extension tube – Ming Thein

The arrival of some new adaptors gave me an idea. Just how much further could I push the limits of macrophotography before I need to buy a microscope?

Quite far, it seems.

What you’re looking at in the image above is a mishmash of gear which could mostly be replaced by a single long tube with a mount at either end. From right to left: Zeiss ZM 2/50 Planar (I tried the Leica 35 FLE, but there wasn’t enough working distance) mounted on Leica Bellows II, mounted on Visoflex III, mounted on Leica M to Nikon F adaptor, mounted on 72mm of Nikon-fit extension tubes, mounted on Nikon F to M4/3 adaptor, with an Olympus Pen Mini hanging off the end.

The results? See for yourself below. The full frame is slightly less than 2x3mm in most of the photos with the 50mm, and 1.5x2mm with the 35mm. That’s 6:1 or 9:1 on Micro Four Thirds, but more like 12:1 or 18:1 equivalent on FX. I’ve marked on a larger photo of the watch exactly what you’re looking at, for readers intimately familiar with horological architecture. Note that the angle is slightly different in some of the images.

Does it make sense? No, because we’re clearly a) hitting diffraction limits; b) seeing resolution limits on the lenses used; c) seeing CA, distortions and other artifacts introduced by the sapphire crystal we have to shoot through on the watch and d) very low contrast. And for most watches, there won’t be this level of detail to capture in the first place. Curiously, lighting is actually pretty easy with the 50mm because it has a decent amount of working distance. For all practical purposes, I think 5:1 is pretty much the limit for watch photography. MT