Two Touch Tele/Macro lens information Product booklet

Page 1 · Read text

TWO TOUCH TELE MACRO ZOOMS
Close focus zooms from70, 75, or 80mm to 200, 205, or 210mm
by Mel Smith, Dec. 11, 2011

INTRODUCTION

I was a prime lens guy until 2002 when I found a Kiron 28-85 varifocal at a pawn shop and was hooked. The
subsequent buying of zooms that were within my budget included some in need of repair. Being a do-it-yourself child
of the 1930's depression and helped by Kiron Klub member Ralph Innes; zoom lens repair became another hobby.

Only one-touch zooms came my way except for a two-touch DeJur that languished amid a lot of “for parts” (for
practice) zoom lenses from Ebay. Earlier this year a KK member cried for help repairing his 75-205 f/3.5 Keno-made
Vivitar two touch macro. I turned to the old DeJur hoping to learn about two touch lenses and help him but failed to
put it in working condition. Perhaps the work of others had left it assembled wrong. Also, I now know that the prime
lens group is missing and it is critical for macro. Then I found a cheap “for parts” 75-205 f/3.5 Keno-made Vivitar
two touch macro in Minolta mount. I repaired it and made a PDF for the Kiron Klub files and the guy in need.

By one-touch I mean that a single grip is moved fore and aft for focal length change and rotated for focus. Two touch
puts these actions on separate rotating grips. If a third action is needed to enter or focus “macro” some may call the
lens “three touch” and some of the lenses considered here are of that kind, but in the literature I find them called two
touch as I do.

A strict definition of “macro” is “greater than life size”, but advertising departments never let a little thing like truth
interfere with their ballyhoo. “Micro” sounds “Macho” while “close focusing” is pedestrian–but CF is honest, and is
the descriptor of some Kino made Vivitars. It can be argued that the common moderately-enlarged prints from a
somewhat less than life size image may easily be greater than life size so I will cease being picky and go along with the
now-common use of the term “macro”–but decry the lack of a real definition.

Unlike advertising guys, optical designers may think of “macro” as doing something extra with the glass for focusing
closely. That clearly fits two of the three classes I have found, and maybe the third by considering that another
approach may be designing a lens to accept extension for close focusing without greatly compromising image
quality–maybe a “floating” element. My first “macro” work was back in the 1960's when I used extension tubes on a
medium format Korelle SLR for photographing wild flowers. The 2.9 radionar was soft wide open even for normal
shooting. Long since then I have read that prime lenses often are designed for sharpest focus at the distance likely to
be used for that focal length. Thus prime “macro” lenses may be sharper for close up than when used for a more
distant scene. Well, if all this is true, then an optical designer could tailor a zoom lens to work well when used with an
extension tube for close focusing and call it a “macro” lens.

Recently my aroused curiosity has led me to collect photos of macro two touch tele zooms from Ebay. By “tele” I
mean from 70, 75, or 80mm to 200, 205, or 210mm focal length range. I found photos of 11 different brands.
Apparently there are at least three different optical designs among these as shown by my classification on the next
page. There is a Quantaray in each of group and Soligor lenses in the same group with a variety of focal length ranges.

I failed to obtained the year of manufacture from “Third Party Lens Resource Megasite by Robert Monaghan” because
either the brand was not given or it was uncertain whether the lens was one touch or two touch. Most are probably
from the 1980's or earlier and are likely candidates for maintenance or repair today.

TTL metering works regardless of macro, but other light measurement requires compensation for real macro work.
These lenses do not go macro enough for that need.

View original page 1

Page 2 · Read text

A CLASSIFICATION OF SOME TWO TOUCH TELE MACRO LENSES

                               My Classification:

75    205    3.8    (58)  VIVITAR 22     ZOOM GROUPS CAM MACRO  HAVE ONE, Minolta

85    205    3.8    (58)  VIVITAR 22     ZOOM GROUPS CAM MACRO

70    150    3.8    (52)  VIVITAR 22     ZOOM GROUPS CAM MACRO

85    205    3.8    (58)  QUANTARAY    ZOOM GROUPS CAM MACRO

80    205    3.9    (58)  SPIRATONE     ZOOM GROUPS CAM MACRO

85    210    4.5     (  )  LENMAR       ZOOM GROUPS CAM MACRO


85    205    3.8     (  )  CAMBRON      REAR RING MACRO

80    210    3.8     (  )   DeJur          REAR RING MACRO           Have part of one

