Jump to content

Leica Elpro E52 close up lens


chris_tribble

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I don't think Tri will have any problems with the German language :lol:  You could at least reference the publications.

 

"Praxistest Makroobjektive" von Walter E. Schön, ColorFoto, frühe '80er, genaue Ausgabe weiß ich nicht mehr auswendig.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Can someone help me with a few questions? As you can tell I have no clue how these work. If you have one of these mounted on your camera: 

 

1. Are you still able to focus to infinity? 

2. How would you focus on a close up subject given that the rangefinder won't work any more? 

3. Will there be any loss of quality if you use the lens as a "normal" lens, say for shooting subjects 2-3m away? 

 

Why would you choose one of these over an extension tube? 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you still able to focus to infinity?

No.

 

 

How would you focus on a close-up subject given that the rangefinder won't work any more?

Via live-view.

 

 

Will there be any loss of quality if you use the lens as a "normal" lens, say for shooting subjects 2 - 3 m away?

This question doesn't make sense.

 

 

Why would you choose one of these [close-up lenses] over an extension tube?

Easier handling, less light loss, and, last not least, better image quality.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can someone help me with a few questions? As you can tell I have no clue how these work. If you have one of these mounted on your camera: 

 

1. Are you still able to focus to infinity? 

2. How would you focus on a close up subject given that the rangefinder won't work any more? 

3. Will there be any loss of quality if you use the lens as a "normal" lens, say for shooting subjects 2-3m away? 

 

Why would you choose one of these over an extension tube? 

 

 

 

Which M or TL lenses do you have Keith? 

 

This matrix columns D & E shows 'focusing distances and magnifications" for all compatible Leica lenses 

 

https://leicarumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Leica-Elpro-E52-close-up-lens-compability.pdf

 

 

Thus the regular non-ASPH 50/2 Summicron when coupled to the E52 Elpro on a full frame camera will enable a magnification of 1:2.6  (approx 4/10 life size) at a subject distance of 215mm … and 1:2  (half life size) at a subject distance of 195mm. The image magnification being that on the camera's full frame 24mmx36mm sensor … thus at half life size, the lens would image e.g. a subject width 2 x 36mm = 72mm … imagine a 72mm length of a ruler / tape measure … it would fill the frame /sensor horizontally … Thus magnification ratio is 36/72 = 1/2 = 1:2 or 0.5 magnification  

 

dunk 

Edited by dkCambridgeshire
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

How does this Elpro compare to a Raynox DCR 150/250? They are very well regarded and you can find them for 60-70€.

 

 

Need to ask someone who has tried both and bear in mind that diopter strengths are different e.g. Raynox 150 is 4.8 diopter, Raynox 250 is 8 diopter and Elpro 52 is approx 7 diopter … but Leica has not yet published the E52's actual diopter strength. Hopefully, someone with access to the many third party achromatic c/u lenses will eventually publish a comparison review. The Elpro 52 is 'comparatively expensive'  and will likely cause a 'run' on dealers' stocks of s/h Leitz / Leica Elpro and Macrotar c/u lenses which are very much cheaper. 

 

dunk 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I would love to see such a lens with 60mm filter size. My 50mm Noctilux f/1 could really need a better close focusing.

 

And my 75mm Summilux (also 60mm filter size) is good at this already with its 70 mm near limit, but with such a close up lens it could have been a good alternative to a real macro lens. 

Edited by evikne
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would love to see such a lens with 60mm filter size. My Noctilux-M f/1.0 could really need a better close focusing. My 75mm Summilux is good at this already, but could be even better with such a lens. 

 

 

 

Possible to adapt several third party achromats to your Noctilux 

 

http://fuzzcraft.com/achromats.html  … choose and source the required supplementary c/u lens … and the required stepping ring … and experiment :) 

 

All supplementary achromats are simple 2 or 3 element screw on lenses … nothing very special about them 

 

dunk 

 

dunk 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am currently using two Marumi stacked (+5 diopter each) lenses on my Leica Q and I am very pleased with the results. I have uploaded several photos on the Leica Q macro thread: 

 

https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/260179-leica-q-macro-image-thread/page-1000

 

I assume that the new Elpro will give higher magnification due to its +7 diopter if stacked on a 28mm Summilux. I really can't wait to get a couple of them!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am currently using two Marumi stacked (+5 diopter each) lenses on my Leica Q and I am very pleased with the results. I have uploaded several photos on the Leica Q macro thread: 

 

https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/260179-leica-q-macro-image-thread/page-1000

 

I assume that the new Elpro will give higher magnification due to its +7 diopter if stacked on a 28mm Summilux. I really can't wait to get a couple of them!

 

 

 

Sounds as if you plan to spend £600 to increase your Q's magnification from 0.28x to 0.39x i.e. from just over a quarter life size to just under two fifths life size 

 

You'd likely obtain the same result at NIL cost just by cropping the image 

 

Or you could spend £39 for another Marumi 5 diopter and with a stack of 3 obtain approx the same two fifths life size magnification … and save yourself £560 ish  :) 

 

dunk 

Edited by dkCambridgeshire
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

No.

Via live-view.

