Long Lenses with tubes...

[David H. Hartman]

Here is a rig I fixed for focus closer with my 400/5.6 ED AI Nikkor...

[David H. Hartman]

Not as sharp as I'd like. It was taken with a D2H. I don't know if the problem was the 4.1MP or if I missed the focus or something else...

_DSC5954_CNX2_Crop_1800 by Dave Hartman, on Flickr

I was lucky and saw both chicks leave the nest. The last one flew almost straight up 3m to 4m then flew over the house with the mother giving chase.

Nikon D2H, 400/5.6 ED AI Nikkor (non-IF), Extension tubes, PN-11(s), PK-13 and lens cradle. The focus seems to be where I intended it but it should have been a bit closer to the mother bird. DOF is a bit lacking. The D2H only has 4.1 MP. Better luck next time.

The mother came over once and took a good look at me from about 1/2 meter then went about her work and never checked me out again.

Dave

[Snoogly]

It looks lovely to me, and plenty sharp to my aged eyes.

Anything that shows birds in their natural light is a bonus for me - not just trendy ‘in flight’ photos.

Birds are the rightful owners of the world, so biggie respect for them, and anyone who takes the time to record their daily life :-)

[David H. Hartman]

Thank you!

[Gerhard2006]

What a beautiful shot, it really gives testimony to how sharp that lens is. So what is the minimum focus now with the two sets of extension rings attached?Regards Gerry

[David H. Hartman]

What a beautiful shot, it really gives testimony to how sharp that lens is. So what is the minimum focus now with the two sets of extension rings attached?Regards Gerry

A guess would be about 2m (7') as the shooting distance for this shot. I don't know if the full helical was used or nearly so. Focusing is easier if a bit more tube is used than needed.

Dave

I have a note that was probably measured indicating that the free working distance with two PN-11(s) and one PK-13 and the full 400/5.6 ED helical gave a free working distance of 1.77 meters (70 inches). The total lens extension, tubes plus helical would be 171.5mm. The image magnification would be 0.43x assuming that I got it right so many years ago. I think I could stuff three PN-11(s) behind the 400/5.6 ED for an image magnification of 0.49x. This assumes the air in the tubes is good air not bad air.

The red anodized item in two of the photos is the base of a Strato Flash handle. I filed an Arca-Swiss grove and against all odds it works great, slides nicely in a Winberley C-30 clamp.

The equipment image in the middle (red plate not show) is setup for use with a 105/4.0 AI Micro Nikkor and a Kirck Enterprise macro flash arm.

[Akira]

Dave, your shot of the bird's nest looks admirable.  It would be safe to say your effort was well rewarded.

I found my sample is not particularly sharp at the closer range.  The plum fruits were shot with non-IF ED 400/5.6 at almost the closest focusing distance of 5m wide open.  The first one is the entire frame, and the second one, the central part which is not resized.  You see a slight purple fringing.  Shot with the 24MP SIGMA fp with no AA filter.  No sharpening is applied.

I would figure the lens doesn't shine at closer ranges as much as at distance.

[David H. Hartman]

You see a slight purple fringing.

I did a worst case scenario on the pond waterfall as I did with the 300/4.5 IF-ED AI and got purple sparkles from my 400/5.6 ED that were correctable in Capture NX-D so the slight purple you see in your photo is correctable.

Probably the 400/5.6 ED needs stopping down a bit more at short range. Telephotos are frequently shot wide open but probably more at distance than closeup. That's a matter of design.

Lateral color aberration correction may sharpen up an image.

Dave

[Akira]

I did a worst case scenario on the pond waterfall as I did with the 300/4.5 IF-ED AI and got purple sparkles from my 400/5.6 ED that were correctable in Capture NX-D so the slight purple you see in your photo is correctable.

Probably the 400/5.6 ED needs stopping down a bit more at short range. Telephotos are frequently shot wide open but probably more at distance than closeup. That's a matter of design.

Lateral color aberration correction may sharpen up an image.

Dave

Yes, you need to stop down a bit in close ranges with the non-IF teles.  The non-IF ED 400/5.6 shows only a little lateral CA which can be easily corrected in ACR and much less LoCA than any IF design teles.

[David H. Hartman]

As in my worst case scenario 300/4.5 ED-IF AI test of sparkling water in a pond waterfall I was able to produce significant LoCA (AKA Axial CA) with my 400/5.6 ED AI. It had an appearance of the purple flowers on a common variety of ice plant used in So. California as a ground cover. Due to lack of space on a 250GB SSD I didn't save the 400/5.6 ED AI test.

Before assessing the practical use of a lens on modern DSLR(s) and MILR(s) LoCA and Lateral CA need to be corrected if possible. I consider this apart from image sharpening. Image sharpening or softening is an important part of post processing, a useful cheat if you will but high resolution digital cameras are so brutally honest I feel LoCA (Axial CA) and Lateral CA correction simply must be applied as needed.

I remember using Panorama Tools with Photoshop 7 and noting improved image resolution without the use of sharpening. Purple and magenta/green softens an image and can often be corrected without using sharpening tools.

Dave

I'll note that I don't like the need to LoCA or Axial CA correction with every photography I take with my AF-S 105/2.8G ED Micro-Nikkor. That lens seems to me to be damaged by trying to make if cover too many uses. I'd prefer a replacement for the 105/2.5 AIS and one for the 105/2.8 AIS Micro-Nikkor. This is a familiar rant so I'll stop here...

[David H. Hartman]

I would figure the lens doesn't shine at closer ranges as much as at distance.

I'd like to see the sample with LoCA and lateral CA correction applied as needed.

Dave

[Erik Lund]

As in my worst case scenario 300/4.5 ED-IF AI test of sparkling water in a pond waterfall I was able to produce significant LoCA (AKA Axial CA) with my 400/5.6 ED AI. It had an appearance of the purple flowers on a common variety of ice plant used in So. California as a ground cover. Due to lack of space on a 250GB SSD I didn't save the 400/5.6 ED AI test.

Before assessing the practical use of a lens on modern DSLR(s) and MILR(s) LoCA and Lateral CA need to be corrected if possible. I consider this apart from image sharpening. Image sharpening or softening is an important part of post processing, a useful cheat if you will but high resolution digital cameras are so brutally honest I feel LoCA (Axial CA) and Lateral CA correction simply must be applied as needed.

I remember using Panorama Tools with Photoshop 7 and noting improved image resolution without the use of sharpening. Purple and magenta/green softens an image and can often be corrected without using sharpening tools.

Dave

I'll note that I don't like the need to LoCA or Axial CA correction with every photography I take with my AF-S 105/2.8G ED Micro-Nikkor. That lens seems to me to be damaged by trying to make if cover too many uses. I'd prefer a replacement for the 105/2.5 AIS and one for the 105/2.8 AIS Micro-Nikkor. This is a familiar rant so I'll stop here...

I have seen purple fringing on water surface on a lot of long lenses shot on DSLR, 500mm Ai-P f/4.0 comes to mind.
BTW DSLR(s) and MILR(s) looks funny side by side