Magnifying glasses for macro

[Luko]

Only €500? Sounds like a bargain.

Let's see:

Above water: Canon 58mm 250D (+4) diopter: $89, ~€80
Below water: Inon UCL-165 M67 (+6) diopter: $165 ~ €150

Ratio: 1/1.9

Above water: Cheap +5 magnifier: ~$10, ~€9
Below water: "Diving Magnifying Glass" (Maybe +4??): €119, ~$130

Ratio: 1/11

Hmmm...

Looks like you don't have the full understanding on what supermacro and necessary diopters are...I'm taking your exemple of a inon UCL165 +6 Diopter on 2 elements, you're not gonna go very far with subjects less than 2cm buddy, not even speaking of chromatic aberrations.
This Inon lens you name is an old conception: I had one like that 16 years ago when i was using a Oly compact camera and the first housing for digital. The construction of these lenses was before Reefnet launched the Subsee and discovered you had better magnification and aberration when leaving air gaps between the glasses (the optics are like in a "case" that's why the lenses ate much thicker and more heftily priced .
Nowadays few companies still produce this kind of unefficient lens as the one you name, you should compare to Inon current lenses which will bring you to 330USD... .
I would hate to poop in your party but in terms of photography you probably lost 165USD buying such lens that has low magnification power, not more than 1,5 factor.

As for me, I'm using a SMC1 +20 diopter and as you know (or maybe not) pygmy seahorses are 5-10mm, with a 100mm lens that's a *3 enlargement factor or so, hence filling the frame. Ask yourself why this lens is the most popular with UW photographers.
But what do I know in 20 years of UW photography, sometimes published ?... Hmmh..

Apart from that, i'm not sure what's your point if there is any on your price ratio. Things UW are expensive? yeah it's a niche market with specific requirements... also why don't you take a chinese plastic lens you will find at elcheapo.com for 10USD rather than the best Canon addon. you'd then come up to a 1/9 ratio.
Here's another nonsense ratio : one bottle of supermarket plonk 5€, one bottle of Brézé Clos Rougeard 2010 150€, ratio is 1/30, if you still feel so, may I leave the plonk for you while I'll drink the Brézé.
These are comparisons of what cannot be compared, one thing you have to understand is that diopters are not comparable UW especially when the glass is "cased" or not.

FYIHere's what you get with +20 diopters and a pygmy seahorse.

 

[billt4sf]

See? This is why I am not an UW photographer. All that money and time, and they aren't even having sex!

Better I live in the moment and steal pics from all of you when friends ask me "What do you see down there?". Emily (and earlier, I) have been taking pics and videos, we have lots of great pics of the ass end of fishes, manta in cloudy water, and partial images of sharks. We're good!

Six weeks of diving coming up...

 

[chris kippax]

HAHAHAHA @peterak So you are giving Luko lessons in underwater macro photography? Pick your battles wisely.

By the way @Luko congratulation on the 3rd place super macro in the Ocean art photo contest. The depth of field with the rig you were using must of been razor thin. It was a tough field. My shot didn't make it to round 2.

Here is a portrait of a Cowrie shell with a Subsee +10 on a FF camera

 

[Jcp2]

How about this?

Seawiscope: Scuba divers' near vision aids and other small items

They have a fancy one as well.

Seawiscope: Scuba divers' near vision aids and other small items

 

[chillyinCanada]

Looks like you don't have the full understanding on what supermacro and necessary diopters are...I'm taking your exemple of a inon UCL165 +6 Diopter on 2 elements, you're not gonna go very far with subjects less than 2cm buddy, not even speaking of chromatic aberrations.
This Inon lens you name is an old conception: I had one like that 16 years ago when i was using a Oly compact camera and the first housing for digital. The construction of these lenses was before Reefnet launched the Subsee and discovered you had better magnification and aberration when leaving air gaps between the glasses (the optics are like in a "case" that's why the lenses ate much thicker and more heftily priced .
Nowadays few companies still produce this kind of unefficient lens as the one you name, you should compare to Inon current lenses which will bring you to 330USD... .
I would hate to poop in your party but in terms of photography you probably lost 165USD buying such lens that has low magnification power, not more than 1,5 factor.

As for me, I'm using a SMC1 +20 diopter and as you know (or maybe not) pygmy seahorses are 5-10mm, with a 100mm lens that's a *3 enlargement factor or so, hence filling the frame. Ask yourself why this lens is the most popular with UW photographers.
But what do I know in 20 years of UW photography, sometimes published ?... Hmmh..

Apart from that, i'm not sure what's your point if there is any on your price ratio. Things UW are expensive? yeah it's a niche market with specific requirements... also why don't you take a chinese plastic lens you will find at elcheapo.com for 10USD rather than the best Canon addon. you'd then come up to a 1/9 ratio.
Here's another nonsense ratio : one bottle of supermarket plonk 5€, one bottle of Brézé Clos Rougeard 2010 150€, ratio is 1/30, if you still feel so, may I leave the plonk for you while I'll drink the Brézé.
These are comparisons of what cannot be compared, one thing you have to understand is that diopters are not comparable UW especially when the glass is "cased" or not.

FYIHere's what you get with +20 diopters and a pygmy seahorse.

View attachment 536586

Pontohi!!

 

[chillyinCanada]

How about this?

Seawiscope: Scuba divers' near vision aids and other small items

They have a fancy one as well.

Seawiscope: Scuba divers' near vision aids and other small items

 

[peterak]

HAHAHAHA @peterak So you are giving Luko lessons in underwater macro photography? Pick your battles wisely.

I would never presume to give Luko (nor you) lessons on underwater photography. I accept—even embrace—my dilettante status.

But the topic of this thread is not macrophotography, but rather a simple optic designed for looking at stuff. I'm actually pretty good at looking at stuff .

 

[peterak]

Looks like you don't have the full understanding on what supermacro and necessary diopters are...I'm taking your exemple of a inon UCL165 +6 Diopter on 2 elements, you're not gonna go very far with subjects less than 2cm buddy, not even speaking of chromatic aberrations.
This Inon lens you name is an old conception: I had one like that 16 years ago when i was using a Oly compact camera and the first housing for digital. The construction of these lenses was before Reefnet launched the Subsee and discovered you had better magnification and aberration when leaving air gaps between the glasses (the optics are like in a "case" that's why the lenses ate much thicker and more heftily priced .
Nowadays few companies still produce this kind of unefficient lens as the one you name, you should compare to Inon current lenses which will bring you to 330USD... .
I would hate to poop in your party but in terms of photography you probably lost 165USD buying such lens that has low magnification power, not more than 1,5 factor.

As for me, I'm using a SMC1 +20 diopter and as you know (or maybe not) pygmy seahorses are 5-10mm, with a 100mm lens that's a *3 enlargement factor or so, hence filling the frame. Ask yourself why this lens is the most popular with UW photographers.
But what do I know in 20 years of UW photography, sometimes published ?... Hmmh..

Apart from that, i'm not sure what's your point if there is any on your price ratio. Things UW are expensive? yeah it's a niche market with specific requirements... also why don't you take a chinese plastic lens you will find at elcheapo.com for 10USD rather than the best Canon addon. you'd then come up to a 1/9 ratio.
Here's another nonsense ratio : one bottle of supermarket plonk 5€, one bottle of Brézé Clos Rougeard 2010 150€, ratio is 1/30, if you still feel so, may I leave the plonk for you while I'll drink the Brézé.
These are comparisons of what cannot be compared, one thing you have to understand is that diopters are not comparable UW especially when the glass is "cased" or not.

I see that I need to clarify my earlier post. I was not trying to compare the Inon to the SMC1 (nor to the $1000 SMC2, which is why I said 500€ is a bargain). Nor am I foolish enough to disparage your photographic knowledge. My point in the first comparison was that one can buy a simple optic (cemented doublet) for underwater use for roughly twice what a similar above-water optic costs. I stand by that general assertion.

Regarding my second comparison, yes, it is a poor comparison. For one thing, I've been living in the past and still thought you could get a cheap glass doublet for $10. Apparently that's no longer true. In addition, I did not check the specs on the magnifier you linked to closely enough. It does indeed appear to be a Cadillac. So, yeah, the price asked is not outrageous for what you get. I do think the price is excessive for what you need. I don't need a magnifier that yields similar magnification in and out of the water as this one does. Nor do I want to lug around a bulky 11cm lens big enough to look through with both eyes. This is of course a matter of opinion. Maybe billt4sf should pick one up. For me, a small cemented doublet achromat (yes, I know, it'd need to be strong due to the higher refractive index of water) would be more than adequate. Too bad I can't find such a thing.

 

[billt4sf]

OK, I am not that far gone -- yet. I like the tube that they sell but I don't think I can get it before Friday!

 

[tursiops]

Normal magnifyers don't work underwater as they work topside because of the water refraction which is different from the air, water acts like an optical device and they'll lose a LOT of their magnifying power
If you want something efficient for small stuff, you'll need to buy a magnifier embedded into a watertight capsule leaving an air gap such as these for instance Home (English) - Diving Magnifying Glass

My wife has one of these. it is AWESOME and much better than any single-lens device can be. Two lenses with an air space in between. It's only disadvantage is size. it is big....which is nice for seeing, but not so nice for carrying.