Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;SuperDave, post: 2663748, member: 1892&quot;]Actually, it&#039;s pretty common knowledge that current macro lenses decrease in effective focal length as magnification increases.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>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&#039;t matter <i>because the lights are below the bellows plate</i>. Heck, for me, the lights (or the diffuser which directs them) are usually below the<b> lens</b>.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>See above. A dinner plate will always be physically wider than a saucer, regardless of how many truffles you pile on it.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>Nobody who&#039;s ever done it in the real world will argue the fact. It&#039;s another good reason why we use small-diameter, lightweight duplicating lenses.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>Compare the deflection to something half the weight, and it might become more obvious. The fact that you haven&#039;t experimented with this stuff doesn&#039;t mean that others haven&#039;t and made choices accordingly. I don&#039;t miss the gyrations I had to go through to compensate for the droop forced by my 100mm Macro.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>Perhaps because he&#039;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 <b>you</b> personally taught?</p><p><br /></p><p>No need to take Ray&#039;s opinion as Gospel, though. Have a look through Mark Goodman&#039;s work on the topic of macro imaging:</p><p><br /></p><p><a href="http://coinimaging.com/photo_articles.html?" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="http://coinimaging.com/photo_articles.html?" rel="nofollow">http://coinimaging.com/photo_articles.html?</a></p><p><br /></p><p>There&#039;s much of substance there.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>A couple other things, related to previous of your posts:</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>The best way to eliminate vibration in coin photography is to <i>not use Nikon cameras</i>. They use mechanical first shutters, unlike Canon, which introduces a noticeable level of vibration. It&#039;s one of the things Ray proved while you weren&#039;t watching. Beyond that, if your rig is vibrating, you haven&#039;t tightened the screws sufficiently. Anything additional - vibration introduced by environment - is a wash.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>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:</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]591544[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p>....with the exact same lens I use to shoot stuff like this, ~0.77x:</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]591547[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p>....and the adjustment amounts to a bit of turning of two dials. No need to touch lens or camera.</p><p><br /></p><p>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). <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie1" alt=":)" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" />[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in