Optimum Extender For Macro Elmarit-R 60mm 2.8

harold_gough · March 10, 2012

This is my first post in this forum, my natural home being Olympus OM and m4/3. I have tried some searches for answers but without success.

I use MF film lenses with m4/3 via adapters for digital (and conventionally for film). I am now looking at maximising performance capabilities (including for possible DSLR full frame use) by adding to my lenses. Thus, I have recently purchased a Macro Leitz Wetzlar Elmarit-R 60mm 2.8. It is a 3-cam with a Leica R mount. No problems so far, a lovely lens, with adapters in place. I use it mainly for true macro but must consider some telemacro (dragonflies, etc) and other, non-macro uses.

When I look at extenders there are apo and others. I do not want to compromise the perforance of the lens but, as the lens is not specifically labelled as apo, do I need to spend about as much as I did on the lens for the apo extender (x2) to maintain its performance?

john_shriver · March 10, 2012

Using any teleconvertor with that lens would miss the whole point of using such a good lens! You wouldn't be able to focus any closer, but your magnification ratio would double.

You just want an extension tube. Hollow tubes with mounts on each end. You can use an R-mount or an m4/3 mount one, on the appropriate side of your mount convertor.

On a m4/3 system, your 60mm lens is the equivalent of 120mm on full-frame, so you already have a long focal length for a macro lens. This gives you the plus of longer working distances, giving you more space to apply lots of light, which is all-important in close-up work. Price you'll pay is narrow depth of field, but you get some of that back being m4/3.

If you want a real telemacro lens, consider the Tamron SP 300mm f/5.6 (model 54B). It focuses (sharply) to 1.4 meters, which is wildly close for a 300mm lens. Great lens for dragonflies. Not common, but not in great demand (people still don't understand this lens), so it's usually reasonably-priced used. Photodiox makes a direct m4/3 to Adaptall-2 adapter.

The Tamron SP 90mm f/2.5 macro also has a great reputation.

You don't have to buy Leica to get excellent lenses.

harold_gough · March 10, 2012

John,

Thanks but the issue is not that I want to get closer. I have that fully covered with tubes.

I want to sometimes get further away. Up till now I have mostly used my Tamron 90mm but the Elmarit is better and that is the sole purpose for its purchase.. It is also better than other Tamron SP lenses (35-80mm, 70-210 model 19H) chosen, over recent years, as the best performers in the range to replace my original models. I have huge lenses for getting even further away!

OK, as with any prime, of course it is best used by itself but sometimes you have to use an extender/converter to get the picture. In this case, the x 1.4 might be my choice.

At least one website indicates that apo is the way to go but with no discussion or information to help a decision.

Robin Smith · March 10, 2012

Harold,

Only the 2x Leica converter will fit the 60mm Macro. One might anticipate that the APO 2x would produce better imagery, but one never knows as the 60mm predates the development of the APO 2x converters by about 20 years, so if I was you I'd go for the regular 2x converter and save money. The APO converters were designed mainly to maintain near APO performance for the Leica APO teles and not so much, I suspect, to improve the performance with the older lenses.

Robin Smith · March 10, 2012

I have to say I think that using the 60mm matched extension macro tube and a 2 x teleconverter-R sounds like a poor solution. I think you may find the performance suffers. If you want to use the 60mm with a converter then I think you should not use the extension tube.

MTC Photography · March 11, 2012

I use Macro Adapter R 14256 for my Macro Elmarit 60

harold_gough · March 11, 2012

Thanks, Martin.

I have the Macro Adapter 14198. What I am looking for here is what some systems call an extender, not a very helpful term, and what most call a teleconverter.

wildflower art · March 11, 2012

Hello.

Dragonflies are very difficult to photograph, because they are insects and naturally fly away when you get close. Dragonfly photography is almost its own branch of photography, covered in books like Shaw's Close-ups in Nature and some books on insect photography.

The key to photographing dragonflies is to use a very long lens that can focus very close. Leica's best solution is the 280 4.0 R (I know this is a $5,000 lens) with a macro adapter R tube. This can produce a magnification ratio of 1:5 on its own and 1:2 with the tube. A true macro at telephoto length! I hope to have this lens. I currently use a 250 4.0 mm (only about $500) for extreme plant portraits. It can take a Canon 500D diopter and and the Macro Adapter R.

