Yes, it is just mysterious because the pupil magnification ratio is usually not stated in published lens tests.

Yes it is! I bet this person would be thrilled to know that someone has noticed his handiwork.

Fascinating series. I don't think there can be any expectation of privacy since Perry has deliberately signed his work and offered it to the public.

That's a good suggestion for reducing perspective problems. Their field flatness is surely worse than that of dedicated macro lenses though. So the original poster needs to specify whether the problem is really field flatness or perspective problems. I suspect the latter, and in that case using a ti...

From your description of the shoes, I think what you are calling "curvature of field" may be something different from what I was referring to. Try taking a picture of something perfectly flat, exactly perpendicular to the lens axis. If it is all in focus at the same time, then the field is flat. Eve...

Some lenses do mysteriously do better than others at f/22, but the real problem is physics. Diffraction blurring is more or less proportional to f number. If your results are blurry at f/22, this is almost certainly not due to lack of lens optimization but rather just due to physics. You might as we...

First thing is always to check the inside of the whole system for reflections, using a careful procedure such as shown at https://www.photomacrography.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=35350 . To make the test more sensitive, you can make the "black hole" of the target big enough to cover the entire field ...

Really the forum has tons of material that are relevant to your questions. I just will add my two cents about in-camera focus bracketing in the field. This is no gimmick, it is a transformative advance in field techniques. I'd never even consider a camera without this feature. Stacking the results i...

Yeah but that's the same principle and it does not matter whether it's a modern lens or not. It is NOT the same principal. Re-arranging elements is radically different from just reversing a lens. Zoom lenses change their focal length by re-arranging their elements; no one here would argue that thos...

Yes, we all know that focal length changes when you move the optical components around, as in modern macro lenses with internal focusing. But this is not the case we are talking about here.

Doppler, don't over-think it. You know the distance between image and object, that is the most important thing. Move the lens around until you get the best image, leaving the camera and subject in their correct places. Don't try to calculate anything, these are strange lenses and assumptions underly...

That's right, Doppler. Everything just gets switched around. The lens will work fine. Here is an old thread I made about using a 5x Nikon Engineering photolithography lens in reverse:
http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... =8&t=35669

Yes, I agree there is an important difference. I think part of it is the narrow FOV of the long lens always makes for a less cluttered background, and in addition the sharpness fall-off is a little more gradual in the long lens case. I like it, whatever it is!

Those are beautiful, and the backgrounds are rendered very nicely. I really like how well a long fast lens simplifies backgrounds.

That's a great, nicely simple idea. Thanks!