Re: Pentax 67 extension tubesI agree that a micro/macro lens is far superior since they were designed for
this in mind. I use tubes manly to reduce the minimum focusing distance
rather than fro what they were touted for as macro work.
What I have used successfully are enlarging lenses, manually on bellows with
appropriate mount adaptors as a work around. But either way the macro lenses
are not cheap and the adaptors aren't either. I have them as my systems have
built up over the years and so a simple matter for me to choose what I need
from the kit available.
So in your case you need to justify the cost over results and or if relevant
the return from a job/commission that you are shooting for.
Duncan
"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol,com > wrote in message
news:f8ikd7$8hc$1@nnrp.gol,com ...
>
> "Robert Feinman" <robert.feinman@gmail,com > wrote in message
> news:MPG.2116959fc4bdc849989a11@news.acedsl,com ...
>> Would someone please explain how the extension tubes for the Pentax 67
>> work?
>> Do they allow for automatic diaphragm stopping down for example or is it
>> necessary to set the lens to manual mode?
>> So far I've only used close up lenses for the occasional "macro" shot,
>> but this suffers from the usual sharpness problems.
>
> At least on all my Mamiya 645 lenses, closeup lenses work superbly. As
> they do on my 5D.
>
> I suspect you are having mirror slap or other problems. (Or are you doing
> stamps, paper money or other things that require a flat field and no
> distortion?)
>
> Extension tubes aren't optimal either, since most lenses aren't optimized
> for closeup work. (There's an article on Bob M's MF site that finds
> closeup lenses better than extension tubes some of the time.)
>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan
>
>