You need great working distance for dragonflies, because of their fear circle, described in the photo.net macro section. This is done with a long lens. In brands that have the 180/200 mm macro lenses, not even that is enough focal length and macro distance. Many people are using the 300 mm lenses with diopters, extension tubes, and even converters.

You would then need a flash bracket and a good tripod. Find a great pond and wait for them to come to you.

Remember to use the fastest shutter speed that syncs with your flash and try to use as much natural light as possible.

May I ask why you are using medium format lenses on a 4/3 system? Medium format lenses are not known to be sharp on 35mm.

Cheers,

Matt

harold_gough · March 12, 2012

Matt,

I already have Tamron SP 400mm f4 and SP 300 f2.8 lenses. Placing a 30mm extension tube behind the 300mm gives a good telemacro combination.

I am not intending to specialise in dragonflies, although I do photograph them, and damselflies, in my garden and by the nearby river, but I just wanted to illustrate the size of insect for which I want extension. With 35mm I would use my Tamron 90mm, perhaps using my Zeiss Jenazoom 2 35-300mm macro for moderate distance, turning to the longer lenses for more distant shots. In anycase, I don't use flash.

The Elamarit has a good reputation for specialist macro at moderate magnifications and in general photography. I have checked its performance against my best Tamron SPs, chosen as best in the MF range, and it has better resolution/contrast.

One issue I have is how many cameras/lenses I can carry around and teleconverters take less room and weigh less.

I don't know why you ask about medium format.

Harold

ilkka · March 12, 2012

'This can produce a magnification ratio of 1:5 on its own and 1:2 with the tube.'

Are you sure? I don't own that lens or the tube ( I do have the 60 macro and I have some extension tubes of other makes). But the Leica extension tube is most likely 30mm long to provide 1:1 magnification with the 60mm lens focused at its closest distance, which is 1:2 on its own, ie 30mm extension. With a 280 mm lens you need 280mm/5 extension (56mm) to get to 1:5. If you add another 30 mm extension, you get (56+30)mm / 280 mm = 1: 3.3. Not quite 1:2. To really get 1:2 you would need a total of 140mm extension or 84 mm additional (on top of the 56mm the lens helicoid itself gives you), or a stack of THREE of those tubes.

wildflower art · March 12, 2012

Dear Harold,

you have a challenging problem. You want to minimize weight and get close up shots. You say you use dragonflies to describe the size of the insects you want to photograph? Then the 2x is the wrong choice! Some above say some do not couple, and you would have a 120 mm lens that focuses to life size. You do not want to use the Adapter R because that would mean you could only photograph at 1;2-1:1 life size, which is too magnified for those insects. I have photographed butterflies at gardens and at at a greenhouse, this is not quite the right tool. The 60 wasn't meant to take a tele converter (no lens less than about 200 mm focal length is) and butterflies have large fear circles, you have to use long lenses.

Are you using this lens on the 4/3 system? Does that mean the focal length is 120mm and with the 2x it would be 240? Well, maybe. I think the leica 60 elemart is great for tame insects. You can try getting them early in the morning before they are active or catch them and put them in a cooler and re position them (some say this is manipulation and damaging) to take great still pictures.

Many insect photographers quickly stray to longer focal lengths. The 280 4.0 is a trusted choice, as would be any long macro you can adapt to your 4/3 system.

I was only recalling a spec sheet, it maybe 1:3. The focal length of the lens decreases as it gets closer, so it would be much less than 140 mm extension.

I'm not sure either of the sports lenses you mention would be good (or arm saving, very heavy) for insect pictures. They were meant to be used far away, and not on close up insects.

I hope you want to take great pictures of insects, and now that using a very piece-mealed system, not a treasure trove of hand culled goodies, is a mistake. Your pictures are important, you should adapt your gear to your subject within your budget, not the other way around.

