Favorite stacked Nikon lenses for macro?

[paul_ong1]

<p>Hi,</p>

<p>Been concentrating on macro photography recently. In a previous post regarding effective f-stop, I asked a followup question that seem to have gotten lost. So, here it is again.</p>

<p>What is your favorite two Nikon lenses when stacking?</p>

<p>I have tried my 24mm on the 50mm and it was terrible. I tried the 50mm on the 105mm and that is much better. I have to wait for some step-up and step-down adapters to try other combinations. So for now, hopefully I can get some insights and suggestions from you.</p>

<p>Thank you.</p>

[Albins images]

<p>Paul,</p>

<p>I have good results with 50/1.8 and 50/2.0 on 105/2.8 and 200/4.0, often with an additional extension ring to avoid further vignetting.</p>

[bjørn rørslett]

<p>The 50/1.8, in particular the older AIS model, is very good for stacking with 105 lenses be they "Micro" or not. Also works well with the 135/3.5. Used on a 200 the final magnification tends to be too high for practical field use but can do good service under studio settings. I expect the 50/2 to be pretty much similar to th f/1.8 in these applications. My impression is that the 105 f/4 Micro-Nikkor is preferable over its f/2.8 brethren.</p>

<p>Using an EL-Nikkor 50/2.8, mounted in an adapter so as to attach directly onto the front of the master lens, is even better in terms of quality. I use a BR-15 (Leica M39 to F) adapter in conjunction with a K3 ring for this purpose, but you can cobble up makeshift solutions from cheap T-rings as well. The main point is that the enlarger lens needn't be reversed. (I'm also using either EL 50/2.8 or JML 50/3.5 for UV macro work with my 105/4.5 UV-Nikkors as both transmit UV well enough for that purpose).</p>

<p>Finally, while it is convenient to use the aperture of the master lens to simplify handling and light metering, this is not the best approach for getting best image quality. Instead one should use the master lens wide open and set aperture on the front lens. That way much if not all of the vignetting issues disappear as well.</p>

<p> </p>

[elliot1]

<p>I have never stacked lenses but am curious about it. Why would you stack lenses as opposed to using a dedicated macro? I have extension tubes which work reall well as you do not add additional glass that can affect IQ. How does lens stacking compare to the use of extension tubes? Do you get more magnification with one method over the other? Anyone have some sample photos they can post using stacked lenses?</p>

[bjørn rørslett]

<p>Stacking lenses serves to increase the magnification. It allows for a much more compact arrangement than using bellows or extension tubes to get to the same degree of magnification, typically well above "life size" (1:1). Some combinations can yield surprisingly good results, but as always, test the setups before they actually are put into practical use.</p>

<p>A small 50/1.8 or similar doesn't add much to the gear anyway so it is good to know it can serve dual purposes.</p>

<p> </p>

[juri_vosu]

<p>Bjorn,<br>

How do you calculate the magnification factor when stacking lenses? Is it the focal length of the master, rear lens, divided by the focal length of the front lens? Example would be 105mm, master lens, divided by 50mm, front lens.<br>

Juri</p>

[john_narsuitus]

<p>In the studio, I can get up to a 12:1 reproduction ratio using a 28mm lens mounted in reverse position on a bellows unit with extension tubes. However, fearing damage, I hesitate taking my bellows into the field. For fieldwork, would I be able to stack a 50mm f/1.8 on a 105mm f/2.8 macro or a 105mm f/2.5 and obtain 12:1 images that were similar in quality to what I can do in the studio?</p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<blockquote>

<p>Elliot - I have never stacked lenses but am curious about it. Why would you stack lenses as opposed to using a dedicated macro?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Dedicated macros go to 1x by themselves, and you can hit 2.4x with a Nikon 60mm using the whole set of three Kenko tubes (12, 20, 36mm). A stack of lenses can hit very high magnifications. I've used a 20mm reversed in front of a 200mm for a very high quality 10x magnification.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I have extension tubes which work reall well as you do not add additional glass that can affect IQ.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is a common myth. Yes, additional glass "can affect" IQ, but it does not have to be a negative effect. Have you ever shot a picture with a lens that only has 1 piece of glass? Say the older "lens baby", or a remounted Holga lens? Each additional piece of glass, if chosen properly, corrects aberrations of the other pieces of glass. That's what a stack of lenses does.</p>

<p>A traditional lens (macro or otherwise) has a certain optimum magnification. When you extend it past that point, uncorrected curvature of field, spherical aberration, etc. takes its toll on image quality. So, despite not having any additional glass, the extension tubes can have a strong negative effect on image quality.</p>

<p>Reversing and stacking lenses breaks the magnification "problem" down into two pieces. The front (reversed) lens couples light from the subject to infinity, the rear (on camera) lens couples light from infinity to the film or sensor. Mathematically, that's a whole lot easier than trying to make one lens couple directly from the subject to the sensor, and that's why some macro lenses are actually built like a coupled pair of lenses inside. It's also why the "infinity optics" microscope has effectively replaced the "fixed tube lenght" microscope. The extra "tube lens" that makes the "subject to infinity, infinity to image" relay possible increases quality.</p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<blockquote>

<p>In the studio, I can get up to a 12:1 reproduction ratio using a 28mm lens mounted in reverse position on a bellows unit with extension tubes.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Wow, that's a lot of extension. No wonder you hesitate to take it into the field. And it's such a low effective aperture, lots of diffraction and low resolution. What 28mm do you use, an f2.8? At 12x, that's f36. How do you even see to compose?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>However, fearing damage, I hesitate taking my bellows into the field.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't hesitate. If the day is about macro, I pack a bellows. I use coupled lenses for when the day unexpectedly turns to macro. My normal bellows is a Nikon PB-4: it has 5 degrees of freedom: front standard, rear standard, and main rail movement, front standard shift and swing.</p>

<p>But I use it with a decent assortment of high end macro lenses, not a reversed 28mm. My pride and joy is a 28mm f1.8 Ultra-Micro Nikkor. On the PB-4, it has a magnification range from 3.3x to 8.4x, and the effective aperture is f16 at 8.4x. If I extended it to 12x, I'd still have f23. The UMN is a rare exotic lens, though. You might consider picking up a 10x Nikon CF N Plan Achro microscope objective. On a bellows, that gives you a range from 8-18x, and it's 1.8 stops faster than your 28mm (almost twice the diffraction limited resolution, and nearly 4x as much light to see by) and a lot better corrected and considerably sharper. That's an objective you often see for $200 on the used market. Since it's a 14.5mm lens, you only have to extend your bellows half as far for the same magnification, a boon to field work.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>For fieldwork, would I be able to stack a 50mm f/1.8 on a 105mm f/2.8 macro or a 105mm f/2.5 and obtain 12:1 images that were similar in quality to what I can do in the studio?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No. The magnification is the ratio of the focal lengths. To get into your range, you'd need to stack your 28mm on something much longer. It will hit 10.7x on a 300mm. But you might find that the 28mm on a 300mm exceeds what you get from it on a bellows at the same magnification. Using it on the bellows means going from about 40mm to 336mm. It's really not built for that. Wides tend to have their optimal sharpness at infinity, so going from 38mm to infinity (reversed wide) then from infinity to the sensor (good, flat field tele) will likely outperform the wide reversed on a bellows. However, the bellows is much more versatile, since you can crank magnification from about 4-9x at will, then add tubes for other ranges, like 7-12x.</p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<p>Paul, a 50mm is really a bit short to be the rear lens of a stack. Stacking is, as I mentioned already, a form of "infinity coupling". It works best when both lenses are "flat field". It's most important that the rear lens be flat field, because you're only using a portion of the front lens's field (half the field at 2x, 1/4 the field at 4x, etc), so the front lens's problems get reduced inversely with increasing magnification.</p>

<p>The 50mm lenses are not known for flat field characteristics, except for the 55mm f2.8 and f3.5 micro-Nikkors, and their entrance pupils are a bit far back for successful coupling. Albin mentioned some of my favorite combinations already. The 105mm and 200mm macros, and the old 105mm f2.5 AiS make great rear lenses. Almost any 105, 135, 180, or 200 lens is sufficiently flat field to work well as a rear lens, that's why Bjorn's comment about any 105, whether or not it's a macro, is so true.</p>

<p>I also like the 20mm f2.8 reversed on a 105 for about 5x, and on a 200mm for 10x.</p>

[john_narsuitus]

<p>“What 28mm do you use, an f2.8? At 12x, that's f36. How do you even see to compose?”</p>

<p>Joseph,</p>

<p>I am using an f/3.5 pre-AI 28mm Nikon lens in reverse position on PB-4 bellows. Since I am shooting under studio conditions, I can use high intensity lights to make the subject easier to see.<br>

.</p>

 

[paul_ong1]

<p>Thanks everyone for the very useful info. Now I know why the 50mm produces such poor images when used as the rear lens. I will try attaching my enlarger lenses (Schneider Componon-S 50mm and 80mm) on my Nikon 105mm and 200mm (AIS). Became intrigued by the 10x Nikon CF N Plan Achro microscope objective lens, so went to ebay to take a look. No cheap ones now, but will keep looking.</p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<p>John, OK, that gets you light to focus. But that's effective f45. You're about 2-3 stops past the point where diffraction starts to get annoying.</p>

<p>Can I ask, what do you use the resultant pics for?</p>

[john_narsuitus]

<p>“Can I ask, what do you use the resultant pics for?”</p>

<p>For documenting the condition of gold and silver coins</p>

[User_502260]

<p>A reversed 50 or 35 with an auto ring and double cable makes a compact set-up and retains semi-automatic diaphragm control. You can use extension tubes to increase magnification. I have auto rings for Konica and Canon. If I remember the correct Nikon ring it's the BR4. If your camera also alllows for TTL flash metering this can also make things easier. With stacking the front lens is normally reversed. Lester Lefkowitz's book The Manual Of Close-Up Photography gives some good tips on stacking. He used mostly Nikon equipment to illustrate the book. If you are shooting non-moving subjects and don't need auto diaphragm control then an enlarging lens in the 75-150 range can be useful in the lower magnification range. Lenses which are not symmetrical would normally be reversed after about 1:1. Rings for stacking can be made or bought.</p>