On 3/1/2016 3:20 PM, Ken Norton wrote:
I must admit that I'm also a pretty big fan of reversing a 50mm.
Again, you got to watch the flare, but it's a great way to get close
without losing much light. Yet, I seem to do nearly all my macro work
with extension tubes.
I think tubes are clearly the best with the kind of lenses you are using.
I already know that some helical focusing MF lenses have aberrations that get worse with close focus, In which case, a
C-U lens might (?) work better than tubes. Fortunately, they aren't the sort of lens one would normally choose for C-U
work. The 21/3.5 is an example, where curvature of field is really strong at close focus.
I tend to think that should be so for contemporary, internal focusing lenses. Considering the complexity and highly
tuned nature of many current lenses, is it possible that some fall apart rather quickly with extension? That's not been
my experience with the 14-150 and 75-300, which have worked very well, at least in the central area, with up to 26 mm of
extension. <http://zone-10.com/tope2/main.php?g2_itemId=4514>
Extensible Moose
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
|