Photocameras

Canon 650D, up to bumblebee ~2 m
. - - -
Tair-3S 300mm f / 4.5 + medium macro ring + m42-EOS
(without the macro ring, there was not enough MDF).
ISO 200, f/8, 1/125s.
Whole frame, reduced:

Crop 100%:

---

Canon EF 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM
ISO 200, f/8, 1/160s.
Whole frame, reduced:

Crop 100%:

---

We are waiting for MTO-1000, but seriously, it makes no sense to shoot macro shots on such focal points and with such holes: in nature, with a live insect, there will be such a wild wiggle that alles kaput. And corpses are allowed much closer

IMHO, Tair abruptly old Canon. :-)

Such a fool is already not quite a macro. This is already closer to poultry farming, and there Tair-3 is still cool.

I did it - I overcame the vignette with microscopic objects. The secret lens with mushrooms was replaced by a completely different secret lens without mushrooms and an aperture. Here it is combined with LOMO 3.7 X

Full frames:





100% crop protection:




The working distance has increased from 11 to 34 mm! The GRIP also seems to have grown, although without the diafrgama

And here - with LOMO 8X (one of the most common lenses for Soviet biological microscopes):

Full frames:





100% crop protection:






Surprisingly, the working distance here has not changed and remains about 6 mm, which puts a bold cross on field use.

And now... drum roll... Zeiss

Again full frames:




And one crop:



And replacing the microscopic lens with an inverted I-96-Y, we get a moderate macro, not very sharp, but with a decent focusing distance (7.5 cm) and a GRIP (the nozzle aperture works as expected at all values, the vignette does not give):





This post was edited INO-28.11.2019 23: 36

IMHO, Tair is cooler than the old Canon.: -)

Should that be surprising?
Fix for a normal Tier and zoom for a budget Canon are two big differences. Especially if you do not forget that zooms give the best picture only near the middle of their range, and at the ends they will be a priori worse than a similar fix.

Not any of them. Capitalists managed to make fixes worse than zooms, Pan Hierophis knows firsthand.

Today I came across a seller who sold lenses on the principle: small-50 rubles., large-100 rubles., very large-200 rubles, indiscriminately by model, and completely regardless of their current and then values. As a result, I bought for 50 rubles.N-2 (I will try instead of microscopic), and for 100 rubles. I-105U (in my native case with a carbolite ring M-39) and 35KP 1,8/70. I already have the last one in the amount of one piece, but at this price it was a sin not to take one. In general, this is a great lens for portraits and all sorts of still lifes, but it's painfully thick and heavy, I still haven't come up with a conjurer for it. In all lenses, not a single scratched lens, the illumination is not peeling, BUT! What you need to keep in mind to lay out lenses right in the pouring rain. Naturally, there is enough rust and fungi there, so everything needs to be sorted out and cleaned, and the Industry also needs to lubricate the diaphragm drive. But first to dry, well at least, this time before my arrival it managed to get wet only from the outside.

And what does Pan khvotograkhv say about the level of GMO content of Jupiter-21M? I asked the main objective grandfather of Telear-net, suggests this Jupiter.

This post was edited INO-29.11.2019 16: 50

Should that be surprising?

Yes, Alexander, the Tair-3S is an amazing lens!
With two sets of M42 macro rings on the Nikon 1 V1 carcass, it magically
transforms from 300mm to 810mm.
And if you also attach the K-1 MS 2x teleconverter to the macro rings...
That will be as much as 1620mm!
This is no longer a "photo-gun", but a "photo-RPG"

---

And this is for Ilya aka INO -
The result of Tair macro photography at 810mm:
ISO 100, F/8, 1 / 80s


Tair macro result at 1620mm
ISO 1600, F / 8, 1 / 250s


And the survey was conducted like this (up to the bumblebee ~ 1 meter):

---

PS
Jupiter-21M 200mm I have, I can test.

Come on! But it's better not on bumblebees, but on birds.

In fact, Y21 everywhere write that this is the best Savetsky object 200mm, only here in sharpness the best Y21A, and Y21M "draws more gently", but the weight of the Y21M will be more, 950 against 700
Y36V is better than Telear in sharpness and HA on 3.5 was, however, it is a 6X6 object and weighs 1500

Teleconverter this K1 MS 2 is a complete GMO, I regret that I bought it, I bought it on OLX and this already says that it is not for $ 2, but in fact it spoils the image so it is better to have less yes it is better

I have long been aware that the U-21A is a super - duper wunderwafl, but there are no such animals in our area. There aren't even any tele-fires. So the Yu-21M is the only option, except for the Taira-3. But Tair on Nex is something from the field of perverted pornography (I don't say anything about Youth at all). Although I suspect that with the U-21M it will not be much better. In general, it is necessary to fasten and watch. They write in places that this is not always possible: some of them rest on the shelf for the jump lever on the adapter and do not twist indefinitely. I thought Pan still tried it among the hundredweight of other lenses and got an authoritative opinion, but no... And I also read all sorts of sites.