85    200    3.5     (  )  FOCAL         REAR RING MACRO

85    205    3.8     (  )  KALIMAR       REAR RING MACRO

85    210    3.8     (  )  PROMASTER    REAR RING MACRO

85    210    3.8    (58)  QUANTARAY    REAR RING MACRO

70    210    3.5     (  )   SOLIGOR       REAR RING MACRO

75    205    3.5     (  )   SOLIGOR       REAR RING MACRO

85    205    3.8    (62 )  SOLIGOR       REAR RING MACRO        HAVE ONE, Miranda

70    162    3.5    (55)  TEFRON        REAR RING MACRO


75    205    3.5     (  )   ALBINAR       REAR RIBBED MACRO

75    205    3.5     (  )  GALAXY       REAR RIBBED MACRO

75    205    3.5     (  )  OZECK AZ      REAR RIBBED MACRO

75    205    3.5    (62)  QUANTARAY    REAR RIBBED MACRO       HAVE ONE, Minolta

The “22" serial number Vivitars are said to have been made by Kino Precision.  Kino apparently made some
Quantaray lenses and may have made the Quantaray 85-205 in the “Zoom Groups Macro Cam” class above. So far as I
know, the other listed brands may have been made any of the many Japanese lens makers of the day.

Class by class, a discussion and photos follows:

View original page 2

Page 3 · Read text

ZOOM GROUPS CAM for MACRO:
(Macro by moving zoom groups on a special cam slot.)

As an amateur lens repairman my first encounter with zoom groups
having a special macro cam was with a Kino-made Vivitar series 1
70-210 f/3.5 often denoted as “version 1". This is a one-touch lens
and therefore not in the above list of two touch lenses but it
illustrates the technology of giving zoom groups a special cam
movement for macro. Figure 1 shows the roller for one of the two
zoom groups that are inside the lens barrel. The roller is at the flat
transition area of the cam slot between the cam for normal focus and
the cam slot for macro. In operation the shift levers on the lens move
the rollers across the flat from one cam to the other when the lens is
pressed firmly to 210mm to assure that the rollers are at the flat. 180
degrees around on the other side is the other zoom group roller and
similar cam slots, thus I wrote “rollers”.Figure 1 Vivitar S1 70-210 f/3.5 macro, Kino
made. When the zoom groups are moved in their macro cam slots they no
longer perform as a zoom lens. They form an entirely different lens
that uses the zoom action to set the magnification and camera movement to
achieve focus.

The 75-205 f/3.8 Keno-made Vivitar in the list above also does macro by
moving the zoom groups in special macro cam slots, but not by a special shift
action. This lens enters macro mode when the zoom (focal length) ring is turned
below 75mm toward the yellow dot. In Figure 2 it is about half way into the
macro range from “75" to the yellow dot that is between “close” and “focus”.
There is no scale of magnification.

When in macro range turning the focus grip has little effect. The user’s manual
specifies that sharpest results occur when the focus scale is at the yellow dot Figure 2 Vivitar 2-touch 75 205
between 8 and 10 feet as in Figure 2. f/3.8 macro
In Figure 3 the zoom group rollers of this lens are shown at greatest macro
position. When the rear roller is at the bottom yellow dot the zoom is at
205mm. (On the other side, the front zoom group is in a similar position.) As
zoom goes from 205 to 75 the rear zoom group roller follows the indicated
“normal” cam slot until it reaches 75mm shown here by two yellow dots. (The
front zoom group on the other side moves similarly.) From that point on the
zoom control is no longer zooming focal length. Instead it is changing the
magnification in macro mode. The lens has morphed to macro.

In my list are two other Vivitar 22 lenses that have the same yellow dots and
printing so surely they operate on the same principle. The 70-150 is a “short”
tele zoom. I did not search Ebay for examples of “short” tele’s, I just happened
to know about it.

There is some uncertainty about the 85-205 Quantaray listed as doing macro by
Figure 3 Viv 2-T 75-205 3.8 altering the cams. All I have is an Ebay photo, Figure 4, which suggests

View original page 3

Page 4 · Read text

similar design. The telling feature is that the macro range is reached by turning the focal
length ring. Also, the macro range is reached at the low end of the FL scale. I do not
know whether or not it is optically possible do change the cam slots to make macro at the
long end of the FL range.

The Spiratone, Figure 5, likewise.

Then the Lenmar, Figure 6, tries to pull a
fast one by putting the focal length scale on
the back of the ring instead of on the front.

A CHINAR 85-210 f/4.5 macro zoom shown
on Ebay likewise had the FL scale and macro
range magnification numbers on the back of
the FL ring. There is no picture of it here.

Of course there may be others. I think the
clue is that the focal length ring turns into a
macro zone, probably at the short end of the Figure 5
FL range. Figure 4 Quantaray 85-
205 3.8 Macro

MACRO ABILITY OF ZOOM GROUPS CAM
MACRO
(Macro by moving zoom groups on a special cam slot.)
Vivitar 75-205 f/3.8 macro lens:

The lens was mounted on a Minolta body and the subject width
at focus measured by looking through the viewfinder at a
Figure 6 subject with marks at 1cm intervals.

Lens to subject Subject width Magnification
Normal mode, 205mm About 2 meter 28 cm 1/8
Normal mode, 75mm 2.75 meter 95 cm 1/26
1/4 into macro range: 1.2 meter 60 cm 1/17 note 1
1/2 into macro range: 0.47 meter 24 cm 1/6.6 note 1
3/4 into macro range: 0.27 meter 17 cm 1/4.7 note 1
full into macro range: 0.19 meter 12.5 cm 1/3.4 note 1
Note 1: In macro mode the distance scale is set to the yellow dot between 8 and
10 feet.

These data are approximate !! There are no marks on the macro scale and the settings as a fraction of the range are
estimated. When in macro mode a slight change in the macro setting has great effect on focus so do not expect to
closely reproduce these data. Meanwhile, the normal focus ring has little effect on focus and remains at the yellow
dot. The subject distance has great effect on focus and was measured from the front of the 16 cm long lens.

Due to the change from 205 to 75 FL there is considerable overlap between normal and macro mode.

View original page 4

Page 5 · Read text

USING THIS LENS CLOSE UP:
(Macro by moving zoom groups on a special cam slot.)

If you have come back here from having read about using one of the other classes, be reminded that for this design in
macro mode the Focal length (zoom ring) becomes the macro ring and the FL setting is not a variable. Also the setting
of the distance scale has little effect on macro focus and it should be set at the yellow dot between 8 and 10 feet for
sharpest results according to the user’s manual. These restrictions greatly simplify the use of this lens.

In normal mode, the subject width is 28 cm (11 Inches) at minimum focus of about 2 meters (6 feet) and at 205 mm
FL. This gives a macro of about 1:8. Turning the FL toward 75 only gives you a greater subject width. If you want a
smaller subject width the camera must be moved closer in macro mode. Set the distance to the yellow dot between 8
and 10 feet and move the zoom grip (focal length) to 75. Now ignore the fuzzy out-of -focus and move in closer until
you are framing the subject to your liking. Then turn the zoom grip from 75 into the macro range to focus the image.
This makes little change in the framing. If working hand-held you will likely rock forward and back while adjusting
the macro ring and hope to trip the shutter when things are in focus.

If the subject is a flower in the wind or a moving insect you will be busy. Bright light, fast film, and a small aperture
may help. Electronic flash may be the best way if hand-held. A tripod with focusing rail is recommended for a
planned macro shoot. This is typical life in the macro world.

THE OTHER TWO CLASSES:

REAR RING MACRO REAR RIBBED MACRO

Move rear group element Built-in extension tube

SOLIGOR 85-210 f/3.8 Quantaray 75-205 f/3.5

Miranda mount Minolta MD mount

Macro scale 1:10 1:6 1:4 1:3 1:7 1:6 1:5 1:4 1:3 1:2.5 NOTE 1

Zoom FL scale 85 100 135 210 75 100 135 180 205 NOTE 1

Distance scale, meters 1.7--1.8--2--2.5--3--4--5--7--10--20--inf 7–8–10–12–15–20–30–60–inf

Combinations: 176 270

Camera to subject: No limit No limit

Instruction manual None None

Pentiprism screen: 96% 94%

Screen view 34.56 mm wide 33.84 mm wide

NOTE 1: In macro mode I doubt if the focal length scale truly shows a focal length and I know that the distance scale
does not equal the film-plane-to-target distance. When not in macro mode the zoom (FL) can be changed and the
focus remains but in macro mode this is far from true. Any change in FL requires a change in the macro setting to get
focus. Macro mode is a different lens.

EVALUATION PROCEDURE:

I made a target with a vertical line for focusing and a horizontal line marked at 1cm intervals for seeing the width of
scene taken in by the lens at each setting. I mounted the lens on a body which in turn was mounted on a focusing rail
on a tripod. For each lens a few of the possible combinations of macro scale, zoom FL scale, and distance scale were
selected and for each one the lens to target distance was varied to reach focus. At that point the lens to target distance
was measured and the width of the target was seen through the viewfinder. For observed magnification, the
viewfinder target width was divided by the screen view number above to correct for the screen not seeing the entire
36mm of the film gate. The results are shown in tables for each of these two lenses.

The scales for each of the selectable parameters are far from linear so in-between settings were not used. After days of
careful work I concluded that I had been making a stupid assumption. My years of work with scientific instruments
had led me astray. I was complaining that the numbers for distance, FL, etc do not have individual index marks to

View original page 5

Page 6 · Read text

place opposite the master index mark. I tried to consistently use the middle of the number or some other scheme to get
reproducible results. I had some success in that, but I have concluded that this is stupid because the numbers must be
placed only in approximate position. Finding a sound relationship among them is futile.

Thus I am faced with using sloppy data with which to try to determine a simple procedure for using these lenses in
macro mode.

My work was done through the viewfinder without any photographic measure of sharpness. Using film with test
targets would take more time and effort than I can spare and would raise an old question: “ Can a sharper image at less
magnification be enlarged to give a sharper print than a less sharp image at higher magnification?” The pre-digital
age answer was “no” and shoot at the most suitable magnification for the subject. Does that still apply?

Focusing was difficult. Except when at precise focus the split image of the vertical line target wavered when my eye
was wagged from side to side. This is exactly the effect of the “dancing” image of the micro prism ring on many
viewfinders when not in perfect focus. At longer
distances focus was not very sensitive to camera
movement.

Now we proceed to each of the individual classes,
their design differences, and tables of my data.

REAR RING MACRO
(Macro by moving glass in the prime lens group.)

The defining example of this group is the
SOLIGOR 85-210 f/3.8 in Miranda mount in
Figure 7. The one I have has four rubber grip rings
and all of them turn something, see Figure 7. The
rear one sets the aperture. Nothing unique about
that except for having a rubber grip. Aperture set
rings seldom have a rubber grip.
Figure 7 Soligor 85-210 f/3.8 macro zoom in Miranda mount
Going forward, the next one has the name “macro”
on it and a scale from 1:10 to 1:3 indicating magnifications.
Aside from the aperture-set ring this is the rear ring thus the name
of the class, “Rear Ring Macro”.

The next grip turns to set the focal length.

In normal mode, the front ring turns to focus the lens and has the
usual feet/meters distance scale.

There is a slide-out lens hood on the front.

There is no interconnection to prevent the four grip rings from
turning independently and no clear guiding marks like the yellow
dots on “zoom groups cam” lenses to show what settings of FL
and distance should be used for macro. I do not have an owner’s
manual, but surely if the magnification ratios on the macro scale
mean anything the FL and distance must be fixed.

Figure 8 is the view inside the rear of this lens. Items “A” and “C”Figure 8 Soligor 85-210 f.3.8 macro zoom in
are metal rings holding lens elements. Item “B” is the shoulder ofMiranda mount
a ring riding on the helicoid threads. The at the rear in the lens,
“A”, is fixed, does not move when any of the four rings are turned. When the macro grip is turned, “B” and “C”
move on the helicoid and appear to remain the same distance apart.

In this photo the macro grip is turned to the “normal” (non-macro) position and “B” & “C” are at their farthest from
“A”.

As the macro grip is turned “B” and “C” move toward “A” until at their limit helicoid threads can no longer be seen.

View original page 6

Page 7 · Read text

The scale on the micro grip gives magnifications of 1:10, 1:6, 1:4, and 1:3 without click stops and possible setting
anywhere between.

The helicoid, “A”, “B”, and “C” are all missing from my “for parts” DeJur lens that I failed to “fix”.





                               PHOTOS OF REAR RING MACRO LENSES:

                                                          In addition to the Soligor in Miranda mount above here are
                                               9 more lenses in various mounts that look to me like they
                                                          are rear ring macro. Given alphabetically, these include
                                               two more Soligors.

                                         Some of the variation is mount-related. The direction of
                                                             rotation and scale placement is in keeping with the style of
                                                          the camera brand.

                                           From these Ebay photos alone I cannot be certain, but it
                                                     appears that the macro design described with Figure 7 may
                                                 be common to all the lenses I have classified “REAR RING
                                     MACRO”.

                                            The lack of a user’s manual or a Miranda body leaves
                                                unanswered questions about the proper way to use this
                                                        design. Today, Nov 24, I purchased a “buy it now” Miranda
                                      EE body on Ebay.

                                                                     I have only a rudimentary knowledge of optics and maybe I
                                      am mixing a few facts with bull. Please read critically.

                                          As I understand it, a telephoto lens has a positive element up
                                                           front and a negative element at the rear. Focusing is
                                                   achieved by moving the front one fore and aft. Replacing the
                                                         single elements with groups of elements is done to enable
                                                      reduction of various aberrations but the basic design is
                                                  unchanged.

                                A tele zoom lens is sort of the same thing. There are many
                                         zoom designs including retrofocus ones, but I have read of
                                                               tele zooms that have four lens groups that function as
                                                        follows: The front one does the focusing by fore and aft
                                              movement. The next one–the front zoom g roup--moves a lot
                                               and works with the focusing group to change the focal length.
                                            The next one, the rear zoom group, also moves a lot and
                                                    maintains the focus despite the zooming change in focal
                                                         length.  I think these three together form the positive front of a
                                                         telephoto, and the fourth lens group does the negative to make
                                                   a telephoto. That rear (fourth) lens group often is termed a
                                                prime lens, perhaps because aperture often works best when
                                                         inside or very near this rear “negative” group.

View original page 7

Page 8 · Read text

There is a lot of conjecture here, but maybe it helps understand the Rear Ring Macro design. In this design as shown
in Figures 8 big changes are made in the prime lens group. Maybe this makes it more negative, or less negative–I
don’t know which–surely it does one or the other and this greatly alters the focal length of this complex “telephoto”
lens. Makes it shorter ?? Anyway, for best image quality a user’s manual may tell that for macro there is only one
best place for each of the three groups in front of the variable
prime lens. If so, then they cannot be used for focusing and the
only focus left is moving the camera to accommodate the
altered rear group.

Similarities among these suggest a common manufacturer.

MACRO ABILITY OF SOLIGOR 85-210 f/3.8 TELE MACRO LENS
(REAR RING MACRO DESIGN in Miranda mount)
(Macro by moving an element in the prime lens group.)

TABLE ONE on next page is all the data I collected with this lens. The data are sorted on column “G” in descending
order. This is the target width, and it is given in both cm and inches. Not in the sorting are the first two rows which
are data from the closest-focus non-macro setting of the lens. The lens keeps focus with zoom so 85mm and 310mm
are both at the same distance setting.

Rows 3 to 16 are in italics bold. All of these have a target width equal or greater than in normal mode. I assume that
normal mode will be as sharp or sharper than macro mode for these, so for subsequent tables these italicized rows have
been deleted.

The shortest target width occurs in the last five rows in bold. These are the maximum macro of this lens. All at a
micro scale setting of 1/3 with FL setting of 85. Here the focus distance setting has no effect on focus that can be seen.

View original page 8

Page 11 · Read text

from the setting on the macro ring. Could it be that reaching the magnifications inscribed on the macro ring by choosing
limited FL scale and distance scale positions gives the sharpest results? The Kino made Vivitars in the Zoom Groups Cam
design has a yellow dot for distance scale and the FL scale is minimum when entering the macro mode. For best results,
does the same limited range apply to this soligor lens? Maybe for all the lenses studied here?

All three of the lenses that I have share two characteristics in macro mode.

First, the greatest magnification is reached by the combination of the extreme position of the macro mode ring and
the shortest focal length setting. (This is oddly unlike longest FL giving most magnification in normal mode–but as
I have said, macro mode is a different lens.)

Second, when at this position the setting of the focus ring scale has absolutely no effect on focus or magnification,
although at lesser magnification it does have some effect.

Does this similarity mean that despite the different optical design these lens are best used in a similar manner? Should the
use of the Zoom Groups Cam design at minimum FL setting and near-minimum distance scale setting also apply to the
other two?

Maybe. Maybe not. To rephrase a statement above, another assumption could be that the sharpest macro occurs when the
lens achieves the setting on the macro scale. If you like this idea, look at the absolute values in the “DIFF” column in the
tables. This is the difference between the micro ring setting of magnification and the observed result at the given
parameters.

It is to be hoped that an instruction manual would recommend settings for sharpest results. If you find one, let me know.

A WAY TO PROCEED:

With the resolution question unresolved, free use can be made of all controls. A first consideration is the lens to subject
distance. Barriers, your safety, or a skittish subject may dictate a longer distance. In this case, is there any advantage going
to macro instead of normal? My conclusion is NO. Although the lens-to-subject distance may be the same in both normal
and macro modes, in macro mode the magnification will be less. Yes, less at distances equal or greater than normal
minimal, although macro gives greater magnification at distances shorter than normal minimum.