Thanks

Matt

wildflower art · March 12, 2012

Dear Harold,

you have a challenging problem. You want to minimize weight and get close up shots. You say you use dragonflies to describe the size of the insects you want to photograph? Then the 2x is the wrong choice! Some above say some do not couple, and you would have a 120 mm lens that focuses to life size. You do not want to use the Adapter R because that would mean you could only photograph at 1;2-1:1 life size, which is too magnified for those insects. I have photographed butterflies at gardens and at at a greenhouse, this is not quite the right tool. The 60 wasn't meant to take a tele converter (no lens less than about 200 mm focal length is) and butterflies have large fear circles, you have to use long lenses.

Are you using this lens on the 4/3 system? Does that mean the focal length is 120mm and with the 2x it would be 240? Well, maybe. I think the leica 60 elemart is great for tame insects. You can try getting them early in the morning before they are active or catch them and put them in a cooler and re position them (some say this is manipulation and damaging) to take great still pictures.

Many insect photographers quickly stray to longer focal lengths. The 280 4.0 is a trusted choice, as would be any long macro you can adapt to your 4/3 system.

I was only recalling a spec sheet, it maybe 1:3. The focal length of the lens decreases as it gets closer, so it would be much less than 140 mm extension.

I'm not sure either of the sports lenses you mention would be good (or arm saving, very heavy) for insect pictures. They were meant to be used far away, and not on close up insects.

I hope you want to take great pictures of insects, and now that using a very piece-mealed system, not a treasure trove of hand culled goodies, is a mistake. Your pictures are important, you should adapt your gear to your subject within your budget, not the other way around.

Thanks

Matt

harold_gough · March 12, 2012

Don't focus too much on my desire to minimise weight. Lens performance come before that, otherwise I would never have purchased my two long lenses (for birds, etc, rather than for insects) each weighing 2.5kg! I would not nomally consider thaose for insects, except across water and I have chest waders for shallow water.

"The 60 wasn't meant to take a tele converter (no lens less than about 200 mm focal length is)" is interesting. I don't know whether that refers to Leica R (what is your source?) or generally. The latter is quite untrue: my Tamron Adaptall-2 SP 35-80mm includes in its specification that it takes the SP x2 TC as does the 90mm, etc.

I still don't know where "medium format" lenses come into it.

Re: "I think the leica 60 elemart is great for tame insects" I took frame-filling images of Comma butterflies yesterday in full sun. I takes a bit of patience and allowing the insect to habituate to you. One was difficult to approach while the other several times allowed me to push the tip of my finger partially under its feet before taking flight. With dragonflies, you spot where their regular perches are and place yourself close while they are away and they are much more tolerent on their return and I have 1:1 up to 3:1 portraits as proof (Tamron 90mm, sometimes with Marumi x3 supplementary, on m4/3). some of these shots were at holiday locations where I had only from minutes to an hour to get them (together with grasshopers, sheild bugs, etc.).

I don't shoot dew-covered dragonflies or damselflies and I don't capture insects for photography.

wildflower art · March 12, 2012

Dear Harold,

I am glad you have great shoots. At 3:1 lifesize? 1:1 being the magnification ratio of lifesize, a 35mm patch of life. At 3x life size how did you keep your set up sharp? Getting to 3x in the field with insects is very difficult! Such a rig would need a lot of stability (heavy tripods) and would be right on top the subject.

As this is the leica forum, there are a lot of people here who do not use off-brand lenses.

Many of us use Canon and other digital cameras with adapters. I hope you know that the more brands you use the more adapters you have and the more likely you are to miss a shot.

I was just asking, why would you use medium format lenses? From what company? How many systems are you using? Medium format lenses are generally not sharp on 35mm. But if you get great results...

I have gotten my self into a great set of four lenses to cover my needs (21, 35-70, 100, 250), with some extras for special purposes. (For flowers)

I think you will find the opposite problem in the leica forum, people here have two sets of Leica and Zeiss lenses, and some generic ferrari $15,000 medium format system, not five lenses from third party companies.

"my Tamron Adaptall-2 SP 35-80mm includes in its specification that it takes the SP x2 TC "

That is the kind of comment from Tamron that truly shows they do not care about their consumer. Why would a company make that many compromises? Nikon had two sets of converters for lenses above and below 200 mm.

If I wanted to be an insect photographer, I would have a 200mm macro of some type, a 300 mm 4.0 lens, a long macro zoom like 100-300, extension, diopters and teleconverters. I would have good flash brackets, because insects do not stay still for tripods.

