LENS CHALLENGE

[Michael Erlewine]

The work of Solvin Zankle has been discussed on photography forums almost as much as the thread “Is Kenny G Jazz?”  No one seems to know. Here is some of his work.

http://solvinzankl.photoshelter.com/gallery/Wide-view-macro/G0000Xj5NXkE1giM

I would like to ask here whether any of our very talented lensmen have any ideas of what kind of lens-setup it would take to get this close and still have infinity sharp or sharp enough.

Your thoughts please?

[simsurace]

A borescope?

[Michael Erlewine]

A borescope?

Can you point to a borescope that might work?.

[Peter Forsell]

I don't think a borescope was needed, although if the snakes were venomous I'd prefer one... a long one.

All of the images were shot with a very wide angle lens and many of them show the telltale signs of a fisheye. Some fisheyes focus very close without help and a short extension ring could be used to focus even closer.

Nice images.

[Michael Erlewine]

All of the images were shot with a very wide angle lens and many of them show the telltale signs of a fisheye. Some fisheyes focus very close without help and a short extension ring could be used to focus even closer.

I question this. I have both Nikon 16mm rectangular fisheye lenses (and a circular fisheye) and I have no extension that will work that will also give me the infinity (or near to it) that is in some of those photos. SO, it may be a special fisheye with no extension. Any other ideas?

[Peter Forsell]

In the front page provided by your link he explains, that he modified a wide angle lens. This could mean inserting some kind of custom extension to the mount.

Is it given he is shooting Nikon? I could not find info about his gear by glancing. And while his camera could be a Nikon, the modified lens can be of any make.

I still strongly feel many of the shots were taken with a fisheye. I can be wrong though.

[Michael Erlewine]

I understand. It could be a fisheye with a specially-made extension. The smallest extension Nikon offers is the K-1 Ring, which is 5.8mm. As you know, wide-angle lenses and especially fisheyes take very, very little extension without blowing up. I am looking into getting a tinnier extension made. And he may have stacked the image, as it suggest on that opening page.

But I believe that is what happens. The only other thing, which is very impractical, would be to do all this in post, based on merging a stacked image with a background image, but I see no signs of that in the photos I have seen.  Since his backgrounds are blurry, I believe it is a really small extension on something like the Nikon 16mm fisheye. Maybe nfoto will have some ideas.

[Jakov Minić]

 On some of the photos it is obvious that a fish-eye was used, but not on all of them.
I am not even sure whether he used an extension ring at all since fish-eyes and super wide angles have a rather short minimal focussing distance?

[Michael Erlewine]

OK. I ran out in the back yard and took a quick photo. Imagine there is a big bug in the flower in the lower-right corner. That’s the setup. Now, what I would like is to be a little closer. As it is, I am “all in” with the Nikon 16mm Fisheye. What would do that is a very slim extension, smaller than the slimmest I have, which is the K-1 Ring at 5.8mm.

Next, I would probably want to carefully stack the photo, at least the flower part. The focus ring on the Nikko 16mm Fisheye is almost nothing, so I might want to put the camera/lens on a fine focus-rail and have a more fine focus, if that is possible.

I think that would solve the problem, (1) a little closer and (2) a stacked image.

Thoughts?

One problem is that with auto-focus lenses like the Nikkon 16mm Fisheye, I am not sure you can add a K-Ring, because of messing with the connections. Can someone clarify that for me and what would I have to do to an extension to get around that?

[Bjørn Rørslett]

I think the effective focal length here is very short, but the angle of view not necessary super wide. One notes that the perspective is steep (implying a short focal length and short distance), however, this is not true 'macro' merely close-ups. So perhaps a suitable cine (or similar) lens around 4 mm focal length in conjunction with a relay lens could do the trick.

[Frank Fremerey]

Wide angle – I learned to rethink when I started to use Large Format optics – my beloved Schneider has a 15cm images circle at infinity and f=11, which is perfectly usable with the D600, if you stack you can use 5.6 or 8.0 on any body.

"Image Circle" in Schneider terms means: "at least 90 lines per mm". If you have a non moving target you get super high res plus potentially any DOF you wish for (as in "painting focus" – I love that trerm)

[Michael Erlewine]

I think the effective focal length here is very short, but the angle of view not necessary super wide. One notes that the perspective is steep (implying a short focal length and short distance), however, this is not true 'macro' merely close-ups. So perhaps a suitable cine (or similar) lens around 4 mm focal length in conjunction with a relay lens could do the trick.

How would you approach getting into the ballpark of the kind of photos that Solvin Zankle does. I am not interested in imitating what he does, but I would like to realize some of my own images with that kind of closeness. I am sorry I don't know much about combining lenses, etc. I know that my Nikkor Repro lens is a relay lens. I guess I would need some help here, if you would be kind enough to explain what I need. I have a bunch of lenses, most of them ones you recommended in one way or another.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

The limit is that near focus has to be at least 4*focal length, so if a steep perspective is required, the actual focal length also must be short.

[Frank Fremerey]

To add another uninitiated comment: These photos push expectation ove a certain limit. I understand perfectly well why your interest has been awoken

[Bjørn Rørslett]

A modern version of Lennart Nilsson, the Swedish photographer who pioneered the ultra-steep perspective.