This question doesn't make sense.

Easier handling, less light loss, and, last not least, better image quality.

 

 

Hmm. Quoting an early 1980s article to support a notion of better image quality as well as being dependent upon Live View (which didn't exist until the middle to later '00s at all) ... ?? 

 

Frankly, "better image quality" is nonsense. It has traditionally always been true that lens extension outperformed any kind of close up lens because you're introducing no additional air-glass surfaces into the optical path, which always comes with a certain amount of loss and flare. What close-up lenses actually do is reduce the focal length of the objective so that the standard "infinity" mark is then mis-calibrated and the lens focuses at a closer distance. Multiple element close-up lenses came about as a means to help correct and match some of the inevitable aberrations that a single element diopter glass introduced—famed close-photographer John Shaw in his book "Close-ups in Nature" discusses this and the technique of using a highly corrected six- or seven-element 50mm lens, reversed, with a telephoto objective to achieve high quality close-ups with natural subjects where light loss and subject movement are two of the issues, but anyone who has done copy work and reprographic photography close-up work knows that a well corrected, flat field macro lens will always produce better results. 

 

As always, the question of which technique to use for a particular photographic situation comes down to solving the issues of that particular situation, and convenience, and cost. Close up lenses have typically been the choice to reduce cost because a well corrected macro lens, bellows/extension tube setup, the focusing mechanism required, etc etc, have often been very expensive.

 

Leica made a number of interesting and expensive tools (like the BEOON, the reflex housing called VISOFLEX, etc) to adapt the use of the rangefinder to close up work and provide focusing mechanisms, which were basically obsoleted with the introduction of the Leicaflex/R-system SLR and now with the introduction of the high resolution EVF cameras. 

 

The ELPRO close up lenses solve one class of close of problems (getting close-up photographs in situations where short exposures are required, when carrying a macro setup and using it is too cumbersome, etc) but remember that Leica also, alongside the ELPRO, produced a full professional quality close up system of bellows, extension tubes, etc. These different paths to close-up and macro work are all valid when the subject matter and shooting circumstances are appropriately addressed.

 

The notion that one of them is always superior in image quality to the other is absurd.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

But - who is to say that an extra glass-air surface is worse than the inevitably lesser correction on a lens not designed for macro work? 

Only very few lenses - apart from dedicated macro lenses- have optimal correction below, or even at, the closest focusing distance. There are exceptions - the Tele-Elmar M 135 is an excellent performer close-up, but then, Leica designed it for the optical cell to be used on bellows.

 

There is no way that your can be so dogmatic as to declare one better then the other without specifying a lens and evaluating the results.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Quoting an early 1980s article to support a notion of better image quality ...?

The laws of physics in general and the rules of optics in particular haven't been changed in the past 35 years. Moreover, I know from real-life experience that for covering the magnification range between, say, 1:10 and 1:2 using non-macro lenses, close-up lenses are superior to extension tubes. That's not a dim opinion. It's a proven fact.

 

 

... as well as being dependent upon Live View (which didn't exist until the middle to later '00s at all) ...?

Huh!? What does live-view have to do which lens' and macro equipment's performance?

 

 

Frankly, "better image quality" is nonsense.

If you are ignorant then you shouldn't try to explain things.

 

 

It has traditionally always been true that lens extension outperformed any kind of close-up lens because you're introducing no additional air-glass surfaces into the optical path, which always comes with a certain amount of loss and flare.

This is the usual misconception which traditionally is propagated by those who have no idea how optics work, yet firmly believe in whatever they consider plausible.

 

 

What close-up lenses actually do is reduce the focal length of the objective so that the standard "infinity" mark is then mis-calibrated and the lens focuses at a closer distance.

What close-up lenses actually do is to collimate the light rays coming from a close-distance subject so the lens can see it at infinity distance, hence working at its own natural sweet spot of performance. That's why image quality is superior to an extension tube that forces the lens into a working range which non-macro lenses are not designed for, leading to more field curvature, more distortion, more lateral chromatic aberration, and poor edge sharpness.

 

 

... and the technique of using a highly corrected six- or seven-element 50 mm lens, reversed, with a telephoto objective to achieve high-quality close-ups with natural subjects ...

Yawn. That's an old and well-known technique. Every beginner tries it at some point because promises high magnification and good quality at virtually no cost—all you need is a cheap coupling ring. But hardly anybody will use it for serious work due to bad vignetting (hence poor exploitation of film/sensor area) and low flexibility–all you get is basically one fixed magnification. Image quality, however, is good indeed if you're willing to crop away the vignetting.

 

 

As always, the question of which technique to use for a particular photographic situation comes down to solving the issues of that particular situation, and convenience, and cost.

Sure. So?

 

 

These different paths to close-up and macro work are all valid when the subject matter and shooting circumstances are appropriately addressed.

Of course they all are valid. Yet they are different. Some are better in this situation, others are better in that situation.

 

 

The notion that one of them is always superior in image quality to the other is absurd.

No-one [except you] claimed that notion.

 

 

There is no way that you can be so dogmatic as to declare one better than the other without specifying a lens and evaluating the results.

Exactly.

