Photo Pros - Which Camera Lens Do You Use?

Discussion in 'Coin Chat' started by mynamespat, Feb 20, 2017.

  1. mynamespat

    mynamespat Well-Known Member

    I'm following along as best I can. I can't wait until I can come back and read thru this and understand all the jargon. Every post sends me down a rabbit hole of googling. ;)
    I'm setting short mid and long term plans. Right now I'm seeing what my options are. It seems like the best option for me at the moment is still the adapter set-up rmps posted originally since it is cheaper and more versatile. Before I spend a dime, I'm going to take stock of everything I have that can be utilized and see what results I can create.
     
  2. Avatar

    Guest User Guest



    to hide this ad.
  3. benveniste

    benveniste Type Type

    Disclaimer: I am by no means a photo pro, but I do play with a lot of macro gear. All of the coins I've posted here are my own photographs.

    Let's start with the objective stuff. The D3300 you're considering has a sensor size of 23.5mm by 15.6mm. Canon uses a slightly smaller sensor in its consumer-level dSLR's. The smallest U.S. coin ever minted is 13mm in diameter. That means that using an off-the-shelf macro lens like the 85mm f/3.5 VR Micro-Nikkor, you can fill the frame with all but the smallest U.S. coins and come close on the rest. But if you wish to get close-ups on doubled lettering and other small features, then a bellows is just one of several possible approaches. Note that a PB-6 imposes a certain minimum amount of extension -- you may find that a few objects that are too big to use with a PB-6 but too small to fill the frame using a non-macro "kit" lens.

    Now back to opinions. One of the challenges when using a bellows to shoot a coin is trying to figure out how to position all of the bits and still eliminate (or at least minimize) vibration. Using an enlarger lens on a bellows takes a lot more time for me than, say, using a macro lens and some extension tubes on a copystand. At least to start, I suggest you keep the "taking" part simple and focus on lighting and support kit. Even if you like to MacGyver things (and who doesn't) you'll have plenty to improvise with diffusers, lighting brackets and the like.

    As for budget, if you live in the United States, Nikon offers a "Macro and Portrait Two Lens Kit" consisting of an 85mm f/3.5 VR Micro-Nikkor and a 35mm f/1.8 DX. Total cost is $500. Unlike an enlarger lens based setup, for that money you not only get a solid macro solution but you also get two useful lenses for general purpose photography.

    Many people sneer at autofocus for macro work. Still, about half the "full coin" shots I take are with Live View autofocus. I find that at least on my D800, it's more than sufficient for modern low relief coins, and my eyes aren't getting any younger :-(.

    So in conclusion, I'm proposing that you spend some extra money as compared to a manual focus solution. For that money, you'll gain a lot of convenience plus options for general purpose photography. Good luck however you choose!
     
    Paul M. and mynamespat like this.
  4. rmpsrpms

    rmpsrpms Lincoln Maniac

    A problem with newer dedicated macro lenses is that they change in focal length as magnification is increased toward 1:1. Generally the focal length at 1:1 is about 60-70% of the focal length at infinity. So a 105mm lens becomes a 65 or 70mm lens at 1:1, while an 85mm lens becomes a 55 or 60mm. This reduces the working distance, and given the large diameter of the lens, makes lighting more difficult.

    The first macro lens I purchased for photographing coins was a 105mm AFS Micro-Nikkor, and I quickly found it unsuitable due to difficulty in lighting. I still have the lens, and occasionally use it for walkabout macro of flowers and bugs, but it was the shortcomings of the 105mm AFS lens that led me down the path of bellows and enlarging/duplicating lenses.

    If you do decide to go down the dedicated macro lens path, I would highly recommend you get a long lens such as 150mm or 180mm. This guarantees you have good working distance and lighting flexibility. The drawback to longer lenses is they need very long working distances for bigger coins, so you will need a tall copy stand or tripod to frame Dollars.
     
  5. BooksB4Coins

    BooksB4Coins Newbieus Sempiterna

    One issue I can't get around is the fact he doesn't own the camera, and because of this, cannot help but to question the logic of buying a more costly lens, particularly one difficult to adapt or that may limit him down the line. It is one thing if he likes the camera and is willing to stick with DX Nikon, but without knowing this it strikes me as a less than ideal approach.

    That said, OP also mentioned the Nikon PB-6 bellows and I'm wondering, if he did go this route and if cost is an issue, couldn't he buy a less expensive third party version (Vivitar, Soligor, whatever)? I don't see why not, but this is something you could answer better than I.
     