Thank you, forgive me for not assuming you have not already done extensive insect shooting. Even with thousands of plant images, I still enjoy referring to flower photography books.

Matt

harold_gough · March 13, 2012

harold_gough · March 13, 2012

This is an image from the Elmarit shot yesterday, without the harsh lighting of the others:

<a href="http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=16326">http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=16326</a>

The larve are about and inch (25mm) long.

kens · March 13, 2012

I still don't know where "medium format" lenses come into it.

</blockquote>

In your original post, Harold, you mention that you "use MF film lenses". I take that to mean Manual Focus lenses. Apparently Matthew took that to mean Medium Format lenses. Thus the small confusion.

harold_gough · March 13, 2012

Fair enough. I hadn't considered that as an option. Yes, manual focus. There are still some of us left! In true macro AF is, in effect, non-functional so using either non-AF lenses or AF lenses with the lenses and/or the cameras switched to manual is commonplace practice. In such circles MF invariably means manual focus.

harold_gough · March 13, 2012

Just getting back to teleconverters aka extenders.

There is a lot of nonsense propagated about them. They don't "increase the focal length" of a lens. They magnify the image so that only the portion from the centre of the lens reaches the focal plane. While that needs to match the quality of the glass of the lens, so far as I can determine, the design of the TC has nothing to do with the focal length of the lens per se.

I am willing to be proven wrong by clear evidence, such as a different optical design for different focal lengths. In the meantime, so far as I can determine, there are four reasons for having more than one model in a given lens system:

Magnification e.g. x1.4, x2; type of glass/performance e.g. LD, apochromatic; fitting - essentially diameter; coping physically with any rear elements protruding. I may have missed something but I don't think so. Im would be happy to be disabused of that opinion by more than a mere assertion.

wildflower art · March 13, 2012

Your pictures are wonderful. I think I had taken from your post that you were a beginner. I am clearly mistaken. It takes years to understand that a great way to ruin a picture is to center the subject. The rule of thirds means you should put your picture somewhere in the third left or third right subject, o one third from the top or from the bottom. Gives your eye somewhere to go. Centering pictures generally makes them very bland. Many people who have taken advertising know that the eye moves in a z pattern over the page. Roughly left to right and top to bottom at the same time. Diagonally down from the left. This rule translates to the photographer to the rule of thirds. Put your main subject in the points of a tic tac toe board. Gives your pictures flow.

The next thing you should think about, and I realize you are not soliciting critiques, is to ask what you want to say about your subject. That's up to you, you should come up with a message you want to convey about your insect friends. What makes you like insects? Their diversity? Their life cycles? The fact that they all go through metamorphasis? I can almost see metamorphasis in your pictures. Do you want to focus on an insect group? Do you want to show us that insects are more closely related to one another and yet they are more diverse in the classification scheme than any other life?

I like to take pictures of plants because they are rare, ephemeral, fleeting, diverse, and rooted or evolved.

I hope your gear speaks to you and makes you successful in your vision.

You have mentioned so many camera brands. Is olympus your main camera, your platform, your backbone? Leica can be adapted to many platforms if you want an SLR (they need big hands!)

I did not know teleconverters do not change focal length, but that is how they are used. 1.4x is 40 percent more focal length. The Olympus doubles your focal length with its 4/3 system.

Thanks

Matt

harold_gough · March 14, 2012

Matt,

Thanks for your kind words. That forum is contributed to by some of the world's leading macro photographers. I had reached a very high standard about 20 years ago, using film and flash. It took me many more years to master natural light macro. This last year, having branched out into digital, I have been trying to get back to where I was with my images. I am still treading water desperately to try to keep up with even the basic levels in that community.

Here are the best, none of mine here:

<a href="http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/viewforum.php?f=16&sid=e03b1d161b9798ecdf6f1ca277fe33bf">http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/viewforum.php?f=16&sid=e03b1d161b9798ecdf6f1ca277fe33bf</a>

If you want to see the envelope being pushed, in some posts, look in the studio gallery

<a href="http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/viewforum.php?f=27&sid=e03b1d161b9798ecdf6f1ca277fe33bf">http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/viewforum.php?f=27&sid=e03b1d161b9798ecdf6f1ca277fe33bf</a>

The very latest, with CGI stereo:

<a href="http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=16257">http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=16257</a>

Macro (including close-ups) presents its own problems. One of them is composition in the open air. Unfortunately, plants and animals (insects) have not read the books. As in design, odd numbers make the most aesthetic groupings. Only yesterday, I was trying to photograph flowers. Twos were everywhere but frameable threes and uncluttered singles were not to be found. Insects are even less compliant (in the season).

The one rule I apply, where it suits the subject, is to get down to their level, as you would to photograph a small child.

The main difficulty in the open air, and even in a greenhouse or conservatory, is that what appears to be still air is often far from it at, say, 1:1 through a macro lens. Even with flash, the tiny DOF makes sharp images a challenge. (No split screen focusing with my film lenses on a mirrorless camera).

Olympus OM film cameras and the Olympus E-P2, both with specialist OM macro lenses and Tamron SP lenses (now with one Elmarit and two Carl Zeiss Jenazoom IIs) are my tools for macro. Outside of macro I have the entire X-Pan (1) system and I have a project to use that for some moderate (studio only!) macro!

Regarding TCs and focal lengths, yes the effect is one of increasing FL but without changing the working distance, in particular the closest working distance.

wildflower art · March 15, 2012

You used Olympus in film days?

That's awesome! That company was geared towards macro photography, even at high magnifications beyond 1:1 on bellows with lenses like the 20 3.5 and 35 3.5. Those were microscope objectives.

Their gear was really great and very useful for photomacography. That was a nice system. What olympus lenses do you have? If they had a 200 mm macro (really the only thing they missed) they might have gone down as the system for macro bugs.

I can tell they use a lot of imagination on that forum, looks like some of those pictures were taken with an electron microscope!

Matt

harold_gough · March 15, 2012

Matt, I bought an OM2n (new) in the 1980s but now run a couple of OM4s (secondhand), the first one, believe it or not, I bought to use its spotmeter for the OM2n! It was only after I was made redundant in 2001 that I could start collecting bellows lenses and other gear. I have the 20mm auto and 38mm auto and the 80mm (plus x2 supplementary) also the 50mm macro.

I have the autobellows and both versions of the telecopic auto tube (used a lot for hand held macro with 38 mm and 50mm).

Here is my first attempt at stacking, using the 38mm:

<a href="http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=13919&highlight=praon">http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=13919&highlight=praon</a>

I have several of each of T45, T32 T20 flash, also T10 and T8 plus the T28 Twin macro.

<a href="http://www.alanwood.net/photography/olympus/index.html">http://www.alanwood.net/photography/olympus/index.html</a>

Enjoy, also:

<a href="http://mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/olympusom1n2/shared/zuiko/htmls/macrozuikoA.htm">http://mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/olympusom1n2/shared/zuiko/htmls/macrozuikoA.htm</a>

(Navigate around the site.

This is the only one I don't have but the 80mm does similar.

<a href="http://www.alanwood.net/photography/olympus/macro-lens-135-45.html">http://www.alanwood.net/photography/olympus/macro-lens-135-45.html</a>

The problem is that the OM series includes some very good lenses and some not very good ones so I went for Tamron SP, for which test data is accessible. Also, I want lenses to fit other bodies, if necessay, via adapters.

There is a lot of OM discussion here but it is now diluted by m4/3.

<a href="../olympus-camera-forum/">http://www.photo.net/olympus-camera-forum/</a>

By the way, I still use film. (I never bothered with prints).

harold_gough · March 15, 2012

I forgot to mention that I have the shift lenses and, as of last week, the 24mm 2.8.

<a href="http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/olympusom1n2/shared/zuiko/htmls/">http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/olympusom1n2/shared/zuiko/htmls/</a>

For Tamron Lenses, see:

<a href="http://www.adaptall-2.org/">http://www.adaptall-2.org/</a> (click on SP on left menu)

I have this, which would match any Zuiko

<a href="http://www.adaptall-2.org/lenses/63B.html">http://www.adaptall-2.org/lenses/63B.html</a>

Also the 400 and 300 and both mirror lenses and the 70-150mm (took me 20 years to locate one!).

Sign In

Optimum Extender For Macro Elmarit-R 60mm 2.8

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in