Leica Elpro E52 close up lens

[01af]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Regarding the new Leica Elpro E52:  Don't be surprised if you hear of it being used as a '140 mm focal length tube lens' in conjunction with an 'infinity microscope lens'.

Well—I would be surprised. Because it would be stupid thing to do.

 

As a matter of fact, the Elpro E52 (or any close-up diopter lens intended for close-up photography) is kind of a low-power infinity-corrected microscope lens. And the master lens it is used upon acts as the tube lens. There's no reason to put things upside-down and to mis-use the Elpro as a 140 mm tube lens for a real microscope lens ... even though it would work, but why the trouble? If I really wanted to use an infinity-corrected microscope lens, for whatever reason, then I would use a regular lens as my 'tube lens' because that would be easier to employ and give better results.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[ramarren]

Oh, yes indeed—he claimed it. And of course, the claim is wrong.

 

Prove it. 

 

I've been doing macro work for my own needs and professionally for fifty years and more. Everything from 1:4 to 22:1 magnifications, with every format from 35mm to 4x5 inch in film, and 5/8" to FF sensors in digital capture. Flat subjects, 3D subjects, forensic work, science investigation work, etc etc etc. 

 

What are your credentials? 

 

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.

 

We are in agreement, jaapv, although it seems you didn't read my last statement:

 

 

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

 

You guys should learn to read before you call someone else ignorant.   

Edited August 16, 2018 by ramarren

[01af]

Prove it.

Maybe I can borrow a Macro-Adapter-M next week. Then I'll prove it.

 

 

I've been doing macro work for my own needs and professionally for fifty years and more.

And yet you don't know when to use extension tubes and when to use close-up lenses? Incredible. Proves the old adage that some people do things for decades and still don't understand what they're doing.

[dkCambridgeshire]

Well—I would be surprised. Because it would be stupid thing to do.

 

As a matter of fact, the Elpro E52 (or any close-up diopter lens intended for close-up photography) is kind of a low-power infinity-corrected microscope lens. And the master lens it is used upon acts as the tube lens. There's no reason to put things upside-down and to mis-use the Elpro as a 140 mm tube lens for a real microscope lens ... even though it would work, but why the trouble? If I really wanted to use an infinity-corrected microscope lens, for whatever reason, then I would use a regular lens as my 'tube lens' because that would be easier to employ and give better results.

 

 

You are posting a number of rather too dogmatic statements. And now you are asserting that the use of supplementary close-up lenses as 'tube lenses' is a 'stupid thing to do'. May I suggest that you read up on the subject in greater detail and also access the many images posted on the Photomacrography Forum where very skilled and experienced practitioners, successfully use supplementary close-up lenses as tube lenses with their infinity microscope lenses 

 

http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=37726&highlight=tube+lens   Rik Littlefield, developer of Zerene stacking software, using a Raynox 150 as a ‘tube lens’ 

 

http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=37744&highlight=tube+lens   … using Raynox 150 as a tube lens 

 

http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=37643&highlight=raynox   … Raynox 150 as a tube lens 

 

http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=37267&highlight=sigma+lsa   … Sigma LSA supp. c/u lens as a tube lens 

 

http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=35865&highlight=sigma+lsa   Enrico Savazzi’s recommendation for using Raynox 150 and 250 c/u lenses as tube lenses … ES is one of the world’s leading photomacrographers and has written extensively on the subject 

 

http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=36205&highlight=sigma+lsa … Sigma LSA supp. c/u lens as a tube lens 

 

 

… so quite likely that before long someone will be trying the Leica E52 c/u lens as a 'tube lens’

 

dunk 

Edited August 16, 2018 by dkCambridgeshire

[01af]

You are asserting that the use of supplementary close-up lenses as 'tube lenses' is a 'stupid thing to do'. May I suggest that you read up on the subject in greater detail and also access the many images posted on the Photomacrography Forum where very skilled and experienced practitioners, successfully use supplementary close-up lenses as tube lenses with their infinity microscope lenses.

I did assert it works, didn't I? But just because it works it still doesn't mean it was a smart thing to do. After all, there are other solutions that are easier to use and work at least as well if not better. May I suggest that you read up on the subject in greater detail and also access this post in particular?

 

 

... where very skilled and experienced practitioners, successfully use supplementary close-up lenses as tube lenses with their infinity microscope lenses

[...]

http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=36205&highlight=sigma+lsa … Sigma LSA supp. close-up lens as a tube lens

'Skilled and experienced' ... yeah, sure.

 

This particular practitioner (1) doesn't even know that the distance between an infinity-corrected microscope lens and the tube lens doesn't matter and (2) has mounted his 'tube lens' the wrong way. The close-up lens' hollow side must face the 'infinity' section of the light path, not the camera, in order to minimise lateral chromatic aberration and field curvature. Anyway—his life would become so much easier if he threw away his silly collection of tubes and replaced it by a simple standard or short telephoto lens, focused at infinity (no macro lens required, any good lens will do—after all, that's an infinity-corrected microscope lens mounted there at the tip, right?). But then, the set-up would lose that super-cool bazooka look ...

Edited August 16, 2018 by 01af

[dkCambridgeshire]

I did assert it works, didn't I? But just because it works it still doesn't mean it was a smart thing to do. After all, there are other solutions that are easier to use and work at least as well if not better. May I suggest that you read up on the subject in greater detail and also access this post in particular?

 

 

'Skilled and experienced' ... yeah, sure.

 

This particular practitioner (1) doesn't even know that the distance between an infinity-corrected microscope lens and the tube lens doesn't matter and (2) has mounted his 'tube lens' the wrong way. The close-up lens' hollow side must face the 'infinity' section of the light path, not the camera, in order to minimise lateral chromatic aberration and field curvature. Anyway—his life would become so much easier if he threw away his silly collection of tubes and replaced it by a simple standard or short telephoto lens, focused at infinity (no macro lens required, any good lens will do—after all, that's an infinity-corrected microscope lens mounted there at the tip, right?). But then, the set-up would lose that super-cool bazooka look ...

 

 

 

The OP was asking for advice which was given .. and he subsequently posted some of his results taken using the Sigma LSA tube lens http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=36307&highlight=

 

But please continue with your condemnations of others' efforts … and earn some more respect (not) from your fellow forum members. 

 

Thank you

 

dunk 

[mmradman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The OP was asking for advice which was given .. and he subsequently posted some of his results taken using the Sigma LSA tube lens http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=36307&highlight=

 

But please continue with your condemnations of others' efforts … and earn some more respect (not) from your fellow forum members. 

 

Thank you

 

dunk 

I must say i enjoy and appreciate O1af's bold & pretty much always correct technical contributions. 

Yes you are right. style is bruising at times but so are many other posts, some far less contributory. 

If you think he should be moderated in some way please raise it with LUF.  

[01af]

... and he subsequently posted some of his results taken using the Sigma LSA tube lens ...

 

His results—which are wonderful, no question—prove two things. (1) He is doing well but doesn't understand what he's doing; otherwise he would do it a smarter way and achieve even better results ... or at least the same results with less effort. (2) Close-up lenses are capable of very good image quality which contradicts those who (traditionally and falsely) claim that close-up lenses couldn't possibly yield good results because they introduced too many aberrations into the optical path.

[onasj]

Not to hijack the hijacking-in-progress, but has anyone heard of the release date for the Elpro E52?  

[Printmaker]

... (Thanks Jaap.)

 

That's Jaapv. Sorry.

 

BTW: is your name pronounced Yip?

[Marac]

TL 35 S'lux has 60mm filter thread so Elpro 3 will not fit without a stepping ring … and Elpro plus ring might cause vignetting 

 

dunk

 

I have purchased a step down ring for the 55-135 & 35mm (60-55) I also have a 52-55 step up ring that I have tried on the 23 cron and the 18-56. This image is quite horrid (my eye) but it shows the 18-56 is capable of some close encounters. I think I may get the Elpro set at some point but also realise that I will inevitably end up with the 60mm Makro.