  6. rmpsrpms

    rmpsrpms Lincoln Maniac

    Yes, if he decides to go the bellows route, for sure the PB-6 is not the best choice (for his situation). A Vivitar would likely serve him better, or possibly a Pentax in M42 mount. M42 is very flexible as an "intermediate" mount since it's easy to find both camera and lens adapters to fit M42, which is known as the "universal" mount. This is the reason my original recommendation based on extensions used M42. Just change the camera adapter and you can make the same system work with Canon, Nikon, whatever.
     
    mynamespat likes this.
  7. rmpsrpms

    rmpsrpms Lincoln Maniac

    Pat...a deciding factor may be if you have any interest in taking more zoomed-in (higher magnification) images of coin details, or if you just want to shoot full-coin images. If you think you might want to look closer, then realize the dedicated macro lens won't get you there. With the adapter or bellows approach, inexpensive lens or objective options can allow you to zoom in to whatever level you want.
     
    Last edited: Feb 25, 2017
    mynamespat likes this.
  8. robec

    robec Junior Member

    Does Vivitar and Pentax have software available for camera control and Live View. Not having Live View would be a deal breaker for me.
     
  9. rmpsrpms

    rmpsrpms Lincoln Maniac

    We're talking Vivitar or Pentax bellows, not cameras.

    This does bring up a good point about the D3300...I am not sure if it can be tethered. ControlMyNikon does not support the 3xxx series because Nikon never made the PDK public. Camera Control Pro 2 may work, I am not sure, but it's expensive. It's likely the D3300 can only be used in local Live View mode. This makes getting a remote shutter control imperative.
     
  10. mynamespat

    mynamespat Well-Known Member

    The pb-6 was merely a reference point. I investigated only far enough to discover the lower nikon model, pb-4, is basically junk.
    I don't think books read the thread, because my main question was essentially answered by rmps at the very beginning. Since then, folks have been showing off their toys. I'm not complaining. It's really neat seeing these tools that are outside my current budget and the results they produce. It's also neat seeing the results produced by low-end set-ups.
    In fact, I pretty much started this thread because of the sticker shock I encountered when looking up micro-lenses.

    I have spent the last couple days messing around with my sis' camera. Here are the 1935 and 1892 I posted earlier with new imaging. I'm essentially running into the problem I anticipated- I'm not using the full potential of the camera with the stock lens. I am using DigicamControl- so the increased pre-shoot abilities is well worth the switch. 1935-1-obv.jpg 1935-1-rev.jpg 1892-obv-1better.jpg 1892-rev-better.jpg
     
    semibovinian and green18 like this.
  11. rmpsrpms

    rmpsrpms Lincoln Maniac

    Those are not too bad from the kit lens. Are you autofocusing? The Quarter shots look a bit out of focus, but it might be a scaling issue.
     
  12. mynamespat

    mynamespat Well-Known Member

    I've been using manual focus- I tried auto for a few and took some wonderful pictures of the scratches in the plastic. Another limitation I'm running into with the kit lens is limited depth. I'm seeing why the copy-stand is so useful- the slightest tilt/movement really effects focus.
     
  13. benveniste

    benveniste Type Type

    The actual 1:1 working distances for the 105mm VR and the 85mm VR are 148mm and 141mm respectively. The working distance with a 75mm enlarger lens at 1:1 is at most 150mm. In comparison, the working distance of a 105mm f/4 AI with a 52.5mm extension tube was 173mm. I don't know what setup you were using which made the massive 2mm shorter working distance of the 105mm VR "unsuitable," but I've found that I have no issues no matter whether I use an SB-21 ring light, the Nikon R1 system with two SB-R200's, or my copystand lights. Over 80% of the coins I've photographed are with the 105mm VR even though I also own 60mm, 85mm and 180mm macro lenses.
     
  14. benveniste

    benveniste Type Type

    I have the PB-4 and I'm afraid I disagree with your conclusions. It's an older model, not a "lower" one. It is solidly built, operates smoothly and offers shift and swing features the PB-6 does not. In exchange, the PB-6 offers a little more extension, but used the PB-4 typically sells for more than the PB-6.
     
    semibovinian and mynamespat like this.
  15. rmpsrpms

    rmpsrpms Lincoln Maniac

    The problem with the working distance on the 105VR is that the lens itself is quite large in diameter. Coupled with the relatively short working distance, this severely limits the lighting angles you can achieve. You of course can create lighting systems that place the light sources between the lens and coin to get to a higher angle, or use axial lighting to alleviate the problem completely (while creating several new ones), but I was not aware of those techniques when I first started out, and in general prefer not to use them even today. Why should I accept going to such lengths to make such an expensive lens work for me? Enlarging/duplicating lenses are small in diameter, and because of this are much easier to get lighting into place without specialized systems. And I learned pretty quickly that I could actually achieve better image quality from duplication lenses than could be achieved with the 105VR, and much less money, and without the limitation of 1:1 magnification.

    I do agree with you that the PB4 is an excellent bellows. It's likely far beyond what the OP needs given the tilt/shift capability.
     
  16. mynamespat

    mynamespat Well-Known Member

    I thought the explanations I read about the pb-4 stated that the shift/swing feature was fairly gimmicky (I double checked the thread I got information and it is ~9 years old and sounds like the critiques have different needs than I). Although for photographing coins, with a copystand, I reckon I wouldn't even be using that feature, eh?

    Thank you for addressing the bellows question. It was sort of passed over without any further explanation. It was something I hadn't really even considered until mentioned earlier in the thread. Thus, I'm just working on what I've picked up briefly researching before I decided to just ask.

    So far, I've figured out ~$100-200 put into stepping up my photo game will probably be best invested in better lighting, the original lens/ring set-up rmps posted and better stability. However, all this information is super useful in deciding which route I would like to take.
     
  17. rmpsrpms

    rmpsrpms Lincoln Maniac

    Pat...for coins, the tilt/shift capability can be useful for some unique lighting methods that are probably beyond what you want to do for now. Specifically, the tilt/shift function can allow you to do a form of pseudo-axial lighting, which shines light directly onto coin so that it goes straight to the sensor. This can be useful for bringing out the deep colors of toned copper or toned proofs.

    An advantage the bellows gives, which might not have been mentioned yet, is that it (not the camera) attaches to the tripod or copy stand. This helps to balance the system better, and allows you to remove the camera easily for other purposes rather than taking your coin setup completely apart. If you plan to have the camera do double-duty of family pics, walkaround shooting, etc then it might be nice to have the bellows. But if the camera will be dedicated to coins, this need goes away.

    edited to add one more thing: 105VR has no tripod mount, so you must mount the camera to the tripod or copy stand. It is a heavy lens, and causes the system to sag. Even with a perfectly rigid mount, the camera itself will sag a bit. This can be overcome with shimming or other adjustments the stand may have, but again these are things that can be avoided by going with smaller, lighter components or with bellows.
     
    Last edited: Feb 25, 2017
    mynamespat likes this.
  18. BooksB4Coins

    BooksB4Coins Newbieus Sempiterna

    My apologies. When you said this, I took it at face value...

    Of course others, myself included, can benefit from threads such as this, so even if you're not helped by certain posts, it doesn't mean everyone else will feel the same.
     
  19. mynamespat

    mynamespat Well-Known Member

    what?
     
  20. benveniste

    benveniste Type Type

    "Severely limits" is more than a little bit of an exaggeration, as were your claims about working distance. In fact, the diameter of the 105mm is no larger than the size of the front plate of a PB-4 or the Vivitar bellows. The size of the camera body is also a factor. So perhaps you should post a shot of a lighting setup you can achieve with a bellows that you can't with a 105mm VR.

    Nor is your claim that the 105mm causes the system to "sag" justified. When used flat on a tripod, the center of mass is a bit off from the ideal, but the neither the lens nor camera deflects. The mount also copes with the weight easily. Nor is using a bellows on a tripod without its challenges. First, not all bellows have movable tripod mounts. My PB-4 has one, as does the PB-6, but at least some from Pentax, Minolta did not, nor do the Fotodiox and no names sold on eBay. Second, when you mount a bellows on a tripod and use it to shoot at typical magnifications for coins, you end up with the back of the rail pointing back towards you where it's easily jostled.

    When using on a copystand with the lens pointing down, there's actually less stress on the stand when using a macro lens because the overall weight is less.

    I don't know too any hobbyist who dedicates a dSLR to coins -- I certainly don't and you've already stated that you don't either. I understand that you prefer a bellows setup, and you think it works better for you, and I'm fine with that. Different tools suit different artisans. But please try to present a fair picture rather than resorting to such exaggerations to "sell" your approach.
     
  21. rmpsrpms

    rmpsrpms Lincoln Maniac

    Yes, it would be a big problem if you were just working with the front face of the Vivitar bellows. Luckily, the lens does extend below this level and allows lighting to be placed below the bellows face and to the side of the lens or slightly in front of it.

    Any droop will cause one side of the coin to be in focus while the other side is not. Cameras tend to droop more than bellows due to their shape and the width of the mounting areas. Some cameras are better than others in this respect, so it does depend on the camera and the composition of the body and any coatings on the tripod mounting surface. Have you ever calibrated the flatness of your system? It's a good idea to do this to avoid having to stop down the lens to achieve acceptable depth of field. I developed a technique using a mirror put in place of the coin, stopping lens down, then focusing on the lens image in the mirror. Give it a try, as I bet you will find your system with camera plus heavy lens is indeed drooping a bit and needs some shims.


    Not sure where I stated I don't dedicate a camera to coins, but indeed I have several cameras that are only used for coin photography.

    I have made no exaggerations, nor do I need to "sell" the extension/bellows approach. The extension/bellows + enlarging/duplicating lens system has both pros and cons vs the dedicated macro lens system, and I've stated them fairly so that Pat can make an informed decision.
     
    Last edited: Feb 25, 2017
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page