Edited by 01af
Link to post
Share on other sites

... Yawn. That's an old and well-known technique. Every beginner tries it at some point because promises high magnification and good quality at virtually no cost—all you need is a cheap coupling ring. But hardly anybody will use it for serious work due to bad vignetting (hence poor exploitation of film/sensor area) and low flexibility–all you get is basically one fixed magnification. Image quality, however, is good indeed if you're willing to crop away the vignetting...

 

For a brief period in the '70s when I needed to shoot some very small parts for a catalog, I experimented with unscrewing the lens elements of a 50 Summicron and mounting them to an enlarger lens board which was then mounted to a bellows/visoflex/M4. I also tried the same 50 Summicron elements on a 4x5 with a 6x7 roll back. Both were a major PIA and I switched to a Nikon with a Micro Nikkor. And, yes, I know I could have bought a 65 Elmar but none were available locally at the time.  For now this $400 Elpro closeup solution is reasonable enough for occasional use. I'd still want to see some sample photos taken with the Elpro though vs the Leica macro Adaptor. I might also take a look at an extension ring for my 135 Tele Elmar. (Thanks Jaap.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds as if you plan to spend £600 to increase your Q's magnification from 0.28x to 0.39x i.e. from just over a quarter life size to just under two fifths life size 

 

You'd likely obtain the same result at NIL cost just by cropping the image 

 

Or you could spend £39 for another Marumi 5 diopter and with a stack of 3 obtain approx the same two fifths life size magnification … and save yourself £560 ish   :)

 

dunk 

 

I may get a better Leica "glow"!

 

Jokes aside, there is going to be 14+ diopter with both of them with far less distortion than stacking 3 Marumis together. This is because the more lenses you have the less magnification benefit you get. 3x 5+ will hardly give more than 12+. Trust me, I own 4 of these lenses and I haven't keep a single shot with anything more than 2x 5+. More than two and you have huge distortions and terrible contrast. 

 

Its refreshing to find that there are money savvy people in this forum and there are always alternatives but I personally can see benefits from such an investment..

Edited by zampelis
Link to post
Share on other sites

When used in conjunction with M lenses, an Elpro (or any good-quality close-up lens) will yield much better image quality than the Macro-Adapter-M (or any kind of extension...

 

Here's the wrong claim.
Link to post
Share on other sites

In general I would say that faffing around with  cheap diopters and/or regular lenses on extension rings is NOT a good way to get satisfactory macro images.

.

Elpros, when used on a lens they are designed for, like the Macro APO Elmarit R with Elpro can give good results.

 

Use lenses designed for the job, or lenses of proven quality on macro, or long lenses that focus quite close by design, if needed with extenders.

 

Don't disregard the Leica Photars on bellows.

 

All the rest is only fit for occasional snaps.

 

And don't forget to look at enlarger lenses for affordable good quality macro.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

In general I would say that faffing around with  cheap diopters and/or regular lenses on extension rings is NOT a good way to get satisfactory macro images.

.

Elpros, when used on a lens they are designed for, like the Macro APO Elmarit R with Elpro can give good results.

 

Use lenses designed for the job, or lenses of proven quality on macro, or long lenses that focus quite close by design, if needed with extenders.

 

Don't disregard the Leica Photars on bellows.

 

All the rest is only fit for occasional snaps.

 

And don't forget to look at enlarger lenses for affordable good quality macro.

 

 

 

With respect, Leitz/Leica Photars can be disregarded because in modern day photomacrography circles they are regarded as obsolete. Nowadays, photomacrography enthusiasts wishing to achieve the magnifications offered by Photars much prefer to use e.g. 'infinity microscope lenses' in conjunction with various 'tube lenses' ... because they provide superior results to the Leitz Photars and Zeiss Luminars of yesteryear. Nowadays, secondhand Photars and Luminars listed at inflated prices sit unsold on dealers' shelves for months because most serious photomacrographers do not want them or use them … they are more 'collectables' than 'usables'. Incidentally, few of the macro specialists participating on the Photomacrography Forum bother with regular marque macro lenses e.g. the 50mm, 60mm, 100mm and 200mm macro optics offered by Leica, Nikon, Canon, Sony et al … and for good reason, because other types of lenses perform far better and at less cost for close-up / macro photography. 

 

Regarding the new Leica E52 Elpro:  Don't be surprised if you hear of it being used as a '140mm focal length tube lens' in conjunction with an 'infinity microscope lens'. All the information relating to use of low power infinity microscope lenses is documented on the Photomacrography Forum   http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/index.php

 

And yes, serious photomacrographers also use enlarging lenses … but they also use recycled 'top notch' scanner lenses and printer lenses … each designed solely for close-up imaging. 

 

Infinity corrected microscope lens information and use of 'tube lenses': https://www.microscopeworld.com/t-infinity_corrected_optics.aspx

 

Scanner lens recycled for photomacrography https://www.closeuphotography.com/minolta-dimage-scan-elite-5400-lens/   … note the author states: The best scanner lenses have better resolution and better chromatic correction than consumer market macro lenses' 

 

dunk 

Edited by dkCambridgeshire
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...