Recent stacks

[cadman342001]

All done with nikkor 200/4 and nikkor reversed, IKEA LEDs on proxxon table

Apologies for not embedding them Rik, can't be arsed going back and re-exporting them to less than 300k

I have a Nikon CFI Plan Achromat 10X NA 0.25 (MRL00102) on the way from marcpeppy so hopefully IQ will get even better !

Mantis fly

2016-02-18-21.09.48 ZS retouched-Pano by AndyMacDougallPhotography, on Flickr

Horse Fly

March Fly low-res by AndyMacDougallPhotography, on Flickr

march fly side by AndyMacDougallPhotography, on Flickr

Ant

Crematogaster ant ? by AndyMacDougallPhotography, on Flickr

Bug

2016-02-14-14.12.07 ZS retouched by AndyMacDougallPhotography, on Flickr

Toxorhynchites speciosus

Toxorhynchites Speciosus dorsal view by AndyMacDougallPhotography, on Flickr

Toxorhynchites Speciosus side view by AndyMacDougallPhotography, on Flickr

Tiger Beetle

Cicindela (Myriochile) semicincta by AndyMacDougallPhotography, on Flickr

Cicindela (Myriochile) semicincta by AndyMacDougallPhotography, on Flickr

Cicindela (Myriochile) semicincta by AndyMacDougallPhotography, on Flickr

Derbid planthopper

Lydda elongata by AndyMacDougallPhotography, on Flickr

Stalk Eyed Fly

2016-01-17-00.27.18 ZS PMax-Edit by AndyMacDougallPhotography, on Flickr

Choerocoris paganus

Choerocoris paganus by AndyMacDougallPhotography, on Flickr



Andy

[Lou Jost]

Very beautiful. Can you be more specific about the reversed Nikkor you are mounting on the 200mm?

[cadman342001]

Very beautiful. Can you be more specific about the reversed Nikkor you are mounting on the 200mm?

Thanks Lou, for 7x, I use a nikkor 28mm f/3.5 H.C. I have other mf nikkors for less mag. eg nikkor 105/2.5 PC for 2x

[ChrisR]

Nice set.
About what aperture do you find works best on the 28mm?

[Lou Jost]

What does H. C. mean?

[cadman342001]

Thanks Chris, not sure but I generally use it at f4

[cadman342001]

What does H. C. mean?

The H is the number of glass elements ie 6 and the C denotes it has multi-coating glass - ie it is later than the H but it was made before the AI and Ai-S series which had multi-coatings as standard.

It's one of the old metal scalloped focus ring nikkors.

It's the one on the far right in this pic of my old mf lenses. The 200/4 I use is back left.

_DSC1715 by AndyMacDougallPhotography, on Flickr

[ChrisR]

Works well .
I notice several (on flickr if not here) say "pano". Are these (side by side) stitched pics?
With these subjects/optics, .... is it just a gap in your magnifications?

[cadman342001]

Works well .
I notice several (on flickr if not here) say "pano". Are these (side by side) stitched pics?
With these subjects/optics, .... is it just a gap in your magnifications?

Yes, some of the shots are 2 shots stitched together in LR CC but usually 1 above the other to get eyes and mouth parts in the same shot at 7x

I don't understand what you mean ny the 2nd part of your comment?

[ChrisR]

I mean are you stitching "just" because you don't have a combo for the magnification/field coverage you need?

At 7x , marked f/4, less a bit because it's a reversed retrofocus lens, and your D800's pixels, you're just into diffraction limiting.

I'd expect the sharpness limit to be a bit from aberrations plus a bit from diffraction from the aperture used; so neither to be improved much by enlarging more.
One of those lenses is a 55 f/3.5 micro isn't it? Have you tried reversing that on the 200?
If I'm thinking straight, if you're using the same enlargement between fly and computer screen, with subject-side aperture the same, then diffraction's close to a wash. You get less blur if you magnify less at taking stage, but have to enlarge more later. The 55 micro should "aberrate" less than the 28. A 50mm f1.8 could be better, at f/2.8-4.

Maybe it just doesn't come out that way.
(Or more likely, reduced to say 1600 wide, it'll make no difference)

[cadman342001]

Yeah it's a 55 micro, but it is also my adjustable vertical stage !

but yes I have used it and it works well. I shall take your advice on board, I can never find the table on here that shows diffraction limits at various mags.

Once my objective arrives, I'll have super sharp 5x (using the 105/2.5) and 10x (using 200/4) ?

[ChrisR]

When you have some time, go here:
http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... sc&start=0
for the DOF Two Ways spreadsheet, and experiment.
Alter the "pixels per C of C" number (set to 2.5 originally I think) around. If you have to set it to some number like 8, for the line at the bottom to say "near optimum", then you're being limited to a lot less resolution than your sensor provides.

If you enter 5x, NA 0.25, and 2, it's spot on, so yes that suits your sensor.
Whether you'll find the corners cover, I don't know. Depends where the 105 2.5's entrance pupil is. Is the front glass sunk into the lens?

If that's a 135mm prime I see, that would be good too, and cover better.

[cadman342001]

When you have some time, go here:
http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... sc&start=0
for the DOF Two Ways spreadsheet, and experiment.
Alter the "pixels per C of C" number (set to 2.5 originally I think) around. If you have to set it to some number like 8, for the line at the bottom to say "near optimum", then you're being limited to a lot less resolution than your sensor provides.

If you enter 5x, NA 0.25, and 2, it's spot on, so yes that suits your sensor.
Whether you'll find the corners cover, I don't know. Depends where the 105 2.5's entrance pupil is. Is the front glass sunk into the lens?

If that's a 135mm prime I see, that would be good too, and cover better.

No, the 105's front glass is pretty near the front

$_57 (18) by AndyMacDougallPhotography, on Flickr

and yes, good spot, that is a 135/3.5, glass a similar distance from the front. The 55 micro glass is set WAY back into the lens. I'll have a look at the excel sheet.