Nikon ES-1 and AF-S DX Micro NIKKOR 40mm f/2.8G?

<p>The Nikon ES-1 Slide Copying Adapter has 52mm filter thread and is made for FX and 55/60mm lenses. What about using it on the DX 40mm macro, which also has 52mm filter thread and focuses down to 1:1?</p>

<p>Has anyone tried this combination, did you need extension rings or could it focus and give 100 % coverage as is?</p>

<p>Thanks for your time!</p>

<p>Hi Andreas. You actually need a magnification of 1:1.5 to get a full 35mm slide onto the DX format. I don't think the ES-1 will allow for that without some further extension between it and the macro lens. The 40mm Micro-Nikkor might not need further extension, but I don't know for sure. And since Nikon are short on giving hard information about the dimensions of the ES-1, it's all guesswork unless somebody's tried that combination.</p>

<p>There's a website here recording one person's experience using the ES-1 with a DX camera. It doesn't sound very positive.<br>

http://www.leifgoodwin.co.uk/ES1%20Review/ES1-Review.html</p>

<p>You might be better off getting something 3rd party. Especially since the ES-1 seems to be widely out of stock. Something like this perhaps? http://srb-photographic.co.uk/52mm-dslr-slide-copier-8163-p.asp</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I've never used a copying stand, but to fit something FX-sized on the DX frame, don't you need 1.5x <i>less</i> magnification than 1:1? I'd have thought that would have been well within the capabilities of the 40mm macro, so long as it actually physically fits the ES-1. I don't see why you'd need extension tubes.</p>

<p>Andrew, the issue is the distance between the slide holder and the front of the macro lens, not from camera body to lens. The ES-1 has a telescoping construction (see link above), but there's a limited length it can extend to. You need a greater subject-distance for 1:1.5 than you do for 1:1, and that's where the problem lies.</p>

Ah, I see - sorry, I was thinking extension tubes, not

extending the adaptor.

 

 

But the working distance multiplier is offset somewhat

because the lens's focal length is shorter. If I'm abusing

the thin lens equation properly, a 55mm lens used at 1:1

has a working distance of 110mm (twice the focal

length). At 1:1.5, the working distance is 2.5 x the focal

length (I think), which for our 40mm lens is only 100mm.

If anything, the adaptor may be too long, and you'd have

to go for a bit less than a full frame. Or actually use an

extension tube!

 

 

Of course, stuffing numbers into a simplified equation is

hopelessly approximating the situation. I've no idea how

the figures relative to the optical centre of the lens (or

nodal point, or whatever term I'm trying to use here)

relate to the filter ring position. But I don't think it's

hopeless. I defer to someone who's actually tried!

<p>Does this answer your question ? :<br>

http://answers.nikonusa.com/answers/7022/product/3213/nikon-inc-es-1-slide-copying-adapter-for-52mm-thread-questions-answers/questions.htm</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"ES-1 along with 40 micro work great on DX cameras. It is a shame no one at NIKON has bothered to test or promote this." - Anonymous on the link given by C.P.M above</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well said Anonymous! If Nikon bothered to fully document things like dimensions and subject distances for their lenses, then they just <em>might</em> get more sales out of it.</p>

<p>Well if you're going to cheat and actually <i>try it</i>, rather than just do the maths... :-)<br />

<br />

Glad to know it works!</p>

<p>Thank you all for your input!</p>

<p>Rodeo Joe, I was not really convinced that you needed a higher magnification than 1:1 for it to work on DX, I would say you only need about 0.67:1 in order to get full coverage. I am with Andrew here. But it might be that we try to say the same things differently. I also wanted to avoid third party solutions with cheap magnifiction lenses since they usually have a negative impact on quality.</p>

<p>Thanks C.P.M. for pointing me towards the ES-1's US Product page and its QA. It seems it should work and I can only agree that it is a shame Nikon does not promote this as it might help sales at least somewhat.<br>

I found a convincing reply that it would work as is here:<br>

http://www.throughthefmount.com/articles_tips_digitise.html<br>

It says the ES-1 can extend from 45-70mm. When I focus on a 24x36mm subject with my 40/2.8 I can achieve full coverage and focus with a distance of 55 mm between lens and subject. So, it should work as is.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Andreas, the ratio of 1:1.5 that I quoted is exactly the same as 0.67:1 and is smaller than lifesize, not larger. Ratios are conventionally expressed in whole numbers admittedly, and it should really be 2:3, but whatever. We actually both meant the same thing. First number is camera image size and second number is subject size.</p>