Canon 20mm and 30mm FD bellows lenses

A forum to ask questions, post setups, and generally discuss anything having to do with photomacrography and photomicroscopy.

Moderators: ChrisR, Chris S., Pau, rjlittlefield

Toby
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2010 3:32 am
Location: Surrey
Contact:

Canon 20mm and 30mm FD bellows lenses

Post by Toby »

anyone have links to shots taken with these lenses in the digital age? Most shooters seem to use microscope objectives on bellows but wondering if these dedicated lenses are any good, especially the higher mag 20mm.

SONYNUT
Posts: 635
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 2:27 pm
Location: Minnesota USA

Post by SONYNUT »

..............................................................................
Just shoot it......

Charles Krebs
Posts: 5859
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:02 pm
Location: Issaquah, WA USA
Contact:

Post by Charles Krebs »

Toby,

I don't have the 20/3.5 but do have the 35/2.8

Here are a few postings that were taken with the 35/2.8:
http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... .php?t=325
http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... .php?t=243
http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... .php?t=391
http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... .php?t=364

I find my 35/2.8 to be quite good, but I have seen quite a variety of opinions on this lens. Over the years there has not been a huge variety of this type of lens made (and many, like the Luminars and Photars fetched very high prices) so these will often be listed at pretty high prices.

The 20mm f/3.5 was suggested for use between 4X and 10X. But with a maximum aperture of f/3.5 it would probably not give great resolution above about 5X to 6X due to diffraction even if otherwise the optical quality were outstanding.

ChrisR
Site Admin
Posts: 8557
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 3:58 am
Location: Near London, UK

Post by ChrisR »

Assuming you mean the canon 35mm, there's one comparison here:
http://photomacrography.net/forum/viewt ... 0493#60493

The Canon looks a bit soft there, but it can be surprising how much a lower contrast result will improve in post processing, and come very close to the better looking image.

That JML 21mm ( no longer available "new" at $10, it seems :( ) shows how well an f/3.5 can do. Whether the Canon (or Olympus) 20mm lenses are as good, hasn't been demonstrated, to my knowledge.

Charles Krebs
Posts: 5859
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:02 pm
Location: Issaquah, WA USA
Contact:

Post by Charles Krebs »

Chris,
I remember that comparison. And Enricco also had a less than stellar result with the 35/2.8. But I have the Canon, JML, Oly 20 and 38. Never did a comparison test, but my 35/2.8 looks nothing like the one Paul or Enricco tried. Maybe that is a caution in itself... if there is in fact such a variation in experiences with individual pieces.

Found a few more I did with this lens:
http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... php?t=3265
http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... php?t=3545
http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... php?t=2818

enricosavazzi
Posts: 1276
Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2009 2:41 pm
Location: Borgholm, Sweden
Contact:

Post by enricosavazzi »

An example with the Canon 35 mm fully open, about 100 slices, ZS Pmax, minimal retouching, no pre- or postprocessing. This lens actually performs better in terms of resolution when closed 1-2 stops, but it remains sensitive to flare from off-axis illumination.

Image


Out of curiosity I also used the JML 21 mm on the same subject, but I was forced to use a smaller and more transparent diffuser. About 60 slices. Better colors, more contrast, but a part of the difference is also due to the different illumination.

Image
--ES

enricosavazzi
Posts: 1276
Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2009 2:41 pm
Location: Borgholm, Sweden
Contact:

Post by enricosavazzi »

One more comparison while I have the time, Canon 35 mm stopped down to approx. f/4.5 versus Macro Nikkor 35 mm fully open at f/4.5. Both pictures adjusted in Photoshop Curves to the same visual amount. The pictures before Photoshop adjustment were very similar to each other, but a bit too low in contrast. No guarantee that the top and bottom of the stack are the same in both cases, since I had to refocus between tests. In my opinion, slightly better results with the Nikon, but not much actual difference. Will use the Nikon from now on.

Canon 35 mm:
Image

Nikon 35 mm:
Image

PS - And a 1:1 pixel crop, Canon on the left, Nikon on the right.
Image
Last edited by enricosavazzi on Mon Mar 07, 2011 1:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
--ES

Toby
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2010 3:32 am
Location: Surrey
Contact:

Post by Toby »

great work there, are you mounting the 35mm on a bellows? Having an MP-E65 I don't think the 35mm would be as useful as the 20mm to extend my range but I take your point about its max aperture.
Charles Krebs wrote:Toby,

I don't have the 20/3.5 but do have the 35/2.8

Here are a few postings that were taken with the 35/2.8:
http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... .php?t=325
http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... .php?t=243
http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... .php?t=391
http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... .php?t=364

I find my 35/2.8 to be quite good, but I have seen quite a variety of opinions on this lens. Over the years there has not been a huge variety of this type of lens made (and many, like the Luminars and Photars fetched very high prices) so these will often be listed at pretty high prices.

The 20mm f/3.5 was suggested for use between 4X and 10X. But with a maximum aperture of f/3.5 it would probably not give great resolution above about 5X to 6X due to diffraction even if otherwise the optical quality were outstanding.

Toby
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2010 3:32 am
Location: Surrey
Contact:

Post by Toby »

Charles Krebs wrote:Chris,
I remember that comparison. And Enricco also had a less than stellar result with the 35/2.8. But I have the Canon, JML, Oly 20 and 38. Never did a comparison test, but my 35/2.8 looks nothing like the one Paul or Enricco tried. Maybe that is a caution in itself... if there is in fact such a variation in experiences with individual pieces.

Found a few more I did with this lens:
http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... php?t=3265
http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... php?t=3545
http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... php?t=2818
these answer my previous question ie yes you are using a bellows. You are certainly a stacking king awesome results. I must try my MP-E at a larger aperture with some stacking.

ChrisR
Site Admin
Posts: 8557
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 3:58 am
Location: Near London, UK

Post by ChrisR »

Enrico - nice. They look very similar, I wonder if you're hitting your sensor's limitations. Could that be true?
Is this your D200?

lauriek
Posts: 2402
Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2007 6:57 am
Location: South East UK
Contact:

Post by lauriek »

enricosavazzi wrote:Canon 35 mm stopped down to approx. f/4.5 versus Macro Nikkor 35 mm fully open at f/4.5.
...

In my opinion, slightly better results with the Nikon, but not much actual difference. Will use the Nikon from now on.
While I agree the Nikon appears to have a slight edge in this comparison, it _is_ pretty slight and I wouldn't be at all surprised if the Canon improved if you opened it right up and shot more slices - you'd need to run another test really, Canon wide open vs Nikon wide open..

I wouldn't decide to use the Nikon purely based on this test, I tend to shoot my Oly 38/2.8 wide open in fact I can't remember stopping it down except for end of stack focus falloff shots.

enricosavazzi
Posts: 1276
Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2009 2:41 pm
Location: Borgholm, Sweden
Contact:

Post by enricosavazzi »

ChrisR wrote:Enrico - nice. They look very similar, I wonder if you're hitting your sensor's limitations. Could that be true?
Is this your D200?
Yes, it is a D200 (I generally use D200 for stacking, D300s for other photography). Probably it is working at the sensor's resolution limit in this case, or close to it.
--ES

enricosavazzi
Posts: 1276
Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2009 2:41 pm
Location: Borgholm, Sweden
Contact:

Post by enricosavazzi »

lauriek wrote:While I agree the Nikon appears to have a slight edge in this comparison, it _is_ pretty slight and I wouldn't be at all surprised if the Canon improved if you opened it right up and shot more slices - you'd need to run another test really, Canon wide open vs Nikon wide open..

I wouldn't decide to use the Nikon purely based on this test, I tend to shoot my Oly 38/2.8 wide open in fact I can't remember stopping it down except for end of stack focus falloff shots.
True, many more factors involved, including additional ones (e.g. the types of subject and illumination). Here are crops from the images shot with the Canon 35 mm at f/2.8 (left) and f/4.5 (right). There are differences in exposure, framing and stack depth (plus of course slice thickness), but a comparison of resolution still can be made.

Image
--ES

Tonikon
Posts: 55
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 2:58 pm
Location: Italy
Contact:

Post by Tonikon »

Ciao,
I have the Canon 35mm f/2.8 and I think it is a very good lens, much much better than the more blazoned Luminar 40mm. It suffers a bit for flare and low contrast with very reflective subjects, but resolution its very very good.
Many people don't like it simply because they use this lens at too small apertures: it gives sharpest shots at f/4.
If you want to see a real comparative test between the Canon 35/2.8 and the Zeiss Lumanr 40/4.5, you can go here:

- http://www.tonipuma.it/tecnica/35vs40/index.htm

It is in italian language, but conclusions are in english language and anyway images speak for themselves.
Morevoer, I have decided to sell it (you find it in the "exchange" section) simply because it is too "fat" and don't fit on the revolving nosepiece of my modified microscope for vertical setup.

Ciao

Toni

Harold Gough
Posts: 5786
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 2:17 am
Location: Reading, Berkshire, England

Post by Harold Gough »

I have the manual diaphragm Canon 20mm f3.5. I used it only a couple of times in the 1980s, to get extreme close-ups of the bee commensal Braula on worker honeybees. I was using manual flash and Kodachrome 25, working with f8 on the lens and effective aperture of f90.

Soon after that I moved to Olympus OM with its OTF metering and auto bellows lenses.

Harold
My images are a medium for sharing some of my experiences: they are not me.

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic