We now have a Nikon 105mm f/2.8 and also found a good deal on a used Nikon R1C1 flash system. So time to get back a bit more into macro photography IMG class=inlineimg title=Grin border=0 alt=”” src=”http://www.photo-natural.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/wpid-icon10.gif”. PAnd the question I have at the moment is what would be the best trade-off between maximizing magnification and image quality?/PPSpecifically, besides R1C1, here is what we have:BR1) Nikon 105mm f/2.8 which gives us a native 1:1 magnification.BR2) Kenko extension tube set (12, 20, and 36mm)BR3) Canon 500D close-up filterBR4) TC14eII (1.4x) and TC20eIII (2x) teleconverters/PPAnd here are some of the alternative configurations I can think of:BR1) 105mm w/ 68mm extension tubes; should give us 1.65:1 magnification (68/105 = 0.65)BR2) 105mm w/ Canon 500D; should give us 1.42:1 magnificationBR3) Combination of the above two; if my calculation is correct, this should give us ~2.2:1 magnification. That is because 500D (+2 diopter) reduces the effective focal length of 105mm to 86.8mm and increases its native magnification to 1.42:1. So, thanks to 68mm extension tube, I add (68/86.8) to 1.42 to obtain 2.2.BR4) 105mm with either teleconverter: Fortunately, Nikon 105mm is compatible with Nikon teleconverters, though we will loose light and won’t have autofocus, both of which should be OK for macro work. With 2x, we should get 2:1 magnification, and with 1.4x we should get 1.4:1 magnification. IQ with the latter would obviously be expected to be better./PPI suppose I can think of other possible combinations as well. But, for now, has any of you had experience with any of these configurations? Which one do you think would be the best trade-off between image quality and magnification? /PPThanks… /PLast edited by Cambyses; Feb-12-2014 at 05:25 PM. /EM
pa href=”http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=245185goto=newpost” target=”_blank” rel=”nofollow”View the original article here/a/p
Follow Us!
