www.fgks.org   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

Build a Super Telephoto Lenses w/o Using a Camera Lens

Started Jun 7, 2014 | Discussions
Shop cameras & lenses ▾
"}" style="">
Ching-Kuang Shene
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,109
Like?
Build a Super Telephoto Lenses w/o Using a Camera Lens
Jun 7, 2014

OK. Can we have a super telephoto lens without using a camera lens? Of course, we cannot. Therefore, there has to be a lens in front of the camera but it is not an expensive camera lens.

We will use a close-up lens but we don't do close-up shots. Here is what you need.

  1. You will need a close-up lens. Use an achromat (i.e., 2 elements in 1 group). This post uses a Canon 77mm 500D.
  2. Several extension tubes.
  3. A bellows. This post uses a Nikon PB-6; but, you could use whatever bland as long as you are able to convert the bayonet mount to a thread.
  4. Nikon has a K-2 ring that can just convert the Nikon F-mount to a female 52mm thread.
  5. A camera, of course, that can fit your bellows and your extension tubes. I chose a Sony NEX5 because this camera can be adapted to virtually all brands and because its peaking and magnification MF aids are very good. In order to mount this Sony NEX5 to the Nikon F-mount, I used a Nikon F to Sony NEX adapter.
  6. Perhaps some step rings.
  7. That is it!

The following image shows the tubes and adapter.

The following is the Nikon K-2 ring. It converts a female 52mm thread to the Nikon F-mount.

Since we have a 52mm female thread, various step-up rings are needed to increase the thread size to a female 77mm thread (left below). Then, put the K-2 to the end and we have our 500mm lens head (right below).

Put all stuffs on the PB-6 and we have the following. Note that to balance the bellows, extension tubes are used at both ends of the PB-6 bellows.

Put my Sony NEX5 at the end and we are ready to go:

How do I know this is a 500mm telephoto? Good question.

Although not every lens maker tells the power of a close-up lens, most makers show this information using diopter. The diopter of a close-up lens is defined as follows:

diopter D = 1000/focal-length

Thus, if you have a +2 diopter close-up lens, it has a focal length of 1000/2 = 500mm. If you don't know the diopter, you could do some tests to find it out and we won't discuss here. The Canon 500D has a focal length of 500mm (hence 500D).

What is the maximum aperture of this setup? Another good question.

It is about f/10. Hey, you may want to say that since the diameter of the Canon 500D is 77mm, the maximum aperture should be approximately 500mm/77mm = f/6.5. No, the Nikon compatible tubes all have a thread size of 52mm (see the above setup), and these tube act as the diaphragm of the lens (i.e., only the 52mm of the 77mm of the lens is used). This means the maximum aperture is 500/52 = f/9.6. Can we take the advantage of the full size aperture of 77mm? Yes, we can, but we will need a very long tube of 77mm in front of the bellows. This is currently impossible to do for me.

What is the minimum length of the setup?

Since the lens has a focal length of 500mm, the minimum length of the whole setup is at least 500mm for the lens to focus at infinity. When focusing to a closer distance, use the bellows to focus and the the whole setup extends. Therefore, to focus to a very close distance you will need a very long setup. For example, if you wish to do a 1:1 close-up shot, the image distance (i.e., the distance from the lens to the image sensor) is twice of the focal length. In our case, this setup must be able to extend to 500*2 = 1000mm! Those who played or are playing large format cameras know what I mean.

=================================

Now let us take a look at the image quality of this setup.

The distance from this bridge to the camera position is nearly 1km. The second image shows a 100% crop of the center area used for focusing.

This is a scene a bit closer, perhaps around 600m. The second image shows the focusing area and the two tags of the left most two vehicle.

This scene is about 50+ meters from the shooting position. The second and third image below show the center focusing area and the chains near the top edge.

Now let us get closer, about 40+ m. Not so bad. Isn't it?

This is a 30+m scene.

This is a 20+ m scene. Please look at how this Canon 500D resolves the details.

The following image was shot at a distance about 10m.

It does not make much sense if this setup is not used to shoot birds. Well, BIF is a mission impossible with thisheavy setup and its slow focusing mechanism. But, I managed to get one bird shot as shown below.

===================== EPILOGUE ==================

This is not a new idea. The first camera in 1839 used essentially the same setup. Before WWI and right after it lens makers used this idea to design long focal length lenses. The following are some 2E/1G long focal length lenses.  Just a final note.  Do not use single element close-up lens.  Otherwise, you will feel sorry for your decision.  More details will be posted elsewhere and will be updated in the future.

Enjoy!

Carl Zeiss Jena Fernobjektiv 500mm f/8

Takumar 500mm f/5

Astro Berlin Fernbildlinse 800mm f/5

Novoflex  Novlexar 400mm f/5.6

Leica Telyt 400mm f/6.8

Canon EOS 500D (EOS Rebel T1i / EOS Kiss X3) Sony Alpha NEX-5
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
"}" style="">
D Cox
Forum ProPosts: 12,764
Like?
Re: Build a Super Telephoto Lenses w/o Using a Camera Lens
In reply to Ching-Kuang Shene, Jun 7, 2014

Funny you should post this when I was thinking of doing the same thing. The adapter is the problem, but you have found the k-2 ring.

Remembering that the Novoflex Follow-focus lens was just a doublet was what made me think this might work. And it certainly does in your examples.

I once has a Novoflex Follow-focus bellows. If you find one of those on eBay it would solve the focus problem for BIF.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
"}" style="">
l_d_allan
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,067Gear list
Like?
Re: Build a Super Telephoto Lenses w/o Using a Camera Lens
In reply to Ching-Kuang Shene, Jun 7, 2014

Ching-Kuang Shene wrote:

OK. Can we have a super telephoto lens without using a camera lens? Of course, we cannot. Therefore, there has to be a lens in front of the camera but it is not an expensive camera lens.

Fascinating. Thanks for sharing. Tempting to try. I'm scratching my head on what the "BOM ... bill of materials" would be for a Canon DSLR.

It seems like this might be a great parent / child joint project for a school science project, if the parent had LOTS of macro equipment at hand without too much out-of-pocket expense. There's lots of math involved, plus plenty of Optics / Physics. Mechanical engineering? Engineering Econ?

BTW: the photos used to illustrate are Very, Very Helpful. Are you a technical writer? It would be great if more forum posts provided illustrations as good (and there is certainly room for improvement by "the guy in the mirror" ... my bad).

However, my understanding is that DPR does discourage more than some reasonable number of embedded images. Your images of the camera itself certainly would seem to justify an exception, but perhaps the extensive examples could be in a gallery?

 l_d_allan's gear list:l_d_allan's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ3 Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ47 Canon PowerShot S110 Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS 600D +28 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
"}" style="">
Ching-Kuang Shene
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,109
Like?
Re: Build a Super Telephoto Lenses w/o Using a Camera Lens
In reply to D Cox, Jun 7, 2014

D Cox wrote:

Funny you should post this when I was thinking of doing the same thing. The adapter is the problem, but you have found the k-2 ring.

Nikon's close-up/macro system is by far the most complete one.  In addition to K-2, Nikon also made F-mount to male 52mm thread rings.

Remembering that the Novoflex Follow-focus lens was just a doublet was what made me think this might work. And it certainly does in your examples.

Most if not all Novoflex Follow Focus lenses are doubletes.  Leica 800mm is a triplet with one special glass element.

I once has a Novoflex Follow-focus bellows. If you find one of those on eBay it would solve the focus problem for BIF.

I hope so.  There are very cheap and light bellows available on eBay, which I believe also serve the purpose well although I never tried them out.

CK

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
"}" style="">
Ching-Kuang Shene
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,109
Like?
Re: Build a Super Telephoto Lenses w/o Using a Camera Lens
In reply to l_d_allan, Jun 7, 2014

l_d_allan wrote:

Ching-Kuang Shene wrote:

OK. Can we have a super telephoto lens without using a camera lens? Of course, we cannot. Therefore, there has to be a lens in front of the camera but it is not an expensive camera lens.

Fascinating. Thanks for sharing. Tempting to try. I'm scratching my head on what the "BOM ... bill of materials" would be for a Canon DSLR.

BOM? If you mean how much you are going to pay, it is a rather cheap project. There are some cheap Canon compatible bellows on eBay between $20 and $30. Very cheap extension tube sets below $10.00 are also available on eBay. For this setup, the most expensive element is perhaps a Canon 500D close-up lens. The problem is if Canon made something like the Nikon K-2 ring.

It seems like this might be a great parent / child joint project for a school science project, if the parent had LOTS of macro equipment at hand without too much out-of-pocket expense. There's lots of math involved, plus plenty of Optics / Physics. Mechanical engineering? Engineering Econ?

It is not really a difficult project. Some years ago, I tried to simulate what a 1839 daguerreotype camera can do, I used a Nikon #4T +2.9D with 52mm thread and yielded very good results.  So, I thought I may be able to do little better with a latger diameter Canon close-up lens.  Pentax made a close-up lens of diopter less than 1 (i.e., focal length larger than 1000mm).  I hope I could collect enough number of cheap extension tubes that can extend longer than 1000mm.

BTW: the photos used to illustrate are Very, Very Helpful. Are you a technical writer? It would be great if more forum posts provided illustrations as good (and there is certainly room for improvement by "the guy in the mirror" ... my bad).

No, I am not a technical writer.  I am a professor.

However, my understanding is that DPR does discourage more than some reasonable number of embedded images. Your images of the camera itself certainly would seem to justify an exception, but perhaps the extensive examples could be in a gallery?

I don't know about this.  I kept adding images until I was blocked.

CK

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
"}" style="">
Ching-Kuang Shene
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,109
Like?
Differences between 2-element close-up lens and 1-element lens
In reply to Ching-Kuang Shene, Jun 7, 2014

As mentioned in my post, one should use an achromat close-up (i.e., 2-element doublet)  lens for this setup.  Here is an example.  The first image below was taken with a Canon 500D close-up lens and the second used a cheap +2 diopter single element close-up lens.  The fifferences are so obvious.

CK

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
"}" style="">
rjjr
Veteran MemberPosts: 9,467
Like?
Nice ethereal effect for when you want it.
In reply to Ching-Kuang Shene, Jun 7, 2014

Ching-Kuang Shene wrote:

As mentioned in my post, one should use an achromat close-up (i.e., 2-element doublet) lens for this setup. Here is an example. The first image below was taken with a Canon 500D close-up lens and the second used a cheap +2 diopter single element close-up lens. The fifferences are so obvious.

CK

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
"}" style="">
D Cox
Forum ProPosts: 12,764
Like?
Re: Differences between 2-element close-up lens and 1-element lens
In reply to Ching-Kuang Shene, Jun 8, 2014

Ching-Kuang Shene wrote:

As mentioned in my post, one should use an achromat close-up (i.e., 2-element doublet) lens for this setup. Here is an example. The first image below was taken with a Canon 500D close-up lens and the second used a cheap +2 diopter single element close-up lens. The fifferences are so obvious.

CK

One of the main uses for simple lenses is when you do want soft focus.

I think the soft focus lenses that were specially made for Alvin Langdon Coburn were doublets.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
"}" style="">
Ching-Kuang Shene
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,109
Like?
Re: Differences between 2-element close-up lens and 1-element lens
In reply to D Cox, Jun 9, 2014

D Cox wrote:

I think the soft focus lenses that were specially made for Alvin Langdon Coburn were doublets.

I am not sure what the lens Coburn used.  Many lens makers in the 19th century, especially Dallmeyer, made some soft focus lenses.Today's legendary soft focus lens was suggested by photographer H Kuhn and computed by Dr. Staeble.  Later, this lens was marketed by Rodenstock since 1931.  Yes, this legendary lens is an achromatic doublet (i.e., 2 elements in 1 group).  I was lucky to acquire a 120mm version for Hasseblad and 35mm cameras and this lens is in Leica mount.

These doublet design soft focus lenses produce a very different "glow" from those single lens soft focus lenses, the previously shown 1-elelembt close-up lens included.  Here are some examples for your comparison.

Imagon 120mm f/4.5 at maximum softness

Pentax 85mm f/2.2 Soft at maximum softness (also a doublet)

Pentax F 85mm f/2.8 at maximum softness (non-doublet design)

Portragon 100mm f/4 (perhaps a singlet)

Notice that other than the Portragon all soft focus lenses produce very clean images.  The Portragon has purple fringes, similar to the 500mm close-up image in which the glow is purple-ish that is the result of uncorrected chromatic aberration.

CK

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Forum
Next unread »
Threaded view
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads