I like this even better than the previous image. The higher view produces a more dramatic image. Your blue/IR combo filter is very nice
Thanks for sharing,
barondla
Read an article once, probably by Keppler, saying most consumer lenses are optimized at ~ 10 feet. Consumer macro lenses at ~ 1 meter. I imagine specialized macro lenses are optimized for nearer distances. Always thought that was interesting. Wonder if the same optical formula can be adjusted for different distances or if totally different optical designs are used?
Thanks,
barondla
Good point. The Canon front mount converter has 1.4x magnification and the front element is about 1.4x larger than the rear glass. Unlike a rear mount converter there seems to be no light loss. A definite plus.
Thanks,
barondla
@Maoby there was a Panasonic m4/3 very close to Pentax Q size. Have you ever used one? Of course, the bigger format will catch up to it soon enough with larger lenses. Still, it is intriguing.
Thanks,
barondla
Found a Canon front mounted 1.4x converter in a thrift store. It is huge with a 67 mounting thread and about 100mm front lens element. Is it possible for a front mount design to offer similar quality to a rear converter? I'm waiting on adapter rings to try this out. Always thought rear converters were superior, but wonder why Canon would build such a beast.
Thanks,
barondla
Wow! @simplejoy that is crazy good rendering. Hope you find a way to mount it for easier focusing and post more images.
Unfortunately, I've been too busy to shoot anything. Subzero windcill hasn't helped. Do have some filters on the way.
Thanks for sharing,
barondla
One thing I've learned is lenses aren't the same efficiency through their range. Glass lenses become more opaque as they descend into UV. Eventually they let no light in. Different glass responds differently. The Nikon EL-Nikkor and Leitz Focotar enlarging lenses reach 310-320nm. This is very good for glass based lenses. To do better takes something like a Nikon 105 UV lens that records down to ~250 nm. All quartz elements and about $7K new. The interesting part is the Quartz 105 UV lens is less efficient than the glass EL-Nikkor 80 in the 350-400nm range. Some glass lenses don't manage much below 400nm.
This can also affect standard photography. Olympus ILC have less UV sensor filtration and can run into fringing when using Panasonic lenses. The fix is a Zeiss UV or Tiffen Haze E filter. These filters are much stronger than a normal UV filter. No wonder lenses look different.
Thanks,
barondla
Very nice color. Looks very natural. Leitz has always been good at that.
Remember years ago a consumer magazine group tested several different brands of current 50mm film lenses. One of the "tests" rated the lens coatings. Leitz wasn't one of the brands tested. They wrote a letter to the magazine saying it was nearly impossible to separate lens design from coating quality without testing the same design with and without coatings. Leitz then said it took them over 200 different tests to tell if a lens was good or not. The magazine did 7 or 8 tests. I disregarded their tests after that.
Thanks,
barondla
Excellent images. I noticed something was up with the bokeh balls. There are measurements of 5 different Leitz Focotar 50 lenses here: www.ultravioletphotography.com/content/index.php?/forum/639-uv-lenses-non-helicoidal/. Lots of this info pertains to UV response. The Focotars are some of the best "accidental" UV lenses around.
Thanks,
barondla
Ice in UV. Kolari Vision modified Pentax K-1 with metal mount EL-Nikkor 80 enlarging lens and Hoya U360/Schott S8612 filter stack. ISO 100, F11 at 30". This was ice frozen in dog's water bowl. At least I finally got time to shoot something!
Thanks for looking,
barondla