Reversed Raynox Tube (my version)

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

Moderators: Pau, rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S.

bobfriedman
Posts: 203
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 6:02 pm
Contact:

Reversed Raynox Tube (my version)

Post by bobfriedman »

Based on numerous discussions with Rik Littlefield I finally have my Raynox DCR-150 working and will probably not use the Nikkor 200/4 Ai'd lens as a relay any further with the Mitutoyo objectives..

this version provides infinity focus at aprox. 220mm camera side with the Nikon D800E.. based on Rik's advice i have placed the objective as close to the reversed Raynox as possible..

The PK-13's provide greater structural integrity than the 52mm tubes and i can place a Nikon PN-11 within the group if i wish a tripod collar on the tube. I have flocked the M52 tube length between the Raynox and the PK-13's.

I am now able to attempt non-spec magnifications by adjusting the length of the bellows extension by eliminating a PK-13 or two.. realizing there will be image quality consequences.. so far results have been good.

Image
Last edited by bobfriedman on Fri Jun 12, 2015 6:04 pm, edited 3 times in total.

rjlittlefield
Site Admin
Posts: 21138
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
Contact:

Post by rjlittlefield »

Bob, this looks good.

To clarify for others, the motivation for mounting the objective close to the Raynox in this case is to give maximum ability to adjust magnification by changing the rear extension. The system focal length of a combo can be calculated as 1/f = 1/f1 + 1/f2 - d/(f1*f2) [ref]. Increasing the separation d also increases the combo focal length f, and that reduces the available change of magnification which is delta_mag = delta_extension / combo_focal_length.

There is further discussion of this effect at http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... 703#169703 and in the surrounding thread, where another member noted that "However, tube length seems to have only a small effect on magnification: with a 10x objective (an Olympus UPlanFL UIS2) I get roughly 9x for 100 mm tube length and 11x for 250 mm tube length". The lack of adjustability in that case traced to a large separation -- about 100 mm -- between the objective and tube lens.

--Rik

Peter De Smidt
Posts: 233
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2012 9:10 am
Contact:

Post by Peter De Smidt »

Thanks for the post! I see the PK-13s (of course), and the Nikon K set, but what's the adapter right before the Raynox?

ChrisR
Site Admin
Posts: 8564
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 3:58 am
Location: Near London, UK

Post by ChrisR »

That would depend which way round the K rings are. Both would be possible!

The Raynox is 43mm at the normally camera end, and 49mm at the normally front/filter end.

Other than Step rings and a Coupling ring,
a common set of parts needs a 52mm female to female (something like a 62 - 52mm through-threaded step down has to be used) , but Bob seems to have avoided the need for that.

RobertOToole
Posts: 1618
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:34 pm
Location: United States
Contact:

Post by RobertOToole »

rjlittlefield wrote:Bob, this looks good.

To clarify for others, the motivation for mounting the objective close to the Raynox in this case is to give maximum ability to adjust magnification by changing the rear extension. The system focal length of a combo can be calculated as 1/f = 1/f1 + 1/f2 - d/(f1*f2) [ref]. Increasing the separation d also increases the combo focal length f, and that reduces the available change of magnification which is delta_mag = delta_extension / combo_focal_length.

There is further discussion of this effect at http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... 703#169703 and in the surrounding thread, where another member noted that "However, tube length seems to have only a small effect on magnification: with a 10x objective (an Olympus UPlanFL UIS2) I get roughly 9x for 100 mm tube length and 11x for 250 mm tube length". The lack of adjustability in that case traced to a large separation -- about 100 mm -- between the objective and tube lens.

--Rik
Excellent, thanks for the clarification Rik!

Robert

bobfriedman
Posts: 203
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 6:02 pm
Contact:

Post by bobfriedman »

Peter De Smidt wrote:Thanks for the post! I see the PK-13s (of course), and the Nikon K set, but what's the adapter right before the Raynox?
i am sorry i didn't answer earlier.. just noticed

PK-13, K2 (F mount-M52), M52 Male-Male, K rings female-male K4+K5+K4, M49-M52 step up, RAYNOX reversed, M52-M43 Step-down, M52-M52 Female-Female, M52-M26 step down.
Last edited by bobfriedman on Tue Jun 16, 2015 4:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

ChrisR
Site Admin
Posts: 8564
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 3:58 am
Location: Near London, UK

Post by ChrisR »

M52-M52 Female-Female
That's the one with print - is that "OM"?

bobfriedman
Posts: 203
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 6:02 pm
Contact:

Post by bobfriedman »

ChrisR wrote:
M52-M52 Female-Female
That's the one with print - is that "OM"?
not sure what the OM means.. but it is a Kenko 52mm to 52mm F-F with the print

the set

http://www.kenko-tokina.co.jp/imaging/e ... 00034.html

ChrisR
Site Admin
Posts: 8564
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 3:58 am
Location: Near London, UK

Post by ChrisR »

Your linked site says ~$16, other oriental sites $12, Ebay $31 (+ shipping)!
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Kenko-OM-Ring-S ... 33a1c33fb9

It's neater than these, but...
Ebay item 261448691981 (UK) referred to here
Last edited by ChrisR on Tue Jun 16, 2015 3:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.

bobfriedman
Posts: 203
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 6:02 pm
Contact:

Post by bobfriedman »

ChrisR wrote:Your linked site says ~$16, other oriental sites $12, Ebay $31 (+ shipping)!
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Kenko-OM-Ring-S ... 33a1c33fb9
i bought mine at Yodabashi Camera in Shinjuku, Tokyo... i guess i need another trip back there!

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic