Marumi DHG Macro Supplementary Lenses
Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau
-
- Posts: 5786
- Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 2:17 am
- Location: Reading, Berkshire, England
Marumi DHG Macro Supplementary Lenses
The specification which given here:
http://www.fotosense.co.uk/marumi-49mm- ... ade-3.html#
says that the +3 gives a magnification factor '+3'. I have been erroneously typing x3 in my posts about my use of the +3 Apochromat version.
I have just measured the FOV with my Elamarit 60mm macro at full extension (closest focus). To the nearest mm it is 34mm wide without the Marumi and 25mm with it, an additional mangification of about one third.
In most cases it is apparent that this was the case, as here:
http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... 529#106529
and
http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... 350#106350
However, with my Elmarit 90mm (non-macro) at its closest focus the FOV is reduced from 100mm to 40mm, an increase in magnification of x 2.5, close to the x3 I thought I was gaining with my Tamron 90mm and the X-Pan 90mm, such that posts about images shot through those lenses and my (49mm fitting) Marumi Achromat +3 were only slightly misleading.
I am working through my posts, starting with the most recent, correcting this. In the meantime, my apologies if I mislead anyone.
Harold
http://www.fotosense.co.uk/marumi-49mm- ... ade-3.html#
says that the +3 gives a magnification factor '+3'. I have been erroneously typing x3 in my posts about my use of the +3 Apochromat version.
I have just measured the FOV with my Elamarit 60mm macro at full extension (closest focus). To the nearest mm it is 34mm wide without the Marumi and 25mm with it, an additional mangification of about one third.
In most cases it is apparent that this was the case, as here:
http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... 529#106529
and
http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... 350#106350
However, with my Elmarit 90mm (non-macro) at its closest focus the FOV is reduced from 100mm to 40mm, an increase in magnification of x 2.5, close to the x3 I thought I was gaining with my Tamron 90mm and the X-Pan 90mm, such that posts about images shot through those lenses and my (49mm fitting) Marumi Achromat +3 were only slightly misleading.
I am working through my posts, starting with the most recent, correcting this. In the meantime, my apologies if I mislead anyone.
Harold
Last edited by Harold Gough on Wed Apr 18, 2012 3:45 am, edited 2 times in total.
My images are a medium for sharing some of my experiences: they are not me.
-
- Posts: 5786
- Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 2:17 am
- Location: Reading, Berkshire, England
-
- Posts: 5786
- Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 2:17 am
- Location: Reading, Berkshire, England
I now have an adapter ring for my Elmarit 90mm. Without the suipplementary lens the minimu FOV id 100mm wide at the closest working distance of 550mm. So I tried the Marumi +3:
The results are a little surprising. The ring scews (not very securely, some glue possibly needed) into the retractable hood of the lens. The approximate FOV widths and working distances are:
Focused at what would normally be infinity i.e. furthest distance:
Hood retracted: 66mm wide, distance 330mm*
Hood fully extended: 66mm wide, distance 330mm*
Focused at what closest distance:
Hood retracted: 38mm wide, distance 200mm
Hood fully extended: 38mm wide, distance 200mm
Thus, the Marumi gives some useful macro fuction to the non-macro lens.
My Elmart 60mm macro goes down to 35mm FOV at 125mm
*To match the FOV of 66mm it has to be at a working distance of about 225mm, so the the 90mm gives some potentially useful additional working distance.
Harold
The results are a little surprising. The ring scews (not very securely, some glue possibly needed) into the retractable hood of the lens. The approximate FOV widths and working distances are:
Focused at what would normally be infinity i.e. furthest distance:
Hood retracted: 66mm wide, distance 330mm*
Hood fully extended: 66mm wide, distance 330mm*
Focused at what closest distance:
Hood retracted: 38mm wide, distance 200mm
Hood fully extended: 38mm wide, distance 200mm
Thus, the Marumi gives some useful macro fuction to the non-macro lens.
My Elmart 60mm macro goes down to 35mm FOV at 125mm
*To match the FOV of 66mm it has to be at a working distance of about 225mm, so the the 90mm gives some potentially useful additional working distance.
Harold
My images are a medium for sharing some of my experiences: they are not me.
-
- Posts: 5786
- Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 2:17 am
- Location: Reading, Berkshire, England
This is how it performed on the 90mm Elmarit:
http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... 341#109341
Harold
http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... 341#109341
Harold
My images are a medium for sharing some of my experiences: they are not me.
-
- Posts: 5786
- Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 2:17 am
- Location: Reading, Berkshire, England
I have just obtained a +5 Achromat and, at the closest focus of the 90mm Elmarit, it gives a field width of 27mm at a working distance (WD) of 140mm. At the furthest focus the width is 40mm at a working distance of 195mm
With the 60mm Elmarit it gives a field width of 20mm a WD of 75mm. At the furthest focus the width is 56mm at a working distance of 195mm.
These measurements were taken with some care, at f2.8, but should be taken as for guidance only. This is with a crop factor of x2. The field widths would be doubled for full frame.
The Marumi clearly gives considerable versatiltiy to the 90mm.
Harold
With the 60mm Elmarit it gives a field width of 20mm a WD of 75mm. At the furthest focus the width is 56mm at a working distance of 195mm.
These measurements were taken with some care, at f2.8, but should be taken as for guidance only. This is with a crop factor of x2. The field widths would be doubled for full frame.
The Marumi clearly gives considerable versatiltiy to the 90mm.
Harold
My images are a medium for sharing some of my experiences: they are not me.
-
- Posts: 476
- Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2012 3:54 pm
- Location: Canada
- Contact:
-
- Posts: 5786
- Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 2:17 am
- Location: Reading, Berkshire, England
-
- Posts: 476
- Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2012 3:54 pm
- Location: Canada
- Contact:
Have you generally found that they do not cause much softening of the image beyond what you'd expect from diffraction?
Canon makes a close-up lens that one of my favorite camera stores charges $175 for. To be honest, I'm not sure I'd bother with close-up lenses when extension tubes and bellows are available for, in some cases, less than the cost of the lenses!
Those shots you're getting with them are quite nice. Some of those butterfly shots in your first link are great (I like the third one the best).
There's some artifacts, though, in some cases but not others. Almost looks like it's introduced by software. Maybe this is "digital zoom" caused by cropping. This was particularly evident in the cricket shots - I got the sense that the originals were much sharper, but something happened in the post-processing pipeline to introduce artifacts and blur?
Canon makes a close-up lens that one of my favorite camera stores charges $175 for. To be honest, I'm not sure I'd bother with close-up lenses when extension tubes and bellows are available for, in some cases, less than the cost of the lenses!
Those shots you're getting with them are quite nice. Some of those butterfly shots in your first link are great (I like the third one the best).
There's some artifacts, though, in some cases but not others. Almost looks like it's introduced by software. Maybe this is "digital zoom" caused by cropping. This was particularly evident in the cricket shots - I got the sense that the originals were much sharper, but something happened in the post-processing pipeline to introduce artifacts and blur?
-
- Posts: 5786
- Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 2:17 am
- Location: Reading, Berkshire, England
I haven't looked at the pixel scale but I have seen nothing significant.Rylee Isitt wrote:Have you generally found that they do not cause much softening of the image beyond what you'd expect from diffraction?
Supplementary lenses are just one option. There is, however, no risk of dust getting on the sensor, something I have yet to have a problem with. I am not so interested in using them with the 60mm, as the added magnification is minimal, but they bring the 90mm into the macro range and have a similar effect with my Carl Zeiss 35-70mm, not a true macro and mainly used for film.Rylee Isitt wrote:Canon makes a close-up lens that one of my favorite camera stores charges $175 for. To be honest, I'm not sure I'd bother with close-up lenses when extension tubes and bellows are available for, in some cases, less than the cost of the lenses!
If you refer to the pixelation of highlights on the bee-fly hairs, that was present pre-processing, with or without the Marumi, and has happened with other lenses. It is a sensor problem.Rylee Isitt wrote:Those shots you're getting with them are quite nice. Some of those butterfly shots in your first link are great (I like the third one the best).
Thanks
There's some artifacts, though, in some cases but not others. Almost looks like it's introduced by software. Maybe this is "digital zoom" caused by cropping. This was particularly evident in the cricket shots - I got the sense that the originals were much sharper, but something happened in the post-processing pipeline to introduce artifacts and blur?
In general, I find that processing, especially Unsharp Mask, which I now use little or not at all, prefering Topaz Focus, can give unattractive results. The cricket shots needed an unusual amount of processing. Even the reshoot shots of the female were not a sharp as conditions allowed. The face shots were blow-ups of about 2-3% of the image area, giving a 50-fold exaggeration of any defects.
Here is the original. No sharpening was applied in the camera and no other processing has been done. Feel free to play with it and post the results here.
Harold
My images are a medium for sharing some of my experiences: they are not me.
-
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 10:30 pm
- Location: Kolkata, India
- Contact:
I have been using a +3 Marumi achromat for about a year now before moving to an El Nikkor extended... On my 70-300 VR, and stopped down somewhat, I found the results were good enough for me at the lower magnifications. It was difficult to get good quality around 1:1 though. This is also a function of the image quality difference of the 70-300 around 70 and 100...
My results are in this set - http://www.flickr.com/photos/subhrashis ... 933421904/
My results are in this set - http://www.flickr.com/photos/subhrashis ... 933421904/
-
- Posts: 5786
- Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 2:17 am
- Location: Reading, Berkshire, England
-
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 10:30 pm
- Location: Kolkata, India
- Contact:
-
- Posts: 5786
- Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 2:17 am
- Location: Reading, Berkshire, England
I have given up on AF. It is usually far slower than manual focus, on a lens with a proper manual focusing mechanism (the one on my 70-300mm is appallng). My two AF Zuikos are going on Ebay during the next few weeks.subhrashis wrote:with advantages of a good working distance and auto focus.
Harold
My images are a medium for sharing some of my experiences: they are not me.
-
- Posts: 476
- Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2012 3:54 pm
- Location: Canada
- Contact:
-
- Posts: 5786
- Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 2:17 am
- Location: Reading, Berkshire, England
This is how stacking the Marumis works for quality:Harold Gough wrote:This is how it performed on the 90mm Elmarit:
http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... 341#109341
60mm:
http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... ing+marumi
90mm:
http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... hp?t=17784
Harold
My images are a medium for sharing some of my experiences: they are not me.