TABLE THREE SOLIGOR 85-210 F/3.8 TELE MACRO in
MIRANDA MOUNT
FOCAL
MACRO IND LENGTH DISTANCE DISTANCE CALCULATED
SETTING MAG SCALE SCALE FROM LENS TARGET WIDTH MAG DIFF
mm meters cm FEET cm INCHES 34.56 B-I
A B C D E F G H I J
NORMAL 85 149.0 4.9 41.0 16.1 11.57
NORMAL 210 1.7 149.0 4.9 22.0 8.7 6.37
C NORMAL 210 2.04 225.0 7.4 33.6 13.2 9.72
C 1/4.5 4.5 210 INF 225.0 7.4 41.6 16.4 12.04
A 1/6 6.0 210 10.0 225.0 7.4 36.0 14.2 10.42
The bold data in the lower three rows above compare two macro settings with a normal of the same lens to subject distance,
7.4 feet. The normal setting has greater magnification than the macro settings. With the lens to subject distance set at 7.4
feet (225cm) normal mode focusing was done in the normal way. From here, macro focusing was done by first moving the
macro ring to higher magnification which made out of focus condition, then the distance scale ring was turned to achieve
focus. In row “A” this has been done part way and magnification has moved from the row “C” 13.2 of normal to the 14.2
of macro. In row “B” the macro has been moved as far as it can be compensated by the distance scale which has reached
infinity and the magnification is 16.4.

It is good if a short lens-to-subject distance can be used because camera movement is less magnified. Macro mode is used
if normal mode fails because greater magnification is desired and lens-to-subject distance is not a limiting factor. If your
prey is a jumpy insect turn the distance scale to infinity, turn the FL scale to 85, and slowly move in closer while turning
the macro scale from “normal” to higher magnification. The macro scale focuses as you move closer. When the insect
jumps you know you got too close too fast. Flowers are more cooperative.

At greatest magnification I recommend exposures at different distance settings to see if there is any resolution effect.

View original page 11

Page 12 · Read text

REAR RIBBED MACRO
(Macro with a built-in extension tube.)

This class was named from the appearance of some Ebay
photos and the design was only speculation until I bought one.
Here are two photos from different Ebay sellers of Quantaray
75-205 f/3.5 macro zoom lenses. One I have labeled
“compressed” and the other “extended’.

It appeared to me that these lenses were doing macro the old
fashioned way with an extension tube built in to the rear of the
lens. The outside ribbed structure might mesh with inside ribs
to achieve greater structural strength for the extension ring.
This design would prohibit rotation of the extension.

I did have some doubts. How is it that the extended photo has
magnification numbers if the extension does not rotate?
Figure 18
Nov 26, 2011: My copy of the Quantaray arrived today.
Heavy!! Would make a good boat anchor, but much too nice
for that. Except for a floppy built-on lens hood it looks like
new.

I was right in principle, but wrong in details. Give me credit
for doubting that the extension does not rotate. It does, and
the ribbing gives good grip for doing it. If the macro ring is at
“normal” press the chrome button and the ribbed part will turn
over 3/4 a revolution with magnification scale going from 1:7
to 1:2.5. As this happens the lens is extended away from the
body. There is no evident movement of any individual glass,
just the entire lens. (The auto diaphragm operation remains.)
When the macro ring is turned back to “normal” it clicks in
place and stays there until the chrome button is depressed.

The extension for macro appears to be a sturdy helix, and
Figure 19 needs to be for such a heavy lens. It weighs two pounds six
ounces and is nine inches long with macro and focus extended.

When off camera the macro was easy to set. When on camera and cantilevered out from a camera mounted on a tripod the
action was stiff. That lens is heavy. Needs a separate tripod mount or a bean bag support.

PHOTOS OF REAR RIBBED MACRO LENSES:

In addition to the Quantaray I found an Albinar, a Galaxy and an Ozeck. Appearance here suggests that all could be f rom
the same manufacturer. (Boggy found the Ozeck for me.)

Now I have work to do. At what focal length and at what distance
setting should the macro be used to reach the indicated
magnifications? How sharp is the macro at various FL and
distance? I have a Minolta body so I can experiment for answers.
At Two pounds 6 ounces and 9 inches long not counting the slide
out hood this thing needs a support cradle or bean bag–there is no
place for a tripod mount ring. No wonder it looks so new, it is too
big and heavy for frequent use. Maybe one should use a copy stand
that lets the lens hang down from the body.

View original page 12

Page 15 · Read text

TABLE FIVE QUANTARAY 75-205 f/3.5 TELE MACRO
               FOCAL
   MACRO  IND  LENGTH DISTANCE     DISTANCE                  CALCULATED
   SETTING MAG  SCALE   SCALE     FROM LENS    TARGET WIDTH   MAG
              mm       meters      cm     FEET    cm    INCHES    33.84   DIFF
     A     B    C      D       E       F    G     H           I       J
  NORMAL             205.0           2.0       177.0       5.8     28.0        11.0        8.3
 161/4             4.0     135.0           2.0         72.0       2.4     17.2          6.8        5.1     -1.1

 171/4             4.0      75.0         10.0         31.5       1.0     15.4          6.1        4.6     -0.6
 181/4             4.0      75.0           5.0         30.6       1.0     14.6          5.7        4.3     -0.3
 191/4             4.0      75.0           3.0         30.0       1.0     14.2          5.6        4.2     -0.2
 201/4             4.0      75.0           2.0         30.0       1.0     12.0          4.7        3.5     0.5

 211/2.5           2.5     205.0           5.0       107.5       3.5     17.4          6.9        5.1     -2.6
 221/2.5           2.5     205.0           3.0       101.8       3.3     15.1          5.9        4.5     -2.0
 231/2.5           2.5     205.0           2.0         87.2       2.9     13.0          5.1        3.8     -1.3

 241/2.5           2.5     135.0         10.0         58.8       1.9     14.6          5.7        4.3     -1.8
 251/2.5           2.5     135.0           5.0         58.3       1.9     14.0          5.5        4.1     -1.6
 261/2.5           2.5     135.0           3.0         53.8       1.8     13.0          5.1        3.8     -1.3
 271/2.5           2.5     135.0           2.0         50.6       1.7     12.1          4.8        3.6     -1.1

 281/2.5           2.5      75.0         10.0         18.2       0.6       9.1          3.6        2.7     -0.2
 291/2.5           2.5      75.0           5.0         17.9       0.6       9.0          3.5        2.7     -0.2
 301/2.5           2.5      75.0           3.0         17.7       0.6       8.8          3.5        2.6     -0.1
 311/2.5           2.5      75.0           2.0         17.5       0.6       6.7          2.6        2.0     0.5

Next, look at groups three at a time (205,135,75) for each of the macro ring setting of 1/7, 1/4, and 1/2.5. There is some
overlap due to the distance scale settings, but in general the magnification increases as the FL scale moves from 205 to 135
to 75.  This is the opposite of the behavior in normal mode where greater FL takes in a smaller scene.

The data were not acquired in the order presented. The difficulty I experienced getting reproducible values assures me
there is some slop in the data which would show if the data were plotted. Even so, the trends found are significant.

In macro mode, unlike in normal mode, the image does not remain in focus with changes in the focal length scale.  This is
a different lens.  Different lens? But all that is changed is the distance from the body. The glass remains unchanged.
True, but this is a zoom lens and the back-of-lens to camera distance is a part of the lens formula. A prime lens focuses by
moving the entire lens forward and back, but this zoom lens in normal mode focuses by moving only the front lens group.
This macro mode of a zoom by extension tube is not the same as extending the focus of a prime lens with extension tubes.

USING THIS LENS CLOSE UP:
(Macro by REAR RIBBED EXTENSION TUBE.)
(Quantaray 75-205 f/3.5 Tele Macro Minolta mount)

Just as with the previous lens, without a user’s manual for macro mode we could assume that all variables (ribbed macro
ring setting, distance scale setting, focal length scale setting, and lens to subject distance) can all be used throughout their
ranges. One object of this study was to find if there is any reason to limit these.

As stated above, careful observation through the viewfinder indicated that as the distance scale is turned from minimum (2
meters) to infinity the contrast and sharpness of the image fades. At greatest magnification this was easy to see because the
focus did not change.  I tried the same observation with macro scale ring an greatest magnification (1/2.5), distance scale at
minimum (2 meters) and varied FL (75 out to 205). Visually with the Minolta view screen I detected no change in contrast
but the test was hard to do because retaining focus required that the camera be repositioned at increasing distance with
increased FL.  I cannot vouch that my eyes did not readjust.

I recommend the following macro procedure if the normal mode even at 205 encompasses more scene than wanted:

View original page 15

Page 16 · Read text

1. Turn the distance scale to minimum (2 meters) if you are not already there. Hold the lens in the right hand and turn the
macro ring with the left. (If you hold the camera in your right hand and turn the macro ring with your left it will not be easy
to turn because the weight of the lens cantilevered from the body puts strain on the extension tube helix.)

2. As you do this, move closer to keep the image in focus. As you go through the range of the macro ring the lens-to-
subject distance will change from about 2 meters (6 feet) to 0.87 meters (2.9 feet). The subject width goes from 28 cm to
17 cm (11 inches to 7 inches)

3. If you want more, hold the camera in your right hand and rotate the FL ring with your left from 205 to 75.

4. As you do this, move closer to keep the subject in focus. From the .87 meters (2.9 feet) at the start the lens-to-subject
distance will decrease to 0.17 meters (0.6 feet) at 75mm on the FL scale. The subject width goes from 17 cm to 7 cm (7
inches to 3 inches).

There are two approaches to macro. One is move closer to get the scene wanted, then do the macro mode scale turning to
get focus. The other is first moving the macro mode scale and then moving the camera to get focus. Instructions written
one way or the other sound different, but really aren’t.

CONCLUSIONS and OPINIONS
(Be aware that my thinking may be bull to those who know better.)

HISTORY of LENS DESIGN and MARKETING:

I think two touch zooms were among the early ones. At that time many photographers had adapted to changing prime
lenses with SLR cameras and the lens manufacturers had filled the market with variety. Perhaps it was with reluctance that
zooms were put on the market because this could decimate the sale of prime lenses. However, since zooms of the day were
not as sharp as primes they could be considered another avenue of sales for going light, going to the beach where changing
lenses might get sand inside the camera, for those who could not afford a bevy of primes, or those who always want the
cachet of the latest.

Separate FL and focus controls was a natural at first. The prime-lens-oriented photographer could set the zoom to the
prime focal length he would have chosen from a kit of primes. Only later would he learn to bring the camera to his eye and
vary the FL to get the framing he wanted. I think that one-touch zooms for the most part were a later development.
Another natural for early zooms was a diaphragm that did not change aperture with FL because TTL light metering was not
yet De rigueur.

I suppose that for optical or physical design reasons, close focusing in normal mode was not made available until
photographers and marketing demanded it. In normal mode, the three studied lenses have focusing limited to about 2
meters which to me suggests their age. Or maybe normal mode close focusing was limited to give a platform for the macro
features of these lenses.

Since I started photography in 1946 I have seen a steady march of “improvements” such as double exposure prevention,
coupled rangefinders and combined film wind and shutter cock to name some of the first ones I knew. I wonder to what
extent these have been deliberately introduced one by one to obsolete the old and sell the new? Have the big jumps
occurred only when a manufacturer made a big push to best competitors, or come out with a new item aimed at dominating
the market? I think of Olympus OM as one of the latter.

ABOUT IMAGE QUALITY AND USING THESE LENSES:

Image quality was not the purpose of this investigation, but photographers always want to know the sharpness of a lens
relative to others. Sorry, nothing like that here. If I were to delve into that subject with my limited resources a likely result
would be a lot of work and ambiguous results.

By their nature, at first glance macro images look sharp to most people simply because in our daily life we do not see things
that closely. A longer look takes note of the limited depth of sharpness if the subject is three dimensional. The human eye
is remarkable in its ability to re-focus as it views different parts of a scene so the variation in sharpness of a macro photo is
bothersome. Well, technology is coming to the rescue with multi-layer digital photography.

Of course a flat subject such as a philatelist recording his collection lacks the three dimensional problem. Here I would not
be surprised if all of these lenses at their best were as sharp as the printed subject–at least in the center. Edge sharpness
might fail for lack of the flatness of field that is designed into prime macro and enlarging lenses. Even here a small

View original page 16

Page 17 · Read text

aperture might give acceptable results.

Pity the poor optical engineer. His work all too often is judged by the standards of the user, but to be fair to him his
standards should be used instead. He works with innumerable constraints both physical and monetary and should be
judged by how well he succeeds within that box. Let us hope his boss suitably rewards him so we can judge by our needs.

Maybe we should consider the macro capability of these lenses as something extra and recognize that their use as a tele
zoom lens is their prime purpose. A photography jaunt may include many scenes suitable for the focal length range of
these lenses but occasionally a macro look is of interest. Great photos are not made with the better, sharper lens that you do
not have with you.

As a walk-around kit, one of these tele macro lenses plus a wide-to-normal zoom covers most needs. Now ergonomics and
convenience become factors. Of even greater importance is the photographer practicing and adapting to the equipment.

These tele macro zooms have auto diaphragms to go with TTL metering and whatever automation the camera provides, but
they are not auto focus, do not have a power zoom, and require practice for best use. They are slow to use, but consider
that as extending the time of joy when taking the photo. You put more into it so it is more meaningful.

CAUTION:

Many of the photos were taken from Ebay listings. Even though I have modified them with cropping, rotation, and text I
still consider them copy righted. My work is not done for profit and my use of Ebay photos should be accepted. However,
if any one picks this up and uses it for profit any copyright infringement is their problem, not mine. Besides, all the writing
and some of the photos are my copyright and should not be used for profit.

View original page 17