100 - 200mm lenses for macro.

Many on this forum have recommended that if I wanted good lenses on

a budget I should look to manual focus. I recently switched to the

N90s and am loving it. The viewfinder is great and I can manual

focus easily even in low light.

 

So, with my MF options open I am looking into new lenses. My Vivitar

100mm/f3.5 macro is great but it offers little working distance at

1:1 with the dual element filter added. Are there any sharp macros

near the 100mm mark that offer more working distance within a

budget? Vivek had recommended the Vivitar Series 1 90mm/f2.5. And

since it goes to 1:1 with a teleconverter-like adapter, I am

wondering if it offers more working distance? Also considering the

105mm/f4 micro-nikkor since I have a PN-11 tube, so comments on it

in terms of WD would be welcome. Although for non-macro work it

would be nice to have a faster lens like the f2.5. Any other

contenders I ought to look at?

 

The other lens I am considering is in the 180-200mm range. For

dragonflies and such in combination with the PN-11. I know the

180/f2.8 is regarded highly but can't find much on the MF, non-ED

version. So, I am thinking if any of the old 200mm/f4 (not micro)

lenses would fit the bill. They have the advantage of taking 52mm

filters for reversing my normal lens. Another idea might be a

Vivitar Series 1 70-200 zoom but I am not sure how good they would

be for macro work with extension tubes. Do they really compare to

the Nikon f2.8 zooms over that range?

 

In response to my last post Dan Fromm had suggested a 200mm 'process

lens' on bellows. I am not too familiar with this but am I right

that this is just a large format lens without a shutter? Do these

work well with extension tubes?

 

Many thanks for any tips that will help me decide on a sharp macro

setup that also okay for normal use.

 

-Anupam<div></div>

Nothing beats PN-11 with 50/1.8 or 85/1.8 or 180/2.8 :-)

 

Try it, you'll know.

Anupam,

 

The free WD of the 90mm f/2.5 Series 1 is 20Cm at 1:2. With the 1:1 adaptor (not a multiplier, it is like an extension tube) it is down to 10 Cm or there abouts.

 

If you are considering to use this lens from infinity to 1:2 (or with the adaptor for still subjects) it is a superb lens. It is corrected for every distance, aberrations etc. Out of focus rendition is very smooth and is not like a micronikkor. MP tests showed it to give > 110 lp/mm at multiple apertures. That is even more than the 55mm f/3.5 micronikkor.

 

Have you tried your 100mm lens with a 2X converter?

 

If you know what to look for (or where) you will be able to pick up a 210mm f/9 Konica Hexanon GRII as suggested by Dan (if you approach him he *might* help you out with that). But consider the money you will have to spend adapting it.

 

I have adapted a special Rodagon lens (new price of these are a lot more than a 200mm f/4 ED micronikkor!)but the material cost was minimum and labor (mine) free. This gives a comfortable free WD of 46cm at 1/2.5X. With an added 2X TC, it is splendid. Since this is extremely light compared to a 200mm f/4 Micronikkor, it is easy to hand hold or mount on a tripod. This is important since with a longer WD and higher magnification the slightest movement means disaster. Even if one uses flash, it is easy to mess up a tight composition.

 

If you alreay have a PN-11, the obvious choice would be a 105mm f/4 lens. It is sharper than most films that are out there.

 

Forget the Vivitar zooms. I have a 90-180mm f/4.5 flat field macro Vivitar Ser.1 zoom (first true macro zoom in the world). It is heavy. comes with a solid tripod mount on its own. At 180mm, the closest focus gets you 1:2. However, focal lengths 90 to 150mm are the best. At 180mm, there is color fringing at all magnifications. These are very pricey. You can buy a couple of 105/4s for the price of one.

 

Vivek.

Anupam, "process lenses" were used in the graphic arts industry, often for making printing plates. They are nearly all in barrel, although some, e.g., Schneider G-Clarons and some Rodenstock Apo Ronars, were sold in shutters or can be removed from their barrels and screwed directly into a shutter. Not all lenses sold in barrel are process lenses. Because they can easily be put in shutter, G-Clarons and Apo Ronars usually sell for more than other process lenses.

 

If I wasn't clear, process lenses do not come in focusing mounts and don't have diaphragm automation.

 

As Vivek mentioned, I have a 210/9 Konica Hexanon GRII. I had SKGrimes make an adapter to hold it in front of a #1 shutter. The lens screws into the adapter, the assembly screws into the shutter. Later I had a female #1 shutter (M40x0.75) to male T mount (M42x0.75) adapter made, and with that can connect the 210 GRII to a Nikon bellows. Note that at 1:1 approximately 420 mm of extension is required. My PB-4 isn't that long, and neither is my cheap FSU-made bellows in M39x1. But by an odd coincidence I have a female T mount-to-male M39x1 adapter, a stack of M39x1 extension tubes, and a Novoflex NIKLEI. This last is a female M39x1 to male Nikon F adapter. Got the idea?

 

How you get extension doesn't matter very much as long as you have enough. For me, Leica extension tubes have two advantages over, say, PVC pipe. They're well blackened internally, i.e., flare resistant, and are already threaded with parallel flanges. They're often available for absurdly low prices.

 

I also have a 210/7.7 mystery lens made by the french firm Boyer whose rear is threaded M39x1. It isn't quite as good as the 210 GRII at apertures larger than f/16, but it is very usable. Be patient, look around, and you'll find a lens that will do.

 

You might look for a 210(or so)/9 Repromaster lens. These things are also sold as Eskofot Ultragon, Staeble Ultragon, and Helioprint. All the same, and they were all made by Staeble, which has been owned by Agfa since the late 1960s. Or another Staeble lens, the Super Intergon. All inexpensive on eBay, all smaller than the 210 GRII and easier to adapt. I never tried it, but I think you could tape one to the front of a Nikon F mount extension tube.

 

Oh, yes. I know that searching photo.net is not fun since the google search engine was adopted, but there are many threads here about process lenses. Go look for them.

 

Cheers,

 

Dan

<p>Thanks, Dan - I guess I will read up more before delving into the process lens route.

<p>

As for the other options - I would go for the 105/f4 but the only consideration is that a 90/2.5 would be a great portrait lens in low light as well. And if, as Vivek points out, the out-of-focus rendition is better then that's a big bonus. Any opinions on this choice? And wouldn't the Series 1 90mm work well with the PN-11. I came across a Series 1 105 mm as well but can't find any other details.

<p>

Arnab, for the 180/2.8, do you know if the non-ED manual focus version is comparable to the famous ED one? The latter might be too costly for me although I'll certainly try to get one.

<p>

How are the 200mm / f4 AI and AI-S lenses for use with the PN-11. They are really cheap, light and will let me reverse the 50/1.8. <a href="http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/200f4ai.htm" target=_blank">Ken Rockwell seems to love them.</a> But are they suited to the PN-11 combination.

<p>Many thanks.

I too have a n90s that I use a lot for macro work. Since you have the PN11 tube, and since you want to do dragon flies, I suggest you look at 300mm or 400mm Nikon lenses, or the Nikon 200mm f4.0 macro with teleconveters, the TC 14B or the TC 301. Most dragon flies are not going to let you get close enough to use a 105mm or if they do, you will be in water, muck, etc. The Nikon manual focus 200mm f 4.0 macro lens will accept these tcs and works extremely well with them. See the other post about 55mm and 105mm macro lenses below. Joe Smith

If you want more working distance than a ~ 100 mm lens will give, there's nothing to do but get a longer lens.

 

I had a 105/4, replaced it with a 105/2.8 after it was stolen. I didn't suffer from the /2.8's shorter working distance at 1:1, so if it doesn't give you enough I don't think the /4 will please you. The 105/4 replaced a 135/2.8 Steinheil that I mounted on my Nikkormat with a pair of Novoflex adapters. With the adapter's thickness and the Nikkormat's greater flange-to-film distance than the Exakta for which the lens was made, its farthest focusing distance was around 1 meter. Good, not a great, lens and these days a collectors item so not easily found at a reasonable price.

 

I can't speak to the modern 200/4 Nikkors. I bought a 200/4 Nikkor Q -- not the same lens as the current ones -- in 1970. It was worse at its close focusing limit than at distance. I think this is a hint.

 

FWIW, I have some very nice insect shots, including a series of Tiger Beetles (Cincidela sp., I think) in the Oregon Dunes, shot with a 55/3.5 MicroNikkor. At the time it was all I had, so I did what I could with it. Shooting insects, if that's what you're after, is indeed somewhat easier with a longer lens. That said, I'm not sure the folks here who say "200 mm or no bug shots" stalk patiently enough or want to get the shots badly enough. "Not easy" doesn't always mean impossible.

 

Cheers,

 

Dan

<I>Arnab, for the 180/2.8, do you know if the non-ED manual focus version is comparable to the famous ED one? The latter might be too costly for me although I'll certainly try to get one.</I>

 

<P>

Ooops, sorry! I know about the ED version and that's a killer. Not sure about the non-ED version. Dave Hartman and Lex Jenkins are the ones to go to for such stuff.

"And wouldn't the Series 1 90mm work well with the PN-11?"

 

If you focus the Series 1 90mm down to 1:2 and then add extension to get to 1:1 you wind up with plenty of coma when used wide open. However, this coma pretty much disappears if you stop down to f/5.6 or slower.

 

The 1:1 adapter that comes with the lens is essentially an extension tube with some optics to correct the coma I mentioned above. Its not accurate to call it a teleconverter.