Which system should I pursue?

IntusCaliga · Post by **IntusCaliga** » Mon Jul 23, 2018 1:36 pm

Hey everyone!

I run a marketing firm and I wanted to get into the world of 1x+ macro shots for that every once in a while product photo that would benefit from it. I have tried a lens reversal method in the past that worked, but was a difficult combination to try to use that got me about an 8x image (Canon 24mm TSE MKII reversed onto a Canon 70-200mm IS MK II @200mm). It was difficult because the lenses were too heavy and the only safe way to use it was to lay it directly on a table so the lens filter rings didn't get damaged or warped. I'm going for a high quality photo without much distortion or limited CA I can fix in post. I don't really care about vignetting because I can always crop that out.

I have a brother in law that works at a hospital as a technician, and he runs across stuff all the time that has been marked for disposal that is actually still good. I asked him for any microscopes or objectives if he happened to find some for free and he did, but now I'm at a bit of a crossroads...

Option 1 is fixed objective microscope lens setup, Option 2 is a full on microscope an adapter, or option 3 would be to go online and purchase an infinity objective mounted to a prime lens. I was doing research and according to this post http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... hp?t=22688 that last option looks like the best one for the highest quality. Can I get good quality photos from the other options? (I've given more details below for reference! Thanks in advance for any help on this matter!!!)

Option 1: He found me 4 SWIFT microscope objectives: MP4/0.10 @ 160/0.17, MP10/0.25 @ 160/0.17, MP4/0.10 @ 160/0.17, MP40/0.65 @ 160/0.17, and MP100/1.25 @ 160/0.17. I've read that since these are fixed length VS infinity objectives, I'll have to use some bellows and adapters. From my understanding, it would be : DSLR to EOS/FD adapter, to Canon Auto Bellows, to FD to M42 adapter, to M42 to RMS adapter, to microscope objective all held up by Canon Macro Stage. I doubt I'll use the last two as they will be crazy overkill.

Option 2: The other thing he found was a National Model 420 microscope. It is rated as a 1x-4x microscope with 10x eyepieces which raises a few questions for me: does that mean it's 1-4x*10x=10x-40x? Or is it just a 1-4x view? The closest thing I think I've found that would fit this is: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B007L ... V4NHHC5J5C which as I understand it would be: Attach DSLR to T2 adapter, to relay lens, to eyepiece tube, to the photo eyepiece of the microscope

Option 3: Buy an infinity objective and mount to a 100mm macro prime lens?

Thanks again for any help in figuring out this mess! As far as photography goes, this is some of the most technical stuff I've run across yet haha.

ray_parkhurst · Post by **ray_parkhurst** » Mon Jul 23, 2018 3:19 pm

IntusCaliga...welcome to the forum!

It's nice being in a position to get surplus stuff. Much of the experimental equipment I have played with over the years was purchased from surplus. It's amazing what you can get that is no longer considered to be valuable.

I guess a first question for you is: what kind of stuff do you plan to photograph? And a corrollary, what size are these things? That will help figure out the magnification you might need.

Another question...what DSLR will you use? It's not super important, except the sensor size will impact the choice of optics.

Your Canon Macro stage, on Canon Auto Bellows, is a good mechanical solution, but does not lend itself well to stacking. Most product photos will require stacking at the magnifications you're talking about, since they are not generally flat, and depth of field is very thin. An adjustable Z-stage can be added to the macro stand for manual stacking, which might be a good way to go if you're not going to be doing this a whole lot.

For the Canon system, your adapter lineup is correct. Only variable is the type of M42-RMS adapter you might select, flat or cone. Note that most cone types require some flocking inside, but their shape allows better lighting flexibility, though if you're creative you can generally make the flat adapter work as well.

So give us a little more info on what you will be shooting and that will help direct your choice of equipment.

ChrisR · Post by **ChrisR** » Mon Jul 23, 2018 6:15 pm

Expensive: For 1:1 to 5:1, Canon MP-E65
Much cheaper: a reversed standard zoom. You do get some distortion.

You'll need stacking. You can do it "in camera" which may suit you better than having a separate focus rig? But not with the above.

What camera lenses do you have?

rjlittlefield · Post by **rjlittlefield** » Mon Jul 23, 2018 7:11 pm

IntusCaliga wrote:Option 1 is fixed objective microscope lens setup, Option 2 is a full on microscope an adapter, or option 3 would be to go online and purchase an infinity objective mounted to a prime lens. I was doing research and according to this post http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... hp?t=22688 that last option looks like the best one for the highest quality. Can I get good quality photos from the other options?

