Yoshizen's Blog

Fuzzy Macro for flower

They are the photos made by a homemade lens called NZ-B = It’s a very peculiar lens, = utterly fuzzy though in the certain condition, strangely it shows quite sharp image.

This one may seemed to be taken by any ordinary macro lens though, with a much of amazement, even an annoyance, it was done by the same NZ-B lens on Nikon Z7, AV mode.

In certain extent, this lens would work just like a fuzzy 40 mm F2 lens.

Still, under close look, the image has quite a detail.

Don’t aske me why I didn’t come here a week ago. —– It’s happened as it happened. (That is what the life is.)

When it was far fore-focused, the image became like this = I like this. I think, no other lens ever made the image like this bokeh. And the bokeh image like this only exists photographically = never in the real world.

Hind-focused (photo left) = lens was sunk beyond the infinity position / Focused (middle) / Fore-focused (photo right) = lens helicoid was fully extended = like for a close-up shot.

(Only one exception, the photo above left was taken by the Pentax 110 Auto 24 mm lens)

Quite exotic flower — I have no idea who she is.

Very impressive though, I never seen her anywhere else. — (Is it a kind of Thunbergia ?)

But this one is very common, yet I love this painting like image. (It seemed that the loss of tonal dynamic range was not caused by the softness of the lens but by the brightness adjustment of Picasa and a very bright color = red.)

Still, the same lens can produce prosaically clean photography-like image as well.

The photographer is believing that they are the user of “Photography” though, in reality, the provider of the Photography (= camera maker, photo journalism etc) is using photographer to keep and run the industry and the idea. So that, “Photographer” was made to believe a type of photography which was provided and such stereotypical style “IS” only the photography.

= The belief IS “Photography is to make a faithful copy of the subject” while blindly believing that his own eyes is seeing the true face of the subject. —– In reality, no such certainty ever existed.

And rather fragile looking Scabious —– the lens showed peculiar DOF and the size of back bokeh is gorgeous.

(But have you ever seen such bokeh image in nature ? —– they exists only in the photographic image = they are not real neither your eyes are telling the truth —– So, how can you tell that the photography IS the faithful copy of the real, without knowing your own eyes could not tell what is real.) 😀

(For example, we are not seeing square building, since we got fisheye vision as our eyes are round ball, so that, our brain is reconstructing the image following the stereotype that the building is straight = therefore, the picture of the building has to be square ! —– You see what I mean.)

——- ! ? ? ?

Here a kind of anemone ? —– anyway, the matter is the image. (If you can make a soft image like this using PS I would like to see it !)

I’m not familiar with this flower —– pretty impressive, and it looks even cannivorous. I wouldn’t be surprised if I see the dead bodies of insects laying inside, half digested. (Do you know what IS the truth.)

And suddenly here rather humble looking flower = the color of blue jeans, Indigo came from this plant. (or larger sister of her)

(If I could stop down, the image could have deeper depth of field though this lens has no iris = always fully open F2. But considering the condition as it was fully open F2, the quality of close focused image was amazingly high !)

Then, funny looking chap = the nuts of ceder tree, not a Pokemon still, he looks very very happy today !

The world seems to be pretty peaceful.


EFS Junk Macro for Scarlet Pimpernel


This Scarlet Pimpernel photo was taken by a broken Canon

EFS 18~55mm lens.   How it was made broken, I don’t know, neither

the shop staff who gave it to me did.     Despite its front element was

missing, I had a hunch, this lens works. (Above photo / at 55mm, F4)

EF Junk Macro(2)-001

In order to mount the lens onto 5D body and test, I needed to

cut off the protruded lens tail. (photo right)

EF Junk Macro(3)-001

Amazingly, the lens worked —(obviously except autofocus.)

(Still able to give a focus confirmation on manual setting !)

And on AV setting, F-aperture worked perfect and the

exposure was correct !    Without front element, the lens can still

give pretty good macro image from 1/1 at 24mm to x1.7 at 55mm.

(Though, with dreadful distortion — Don’t ask too much.  😀 )

EFS Junk MACRO(4)-A09A6311

This image was made on 55mm setting with F-11 /AV.

EFS Junk Macro(5)-A09A6310

And this one was, at 23mm setting, F-11 / AV on Canon 5D Mk-III.

—– considering it was a cheap kit lens, broken and came free,

= it wasn’t too bad was it ?    Canon is making pretty good product.


* * * * *

EF Junk Macro4-001

(Above is the original size and its part enlargement of the top photo)

EFS Junk Macro(6)-001

(Showed sharp detail though the depth of field is very shallow)

PS :  To the untrained eyes, the photos above seems to be unsharp.

So, I show you a photo of a Butterfly Wing and its cropped,

enlarged images, taken by this broken EFS Zoom lens at 55mm F11.

EFS at 55mm F11-A09A6349

(Photo above = at 55mm setting, F11 — X1.7 magnification)

EFS 55mm Clopped--001

(Center part enlarged photo of above picture)

— is it sharp enough ? 

(don’t forget, this is not even a macro lens.)   😀

(Of course, if a junk lens could show the same quality, how

the Leica’s Macro Elmar or Zeiss’ Macro Sonner could

justify their price !

—– and, we can’t talk the price of the mass-produced kit

lens and the lens hand-made for few hundred scientists

on the same basis.)



Zeiss and Zeiss — (Last shot on the Flower Patch)


It’s still a day before Summer Solstice though, the flower patch

I’ve been photographing was coming to the end.  So, seemingly this

was the last shot there and for this occasion, I used the recycled 

£1 Zeiss Talon lens and the genuine Carl Zeiss Planar 85mm F1.4 

T* lens on Canon 5D Mk-III for a comparison.

Zeiss and Zeiss-02-001

On the photos above, left was shot by Talon lens and the right was

by the Planar F1.4 lens.  Since Talon lens was F2.8, the F1.4 lens 

 at F1.4 showed much shallower depth of field.

Zeiss and Zeiss-03-001

And here, the left photo was taken by Talon lens and the right photo 

was by the Planar F1.4 lens, but as the modified Talon lens got quite 

long focusing helicoid (it was not a screw helicoid but a rotating cam) 

which allows the 1/3 close-up, against this, 85mm F1.4 lens can close 

only to 1m (1/12), hence the photo right was a heavily cropped image. 

—– still, they showed amazingly similar characteristics, such as

the type of Bokeh.


And the rest of the photos here were from the £1 Recycled Lens = “Zeiss Talon Lens”

In fact, I was rather impressed by this quality performance !



Zeiss and Zeiss-07-001

Zeiss and Zeiss-08-001

Zeiss and Zeiss-09-001

Zeiss and Zeiss-10-001

Zeiss and Zeiss-11-001

As this lens was designed for a projector lens, (= never used for infinity) 

it was pretty good in close-up work !  (Ordinary lens was designed to work 

best in the infinity and the macro lens was designed to be best in the x10

magnification.) — Then give a thought, if a lens of 2 or 3 lenses structure 

could give such good performance, why we DO need to have an elaborated,

heavy, expensive lens.  (Mind you, all those photos were taken at fully open

F2.8 = anyhow no Iris there.)  😀    



But, this last photo was by the Planar F1.4 lens at F1.4 (all photos’  

aperture were fully open). —– Recycled 50 years old lens costed me   

£1 and the 85mm F1.4 lens was £600 even for a secondhand.

= May be we should start to think about what we really need from

a camera lens.  Like a so-called HD sound (called Hi-Resi in Japan)

do we need such a high resolution —– Does it make any difference

on our life ? — Wasn’t that mere illusion created by the company and

a ploy to sell yet another new model to us ?

What the photo image meant to us ? — DO we ever watched the world

in 10MP details, let alone to remember in such a detail ? ? ?    😀


Lens Test on Cherry and Plum Blossom


Those photos were taken a while ago, the same day I took pictures of Daffodils.

(After this, there must be much better full bloom somewhere else though.  🙂 )

(photo above was taken by a Canon Fisheye lens)


And the following photos were taken by the Two Element Homemade Lens above.



The beauty of this lens was that there is no focus  😀   (Other than this lens,

rest of the lenses were used with the Tilting Macro Bellows for focus.)


And the following photos were taken by a lens originally came from a Canon

compact camera G9 = it was their zoom’s front element.

The lens was Epoxy glued onto a lens mount ring and a filter ring was fixed too.  




Unlike first two photos, those photos were (I think) Plum tree.




Next was a front element of a Zoom lens  (I don’t remember where it’s came from,

Canon or Sigma ?)  — The lens was fixed in a similar way to the other homemade lens.


Front element itself couldn’t eliminate the aberration. —– but this one showed

very strong Coma aberration — (if not a camera shake).  In most of the case,

good softness of the image was created by the Spherical  aberration  

= so, Coma aberration was not desirable here.


Strangely, this Coma aberration appeared somewhat in middle distance.  


And not much so on the close-up.


This one above showed no Coma aberration but the following one did  ? ? ?



I need to have more test.


Last one here came from a cheap Wide-Converter for a compact camera.

It got quite big diameter — hence the effective F-aperture is F1.6 !





I like the images from this lens though —– strangely, despite full open F1.6,

the back image was not necessary out of focus or dissolved into big  Bokeh.  



Anyhow, each lens got its own character = pros and cons.  🙂



Last photo above was again by the same Fisheye lens. 


%d bloggers like this: