Fringer Canon to Nikon Z mount adapter

I’ve coveted the Canon MP-e65 1-5x macro lens for years hoping fruitlessly that maybe Nikon would produce something similar. Neither was there a way to couple it to the Nikon F mount. Then the Z mount arrived and Fringer made a Canon to Z mount adapter which allowed aperture control, autofocus, etc., and I pulled the trigger.

 

I have no way of testing functions of the Fringer adapter other than simple things like aperture control and EXIF data since the lens is manual focus.

 

Here’s the first test shot, unsharpened, 100% crop, resized to 1500 xdim shot of a moth wing at 5x with 2 Nikon SB-R200 Wireless Remote Speedlights, nominal f/2.8. Not trying for anything special with the shot, just a simple first test, but so far so good!

 

Despite my son saying I was “supporting the devil” by buying a Canon lens, I’m pretty happy.

 

Anyone else tried the Fringer adapter?

 

Nice! What's the working distance here?

 

No problem with using whatever works best.....:cool:

The Laowa 25 mm is available for both the F and Z mounts and goes from 2.5x to 5x magnification. An excellent lens, I might add. But do enjoy your Canon lens! :) Edited November 29, 2021 by ilkka_nissila

The Laowa 25 mm is available for both the F and Z mounts and goes from 2.5x to 5x magnification

Wow. £1700 & f14...:eek:

 

You can get a clean, 2nd hand copy of the Canon 65mm f2.8 for £600.

 

...and if you don't mind stacking wide open a cheap (£30) dumb mount should be fine.

Edited November 29, 2021 by mike_halliwell

Late Edit!

 

Wrong lens! Sorry Ilkka.....:confused:

 

Completely missed this lens coming out. Interesting at £400.

Wow. £1700 & f14...:eek:

 

You can get a clean, 2nd hand copy of the Canon 65mm f2.8 for £600.

 

...and if you don't mind stacking wide open a cheap (£30) dumb mount should be fine.

 

It seems that the lens has memory of the last aperture setting - e.g. if I shoot at f/5.6 and take the lens off the aperture stays stopped down. This could be problematic with a dumb mount depending upon what the aperture is when you get the lens.

Nice! What's the working distance here?

 

No problem with using whatever works best.....:cool:

 

A quick and crude estimate this morning gives WD of about 5 inches (12.5cm) at 1x and 1.5 inches (3.8cm) at 5x.

This could be problematic with a dumb mount depending upon what the aperture is when you get the lens.

......or a handy way of making an f5.6 preset for stacking!

Completely missed this lens coming out. Interesting at £400.

 

Here is some more information:

 

The $399 Laowa 25mm Macro Lens vs the $1,050 Canon MP-E 65mm

 

and another test:

 

Review: Laowa 25mm f/2.8 2.5-5X Ultra Macro lens - Gil Wizen

Here is some more information:

 

The $399 Laowa 25mm Macro Lens vs the $1,050 Canon MP-E 65mm

 

and another test:

 

Review: Laowa 25mm f/2.8 2.5-5X Ultra Macro lens - Gil Wizen

 

Yes the Laowa does seem like a viable alternative; I have a different Laowa that I am happy with. Two significant features that tilt in favor of the Canon for me are 1) no filter thread on the Laowa - I definitely appreciate the threads on the Canon to which I can attach Nikon speedlights and 2) auto aperture - the Laowa is purely manual so stopping down may also dim the viewfinder making focusing more difficult.

and another test:

Everyone seems to think it's on par or very close in IQ to the Canon with a slightly more even working distance.

 

Tempting...;)

stopping down may also dim the viewfinder making focusing more difficult

True for DSLRs (unless in LV) but not the mirrorless Z series.

 

I guess there's no real 'pop' when trying to focus at these apertures?

Venus Optics/Laowa have just released a very small 85mm x2 macro for Nikon Z, but not F mount. (Also in Canon RF, Leica M and Sony FE)

 

Laowa 85mm f/5.6 2x Ultra Macro APO - LAOWA Camera Lenses

 

Looking at some of the test images, CA is very well controlled on shiny details, non of that weird colouring going on!

I haven't even thought about using an optical viewfinder for this; for these magnifications, I use both a sturdy tripod but also flash. Focusing in LV is easy enough given sufficient ambient lighting. I use an LED (westcott ice light) for focusing and studio flashes for exposure. I haven't used it outside of the studio yet, though I've had plans. I'll let you know how working in natural light turns out.

Focusing in LV is easy enough given sufficient ambient lighting

 

How does focus peaking behave with such a shallow DoF etc?

 

or is 'eyeball' better?

Edited November 30, 2021 by mike_halliwell

True for DSLRs (unless in LV) but not the mirrorless Z series.

 

The Z series is only able to compensate for low ambient light up to a point, which often happens when I shoot macro. I sometimes mount an LED on the Z7 when using a stopped down manual lens , like the Laowa, just so I can see what I'm shooting. Not always convenient and can sometimes affect lighting on the subject.

How does focus peaking behave with such a shallow DoF etc?

 

or is 'eyeball' better?

 

I use zoom to maximum level of magnification in the LV, then focus using the magnified image by eye. At 2.5x to 5x I almost always focus stack using a focusing rail so I only focus using LV for the first frame.

 

Peaking is good for video and the typical resolution requirements of that, which can be 4K or FullHD. I don't really use it for still photography.

At just £330, the Laowa 25mm x2.5>x5 in F mount should be with me tomorrow!

 

As I still use my DSLRs too, getting the Z would be an error!

 

:D

Edited December 1, 2021 by mike_halliwell

With the kind of extension needed for a 5x mag you're only using the centre 'sweet spot' of any lens. So I suspect almost any decent 24 ~ 28mm prime on a reversing mount would give more than acceptable results. Especially since the effective aperture is going to take you well into diffraction-limited territory.

 

My optical spreadsheet tells me that a 28mm lens @ a marked f/5.6 aperture and 5:1 RR has an effective aperture of f/33.6 and is diffraction limited to about 47 cycles/mm resolution.

Typically one would shoot the lens wide open (marked f/2.8) at these magnifications and use focus stacking to extend the part of the subject that is rendered sharply.

Typically one would shoot the lens wide open (marked f/2.8) at these magnifications

In theory maybe. In practise the D-o-F is microscopic - making stepping the focus sufficiently finely a challenging task - and lens aberrations might demand a smaller aperture.

 

Whatever you do, diffraction is your nemesis at high reproduction ratios.

 

I chiseled the top off an old I.C. to get a tiny subject of known size.

Here's the highest RR I could get with my old 55mm f/3.5 Micro-Nikkor, mounted reversed on a PB-4 bellows at full stretch.

 

Maybe getting closer with a shorter focal-length gets us more detail?

Here's a reversed 28 mm lens at 6.6x -

Not really any more revealing.

 

Going to a yet higher mag with a 28mm lens at full stretch on the PB-4 -

The above were all shot on a DX format D7200, and the whole frame shown.

In each case I found that f/5.6 was the optimum aperture in terms of playing off lens aberrations (mainly LoCa) and depth-of-field against diffraction. They've also all had some sharpening applied in PP to offset diffraction, and they're still not very satisfactory IMO.

 

My conclusion? Fancy and expensive lenses are largely wasted at an RR much higher than 3:1, because cropping and digital 'zooming' probably get more worthwhile results. The reason being that you're effectively using a smaller format size.

 

Uprezzing and Smart-sharpen are definitely your extreme macro friends - as well as an extremely rigid camera platform and a good speedlight!

Fancy lenses? Not so much.

The above were all shot on a DX format

The reason being that you're effectively using a smaller format size.

 

Might be interesting mounting it on my J5. AFAIK, that's got the highest pixel density of all Nikon cameras, so less uprezzing I guess!

I've always found small, shiny metallic targets are unsatisfactory for tiny/macro testing. There's something about the surface and certain chromatics that don't play nicely. They always look crap.

 

Something similar can occur when taking high RRs of natural silk fibres. Each translucent filament behaves like a cylindrical prism. Can be a real PITA to get looking nice!

I've always found small, shiny metallic targets are unsatisfactory for tiny/macro testing. There's something about the surface and certain chromatics that don't play nicely. They always look crap.

Indeed. Those metallic surfaces are very revealing of LoCa, which is why I used the chip to show that even relatively cheap and 'normal' lenses could make a reasonable job of high RRs when reversed. It also has good sharp edges and contrast that reveal diffraction very obviously.

 

Organic and non-specular subjects are much less of a harsh test. Plus I didn't have any dead moths lying around. ;)

 

P. S. The more diffuse the lighting, the less of an issue specularity becomes. The 28mm Yashica lens shot used a harder light than the 28mm Nikkor shot, and accounts for the apparently greater LoCa. With the exact same lighting there's almost nothing to choose between the two.

Edited December 5, 2021 by rodeo_joe|1