Marumi DHG Macro Supplementary Lenses

[Harold Gough]

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

[Harold Gough]

I think I have caught most of them. I was writing +3 correctly in June last year, for 90mm lenses, and on some occasions since then. Quite some 'senior moment'!

Harold

[Harold Gough]

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

[Harold Gough]

This is how it performed on the 90mm Elmarit:

http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... 341#109341

Harold

[Harold Gough]

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

[Rylee Isitt]

Oh, these are "close-up" lenses? I saw you mention them in another post and had no idea what it meant

[Harold Gough]

Oh, these are "close-up" lenses? I saw you mention them in another post and had no idea what it meant

Yes, but very high quality, not cheap!

Harold

[Rylee Isitt]

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?

[Harold Gough]

Have you generally found that they do not cause much softening of the image beyond what you'd expect from diffraction?

I haven't looked at the pixel scale but I have seen nothing significant.

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!

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.

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?

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.

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

[subhrashis]

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/

[Harold Gough]

This is also a function of the image quality difference of the 70-300 around 70 and 100...

I think I would use a macro prime or a short zoom at 1:1

Harold

[subhrashis]

I think I would use a macro prime or a short zoom at 1:1Harold

I know... this isn't getting much use now that I have the El nikkor 80 5.6 on a helicoid...
But at 70 mm, this is a really sharp option for butterflies, with advantages of a good working distance and auto focus.

[Harold Gough]

with advantages of a good working distance and auto focus.

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.

Harold

[Rylee Isitt]

Hmm, yes, for macro, I haven't ever bothered to use AF. I set the desired magnification and just sort of move the camera, treating the lens as if its fixed focus.

AF works very well for other types of photography I've done, however.

[Harold Gough]

This is how it performed on the 90mm Elmarit:

http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... 341#109341

This is how stacking the Marumis works for quality:

60mm:

http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... ing+marumi

90mm:

http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... hp?t=17784

Harold