Photo Pros - Which Camera Lens Do You Use?

I do. The only lenses I own are coin imaging lenses.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

In other words, you can't or won't post such a shot. And didn't you say you prefer not to use a setup which places a light between the lens and a coin?

This is argument by assumption, since you haven't established that any droop occurs. But I suppose if you use a weak enough tripod and head it could be an issue.

I use shoe-mounted 2-dimensional bubble level, and check my results. Since I use a copystand for the vast majority of my coin shots, it's a lot easier to keep the coin parallel to the sensor. If a mirror system works for you, cool, but is anyone else reading this tallying up the time you have to spend on each shot?

Several cameras? Do you have several bellows setups as well? Then you shouldn't have any problem posting pictures of your setup to show how superior your lighting arrangement is.

Need I remind you about your claims about the diameter or working distance of a 105mm VR "severely" limiting things? Or about the actual reduction in focal length?

 

Fair enough. I stand corrected.

 

Not too shabby........

 

That's correct, I won't waste the time to post such a shot. It would require me to put together a setup that I don't use.

I was mostly talking about not preferring axial lighting. I have developed some specialized diffusers that I call "directors" that place the effective light sources between the lens and coin and shape the light so as to keep glare off a slab surface while maximizing the incident angle. Google "smile director coin photography".

Droop always occurs and must be compensated for.

You only need to level the system with a mirror once, when you set it up, or when you notice a depth of field issue. I started out using a level, but I found it was not accurate enough to ensure flatness of the sensor vs the coin. I also found it overly constraining to force both my camera and my stand to be flat.

Indeed I have many bellows, over 20 different types. The one I use most is the Canon in my stacking system at home, and the Pentax in my portable system, though I do enjoy using the Novoflex quad rail as well.

And what were my exaggerations?

Perhaps you could show a picture of your setup configured to show how you achieve 80+ degree incident angle filling the screen with a Dime using the 105VR?

 

First you claimed that the 105mm VR was "unusable" because you could do lighting setups with a bellows that you can't with the 105mm VR. And now you are claiming you don't use such a setup. Gotcha.

Again, argument by assertion. How much droop are you claiming?

And yet you didn't realize your Pentax bellows doesn't have a movable tripod mount and you won't post a shot of any of these setups. Gotcha.

1. So a 105mm lens becomes a 65 or 70mm lens at 1:1, while an 85mm lens becomes a 55 or 60mm. (Both provably false.)
2. The lens itself is quite large in diameter. (It's no wider than the bellows plate).
   
3. Coupled with the relatively short working distance, this severely limits the lighting angles you can achieve. (It's 2mm shorter than the theoretical maximum for a 75mm lens, which means in real life it's longer).
   
4. It is a heavy lens, and causes the system to sag. Even with a perfectly rigid mount, the camera itself will sag a bit. (Not demonstrated or quantified.)
5. Droop always occurs and must be compensated for. (Not demonstrated or quantified.)

I don't claim to be able to, and you've already stated that you won't "waste your time" demonstrating that you can. But just for fun, let's do some simple math. Your enlarging lens has a filter diameter of 40.5mm when reversed. To "fill the screen" with a dime requires a 1.34x magnification. To accomplish that with a 75mm lens in turn requires a subject distance of 131mm from the center of the lens.

This in turn means that even if the enlarging lens was infinitely thin, the maximum possible incident angle is 81.3 degrees. So the light source would have to be less than a millimeter in width. Neither of these are real world possibilities.

In short, you deliberately and dishonestly proposed an impossible strawman. Given that, why should anyone trust any of your other claims?

 

Actually, it's pretty common knowledge that current macro lenses decrease in effective focal length as magnification increases.

The lens is pretty darn large in diameter when compared to a duplicating lens which can fit two Jansjos into the space freed up by comparison, therefore achieving lighting verticality over the subject a fullsize macro lens cannot duplicate. For the record, my bellows plate is 55mm; the 105VR is (near as I can tell) 83mm, and it doesn't matter because the lights are below the bellows plate. Heck, for me, the lights (or the diffuser which directs them) are usually below the lens.

See above. A dinner plate will always be physically wider than a saucer, regardless of how many truffles you pile on it.

Nobody who's ever done it in the real world will argue the fact. It's another good reason why we use small-diameter, lightweight duplicating lenses.

Compare the deflection to something half the weight, and it might become more obvious. The fact that you haven't experimented with this stuff doesn't mean that others haven't and made choices accordingly. I don't miss the gyrations I had to go through to compensate for the droop forced by my 100mm Macro.

Perhaps because he's built the systems used by a substantial percentage of the Pro-level photographers here, and many of the rest built their own using his design? Who do you think first taught this stuff about coin imaging with bellows and duplicating lenses? How many excellent photographers have you personally taught?

No need to take Ray's opinion as Gospel, though. Have a look through Mark Goodman's work on the topic of macro imaging:

http://coinimaging.com/photo_articles.html?

There's much of substance there.


A couple other things, related to previous of your posts:

The best way to eliminate vibration in coin photography is to not use Nikon cameras. They use mechanical first shutters, unlike Canon, which introduces a noticeable level of vibration. It's one of the things Ray proved while you weren't watching. Beyond that, if your rig is vibrating, you haven't tightened the screws sufficiently. Anything additional - vibration introduced by environment - is a wash.

It takes you longer to turn the adjusting screw on a bellows than to add and subtract screw-on extensions? I shot this earlier tonight - a Canadian Large Cent detail, roughly 1.25x:



....with the exact same lens I use to shoot stuff like this, ~0.77x:



....and the adjustment amounts to a bit of turning of two dials. No need to touch lens or camera.

All this is moot, anyway; for me the best argument against a Nikon 105VR is that it costs twice as much as my entire imaging equipment investment, including the camera, all lenses and even factoring the custom microscope stand (which Ray built for me, by the way).

 

True, but not as much as claimed. Hence it's an exaggeration. At 1:1, you will have virtually the same working distance with either Nikkor as with a 75mm enlarging lens. Ray claimed otherwise.

I'll ask you the same thing. Please post a shot of your setup and explain how it severely limits things. Ray refused to do so.

I've done it in the real world with modern arca-swiss based gear, so now we're both guilty of overgeneralizations. Quantify, please, so I can compute what effect if any it would have on depth of field or angle.

And once again, I'll point out that when used on a copystand, a bellows adds rigidity challenges rather than solves them. Ray ignored this as well.

I understand that advantage in theory, and if anything I said implied that Nikon was better than Canon for this I apologize. Nikon/Canon "debates" have never interested me; again, it's tools for artisans. The original poster asked about Nikon and I've been a Nikon user long options such as electronic shutters were available. So I spoke to what's available from that brand. What I'm not sure (and what Ray didn't prove) was how much was due to mirror slap (not an issue with a D800 in live view) and how much to the shutter.

Yes, because it's not just about the adjusting screw. Since I don't dedicate my camera to coin shots I don't leave my camera mounted on a tripod or copy stand full time there's less setup time. Once I've added the extension tube, say a 20mm tube, I can focus between 0.2x and 1.25x by adjusting the height of the camera on the stand, so I don't need to subtract and I still retain the ability to tweak focus on the lens or (*gasp*) use live view autofocus. Still once you move beyond 1:1 bellows become more valuable, which is why I own one.

I do notice the aspect ratio on your second shot is off, which means that either something went horribly wrong in post or the coin wasn't aligned with the focal plane. In effect, you just demonstrated the problem you claim would happen with sag to a much larger degree. Tell me -- how much did it impact DOF? I didn't think so.

I'm glad it works for you since you are willing to dedicate an SLR to the task. If you read my original response, I outlined why I felt (and feel) that for most people starting out using a macro lens is a better and easier alternative. You may have noticed that both Nikon and Canon gave up selling bellows long ago, and Nikon currently only sells one enlarging lens and that's through industrial channels. It's worth musing on why.

 

I will try to find some time today or in next couple days to put together comparison systems showing:
- Nikon camera with 105VR
- Nikon camera with extensions/helicoid/enlarging lens (the system I recommended to Pat)
- Canon camera with bellows and duplication lens (Similar to the system Robec uses)

While spurred on to doing this by benveniste, I think it will be good for Pat to see the different options, and will hopefully help others that are looking on at this thread.