And I would need a converter like this. But not to spoil the birds, but to stretch the circle of the melkoscope on the matrix. Although I have already coped with this task without it.

I tested H-2 as a macro nozzle. With that lens, the pictures taken by which I posted yesterday, it did not go - you can see that the aperture wants, but it is not there. So I went back to I-50-2 with its creepy vignette. On the open side, it turned out to be bullshit, but with the closure, the image quality increased significantly and approached that obtained from the microscopic 8X. But it still didn't catch up.




100% crop protection:



And, given that the latter also works on an open hole, and the focusing distance with it will even be slightly longer, the conclusion is not comforting for the N-2. Just as in the case of the PF-6A, the heavy multi-lens lens, enlightened to the very point of don't mess around, could not compete with the unenlightened hollow pimpochka. Although, it would seem that lenses from 8 mm film projectors should be cooler as "infinite" microscopic ones than those designed for a 160 mm tube.



In this diagram, the 8X lens is marked with the number 6. Under the number 7 - 20X, but this one works only with cover glasses, and is not suitable for micromacro, I checked. The scheme of the coolest of this fraternity-3,7 X, I did not find. But the 9X Plan was unexpectedly a complete disappointment. I didn't really like him in the microscope, but it's really creepy. Sure. better than H-2, but only a little bit. The same fog on open diaphragms. There will be no photos.

This post was edited INO-29.11.2019 22: 50

Well, the growth in terms of mastering various objects at megafotoexpert is serious, however, IMHO the most successful of its current acquisitions is 35KP 1,8 / 70 (already available as it turned out - capitalist accumulation )
By the way, the very acquisition of a bunch of objects is the accumulation of capital, without which you will create little, so capitalism rules
In general, judging by the pictures in the Internet, this object is cool and with a diffragm generally cool.

And sovetsky plan 3.5 X is also GMO complete, I bought this, although it is not clear whose production, but the image is muddy and most importantly-it twists around the edges just like the usual Lomo 3.7, which is surprising, this is the "plan"
But Zeiss is probably an expert at work "borrowed", and although it is clearly better than Lomo 3.7 works, but in sight I had to take it back )))

Where I work, this has never happened before. There are only broken thermometers, chemical formula and a bunch of cans with heavy metal salts. Well, a couple of school microscopes. The rest is obviously stolen before us. I honestly bought Zeiss together with a home microscope for my hard-earned money. It will certainly be better than the LOMO 8X, but worse than the 3.7 X. And just the increase in it is average between them-6 with something, too lazy to look now. It's also semiplan, which my brain refuses to understand. In fact, the curvature of the field at 3.7 X, 8X, and this Zeiss is about the same, not very large, only the very edge falls out of sharpness. There is a difference in XA (the largest in 8X, the smallest in 3.7 X), but the main difference is in the working distance, which is also, translating from microscopic to photographic, the focusing distance. At 3.7 X, it is twice as large as the rest will be, and with the new main lens, it has generally grown to 3.5 cm! And the rest did not grow - miracles

Come on! But it's better not on bumblebees, but on birds.

You can also ride birds...
I walked to the store.
Jupiter's 200 mm is not enough for bluebirds/waxwings, and they didn't let them get close.
Only pigeon meat photographed-
ISO 1600, 1/400, f / 4


And almost point-blank, ~2 м.ІЅО
3200, 1/400, f / 4


In the shop Santa Claus and a random passerby-
ISO 2000, 1/400, f / 4


ISO 3200, 1/400, f/4

---

And three more photos of "blurring bokeh circles".
ISO 3200, 1/400, f/4:


ISO 3200, 1/400, f/5.6:


ISO 3200, 1/400, f/8:

Crop from a frame with a pigeon from 2 meters:

Crop from a shot with a passerby. Removed from the belly.
A6000 + Jupiter 21M, ISO 3200, 1 / 400s, f/4.

Such an ISO is cruel even for the latest generation of Sonev matrices. It is impossible to understand the quality of the lens. But if I had to put them on, it means that it is also dark to the point of horror. The hole may be 4, but the light transmission, you see, the cat did not cry. Or was it all at dusk?

I'm embarrassed. 35KP 1,8 / 70 does not show, or rather, it shows, but some kind of crap. Despite the fact that the inspection from the outside and looking inside from the back and front did not show any differences from the one purchased last year for 400 rubles., which takes pictures well. Both twists are fixed with glue, just like the previous copy. That is, apparently, no one took it apart after leaving the factory. Nothing rattles inside, as it would if the spacer between the lenses was forgotten to put. The only difference detected is: the focal length is 5 millimeters larger. Mysticism. After all, Pan Stepovoi must have brought his envy to ruin. And with the industriar 105U, too, trouble. I already wrote about the stuck diaphragm. Naively believed that there is just rust and gasoline will fix everything. But when I disassembled the lens, I found that its mechanism was created by a perverse sadistic mind: the ring with guide grooves is made of thin, hard transparent plastic, like polystyrene. At the same time, the petals and pins, as expected, are made of steel. In addition, the slots run at an acute angle and are open at the inner end, and when closed, the pins are fully released from the slots! But apparently, they forgot to think about returning them back. So it closes, but doesn't open. To top it off, the ring itself plays with terrible force, so that it does not close every time, and only with the crunch of cracking polystyrene, It's amazing how this horror could ever work properly? Or maybe it never worked?

And optically it is very good, better than the I-95U, not to mention the I-50. A little stronger chromatite, but practically no softit. At 5,6 with one set of rings, you get a very good scale and a GRIP that accommodates most of the sheet. And there is a hole 2,8, despite the full name "Industriar 105U 50/4" And there are also holes covered with transparent plastic inside and a mirror for highlighting the scale of this-the most stupid diaphragm, through which sometimes light manages to get into the optical system. Here-such a wonderful lens was created in Feodosia in honor of the collapse of the USSR. No wonder it's so rare to see it at flea markets. I suspect that most of them were smashed against the walls

This post was edited INO-30.11.2019 17: 37

Yes, it was overcast today.
And I shot at 1 / 400s...
IMHO, on a mirrorless U-21M is not very convenient, especially in the cold.
It also has a very large focusing ring stroke, although this may be a plus for someone.

It's overcast, but it's still suspiciously dark. In the cold, my hand freezes quickly from any metal lens, it is probably necessary to attach some rubber pads to them. Here is Pan Stepanov, navevrnoe, all the same, he does not take pictures in the cold.

I fought for an hour with an I-105U diaphragm, completely disassembled and assembled several times. but he never won it. After assembly, it closes normally once, then opens with difficulty until 5,6 and does not close again. Applying physical effort to the installation ring only causes the petals to bend. In general, a completely idiotic design. So while I took it out at all to see how it takes pictures on the hole even a little more than 2,8. It takes pictures better than I expected, surprisingly there is no HA at all (although I saw them on 5, 6, but maybe it seemed), the center is sharp, the edges are not very good. but not as nasty smeared as the I-50-2. At macro stations without an aperture, it shoots much better than the I-50-2 at 3.5, but does not reach the I-96U (without an index) at 3.5. But already at a distance of 2 m, all sharpness disappears somewhere and the pictures turn out worse than with the I-50-2. But the I-105 has a big problem with contrast. It is not for nothing that the 2.8 hole was recommended to be opened only for focusing, and for printing to close up to 4 or more.

For one thing, I tested the I-96U on bogomolikha - it turned out well. The contrast is better than that of the 104, you can make mistakes starting with the open one.

I-105U for 5,6 + 3 macro rings:



The same thing, but only the lens is inverted:




I-96U on 5,6 + 2 macro rings:



I-105U without diaphragm +1 macro ring:






I-105U without diaphragm +3 macro rings:




I-96U on 3,5 without rings:



I-96U for 11 without rings:



Secret fifty kopecks with mushrooms for 2.8, without rings:



All the lenses were mounted on the Nex-M42 adapter, including those. which have a M39 landing thread. In the latter case, I simply pressed the lens firmly with my hand. Yes, I don't have the ring M42-M39 yet - the toad is choking me to give 100 rubles for such a fintiflyushku., as we have at flea markets lomyat.

This post was edited INO-09.12.2019 23: 38

I tested a new melkoscope in combat conditions. In the bright sun, you can take pictures quite well, although it is inconvenient, it is difficult to catch the object in the frame. Oddly enough, the version with a focus distance of 1 cm was easier to control with this one. 3-centimeter. Here-this elephant would definitely not run away, even if I brought a 1 mm lens to it. But for more fearful insects, in theory, the new version should show advantages.

Full frame:



100% crop:



But the flash messed up: the synchronization shutter speed of 60 seconds gives a guaranteed result when shooting during the day with your hands. So the flash is only for deep twilight. But in an intermediate situation, for example, on a cloudy day, sadness is trouble.

I tested a new melkoscope in combat conditions. In the bright sun, you can take pictures quite well

Blurring...

And in Russian?

Ilya, well... not as a high-quality image-blur, color noise.

Color noise? Not see. Iridescent colors are not noise, they are chromaticity, and it is not clear what is more important - from the lens (still not APO it), or from the beetle itself. And the blur is weird, yes. But at this scale, I haven't seen the best bokeh on my equipment yet, only worse and much worse. After all, this weevil probably does not reach up to 2 mm. And there is also a microshevelenochka. Still, it's very inconvenient to put this thing against the wall. But in general, IMHO is quite suitable, if you do not review 100% of the crop. The sharpness is there. the contrast is there, at least some aperture and GRIP are available, the focusing distance is decent. The previous version was slightly better in contrast, sharpness and aperture, but worse in GRIP, three times worse in distance, and what annoyed me most was the "view from the anus".

Ilya, I found an article by I. S. Mityai (from the Melitopol Pedagogical Institute)
about the" Extremely Secret Macro Lens " for 1989...
It seems that the Japanese still skomunizdili idea of their "MP-E 65 1x-5x" from Mitya, 10 years after publication.



 ISM.pdf

size: 1.31 mb
number of downloads: 174








This post was edited by Bomka - 09.12.2019 12: 53

Thank you, very interesting article. But I personally couldn't master the description and diagram . Unless only that with MP-E there is little in common. Moreover, this magic pipe Mitya somehow miraculously takes pictures (biotopes) and" wide-film " format can cover

In general, I understood, it seems - the Kepler tube is coming out there (but with an additional, as I understood it, movable internal block of two lenses). Long-range, but dark and with an inverted image (in the case of a nozzle prism, it is just as good). And, most likely, the aberrations there are the most terrible, just from that sorted black-and-white photo of the murmurer printed in the printing house, you can't understand this. In any case, MP-E has nothing to do with it.

This post was edited INO-09.12.2019 14: 32

The internal "two-lens block" is rigidly attached to the I-69 reverse lens block in one tube.
And all this tube moves relative to the I-50-2 lens block (in the article it is called I-52)
back and forth to focus. IMHO, this is very similar to the MP-E device.
I-50-2 is also moved away from the film/matrix by 74 mm.
It is difficult to say about aberrations, you need to do and try.
---
What is the function of those "two lenses" between the lenses is interesting...

It looks like neither. If it had a direct scheme, like MP-E (you can't turn the image upside down there, right?), then there would be no question of "shooting biotopes" or even chicks in the nest, there would be a focusing distance of a fraction of mm, or even inside the lens at all. Here is a diagram with a flip (for that there is so much emptiness between I-52 and the rest of the lenses), a distant relative this.

I-52 there there, judging by the small braid of the front edge of the frame, without an index, on M-39.

And the Zenith of this thread is M42...

Ring M39-M42 has not been canceled yet

Although I looked at the photo a little more carefully: it looks like there is really 52-2, only zatyuningovanny beyond recognition. So you're probably right. But this is unprincipled.

In photoexperts harness, any photo lens gives an inverted image, and acc. the camera automatically rotates it, and the Galileo Tube provides a direct image.
The scheme there is basically the usual "dual objective", just the designers decided by selection that with the added two lenses it would be better, and although at that time it was difficult to quickly investigate the results, but perhaps there was a special one for this. frosted glass that was superimposed on the window of the film holder and the image was evaluated on a straight line without the influence of mirrors and prisms, and was also considered under a magnifying glass, so most likely it is and this scheme works, although it has something to do with the LENS like glasses on the nose - there are also lenses

And here - twice inverted. If it was a "normal dual lens", then it would focus millimeters from the front lens, if not inside. And there, if you believe the authors, you can even take photos of biotopes without disassembling the pipes. Note that I-52 is already stuck out in front, and there are still positive elements in front of it. Question: how can you take photos of biofuels with such a system? Answer: about the same as in my link about the Kepler Tube. Either that, or the authors of the article are terribly lying, the third is not given

I collected a likeness of this pribluda in "mounted", based on I96 And69 and a pair of positive front lenses from I23U and everything works fine! This is still not at all the same as a dual object, and it's not close to it, everything that the editors write is true, and I was surprised that with both fully open diffrags, the image looks very clear, very contrasting and even. However, this is not very suitable for macro, the scale there is a maximum of 1/2 and the MDF is back-to-back at the same time. The main advantage of this design is a wide angle with a very long and thin trunk, which can be shoved into the same hollow without any problems.

And the image there is still straight, so the output is still upside down.

Direct to what? On the matrix the top of the object is on top and the bottom is on the bottom? Can I give you an example of clarity in the studio?