8 but also in general the aperture

This post was edited INO-10.11.2019 14: 25

IMHO, problems with sharpness in the MP-E due to a very thin grip.
With my bad eyesight, even focus peeking doesn't help.
The same lens is designed for stacking shooting on car rails, and not for "one frame".
And yet, perhaps, on the native carcass of Canon, the result will be better.
---
ENO, the link for "this test about MPE" doesn't open.
The composition of the rods for the glue gun-xs, you need to look in Yandex.
I have a gun for rods with a diameter of 11 mm.
Two rods were included, but I already spent them, I won't take a picture.
You need to buy new ones.
--"
We'll try out LOMO next time.
Nikon-1 J1 I sold and bought 1 V1 (with a viewfinder) - I can shoot
on LOMO + "small-matrix photo with a high pixel density"...
---
Roman, and take a picture of "Takhinarom" in my style-
full frame and next to 100% crop, at different magnifications.
Well, it is advisable to put the captions separately for each scale, otherwise it is difficult to compare.

And how did this Nikon show itself? I remember the last time it was very shitty, but now, having had the experience of communicating with Nex, I strongly suspect that in that test there was a hard underexposure that fotik tried to pull out, so it doesn't count.

Today, in my dream, I finally figured out what kind of thing I should have built into the "melkosokop" in order to lose the effect of the view from the anus, and at the same time not spoil the image too much-Kenan's TV show on powershot. And even last year I wanted to buy it for other purposes, but I changed my mind. As an alternative option, it would be possible to insert a K-1 tele-convertor with a small telescope and a camera, but I also squeezed the money to buy it, because it is not very useful in the application to regular television shooting. Now we will have to solve this issue in a different way.

I corrected the link. Last time I forgot to insert the url at all
In general, the MP-E is a terrible lens due to the fact that it does not have a focus ring (all my homemade maropribluds have, and this does not bother them at all) - in the course, the manufacturer also breeds the consumer to buy macro rails.

In pistols, the rods are different regardless of the diameter, made of completely different plastics for gluing different materials.

This post was edited INO-10.11.2019 14: 30

I don't really understand these jokes with the designation of magnification in relation to a 36mm frame of the type 1:1 2: 1 and so on, I don't have such a frame, and I don't see the need to delve into it, the main thing for me is that everything in nature is well photographed ) You can take a picture with different sets of macro rings By
the way, about mosquitoes, and not only, the hybrid of Takhinara and Vega 7-1 perfectly steers when shooting well, sooo small animals 45 million years ago

Pictures:

P2470104.jpg — (164.67 k)


P2470076.jpg — (196.99к)


P2470070.jpg — (181.81к)


P2470106.jpg — (210.46к)

This is terrible: there is no sharpness, full of chevilenki. At least my grandfather's obetiva had the FLU. And here tolkyo stacking can improve things, although what is stacking with such noise? But where did Pan get so much amber?