My subject will be a Lincoln Cent, since that's what I collect, so the magnification won't be quite 1:1, maybe more like 0.75:1.

There are a couple items I want to address first though:

You seem to have misunderstood 100% of what I said.

Please let me know where I said this? You seem to be reading in a lot more to my messages than what I am typing. The Pentax bellows I use do indeed have a movable tripod mount. It looks and works a lot like a miniature Nikon PB6. [/quote]

I suggested 80-deg without calculation. It was not deliberately impossible, though I am not 100% trusting your calculations. Note I am also working with APS-C, as are most of the folks on the various forums, so a Dime requires <1:1 magnification to fill the screen.

I would call this passage "trolling" but I am trying to keep an open mind and move this thread forward for the benefit of Pat and others.

 

As far as I can tell you guys are arguing over ~2mm working distance and probably less in sag...this discussion is about as nerdy as it gets, lol.

 

Exact quote: "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. You then claimed this was due to the working distance and the width of the lens. The working distance claim was easily debunked, so your next exact quote was: "Coupled with the relatively short working distance (debunked), this severely limits the lighting angles you can achieve."

So which part didn't I understand?

Here is a picture of the Pentax M42 bellows. I don't see a movable tripod mount, do you? Again, feel free to post a picture of yours.

Okay, here are the formulae. My camera is a D800. Run it yourself if you don't believe me.
o = f((1/m) + 1) (where o=object distance, f=focal length, m=magnification)
minimum angle of incidence = arctan(o * 2/diameter of lens)

With a ring-light, I can achieve a 60 degree angle of incidence, but challenging me to do something without checking if it's possible goes beyond exaggeration to pure and simple dishonesty.[/QUOTE]

 

So true! But it's more than that, unfortunately. My question for you: would you like to see the comparison between the 3 systems? This is your thread, and I will show the systems if it will help you to make a decision.

 

Meh, I wouldn't go thru the trouble if I were you if it requires re-setting up your set-up. I think I'm getting a pretty good grasp of the minute differences between the different set-ups. With a little bit of digging thru old posts I can probably find some examples.

I'm picking up a LOT of information and I feel like I've just taken a photography course.

One example, I've definitely noticed the aggressive shutter on the Nikon I'm using. After reading Dave's post, I realized this isn't a universal problem. So, when I get around to purchasing a camera. This is something I will take into consideration.

 

Look for "Electronic First Shutter Curtain (EFSC)." In essence, the shutter on a dSLR is a set of two vertical curtains, unlike the mechanical interleaved aperture of film cameras. When you trigger the shot, the first shutter curtain mechanically opens across the sensor, and the second then follows it to finish the exposure. On the overwhelming majority of Canon dSLR's (including the years-old, 10MP Rebel XS I use), when in Live View that first shutter curtain is replaced by the simple act of turning the sensor on, negating the need for a curtain. The second curtain then ends the exposure "normally." I believe only the Nikon D810 has EFSC, in their lineup. A few Sony dSLR's do, also, IIRC.

It is the first curtain opening which introduces the vibration. It's been probably 6 or 8 years (or more?) since rmpsrpms published the comparison images between a Canon with and a Nikon without EFSC using the same lens; I cannot locate the particular thread but I_do know it completely eliminated Nikon (or any camera without EFSC) from my thinking.

Lest I seem like a hater, were I shooting non-macro stuff out in the real world I'd likely be shooting Nikon instead of Canon. But I'm not.

 

The meaning and implications of the word "Coupled".

Before spouting off again, please do your research first. Here is a link to the definitive eBook on Pentax Bellows:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/content/uploads/files/1/p1884/The_Pentax_Bellows.pdf

Insulting and incorrect part of the post snipped.

60-deg is a severe limitation.

 

Here is the collage comparing D7000 vs T2i, Normal vs Live View. For the D7000, Live View eliminates Shutter Shake since it takes the exposure before cycling the mirror. Same for all (?) Nikon and Canon cameras, which is why Live View is so important to use when doing macro photography. For the T2i, Live View also engages EFSC, so that the shutter does not cycle before the shot, eliminating shutter shake.



Like SuperDave, I use Nikon for all my walkaround photography, including macro of flowers and bugs and such. This is not because I like Nikon or Canon better for this purpose, just that I have many new and legacy Nikon lenses. I only started using Canon for coins once SuperDave nudged me in that direction several years ago.

I am still waiting for any camera company to release a FF sensor, no-AA filter, EFSC/EFCS camera with decent tethering abilities. The D810 is closest to this ideal, but its tethering is less than ideal. Eventually Canon may provide this camera (or maybe Olympus, or even Nikon) but until then the XS and Txi series are still the most advanced cameras for coin photography. The XS, with its larger pixels and low price (given that it's going on 9 years old now) is still my recommended camera for systems I build.

edited to add:

Here is a link to a Rebel XS body that looks really good for $125 and free shipping. It does not claim to come with the software disk, but I can provide one or you may be able to download the software from Canon once you get the camera by entering its serial number. You NEED the software as it is free and excellent and allows you to tether to your computer for composing, focusing , and taking the shot. This camera would give you a significant boost in ease of use and image quality on higher magnification images vs the D3300.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Canon-EOS-R...135734?hash=item237b28efb6:g:OVQAAOSwjDZYdB8a

 

You made two claims. One was false. That makes the word "coupled" meaningless. So I misunderstood nothing.

"I could not find this model advertised in any sales literature," but very well, I stand corrected. Now post a shot of which one(s) you actually have.

Compared to what? The 80+ angle you dishonestly challenged me to get even though you can't? You've refused to show your setup so we can compare. 60 degrees is an actual, real life measurement of a stock mounted SB-21.

You've also failed to show why it matters. In case you haven't noticed, both Canon and Nikon made no effort to keep the lights close to the lens in their MT-24EX and R1 systems. So please. Enlighten me on why the limitation is so "severe." My guess is that I'll be waiting a long time.

 

In the price range of a D810, I'm looking for a used Canon 5DS R, with low-pass filter cancellation in software. Canon has refurbs within $100 of the Nikon's price. The only disadvantage is the pixel pitch - 4.14µm - and DLA of f/6.7 which forces one to not only use the sharpest of lenses but likely stack anything more magnified than a full-face image. Then again, with a FF sensor and 50MP, who needs 1:1 mag?

It's also physically possible to remove the existing AA filter - as you know - but better to have it done by a professional unless you like physically handling things smaller than you can see without magnification.

Judging from the images I've seen you post here of non-Ancient coins, you haven't reached the skill level yet where it actually matters.

 

Reading a couple comparisons of the Xs - xti has created a major question. Does the xti not come with live view? ...I think that's a deal breaker. The xs appears to be super affordable and perfect for a specialized camera. If I go with original lens set-up for here-and-now-3300, I will be able to use many of the those with the xs merely by purchasing the correct adapter/coupler-ma-boppers, correct? I'm pretty sure that was one the strongest arguments for this set-up over a macro lens.
Anyway, I think tomorrow will be a trip to ikea for a better light or two. I'm still debating whether to prioritize the lens or a copy-stand. I'm leaning towards a copy-stand. I think utilizing the lens will be hampered by my current set-up's lack of stability. All-in-all... if I'm guesstimating the prices correctly- Everything for this set-up, camera included, will cost less than a high-end macro lens. Seems like an easy decision unless I needed the camera for other uses (which I don't).

 

As far as I know, the D810 is still the only Nikon with EFSC.

As for APS-C Sony, I believe it's available on most E mount mirrorless, including older and inexpensive NEX models, as well as newer A mount DSLRs. For anyone interested, a quick search at dyxum will identify which models do and which do not.

And as for full frame on the (A mount) a99 and a99ii DSLRs, as well as the (E mount) a7 (but not a7r), a7ii, a7rii mirrorless all have EFSC. The a7s and a7sii have it as well.

I cannot speak directly for its tethering abilities, but the Sony a7rii otherwise fits, as does the A mount a99ii.

Other than unsubstantiated rumors, and a few patents for FF lenses, I've heard nothing about Oly making a FF camera. Perhaps you've heard otherwise?