Focus stack @ 6:1 - Saw-toothed Grain Beetle
Mar 9, 2016 15:34:53 #
mawyatt wrote:
That must be the version III converters, and good to know. Thanks!You are right on about the inner reflections, they can seriously degrade contrast. I have used Protostar as a flocking material and it's works very well.
Should mention that the new Nikon 1.4 Teleconverter works well with the 105mm VR macro lenses, I saw little difference between this and an quality extension tube (Kenko).
Should mention that the new Nikon 1.4 Teleconverter works well with the 105mm VR macro lenses, I saw little difference between this and an quality extension tube (Kenko).
Mar 9, 2016 15:38:07 #
Ernie Misner wrote:
My question is not about loss of contrast when using a tube. What I want to know is if true macro lenses are made to render better contrast for close up photography. I know they are a flat field design which give better corner sharpness.A question from your vast experience: I occasionally use a thin extension tube with my 70-200 zoom for flower close ups. Is it just me, or is the contrast a bit lacking with standard lenses and close ups, as compared to using a true macro lens? Thank you.
Mar 10, 2016 02:36:41 #
mawyatt wrote:
I use Kenko extension tubes, which are flat-black inside, with no reflective metal rods exposed. No loss of contrast; no internal reflections.You are right on about the inner reflections, they can seriously degrade contrast. I have used Protostar as a flocking material and it's works very well.
Should mention that the new Nikon 1.4 Teleconverter works well with the 105mm VR macro lenses, I saw little difference between this and an quality extension tube (Kenko).
Should mention that the new Nikon 1.4 Teleconverter works well with the 105mm VR macro lenses, I saw little difference between this and an quality extension tube (Kenko).
The major difference between using extension tubes vs 'tele-extenders' to acheive the same increased magnification, is NO loss of Working Distance with tele-extender, but shortened WD with extension tubes.
Mar 10, 2016 03:01:43 #
Nikonian72 wrote:
Thanks Douglass. So if Working Distance being shortened with the tube is not a problem, are you seeing a sharper image without the glass in a tube? And are you seeing more or less light loss with the tele-extender that you use vs. your similar tube?The major difference between using extension tubes vs 'tele-extenders' to acheive the same increased magnification, is NO loss of Working Distance with tele-extender, but shortened WD with extension tubes.
Mar 10, 2016 03:29:04 #
Ernie Misner wrote:
I have only experimented with a tele-extender, but do not own one. Both tele-extenders and extension tubes spread light, reducing light intensity striking sensor, and viewfinder. Increasing speedlight output compensates for exposure at f/16.Thanks Douglass. So if Working Distance being shortened with the tube is not a problem, are you seeing a sharper image without the glass in a tube? And are you seeing more or less light loss with the tele-extender that you use vs. your similar tube?
68-mm (12+20+36) of extension tube is required to acheive 2:1 magnification with a 105-mm macro lens. MWD is reduced from 6.2-inches to about 4-inches.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.