Accessory macro lenses: Useing a split lens?

[Drew Bedo]

Perhaps this is the best forum for this question:

I understand that nothing equals the images produced with quality macro lenses on a camera with sufficient extension in conjunction with adequate lighting etc. and so forth. I respect all these aspects of quality macro photography.

With that said: I have come across a set of large-ish plus diopters (72mm filter ring) and a split diopter. I have step-down rings to mount these to my lenses (72-67). The split lens is half clear (no glass) and half +. I am thinking about using this to do some near-far landscape photography, say, a big flower with some famous peak in the background.

My camera is a Wista made Zone-VI with 12" max extension. My lens selection is 90-150-210mm.

What do I need to know before going outside and fioeling with this rig in the hot sun

[Tim Meisburger]

Interesting topic Drew. I was reading the other thread that was closed, and have several observations and questions related to this: (sorry - I just noticed the new topic is focused on split lenses rather than diopters in general, so some of the below may be less relevant)

- autocorrect can be a PITA

- We don't talk much about diopters except for use as simple lenses, but I used to use one occasionally on 35mm. The field distortion is really irrelevant if it is irrelevant. What I mean is that if the image looks okay, so what. I used to shoot flowers and insects and eyeballs, and in none of those cases was distortion objectionable, and in most cases it wasn't even noticeable due to the really shallow depth of field.

- I don't use them on LF as mostly the only macro I do outside is flowers, and my bellows are adequate, so I don't think to even carry one, but it might be fun to mess about with one.

- I'm really interested in people's experience with split diopters (I had never heard of them before), and the associated topic of split density filters, as I wonder how a straight line on the attachment translated to images, few of which will have an unbroken straight line crossing the image.

[Corran]

I'm curious what a split diopter would do that a strong tilt/swing wouldn't do?

[Drew Bedo]

Bryan: Well of course, you are right. I am just looking at another tool and trying to access the experience pool of this community.

One suggestion that I have received involves using the excellent XL Super Symmars. In the OP, I acknowledged the propriety of using the well established techniques and equipment specifically designed for macro work. I further recognize the use of movements in landscape photography.

In the future I want to be able to photograph with a much lighter camera kit. One option will be a WanderLust TravelWide when they become available. No movements. I had hoped that using a set of plus diopters, including the split lens, would help to open up the limitations inherent in using a point and shoot.

To restate the question: Does anyone here have any experience in using plus diopters in general, especially a split lins, in LF photography? What has your experience been in MF or 35mm formts?

[Corran]

In the future I want to be able to photograph with a much lighter camera kit. One option will be a WanderLust TravelWide when they become available. No movements. I had hoped that using a set of plus diopters, including the split lens, would help to open up the limitations inherent in using a point and shoot.

Good idea!

I am interested in your question re: experience as well.

[Dan Fromm]

In the future I want to be able to photograph with a much lighter camera kit.

Drew, if you want lightness and 1.4 kg isn't too heavy for you consider a 4x5 Toho. You can read about the camera at http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/toho.htm

Re diopters on 35 mm, Nikon's own diopters and a 50/1.4 Nikkor drove me to buy a 55/3.5 MicroNikkor.

Given how cheap simple (not the nice achromatic doublets from, e.g., Nikon, are) why don't you just buy one or two and try them out with your current rig. There's nothing like trying something out ...

[Drew Bedo]

Given how cheap simple (not the nice achromatic doublets from, e.g., Nikon, are) why don't you just buy one or two and try them out with your current rig. There's nothing like trying something out ...


How right you are. I have the set: 72mm, =1. =2,14 and the split, all in a nice f64 wallet. Just trying to tap into the deep pool of experience and expertise on this board.

[Tim Meisburger]

Maybe off topic, but you can also buy cheap front mounted teleconverters. Not sure how something like that would affect coverage, but for $15 it might be worth finding out. I also thought about that in terms of expanding the capability of the Travelwide.

[Dan Fromm]

Tim, I expect that Oren the scourge of thread drift will delete this post but posting is cheap.

That happy owners (with the camera in hand or waiting for one to arrive) are thinking about expanding the Travelwide's capabilities is very human and quite amusing. Simplicity is wonderful until we hit its limits.

Cheers,

Dan

[Jim Jones]

I'm curious what a split diopter would do that a strong tilt/swing wouldn't do?

The out-of-focus zones are different. Tilt/swing alters the plane of focus. This works well on a nearly flat subject that is not parallel to the film, making everything in focus. The split diopter lens permits one to have half the picture in focus at one distance, the other half at another distance. Between the two halves is an out-of-focus area that, to me, looks artificial. Unlike tilts or swings, those distances are limited by the focal length of the split diopter lens. Just now it belatedly occurred to me that using a split diopter in conjunction with swings or tilts might appeal to some.

[Corran]

I can see the appeal of that for cine work certainly. The traditional near/far landscape, maybe not.

Using both could afford some interesting perspectives, perhaps.

[Oren Grad]

Tim, I expect that Oren the scourge of thread drift will delete this post...

> thwack! <

< replaces wet noodle in scabbard >


The split diopter lens permits one to have half the picture in focus at one distance, the other half at another distance. Between the two halves is an out-of-focus area that, to me, looks artificial.

This. I'd be curious as to whether anyone can show a LF split-diopter example that doesn't scream "LOOK AT MY SPECIAL EFFECT!" (Fine, of course, if that's what you want.)


I can see the appeal of that for cine work certainly.

My impression is that much of the noise about split diopters these days comes from cinematography. But that's a world I don't know well at all.

[Drew Bedo]

How right you are. I have the set: 72mm, =1. =2,14 and the split, all in a nice f64 wallet. Just trying to tap into the deep pool of experience and expertise on this board.

Correction: The set consists of +1,+2, +4 and a split lens.

Sorry, anymore I just don't catch some of this stuff unless I squint hard.

[Bob Salomon]

Interesting topic Drew. I was reading the other thread that was closed, and have several observations and questions related to this: (sorry - I just noticed the new topic is focused on split lenses rather than diopters in general, so some of the below may be less relevant)

- autocorrect can be a PITA

- We don't talk much about diopters except for use as simple lenses, but I used to use one occasionally on 35mm. The field distortion is really irrelevant if it is irrelevant. What I mean is that if the image looks okay, so what. I used to shoot flowers and insects and eyeballs, and in none of those cases was distortion objectionable, and in most cases it wasn't even noticeable due to the really shallow depth of field.

- I don't use them on LF as mostly the only macro I do outside is flowers, and my bellows are adequate, so I don't think to even carry one, but it might be fun to mess about with one.

- I'm really interested in people's experience with split diopters (I had never heard of them before), and the associated topic of split density filters, as I wonder how a straight line on the attachment translated to images, few of which will have an unbroken straight line crossing the image.
Don't know if and how this might help you but Heliopan made splits in +1, +2 and +3 versions. All were special order though as they were not all that popular over the past few decades. Not sure if they still even make them.

[Dan Fromm]

My impression is that much of the noise about split diopters these days comes from cinematography. But that's a world I don't know well at all.

I've seen it used to good effect in nature films. Small insect in the lower half of the frame, broad vista in the upper. I can't begin to imagine how the shot was set up.

[brucetaylor]

Yes, the split diopters go way back in cinema. There was usually a "natural" line in the frame to hide the split, like a door frame, horizon line, etc. Sometimes the only way that I notice it is the impossible depth of field. Worth experimenting.