Coin Photography

How about this one?

http://www.adorama.com/ZI1002MPZE.html

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

It can really only take pics of Dollars, maybe Halves, since it can only go 1:2. And no dedicated macro lens can achieve the performance of an optimized duplication lens.

Here's a lens that will likely sell for around $300 or less that will blow away the Zeiss:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Rodenstock-75mm-f-1-4-APO-Rodagon-R-Enlarging-Lens-/140856471269?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item20cbb32ee5

 

And here are some lenses that will equal or possibly better the Zeiss, allow magnifications well beyond 1:1 if needed, and are small enough that they won't interfere with lighting like that big Zeiss will:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/rodenstock-...258?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item337c667bda

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Rodagon-1-5...569?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item337c6665a1

 

Hey Ray, how do those compare with the 75mm?

 

Just to make sure these will work with the T2i ?

 

The 75mm I linked to is the Rodagon-R, which is an older incarnation of the Rodagon-D. "R" stands for "Reproduction" and this lens was used in slide and document repro systems. For some reason Rodenstock later changed the name to "D" for "Duplication" but it's the same lens, same superb quality.

 

You can't directly mount these enlarging / repro / duplicating lenses to the camera. They have M39 Leica mounts and no focusing mechanism. You will need to pick up a bellows and some adapters. So in reality, the price will be higher than lens itself. I didn't mean to hijack this thread with talk of duplicating lenses on bellows, but the high price and limited functionality of "dedicated macro lenses" like the Canon 100 or especially the outrageously-priced Zeiss lenses is a pet peeve of mine. These big, bulky, expensive lenses are wonderful for outdoor macro work with flowers and bugs, but are quite limited for coin photography and much better solutions can be put together for far cheaper. But, you will need to invest in a bellows to take advantage. Here is an example of an excellent and relatively inexpensive bellows:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Vivitar-Bel...ens_Adapters_Mounts_Tubes&hash=item337c5e479f

And here is a higher quality one that still should not cost more than $100:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Canon-Auto-...866?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item1c2ba55d2a

Note most all bellows will require adapters for either lens or camera or both. The adapters are available on eBay for $5-$15 each.

So even with the bellows, you are still spending a lot less than on a dedicated macro lens.

 

I was referring to the 80mm and the 105mm. Does the microscope stand extend high enough or is the 75mm its limit?

Since the thread title is Coin Photography I think your subject matter is very relevant.

 

Color temperature is the way that broad spectrum white light spectral hue is specified. A black body emits light of a certain spectral content depending on the temperature of the black body. Up to a certain temperature, the colors are all in the infrared spectrum. As the temperature rises, the colors move toward visible, and at very high temperatures toward ultraviolet and beyond. Yellowish white light is in the 2000K range; what we call "pure white" is at around 6500K; and very bluish light is in the 8000K range.

There is an inconsistency with the way we describe the hue we see that is opposite (and thus confusing) from the actual trend of color temperature. When a light is yellowish in hue, we call it "warm", while when it is bluish in hue, we call it "cool". Confusing, but once you understand it's easy to compensate.

 

80mm is well within range to work with the Bausch and Lomb A-Stand, but 105mm requires enough additional working distance that you will need to compensate for larger coins (probably beyond Quarters) by removing the stage plate and setting the stand on a platform.

An important point for would-be coin photographers: modern dedicated macro lenses shorten their focal length when focused for higher magnification. Most "100mm" lenses are actually ~60mm when focused at their closest distance to subject. This shortens the working distance compared with a "real" 100mm lens. Since most dedicated macros are very big in diameter, this severely limits illumination angles. This double-whammy is why I am not in favor of dedicated macros. To compensate for this, most folks "in the know" suggest longer macro lenses such as 150mm or 180mm. As these lenses shorten their focal length, they at least maintain enough working distance to allow flexibility in illumination angles. This focal length shortening is not a concern for duplication or enlarging lenses, as they don't change at all as you change magnification. Thus a 105mm enlarging lens like I linked to is equivalent to a ~180mm dedicated macro, and has very large working distance for larger coins (lower magnification). This can cause a problem if your stand is not tall enough.

 

http://www.techradar.com/us/news/ph...-lens-8-tested-1041461/page:12#articleContent

 

Yep, that Zeiss looks like it might be a good lens. I can't tell if the results are relevant or not, as the reviewers didn't even tell us what magnification they were testing at! And to test a macro lens at f16 and go on about its sharpness shows they don't know what they are doing, so the conclusions are all in question. I also found their statement "with all but Zeiss Makro-Planar specifically designed for macro use". Curious they would make this statement, since indeed the MAKRO PLANAR lenses are designed for macro use. Perhaps this was a typo, or perhaps a marketing strategy to push the Zeiss lens? Perhaps they're trying to say "If it's that good as a macro lens and not even designed to be a macro lens, imagine how good it is as a portrait or landscape lens!" Not sure.

Bottom line is it's not very useful for coin photography to consider lenses that can't go to 1:1 unless all you care about are Dollars. For some folks that is fine, but my work focuses on Cents and I need around 0.8:1 on APS-C sensor for Cent imaging. If you do Dimes, you need even higher mag. If you shoot full frame, you need even higher. In fact, if you are shooting Cents full frame, you need around 1.2:1. Not a single one of those dedicated macro lenses can do this.

 

I can't comment on any of that, but my limited experience is that Zeiss Lenes are far better than others. The glass is noticeably better.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm a fan of Zeiss as well. At this point I have 3 lenses (well, maybe 4 or 5) that are my top choices for full-coin photography, and one of them is a Zeiss. There is also a Zeiss that I'd love to own, as it's at the top of many lists, but is quite difficult to find. So please don't think I'm bashing Zeiss with my statements.

 

how do you know the magnification is greater than 1:1?

 

These lenses require bellows to mount to the camera, and the bellows extension and focal length determine the magnification. Magnification is determined by M = (Total Extension - FL) / FL. Note that M=0 means focused at infinity. Dedicated macros have a built-in focusing helicoid, so the total extension is limited by the helicoid length. This is why the Zeiss only goes to 1:2...the focusing helicoid is too short.

 

Ray, I'm VERY happy to see you posting over here. Both myself and Robec (and I'm sure MANY others) have benefited immensely from your vast knowledge in this arena. Keep the posts coming!

 

ECH - Too complicated for a day off

 

Here's a lens that Canon claims will go from 1:1 to 1:5, "...a grain of rice will fill the frame on a 35mm camera" MP-E 65mm. I'm not a macro shooter, but curious how this stacks up when the need for seriously MACRO macro shots comes up. It's a standard Canon EF mount, and does not require a bellows.

Dave

 

this is what is screwing me up

it goes from 1:1 to 5:1