JohnK007
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
e6filmuser wrote:
John,
My error. I let myself be distracted from the particular to the general.
I agree with you in this case.
It is said that the MPE is not a zoom, although the definition has varied over the decades.
When zooms first hit the film camera market it was the general wisdom that the shorter the zoom range the better. Anything more than a 3x was not desirable. (Now they have far wider ranges).
The MP-E is absolutely a zoom. It goes from one magnification, to the next, and it does so by extending the front element. That's what zooms do.
It is essentially a ~15mm - 50mm zoom, reversed.
I know this because a 50mm lens, reversed, is ~ 1:1.
A 28mm lens, reversed, is ~2x.
A 20mm reversed, is 3.4x.
There are no 15mms, I am aware of, that reverse ... but my 18mm does just over 4:1.
There are also Nikkor zooms which, when reversed, go between 1x and 3.6x .
With the MP-E, Canon simply took reverse-mounting a zoom to the next level, doctoring the appearance/function of the MPE to be 100% for macro purposes, also adding a tripod ring. Wish Nikon would do the same.
e6filmuser wrote:
When zooms first hit the film camera market it was the general wisdom that the shorter the zoom range the better. Anything more than a 3x was not desirable. (Now they have far wider ranges).
I agree with this. In fact, in testing 5 Nikkor zooms, reversed, the best image quality came from the shortest zooms: the 25-50 AI-S and the 28-50 AI-S. Each reverses to around a 1-3x macro zoom.
e6filmuser wrote:
Where I might have use an MPE-65 I use a Schneider Kreuznach 40mm f2.8 Apo Componon HM enlarging lens (version with variable aperture, f2.8 –f16)., reversed for above 1:1. It is on a long extension (220 mm I think).
From the seller:
"I am extremely experienced with the 65mm MP-E having shot it literally since its release in the 90's. I have probably shot in excess of 500,000 frames, film and digital with the MP-E 65mm. Actually I own 2 copies of the 65mm.... In spite of all that experience I did EXTENSIVE testing with these 2 in addition to several other lenses. I found that in forward mounting position the 40mm is superior from 1:1 to about 1.75:1 at which time reversing the 40mm brings about superior image quality versus the 65mm at the same magnifications. The IQ differences are significant, quite significant, particularly in the corners and particularly in the area of micro contrast. Many don't take contrast issues seriously simply believing it can be taken care of in post processing. True to some degree, but the better IQ you start with, the easier PP is and the less PP is necessary. Most importantly corner image quality with the 40mm AT ALL MAGNIFICATION is superior. It just is. My testing proved that quite conclusively. Furthermore working distance is better because you don't have that big fat obnoxious front of the 65mm to deal with. I can more effectively light my subject with the 40mm. AND if I am shooting natural light it is easier to use reflectors and diffusers with the 40mm. The downside of the 40mm is the fact that on the rare occasion I do handheld in the field macro shooting. The 65mm with its auto aperture is ideal for that and the 40mm is essentially unusable in that genre. Furthermore I know I have good copies of all my lenses. My 2 65mm MP-E lenses were cherry picked from 12 copies. And my 40mm apo-componon was cherry picked from 6 copies in addition to comparisons with various 44mm, 45mm and 50mm apo componon, and rodagons. ONLY the Nikon 105mm printing el-nikkor is superior at 1:1.”
(At 1:1 the Printing-Nikkors would be superior).
Harold...Show more →
Not sure who this person is, but I agree with him in some senses, disagree with him in others. Also don't know his experience with a wide variety of leneses either.
To begin with, the MP-E wasn't even available in the 90"s" ... it came out in exactly 1999.
I do agree with him that micro-contrast is either there, or it isn't. You can't make a silk purse out of a pig's ear, and you can't produce subtle color/contrast nuances that were not captured by superior lenses/sensors in the first place.
For me, however, I place ZERO importance in "corner sharpness" in a macro lens. Unless a person is shooting absolutely flat subjects, and filling the frame with them (coins, for example), corner sharpness doesn't mean a thing in an arthropod portrait (where there is a huge emphasis on bokeh and blurring of background anyway). Landscape photographers are another group to rightfully-worry about "corner sharpness," whereas portrait photographers do not. Same principle. Indeed, as mentioned, a gradual softening as the image extends out to the corners can actually enhance bokeh in a portrait image.
I absolutely agree with him (in general) that a 40mm lens (or 50/28/20mm, as I use) allows more light to come in. I personally used the MP-E 65mm, for over 6 years, and I can attest to the dismal light allowance of the front element compared to using a reversed wide-angle lens.
I totally disagree that a person can't use reversed lenses in the field. Maybe that was true with his Schneider, but it is absolute nonsense with respect to AI-S lenses, reversed. If anything, small primes like this are far lighter, less cumbersome, and are more user-friendly (for multiple applications) as opposed the 'macro-only', 3x-heavier, won't-fit-in-a-side-pouch behemoth MPE. This eBay seller must have been speaking from a 'Canon' perspective, or talking about a 40mm lens that did not have manual aperture control. I agree that, without aperture control, a 40mm lens is useless reversed, but Nikkor AI-Ses have full aperture control, so auto aperture control is not needed.
Can't comment about his opinion as to the rest. It sounds like most of his comments are about studio stacks.
In the field, with 1:1 being a limiter, I can say (having shot both), that the the MP-E at 1:1 is not anywhere near the level of the Voigtländer SL 125mm f/2.5 Apo-Lanthar in the 1:1 department. I have not shot the Schneider 40mm f2.8 Apo, but it seems to be more of a stacking lens than a nature lens. This guy's comments confirm. As a fixed optic, requiring extremely-close proximity, it would not be a very handy thing to have on a hike, except for very limited purposes, providing it has aperture control. As an enlarger lens, its very design demands a studio, and for this I would imagine it to be a great choice. However, if the Nikon version comes with an aperture ring, like Zeiss iterations do, then I could see it making a great reverse lens also.
By contrast, the Voigtländer is a true nature photographer's lens. It can capture *anything* from infinity to 1:1, it has a good working distance, an exceptional 9-bladed bokeh (rivaled by few lenses on the planet), very subtle contrast/color transfer, and it has 630° of focus throw, allowing for more absolutely precise focusing than any other macro lens I have ever heard of, save the Leica 100mm f/2.8 Apo Macro Elmarit.
There are but a few macro lenses that can touch the Voigtländer 125 Apo as a macro lens ... its degree of focus precision and its rendering. Those few that can, invariably can only do so only in very limited applications, and pale in comparison as an overall field companion. That is not just "my opinion," or the opinion of a nameless eBayer, but of a whole host of other well-experienced lensmen. Within the limitations of 1:1 macro lenses, and speaking of a field lens, especially under the conditions of natural light, I can't think of a single macro lens that is more universally-revered.
For other purposes, however (high-mag macro, diffused flash, etc.), there better choices.
|
I'll start it off with my crude rig (without tubes), nothing fancy...
