www.photomacrography.net :: View topic - Canon 20mm and 30mm FD bellows lenses
www.photomacrography.net Forum Index
An online community dedicated to the practices of photomacrography, close-up and macro photography, and photomicrography.
Photomacrography Front Page Amateurmicrography Front Page
Old Forums/Galleries
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Canon 20mm and 30mm FD bellows lenses
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    www.photomacrography.net Forum Index -> Macro and Micro Technique and Technical Discussions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Toby



Joined: 28 Dec 2010
Posts: 27
Location: Surrey

PostPosted: Sun Mar 06, 2011 4:15 pm    Post subject: Canon 20mm and 30mm FD bellows lenses Reply with quote

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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
SONYNUT



Joined: 22 Jan 2011
Posts: 635
Location: Minnesota USA

PostPosted: Sun Mar 06, 2011 5:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&source=imghp&biw=1440&bih=799&q=CANON+30mm+FD+bellows+lenses&btnG=Search+Images&gbv=2&aq=0&aqi=g10&aql=f&oq=CANON+
_________________
..............................................................................
Just shoot it......
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Charles Krebs



Joined: 01 Aug 2006
Posts: 5805
Location: Issaquah, WA USA

PostPosted: Sun Mar 06, 2011 8:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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/viewtopic.php?t=325
http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=243
http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=391
http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/viewtopic.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.
_________________
http://www.krebsmicro.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
ChrisR
Site Admin


Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Posts: 8404
Location: Near London, UK

PostPosted: Sun Mar 06, 2011 10:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Assuming you mean the canon 35mm, there's one comparison here:
http://photomacrography.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=60493#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 Sad ) 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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Charles Krebs



Joined: 01 Aug 2006
Posts: 5805
Location: Issaquah, WA USA

PostPosted: Mon Mar 07, 2011 12:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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/viewtopic.php?t=3265
http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3545
http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2818
_________________
http://www.krebsmicro.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
enricosavazzi



Joined: 21 Nov 2009
Posts: 1212
Location: Borgholm, Sweden

PostPosted: Mon Mar 07, 2011 4:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.




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.


_________________
--ES
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
enricosavazzi



Joined: 21 Nov 2009
Posts: 1212
Location: Borgholm, Sweden

PostPosted: Mon Mar 07, 2011 5:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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:


Nikon 35 mm:


PS - And a 1:1 pixel crop, Canon on the left, Nikon on the right.

_________________
--ES


Last edited by enricosavazzi on Mon Mar 07, 2011 1:15 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Toby



Joined: 28 Dec 2010
Posts: 27
Location: Surrey

PostPosted: Mon Mar 07, 2011 11:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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/viewtopic.php?t=325
http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=243
http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=391
http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/viewtopic.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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Toby



Joined: 28 Dec 2010
Posts: 27
Location: Surrey

PostPosted: Mon Mar 07, 2011 11:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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/viewtopic.php?t=3265
http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3545
http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/viewtopic.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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
ChrisR
Site Admin


Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Posts: 8404
Location: Near London, UK

PostPosted: Mon Mar 07, 2011 3:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Enrico - nice. They look very similar, I wonder if you're hitting your sensor's limitations. Could that be true?
Is this your D200?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
lauriek
Site Admin


Joined: 25 Nov 2007
Posts: 2404
Location: South East UK

PostPosted: Mon Mar 07, 2011 8:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.
_________________
Flickr | www.laurieknight.net | Blog
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
enricosavazzi



Joined: 21 Nov 2009
Posts: 1212
Location: Borgholm, Sweden

PostPosted: Mon Mar 07, 2011 9:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
enricosavazzi



Joined: 21 Nov 2009
Posts: 1212
Location: Borgholm, Sweden

PostPosted: Mon Mar 07, 2011 10:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.


_________________
--ES
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Tonikon



Joined: 30 Oct 2008
Posts: 55
Location: Italy

PostPosted: Wed Mar 09, 2011 11:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Harold Gough



Joined: 09 Mar 2008
Posts: 5787
Location: Reading, Berkshire, England

PostPosted: Sun Mar 13, 2011 6:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    www.photomacrography.net Forum Index -> Macro and Micro Technique and Technical Discussions All times are GMT - 7 Hours
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group