There's not a huge difference between options 1 and 3. It's true that higher end modern objectives are almost all infinity designs, but there are a lot of good older finite models also. Option 2 is probably not as good for you because A) it adds a lot of constraints on illumination and subject positioning, and B) it's hard to find adapters that will make images as good as options 1 and 2 can give.

The exception is if you have to use objectives that have CA designed into them so that they have to be used with matched "compensating" eyepieces. In that case the best images come from adding yet more optics to do the final image formation, in what's called an "afocal" setup. It's the preferred approach if you have certain kinds of high end microscopes to start with, but for you, I think the best advice is to just avoid that whole area. Restrict yourself to objectives that do not require compensating eyepieces, and then you can use them on empty bellows or with a prime lens, depending on whether the objectives are finite or infinite.

Option 1: He found me 4 SWIFT microscope objectives: MP4/0.10 @ 160/0.17, MP10/0.25 @ 160/0.17, MP4/0.10 @ 160/0.17, MP40/0.65 @ 160/0.17, and MP100/1.25 @ 160/0.17. I've read that since these are fixed length VS infinity objectives, I'll have to use some bellows and adapters.

One quibble about the notation: these are actually finite objective, not infinity. You can tell by the "160", which is the nominal tube length that they're designed for. See the discussion at "FAQ: How can I hook a microscope objective to my camera?".

BTW, I have no idea about the quality of these objectives. At image center they will almost certainly be fine, but some objectives degrade quickly away from center.

Option 2: The other thing he found was a National Model 420 microscope. It is rated as a 1x-4x microscope with 10x eyepieces which raises a few questions for me: does that mean it's 1-4x*10x=10x-40x? Or is it just a 1-4x view?

1X-4X refers to just the bottom part. Then the eyepieces multiply that by 10X, so yes, the whole unit is 10X-40X. Even the bottom part by itself is probably not suitable for photography, but a scope like this can be a godsend for cleaning and preparing subjects of size 1" and smaller.

Another option: as a low budget affair, see also Shooting with a reversed 18-55 mm Canon kit lens.

With all threads here in the forum, be sure to check whether the thread continues beyond one page. Most of the good ones do.

I hope this helps!

--Rik

Lou Jost · Post by **Lou Jost** » Mon Jul 23, 2018 7:15 pm

We still don't know the most important thing, which is what Ray asked you: What is the actual size of your subject? Then we can decide on magnification, sensor size and lens options. If at all possible, I would recommend you try to find a set-up based on focus-stacking rather than stacking by rails. You WILL need to stack, one way or the other. Automated focus stacking is very fast, almost foolproof, and very flexible and portable.

Also, though it is tempting to build your system around the free stuff your brother in law finds, the hospital's goals are not your goals, and you can get steered into a dead-end direction that way. If you have some money you would be better off going in the right direction immediately, buying the appropriate quality stuff, rather than farting around trying to make do with the leftovers of a hospital.

On the other hand, if your finances are tight, or especially if you are unsure about whether you really want to do this, the freebies make sense.

rjlittlefield · Post by **rjlittlefield** » Mon Jul 23, 2018 7:21 pm

Lou Jost wrote:I would recommend you try to find a set-up based on focus-stacking rather than stacking by rails.

Lou, are you talking about stepping focus with the lens motor instead of moving the camera on rails? It's hard to tell because just the words "focus stacking" can mean so many different things.

--Rik

Lou Jost · Post by **Lou Jost** » Mon Jul 23, 2018 7:37 pm

Yes, sorry. I mean automated in-camera focus bracketing, where the lens does all the work by repeatedly changing focus by very small steps.

It is not important (or even useful) for the camera to PROCESS the stack. That is still best done by specialized software with some user input.

Scarodactyl · Post by **Scarodactyl** » Mon Jul 23, 2018 7:57 pm

The national 420 looks to be a stereo microscope. Great for browsing, super comfortable, but not ideal for photography for a few reasons. You might still get adequate results depending on what you need though.
If they can get it for you for free or cheap, though, get it. Stereoscopes are fun and useful and everyone should have one.

IntusCaliga · Post by **IntusCaliga** » Mon Jul 23, 2018 10:32 pm

Thank you all for the inputs! Sounds like the Option 2 stereo microscope is out of the question just based on its inability to stack images well. I've done some stacking before mostly with landscapes and a few with my 100mm macro lens so I know the general idea on how to do it and didn't consider this in the original question.

I'll try to answer everyone's questions:
What do I plan on photographing? - Hard to say until the job comes up and I try to offer something out of the ordinary. I have a 100mm macro lens that with my 65mm extension tubes comes out to somewhere around 2-2.5x on full frame DSLRs I think. So based on that and my experience with razor thin DOFs, probably equal to or less than 10x range. It would be cool to do the eye of a fly or something, but in all reality I probably wont do things like that very often.

What DSLR do I use?
I have a full frame 6D MK II and a crop sensor 7D MK II.

What lenses do I have?
Canon: 100mm 2.8 L macro, 24-70 2.8L MK1, 70-200 2.8 MK II, 2x extender MK III, 17mm 4 TSE, 24mm 3.5 TSE MK II, and a 50 1.8
Sigma: 85mm 1.4

Someone mentioned using a reversed lens setup:
I tried this with a 2x extender+70-200 @200mm with the 24mm TSE reversed on the end giving me a 4x-8x magnification on a full frame DSLR. It worked, but I was very worried having a lens as heavy as that 24mm on the end of the zoom lens that may bend or warp the thread filters due to its weight. I had it laid down directly on a flat service like a table which made it impossible to turn the focus ring with any precision as it was laying on the ring to keep the setup stable. I could probably come up with a way to avoid that issue, but it was also not an automated solution for capturing bracketed photos. Even on the crop sensor 7D it had quite a bit of vignetting, but I considered shifting the back of lens to create 3 focus stack sets and merging them later to get a wider photo (but I never tried it).

Quick question about Focus Stacking:
I know what it is, but I've had limited success with it on a macro scale. I found out Zerene stacker works WAY better than lightroom/photoshop, but my issue was getting a good set of photos to stack with. I've tried using DSLR Controller on an Android tablet and that did a decent job of focusing with the lens via software but wasn't perfect. I know there is a system by Cognisys called Stackshot and I've read a bit on the Cam Ranger, but I haven't purchased anything like that yet. I like the idea of automated focusing with the focus ring/motor VS a macro rail to try to avoid some of the issues that come with that like occlusions, but from what I read some of that my be unavoidable when trying to work in this magnification range (please correct me if I'm wrong). I read in one of the comments that you can have the camera focus stack for you, is that a possibility on either the 6D MK II or the 7D MK II? (I couldn't find it when I looked for it...) Also, what about issues related to focus breathing with the lens?

I'm not opposed to spending money, just trying to buy the correct equipment once instead of buying a bunch of stuff to see what works best and reselling the rest haha. I just googled adjustable z-stage and that looks cool but I'd probably prefer a horizontal stack VS a top down vertical stack. Does anyone know if they make a motor that can spin the focus ring of a manual focus lens like a follow focus system but made for macro?

Sorry for all of the questions and thanks again for your help I really appreciate it!!!

And sorry about the miscommunication when I said fixed instead of finite objective!

ray_parkhurst · Post by **ray_parkhurst** » Tue Jul 24, 2018 5:55 am

IntusCaliga wrote:What do I plan on photographing? - Hard to say until the job comes up and I try to offer something out of the ordinary. I have a 100mm macro lens that with my 65mm extension tubes comes out to somewhere around 2-2.5x on full frame DSLRs I think. So based on that and my experience with razor thin DOFs, probably equal to or less than 10x range. It would be cool to do the eye of a fly or something, but in all reality I probably wont do things like that very often.

2x vs 10x is a very different thing. You can do 2x in a variety of ways, some of which work well, but the most practical way to do 4x and above is with objectives optimized for specific magnifications. If you think you will be doing up to 10x, it's probably best to start there rather than trying to extend a 2x system.

IntusCaliga wrote: What DSLR do I use?
I have a full frame 6D MK II and a crop sensor 7D MK II.

If you take the advice to start with 10x, then the 7D will probably be a better choice due to the limited availability of optics that can cover full frame at higher magnifications.

IntusCaliga wrote: What lenses do I have?
Canon: 100mm 2.8 L macro, 24-70 2.8L MK1, 70-200 2.8 MK II, 2x extender MK III, 17mm 4 TSE, 24mm 3.5 TSE MK II, and a 50 1.8
Sigma: 85mm 1.4

Probably none of these lenses would be useful to you for this purpose, except possibly the 2x teleconverter.

IntusCaliga wrote: Quick question about Focus Stacking:
I know what it is, but I've had limited success with it on a macro scale. I found out Zerene stacker works WAY better than lightroom/photoshop, but my issue was getting a good set of photos to stack with. I've tried using DSLR Controller on an Android tablet and that did a decent job of focusing with the lens via software but wasn't perfect. I know there is a system by Cognisys called Stackshot and I've read a bit on the Cam Ranger, but I haven't purchased anything like that yet. I like the idea of automated focusing with the focus ring/motor VS a macro rail to try to avoid some of the issues that come with that like occlusions, but from what I read some of that my be unavoidable when trying to work in this magnification range (please correct me if I'm wrong). I read in one of the comments that you can have the camera focus stack for you, is that a possibility on either the 6D MK II or the 7D MK II? (I couldn't find it when I looked for it...) Also, what about issues related to focus breathing with the lens?

