macro

I bought the Tamron SP90 f2.5 with the PKA adapter and 1:1 extension tube for £75

Mind you something's not right with the PKA adapter as I still have to use it in M mode. And I don't think that price is typical

I think it may be typical for a non working PKA Adapter though.

Search the web for how to scrape the glue off some of the screw holes. It's a common fault with PKA adapters. You should find that if you loosen the lens to take it off the Aperture reading shows or flickers on the LCD.

Just missed this Tokina (by about £250.... Well I haven't even got a Nikon :roll. I can't understand why Tokina stopped making them if they are so good.

Algi

Yes it's about time I got round to sorting it. Thanks for the tip. I'm pretty used to green button metering so haven't even tried to clean the contacts yet...

...I'd be interested to know how the Elicar noted above is being used. Is it hand-held or tripod mounted? If handheld, then that makes good results very much harder to achieve - telephoto macro shots really do require proper support. If tripod mounted, then to be honest I think there is something wrong with it. Most macro lenses are known for producing at least decent and often exceptional results. If you can only get that from f11 onwards it needs to be serviced.[/quote]Thanks, Jon Schick, for your input.

It is true that I have been using the Elicar entirely hand-held, nevetheless I use all my lenses (macro and otherwise) handheld (generally, using only film bodies) and -allowing for the occasional slip up- comparing lens for lens (Zuiko 3.5/50 macro. SMC Takumar 4/50 macro , K Takumar 4/100 macro, and a number of shots taken with various prime lenses in combination with extension tubes, TCs and close-up lenses, I have had less success with the Elicar 2.5/90 than the others.

In fairness, however, I seem to have fluked(?) several very sharp shots at small apertures in very good light. I must say that (being winter over here) some of the fault could be due to slow shutter hand held in relatively poor light: so the jury is still out.

I am heartened by your positive view of the lens and -if all else fails- I will take your advice and send it for a service.

Thanks

Hi Banjo

The Elicar 90mm is made by Kiron and was also marketed as a Panagor 90mm, and Vivitar 90mm. It's sweet spot is f11 which alows for increased DOF, I have the Panagor version and all variations being the same have an excellent reputation as a macro lens. I must admit to loving mine but shooting at f11 does require either a tripod or bumping up the speed, but saying that I've been very supprised and pleased at it's sharpness hand held wide open.

According to this list and other sources only Tokina and Komine made 90mm macro lenses for Vivitar? Kiron made 100mm and 105mm

Where did you get the information that
Kiron made the Elicar 90mm from ?

It was made by Komine and is probably an f/2.8 (same as the Vivitar)even though they used a bit of tolerance jargon and called it an f/2.5 (or it's the other way around and Vivitar called an f/2.5 an f/2.8 )

Edit: Anyone who thinks that all photos taken at f/22 lose sharpness through diffraction should take a close look at the photo of the Vivitar 90mm on the above Wikipedia page 50mm f/22 0.8secs 200ISO

It would appear I've got my wires crossed with the f2.5 and the f2.8 which I own, but here's a quote from another forum:

"I've only seen a photograph of the Elicar in a magazine review. The lens looked very, very similar to the Panagor 90mm f/2.8 macro lens, which focused to 1:1, and which I found to be very-good. This Panagor was also packaged as a 90mm f/2.8 Vivitar, which also had a good reputation. FWIW, the review of the Elicar was very favorable. I am hypothesizing here, but I believe that the Elicar is just the Panagor/Vivitar in an updated package. The Elicar also focuses 1.1:1, the highest magnification of any macro lens of this type. I think you'll like it. I should also point out, however, that Tamron makes a very-good 90mm f/2.8 that focuses to 1:1, and which is supposed to be as good as any macro lens out there."

I maybe right about the 2.8 but 2.5 I maybe wrong

All 3 lenses 90mm are basically the same model made by Komine which is the same as the quote you have given.

I believe that "all photos taken at f/22 lose sharpness through diffraction" as it is a law of physics. The effect is a lot more noticeable on APS-C than FF sensors, but it is always there.

I don't follow your reference to the photo of the Vivitar lens. How is this supposed to relate to photos taken with the lens?

Dear all,

This has been a very intresting thread with lots of contributors who are familiar with or use a 90mm Macro: great stuff!

As far as diffraction goes, I have been immersing myself in books and magazines of the film era and, amazingly, apart from the odd paragraph in the theory of optics chapters, good old diffraction scarcely rates a mention. In fact, illustration after illustration appears taken at the smaler apertures and nary a mention of diffraction anywhere except for one statement (somewhere in "Australian Photography" in the 1990s) to the effect that diffraction for 35mm format film photography is not an issue unless exceptionally large enlargements are being contemplated.

So, I wonder, if all the concern over diffraction has something to do with the use of/properties of electronic sensors (as opposed to film)?:

Similarly, there is never an issue with "purple fringing", before the use of CCDs and such.:

Purple fringing is definitely a side-effect of digital sensors - although it does allegidly pre-date digital (Wackypedia link) you'd be hard-pressed to notice it in anything like the quantities its apparent nowadays.

Diffraction - I'm not so sure about, but if my schoolboy understanding of diffraction was right, it may be an issue with the size of individual pixels - so a 6 MPix camera will suffer more than a 12 MPix camera? There is a lot of photographic urban myth here though - some people take fantastic shots at F22, some will never dial that high...

See above for one that doesn't

Direct link to photo

See above for an APS-C (Canon 350D) shot where it isn't noticeable

It's what we call an example of how a very sharp photograph can be taken at f/22 without being ruined by defraction. Have you never heard of the f/64 group?

I've used the 55-300mm at f/32 without any problems.

Do you always ask the questions after the answers have already been given

I don't believe anyone has ever said that f/22 will "ruin" a shot, but to claim that diffraction doesnt reduce resolution is just as rediculous.

Most lenses are diffraction limited beyond about f/11. Look at any lens test where the reviewer has gone through the whole range of available f-stops and you will see a clear peak in sharpness. The test of lens quality is how quickly it becomes diffraction limited, ie a really good prime might peak at f/5.6, a real duffer might still be improving at f/16.

You'll still get a good image at f/22, or they wouldn't bother putting that option on the lens, you'd just get a sharper one at f/11 or f/8.

just one more trade off between sharpness and depth of field.

Hi!

Just read this thread and couldn't help posting this link, hopefully helpful link:

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm

I never go smaller than f/18, because of some tests that I read on the Internet. Never tested in practice though what happens with very small aperture.


Regards,
Tobio