But there is nothing on any of the ones I use that I would consider a serious problem for focus stacking purposes.Įriksen wrote: I bought on of these in order to try it out. Some can end up a fair ways from what would be your ideal bi-telecentric projection and end up with some odd looking perspectives and implied distances between things as the whole image is assembled, depending on what method you used (moving the camera with the lens steady, focusing the lens, moving the camera and lens). What else - some will be a little optimistic about their true focal length which can cause some head scratching when you modify the lens with extension tubes/diopters about why you're ending up at a certain magnification contrary to what you might have calculated out beforehand. Generally the tell of a lens that's going to have serious focus breathing issues is whether it's internally focusing or not, and most of the 'classic' macros tend to extend to focus and don't suffer from it significantly. Piggsy wrote: As someone who does a lot of stacking with mf lenses - it's pretty much covered already. A truly manual lens (ie not an autofocus lens put in manual focus mode) won't generally have this problem. It is this change in focal length that causes focus breathing. Most manual focus macro lenses don't change focal length as they are adjusted to minimum focus distance (generally at max magnification of 1:2), but newer autofocus macro lenses (with max magnification of 1:1) must change focal length in order for the autofocus mechanics to work properly. One photographers junk lens is an artists favorite tool.Ĭhanging focus with some/most(?) lenses will change it's FOV aka focus breathing, which will cause problems with the stack alignment.įocus breathing mainly applies to autofocus lenses in the macro range. Lightshow wrote: Changing focus with some/most(?) lenses will change it's FOV aka focus breathing, which will cause problems with the stack alignment. If you are into programming you can also write your own scripts to minimize the over-sharpening inherent in the native macros. It's free, easy to use, and produces reasonably good results. Most of the issues relate to movement of the subject, not the camera.Ī good program to start with is CombineZP. I've done many stacks using manual lenses, with varying amounts of success. Most canned stacker programs have an alignment function to ensure X, Y, Theta, and Magnification alignment between frames, so small changes can be compensated. Will it be possible to use a focus stacker with images from a manual focus lens, or may a little movement to the camera body result in a bad image after the software processing? Posted: Sat 6:09 pm Post subject: Re: Manual lenses and focus stacking? Rodenstock UV-Rodagon f5.6/60mm + 105mm + 150mm Pentax Ultra-Achromatic Takumar f5.6/300mm Pentax Ultra-Achromatic Takumar f4.5/85mm Kds315* wrote: Agreed, an automated Stacker certainly add functionality, like StackShot Primes: takumar 55mm smc 28mm, 50mm kino/komine 28mm f2's, helios 58mm, Tamron Nestar 400mm, novoflex 400mm, Vivitar 135mm close focus, 105mm macro Jupiter 11A CZJ 135mm.Ī classic zoom or two: VS1 (komine), Kiron Zoomlock. Pentax K3-ii pentax K-S2 Samsung NX 20 Lumix G1 + adapters Īdaptall collection (proliferating!) inc 200-500mm 31A, 300mm f2.8, 400mm f4. This is much more precise than using the lens focus, whether auto or manual. MarcusBMG wrote: Serious macro focus stackers mainly use macro rail/macro stage to change the focus anyway ie by moving camera + lens together slightly closer or further from the subject. Which photo stacker program will be the best to use? Are there any good freeware programs on the web? Posted: Sat 3:46 pm Post subject: Manual lenses and focus stacking?Įriksen wrote: Will it be possible to use a focus stacker with images from a manual focus lens, or may a little movement to the camera body result in a bad image after the software processing?
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |