Pentax 105/2.8 Super Takumar as a tube lens - big surprise!

Have questions about the equipment used for macro- or micro- photography? Post those questions in this forum.

Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau

mjkzz
Posts: 1681
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2015 3:38 pm
Location: California/Shenzhen
Contact:

Post by mjkzz »

rjlittlefield wrote:
mjkzz wrote:because I tried the Canon 100mm f/2.8 macro and I got almost dark vignetting at corners
Exactly which lens was that, and on what sensor size?

I ask because I routinely use Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM as tube lens on APS-C, and that combo works very well.

--Rik
Oh, it is that old Canon EF-100mm f/2.8 macro + generic PLAN infinite objectives I have, not mitties, with my Canon 550D or Canon 600D, I will shoot a stack when I get some batteries.

mjkzz
Posts: 1681
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2015 3:38 pm
Location: California/Shenzhen
Contact:

Post by mjkzz »

per request in private message, here is what I use to adapt the M42 lens to EOS. It is the so called "precision" one, machined out of brass, not sure why they are all chrome instead of black, this type is not good if you use it to mount in front of extension tube

Anyways, with this adapter, you can focus to infinity and it does when I set the lens to infinity mark (it actually is a hard stop)

Adapter itself

Image

focused to infinity (about 2 miles out), taken with Canon 6D, a full frame camera (so it works with full frame, too)
Image
Last edited by mjkzz on Mon Apr 16, 2018 7:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

mjkzz
Posts: 1681
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2015 3:38 pm
Location: California/Shenzhen
Contact:

Post by mjkzz »

rjlittlefield wrote:
mjkzz wrote:because I tried the Canon 100mm f/2.8 macro and I got almost dark vignetting at corners
Exactly which lens was that, and on what sensor size?

I ask because I routinely use Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM as tube lens on APS-C, and that combo works very well.

--Rik
Ok, here we go. In stead of shooting a stack, I think shooting a flat surface should be sufficient, so the subject is a piece of white plastic foam. I think the extra 5mm focal length might be the reason, rather than the lens itself, nonetheless, the Pentax 105mm seems to have less vignetting.

With my generic PLAN 4X objective on 105 SMC vs Canon EF-100

Image

With my generic PLAN 10x objective on 105 SMC vs Canon EF-100

Image

rjlittlefield
Site Admin
Posts: 23561
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
Contact:

Post by rjlittlefield »

mjkzz wrote:Ok, here we go. In stead of shooting a stack, I think shooting a flat surface should be sufficient, so the subject is a piece of white plastic foam. I think the extra 5mm focal length might be the reason, rather than the lens itself, nonetheless, the Pentax 105mm seems to have less vignetting.
Yes, single image is fine.

The most important difference between tube lenses is the location of the entrance pupil. Lenses that play well with objectives have an entrance pupil that is relatively far forward; lenses that don't, have it farther back.

The vignetting with your 4X objective may be due to the objective's limited field of view at its front end. My Nikon CFI BE 4X on EF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM has either significant corner darkening or none at all, depending on whether I remove the hood from the front end. (http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... hp?t=18182)

--Rik

Beatsy
Posts: 2105
Joined: Fri Jul 05, 2013 3:10 am
Location: Malvern, UK

Post by Beatsy »

Thanks for the pics. I think you're right - it is the extra 5mm of focal length that hides the vignetting, but the source of that vignetting is the objective itself. The 600D sensor is 22.3 x 14.9mm while the Sony A7rii crop mode uses a 24mm wide area, so it would probably show even more vignetting with that objective. It shows none with the Mitties on the same FL tube.

While I'm here - I just fiinished a deep test stack of my first critter with a 10x Mitty on the 105mm Takumar (5.25x on crop-mode sensor - covering 4.9mm FoV). Whole frame and a 100% crop below. I did no post processing at all (other than resizing the first and cropping the second for upload). SooC RAWs exported to TIFFs, stacked with PMax and uploaded as-is. No sharpening, levels or adjustments of any kind. No retouching either - so lots of transparent hairs and hazy bits. I even left the "streakies" at the bottom of the full frame (the foreground leg sagged a little during capture of the stack). Next one will be better...

I think you'll agree though, the base image quality is pretty darn good!

Image
Image

mjkzz
Posts: 1681
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2015 3:38 pm
Location: California/Shenzhen
Contact:

Post by mjkzz »

Yes, the objective almost touched the front lens for both SMC-100 and EF-100, I actually was afraid that they scratch those lenses.

OK, let me emphasize the qualifier that I am using MY OBJECTIVES, not mitties :-), so test result are for those objectives and it shows the difference, the extra 5mm COULD be the cause for the difference, nonetheless, it does help.

The reason I gave the SMC away the first place is because I have a 70-300mm zoom and played with it, with that zoom lens, I have to set zoom at 135 to reove vignetting, so I thought that is the limit for tube lens, and as matter of fact, I actually got a Zhongyi 135 as tube lens. But now, I know the lens is a factor, too. So, yeah, lens maters.

Lou Jost
Posts: 5944
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2015 7:03 am
Location: Ecuador
Contact:

Post by Lou Jost »

It is very impressive that you were able to get down to 135mm with your 70-300 zoom without vignetting. The zooms I have tried cannot be pushed down very much without vignetting.

mjkzz
Posts: 1681
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2015 3:38 pm
Location: California/Shenzhen
Contact:

Post by mjkzz »

it is an old Nkikor 70-300, paid 99USD back in 2004

Lou Jost
Posts: 5944
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2015 7:03 am
Location: Ecuador
Contact:

Post by Lou Jost »

May I ask which one? Do you like the results when used with an objective?

mjkzz
Posts: 1681
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2015 3:38 pm
Location: California/Shenzhen
Contact:

Post by mjkzz »

rjlittlefield wrote:
mjkzz wrote:Ok, here we go. In stead of shooting a stack, I think shooting a flat surface should be sufficient, so the subject is a piece of white plastic foam. I think the extra 5mm focal length might be the reason, rather than the lens itself, nonetheless, the Pentax 105mm seems to have less vignetting.
Yes, single image is fine.

The most important difference between tube lenses is the location of the entrance pupil. Lenses that play well with objectives have an entrance pupil that is relatively far forward; lenses that don't, have it farther back.

The vignetting with your 4X objective may be due to the objective's limited field of view at its front end. My Nikon CFI BE 4X on EF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM has either significant corner darkening or none at all, depending on whether I remove the hood from the front end. (http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... hp?t=18182)

--Rik
took out the hood for my 4x, I think it improved slightly, but not as much as to be decisive...but good to know another trick

Image

Image
Last edited by mjkzz on Mon Apr 16, 2018 7:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

mjkzz
Posts: 1681
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2015 3:38 pm
Location: California/Shenzhen
Contact:

Post by mjkzz »

I think you'll agree though, the base image quality is pretty darn good!
darn good? I think they are excellent.

mjkzz
Posts: 1681
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2015 3:38 pm
Location: California/Shenzhen
Contact:

Post by mjkzz »

Just want to show comparison between a Mitty 5X and a Mitty 2.5X QV. Since the QV 2.5X needs 100mm tube lens, so it should not have any vignetting so it is a good reference to compare to. [edit] If you squint, you can see slight vignetting for the Mitty 5x compared to the QV 2.5X[/edit]

Image

JH
Posts: 1307
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2013 9:46 am
Location: Vallentuna, Stockholm, Sweden
Contact:

Post by JH »

My experience is that sometimes a short empty tube between the lens and the camera can reduce vignetting.
Best regards
Jörgen Hellberg
Jörgen Hellberg, my webbsite www.hellberg.photo

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic