First Real Effort at Photo of Coins

[cratz2]

I agree with regards to the 55mm but very few lenses available for under $800 or so have quite the resolution as the 55 Nikkor. Absolutely LOVE mine. For quite a few years, it was my most used lens even when not doing macro work. Mine doesn't seem to like to focus to infinity but anything between about five inches and eight feet... pretty great.

I've found most consumer zooms that also offer a macro mode work best around f8 to f11... maybe f16 at the very most but as you mention, diffraction usually sets in before that.

 

[cratz2]

One more quick try. Similar settings, used a tripod and changed the lighting setup a bit to minimize the exaggerated patina though I still used the ~80 degree angle camera setup.

 

[ConradH]

I agree with regards to the 55mm but very few lenses available for under $800 or so have quite the resolution as the 55 Nikkor. Absolutely LOVE mine. For quite a few years, it was my most used lens even when not doing macro work. Mine doesn't seem to like to focus to infinity but anything between about five inches and eight feet... pretty great.

I've found most consumer zooms that also offer a macro mode work best around f8 to f11... maybe f16 at the very most but as you mention, diffraction usually sets in before that.

OK, I'm a lens snob, though not for cost or reputation, just what the images look like. The 55 is a winner and well recognized as such, but many of the fixed focus Nikkors work surprisingly poorly on dSLRs. Some of them, though built like tanks, weren't all that great even with full frame film! The big surprise to me was how good some of the cheap kit zooms are. The 18-70 f/3.5-4.5G ED AF-S Nikkor that came with my old D200 is actually better than many of my old fixed focus lenses. Something interesting is that P&S cameras having very tiny sensors often limit the smallest aperture to f/8 because diffraction is such an issue.

Though I have a bellows, rigid extension tubes are my preference. At high magnifications focus is best done by moving the subject, so little need to crank the lens in and out unless you have a long throw like the 55. One trick that works well for extreme low cost macro is, if you can work out the adapters, to reverse mount an enlarging lens. They were designed for short conjugates and can often out-perform general purpose lenses. Because wet process is pretty much gone, even good ones tend to be plentiful and sell for a fraction of their original cost.

One issue I have with DX cameras is the viewfinders were optimized for brightness, not focusing, since autofocus was assumed. I have to be very careful with focus to get it dead on. Old film cameras were actually better in that department.

 

[jocko_nc]

A lot of good points there... Move the subject to focus. Amen. I agree the viewfinder (mine is the pentaprism) is tough to see focus. Without the beep and indicator you really cannot tell when you have it. Mine indicates with a manual lens, but not doing this work.

What is you opinion of the old SMC Pentax M and SMC Pentax A lenses? Even older Takumars for that matter? I am close to a rank amateur with this but have found beautiful rendering with the older lenses. The photos have a certain look about them that others don't create. That, and they are cheap and plentiful. Another high quality vintage Japanese product that I collect.

 

[jbailey930]

It would really help to have some kind of live view on. Is your Pentax a DSLR? Does it show focus in live view on the rear LCD?

You can build a cheap and effective light box out of an ordinary cardboard box. Get some tissue paper to diffuse the light sources. Cut out part of the sides, front and top of the box.. Put tissue paper over the cutouts to diffuse the lighting. Perhaps get some of those presentation trifold panels that are white to line the cardboard box.
Check out this link and google DIY light box.

hope that helps!

 

[jocko_nc]

Yes. K20D DSLR. Live view is pretty basic and I honestly have never used it. Information is projected into the view finder, depending upon which lens you are using. Most of mine are full manual. Normally, the auto focus sensor will indicate correct focus with a little icon in the view finder. With this macro setup, the sensor is unable to sense so it becomes hit-or-miss.

 

[jbailey930]

ah good, turn on live view on the rear LCD screen. You should be able to zoom in on the LCD to verify critical focus. No need to rely on the focus dot.

 

[ConradH]

No live view here, but that's absolutely the way to go if you have it. I think some even have a magnify feature so you can see the focus better.

IMO, most of the old well known SLR lenses were very good, the Pentax SMCs, Takumars, Minolta Rokkors, Olympus and a few others. Because sales volumes of the 50mm lenses were high, they could afford to do sophisticated designs with good mechanics. Even if they can't be fully coupled to a modern dSLR, they work just fine reversed and/or hanging out on tubes or bellows. FWIW, in spite of their popularity, I've had no experience with Canon lenses, so can't comment on them, but there's no shortage of people that can! IMO again, Nikon has had quite a few versions of 50 mm lenses, some good, some not so good. The later f/1.4, before the E series, were the best for the 1.4s, but the f/1.8 was better yet for sharpness, though some of them will project a small circle on the center of the image under very bright conditions. In spite of their light weight, many of the E lenses were also quite good. Another below-the-radar lens series of surprising performance were the inexpensive Vivitar dedicated primes. You had to order them with the mount you wanted, as they weren't interchangeable like a T-mount lens. No idea how available they are on the used market.

 

[carbonman]

I'm using a mirrorless CSC and have for the last 1-1/2 years. It's nice to look through the electronic viewfinder and see exactly what you're going to get, especially with macro subjects. I would find it frustrating to go back to an optical VF again; I've become spoiled.