Again, if you take the advice to start with 10x, then stacking by lens focusing is out. A Stackshot/WeMacro/mjkzz/custom rail is in your future.

IntusCaliga wrote: I'm not opposed to spending money, just trying to buy the correct equipment once instead of buying a bunch of stuff to see what works best and reselling the rest haha. I just googled adjustable z-stage and that looks cool but I'd probably prefer a horizontal stack VS a top down vertical stack. Does anyone know if they make a motor that can spin the focus ring of a manual focus lens like a follow focus system but made for macro?

I had suggested the Z-stage only because you mentioned the Canon bellows and Macro Stage in the OP. It's actually much easier to put together a horizontal stacking setup than vertical, but do consider that with a vertical setup you can just place the item to be photographed on the stage, like with a microscope, where horizontal setups require you to attach the item to a holder of some sort. I am a vertical setup user, but I would bet that the majority of folks here go horizontal, so either way you go there will be folks to help.

Lou Jost · Post by **Lou Jost** » Tue Jul 24, 2018 6:03 am

Yes, you have to choose a target size now before you plan more details.

Focus-bracketing automatically by lens is fast, easy, flexible, portable, and cheap; if you can be satisfied taking pictures of objects 1 cm or larger, that should be your choice.

If you want to work on smaller things, you'll need something else.

Justwalking · Post by **Justwalking** » Tue Jul 24, 2018 1:55 pm

IntusCaliga wrote: I was doing research and according to this post http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... hp?t=22688 that last option looks like the best one for the highest quality. Can I get good quality photos from the other options?

Hi. I leave this link for you to older post here also

http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... php?t=6415

IntusCaliga · Post by **IntusCaliga** » Tue Jul 24, 2018 3:27 pm

Ok. It's a lot of info to process but I think I've come to a few conclusions:
1. For 1-1.65x= Use 6D MK II with 100mm macro lens and 65mm extension tubes and bracketed lens focusing using the focus motor
2. For 1.65-2.5x= Use 7D MK II with 100mm macro lens and 65mm extension tubes and bracketed lens focusing using the focus motor
3A. For 1.6-8x= MPE 65 Lens on 7D MK II with a stackshot for stacking automation which avoids the complications and expense of a moving stage
3B. For 4x+ use an appropriate power microscope objective with a stackshot.

For a microscope objective, I originally stated I have finite objectives and that I was planning on using Canon Auto Bellows; is this a better choice than say something like this product? http://www.mjkzz.com/product-page/varia ... -tube-lens . I may end up purhcasing an infinity objective just to make life easier, just haven't dived into that part of the equation yet!

Thanks again everyone for your help!!!

Justwalking · Post by **Justwalking** » Tue Jul 24, 2018 5:45 pm

IntusCaliga wrote: 3A. For 1.6-8x= MPE 65 Lens on 7D MK II with a stackshot for stacking automation which avoids the complications and expense of a moving stage

Tony, here's another one info for your choice

http://spsphoto.org/blog/the-399-laowa- ... mp-e-65mm/

ray_parkhurst · Post by **ray_parkhurst** » Tue Jul 24, 2018 6:01 pm

IntusCaliga wrote:Ok. It's a lot of info to process but I think I've come to a few conclusions:
1. For 1-1.65x= Use 6D MK II with 100mm macro lens and 65mm extension tubes and bracketed lens focusing using the focus motor
2. For 1.65-2.5x= Use 7D MK II with 100mm macro lens and 65mm extension tubes and bracketed lens focusing using the focus motor
3A. For 1.6-8x= MPE 65 Lens on 7D MK II with a stackshot for stacking automation which avoids the complications and expense of a moving stage
3B. For 4x+ use an appropriate power microscope objective with a stackshot.

For a microscope objective, I originally stated I have finite objectives and that I was planning on using Canon Auto Bellows; is this a better choice than say something like this product? http://www.mjkzz.com/product-page/varia ... -tube-lens . I may end up purhcasing an infinity objective just to make life easier, just haven't dived into that part of the equation yet!

Thanks again everyone for your help!!!

I did not know you had an MPE65. I saw one recommended, but did you buy one? If not, then you may want to reconsider. The MPE65 is indeed a great lens, but it is very expensive, and the image quality at 4x and above can be exceeded by fairly inexpensive objectives (on APS-C).

So I would personally recommend plan 3B, down to 3x.

If most of your work will be at lower magnifications, plan 1 and 2 seem fine, though I don't know why you would break the mag range up as you have, unless you plan to have two setups. Again a personal recommendation is to just do plan 2, and remove some extensions.

Which system should I pursue?

Which system should I pursue?

Re: Which system should I pursue?

Re: Which system should I pursue?