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Leicaquarters]

Hi all!

I also read about the Elpro for M-lenses.

But recently I read an article on Thorsten von Overgaard's website about this subject.

In the article he mentioned an adapter ring number 16469Y.

And to my surpise I own this small piece of Leica equipment and started immediatly using it.

The results are wonderful: a 50 mm Summicron expands possibilities and the 28mm even more!

So why buy the Elpro for M-lenses? Probably it won't fit on my collection M-lenses from the seventies.

Regards

Leicaquarters

[ramarren]

All this chatter about the alleged superiority of using a close-up lens over all other close-up techniques ... which I still feel is just plain nonsense.. But nothing will prove different to me other than an experiment and some testing. 

 

So: Okay, I found a nice Leica ELPRO series VII "A" and "B" set at a very reasonable price, and I happen to have two of the lenses they were designed for, according to the Leica literature (Summicron-R 50mm and Summicron-R 90mm). I ordered them... I have a full R system extension tube, the Focusing Bellows-R, a sturdy tripod and copy stand, and a micro focusing rack. I'll compare their performance used with the ELPRO close-up lenses and used with extension, and compare it with the Macro-Elmarit-R 60mm and Macro-Elmar-R 100mm as well. All of that equipment is from the same time period (1970s to 1980s) and will be compared on the CL body. I'll probably also compare them on the Leicaflex SL body and burn a little film in the process.

 

I'm leaving town for six weeks on Wednesday so this comparison will not happen until I return in October.

 

Happily, the two ELPRO close-up lenses will be occasionally useful to me anyway, so don't think I'm doing this just for a test and to prove something to you guys.

[dkCambridgeshire]

They work well stacked together too

 

dunk 

[01af]

All this chatter about the alleged superiority of using a close-up lens over all other close-up techniques ...

Where did you see such chatter?

[dkmoore]

I must say i enjoy and appreciate O1af's bold & pretty much always correct technical contributions. 

Yes you are right. style is bruising at times but so are many other posts, some far less contributory. 

If you think he should be moderated in some way please raise it with LUF.  

 

I would rather be wrong on such topics than be miserable and lonely (yes I am making an assumption that could be wrong although I doubt it).

 

If the goal of this forum is to potentially push folks away from Leica cameras and potentially keep them from posting in fear of being wrong and attacked by Olaf, then we should certainly continue to applaud him.

 

No need to respond Olaf. I know what you will say is something to the affect of "good riddance."

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[mmradman]

I would rather be wrong on such topics than be miserable and lonely (yes I am making an assumption that could be wrong although I doubt it).

 

If the goal of this forum is to potentially push folks away from Leica cameras and potentially keep them from posting in fear of being wrong and attacked by Olaf, then we should certainly continue to applaud him.

 

No need to respond Olaf. I know what you will say is something to the affect of "good riddance."

Good thing about internet is it that gave voice to everybody.  In the process, i think, we lost sight of what is knowledgeable and what is not, come forward numerous, mostly self promoting, experts and not so experts.

 

If we were discussing/querying more formal scientific subject, be it medicinal, technical or humanitarian we would heed advise from those with some form of official qualification and established know-how in the filed.  Some academics or working professionals can be rather bruising, especially when dealing with charlatans [take cover now].

[dkmoore]

agreed. That is exactly why I would never advocate reporting or requesting Olaf to lose access (nor should he).

 

I can still think his/her responses (whether factual or not) do more damage than help the Leica community.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[plantagoo]

Hi there,

 

I've got the new Elpro52 here to test it out. Actually I did a few test shots (absolutely non scientific) just to see how the lens magnifies.

 

Tried with the Q and the M and APO 50.

 

0. Q

1. Q with built in Macro

2. Q with built in Macro and ELPRO

 

As I said totally non scientific. Without tripod. Focused with LV on M. Autofocus on Q.

 

Part 2 with M in next post

 

Greetings

Erik

 

 

 

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[plantagoo]

3. M with APO 50

4. M with APO 50 and ELPRO

 

 

 

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!