MT-24EX diffuser by Nikon

[pharp]

I noticed this diffuser from Nikon on the web;

http://blog.nikonians.org/archives/SU800_SBR200_16_cmyk.jpg
http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product/Flash-Adapters/4902/SW-11-Extreme-Close-Up-Positioning-Adapter.html
http://shopper.cnet.com/sc/31647486-2-300-DT2.gif

Looks promising - the diffuser is distant from the flash tube and close to the subject. Has anyone tried Nikon's SW-11 diffusers on the MT-24EX? I'm going to give these a go - can't wait to see how well they work.

Looks like these sell for about $23 each most places [so $46 for a pair].

[Lester Wareham]

I noticed this diffuser from Nikon on the web;

http://blog.nikonians.org/archives/SU800_SBR200_16_cmyk.jpg
http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product/Flash-Adapters/4902/SW-11-Extreme-Close-Up-Positioning-Adapter.html

Looks promising - the diffuser is distant from the flash tube and close to the subject. Has anyone tried these Nikon's SW-11 diffusers on the MT-24EX? I'm going to give them a go - we'll see how well they work.

interesting, I wonder if there is a reflector in there to get the light around the corner.

One of the issues with using the mp-e at 4-5X with the twin flash is the heads getting in the way if the subject is on a flat surface.

[pharp]

I have a set on order - I'll let you know

I have similar issues with the mp-e which I'm hoping this will help with. I'm also hoping that the semi-axial illumination will aide with specular subjects. Right now I'm using Fong's puffers and a 1.4x TC - it's OK, but maybe this is better.

Update: 9/17/09
They arrived - simple enough design. Looking into the flash side of the diffuser, you'll notice right away that the bottom half is blocked off, the top half shines onto an angled reflector aimed at the diffuser face. Will be simple enough to fit up - hopefully will get a chance to test out this weekend.

[pharp]

Actually a decent fit with just simple rubber bands. A small lip on the bottom edge of the diffuser holds these in place when pulled tight up and back. Tested with 100mm macro @ 1:1 with very nice results. Need to move heads back to get the diffuser faces more flush with the ring for use on the mp-e.

[fotoworx]

Looks interesting

[Lester Wareham]

Any with and without test shots?

[pharp]

Planning on it, but probably going to be a week or so before I have time to set up something that provides a meaningful comparison. I fired off a couple of test shots with one flash on a "Kaiser" type adjustable shoe - could move the diffuser face perpendicular to the front element. These can also be flipped (http://shopper.cnet.com/sc/31647486-2-300-DT2.gif), but would require some modification to the bottom lip [simple notch] to fit nicely in front of the focusing light. I'll see what I can come up with. These have potential - so far, so good. I've never been terribly happy with Canon's design of the ring that holds the flash heads - would love an additional pivot and maybe 2-3" of adjustable extension at the ring. My biggest pet peeve though - why would Canon design the mp-e without evidently considering how to light the subject at the miniscule higher magnification WDs? They couldn't provide it with the nice conical front end like the older Olympus 20/38mm (http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/olympusom1n2/shared/zuiko/images/38mmf28MacroOMa.jpg) macro lenses? Newer designs aren't always [often,usually] better.

[Lester Wareham]

Planning on it, but probably going to be a week or so before I have time to set up something that provides a meaningful comparison. I fired off a couple of test shots with one flash on a "Kaiser" type adjustable shoe - could move the diffuser face perpendicular to the front element. These can also be flipped (http://shopper.cnet.com/sc/31647486-2-300-DT2.gif), but would require some modification to the bottom lip [simple notch] to fit nicely in front of the focusing light. I'll see what I can come up with. These have potential - so far, so good. I've never been terribly happy with Canon's design of the ring that holds the flash heads - would love an additional pivot and maybe 2-3" of adjustable extension at the ring. My biggest pet peeve though - why would Canon design the mp-e without evidently considering how to light the subject at the miniscule higher magnification WDs? They couldn't provide it with the nice conical front end like the older Olympus 20/38mm (http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/olympusom1n2/shared/zuiko/images/38mmf28MacroOMa.jpg) macro lenses? Newer designs aren't always [often,usually] better.

Interesticly the hood for use with the MP-E and the MT-24EX is conical just as the old macrophoto lenses were (from Canon and Nikon as well as Olympus).

I have often thought the ring flash may ctually be better with the MP-E at 4:1 and above; the only problem is the focus illumination lights can't be configured for control from the shutter button the the ring flash - a killer for me.

[orionmystery]

Interesting...can't wait to see sample shots with this setup :)

[racketman]

Also look forward to seeing some shots with these diffusers - I take it they are sold singly rather than in pairs so quite pricey?

[pharp]

Not comparisons, but attached are some quick shots to provide an idea of what these can do. Looks capable of producing nice results, but will take more work to use efficiently - diffuser output is more directional than I anticipated.
These are shot with the mp-e @ 2x 1/200 f/10 with 1.4x TC and SW-11s on the MT-24EX.
Shot 1 - Pencil, Shot 2 - sewing machine bobbin

[pharp]

A couple more - again, not great, but hopefully useful. Small shell and safety pin.

[pharp]

Well - the Gary Fong puffers go for about $20 each times 2, the Nikons are about $23 each. Your right though - all this stuff is pricey! :mad:

[orionmystery]

Do you have more shots with that sw11 diffusers? :)

[Dalantech]

I'm curious about the Nikon SW-11 diffuser as well. But I'm curious about how well it performs at 1x with the MPE-65mm (at high mag the diffuser will be really close to the subject so the light should look diffused). Also why use a 1.4x teleconverter with the MPE-65mm set at 2x? I don't see any advantage to it...

[Lester Wareham]

I'm curious about the Nikon SW-11 diffuser as well. But I'm curious about how well it performs at 1x with the MPE-65mm (at high mag the diffuser will be really close to the subject so the light should look diffused). Also why use a 1.4x teleconverter with the MPE-65mm set at 2x? I don't see any advantage to it...

Working distance presumably, must knock off the sharpnes a bit.

[Dalantech]

Working distance presumably, must knock off the sharpnes a bit.

It's not that big of a gain since the MPE-65 is actually a reversed lens, and there's no increase in depth of field -any increase is due to the 1 stop gain from the TC and not the distance to the subject.

Adding a TC moves the aperture blades in the lens further away from the image plane and that increases diffraction. Personally I'd only use a TC on the MPE-65 if I wanted to go above 5x.

[pharp]

The previous four shots were taken with the SW-11s - just some quick shots [JPGs straight out of the camera] to give a glimpse of there potential utility. There is an almost infinite number of configurations possible here and I simply don't have time or inclination to do a full blown review. I posted this thread since these diffusers seemed like a moderately priced piece of hardware that might be of interest. I don't wish to argue the merit of using TC with the mp-e. I like it to increase magnification and WD, with the lens at 2x you'll get almost 3x with useable WD and the lens isn't extended so much - gets unwieldy for me. Use of the TC with this lens wasn't my idea - I have seen/read of others doing likewise with outstanding results.

There are others as well
http://bugguide.net/node/view/93253
http://nocroppingzone.blogspot.com/2008/05/canons-mpe-91mm-f22-macro-lens.html

Bottom line; If you have $46 to experiment with the Nikon SW-11s - might be worth a try. If you have a TC handy - you may want to try it as well, may work for you, but may not. If you find no advantage - fine. Theory and speculation about possible results is one thing, actual test shots are another. I personally find the combo useful [you may not], especially in the field. I have setups I like better for inside work.

nough said

[Dalantech]

Use of the TC with this lens wasn't my idea - I have seen/read of others doing likewise with outstanding results.

There are others as well
http://bugguide.net/node/view/93253
http://nocroppingzone.blogspot.com/2008/05/canons-mpe-91mm-f22-macro-lens.html



I know -I'm the guy that writes at No Cropping Zone ;)

I just ordered a set of SW-11's today -I'm very curious to see how they perform. I'm hoping that it will be a better alternative to this diffuser (http://nocroppingzone.blogspot.com/2009/11/mt-24ex-diffuser-how-to.html) since the way I diffuse the MT-24EX is a little expensive.

If you have a TC handy - you may want to try it as well, may work for you, but may not. If you find no advantage - fine. Theory and speculation about possible results is one thing, actual test shots are another. I personally find the combo useful [you may not], especially in the field. I have setups I like better for inside work.

I know a guy, Robert Seber (http://www.flickr.com/photos/robertseber/), who was convinced that using a teleconverter with the MPE-65 gave him more depth of field because it increased his working distance. But depth of field is a funcion of Fstop and magnification -a 60mm macro lens at 1x and F11 will give you the same depth as a 180mm macro lens at the same settings. The problem with using a TC with the MPE is that the lens is so manual that the existence of the TC isn't communicated to the camera. So even though you might have the camera set to F11 you're actually shooting at F16 because the TC adds more focal length to the lens (the reason why you lose a stop with it). That's the real reason why Robert is getting more depth...

Sorry if I came off a little "blunt" earlier -seems I have that problem online and need to work on it. If you feel more comfortable with the TC then by all means use it! But know that it's hurting you almost as much as it's helping if you aren't going above 5x with it. I don't like losing a full stop in the view finder -makes focusing below 5x harder than it should be ;)

[Lester Wareham]

It's not that big of a gain since the MPE-65 is actually a reversed lens, and there's no increase in depth of field -any increase is due to the 1 stop gain from the TC and not the distance to the subject.

Adding a TC moves the aperture blades in the lens further away from the image plane and that increases diffraction. Personally I'd only use a TC on the MPE-65 if I wanted to go above 5x.

Yes I know. This is why Canon says not supported for TCs, you can fit them but it is not a good idea.

However this is not that relevant for the diffuser issue at hand.

I guess the results shown provide the effective working distance for 1.5X, so not too far off the minimum magnification which is the worst case for light source size.

I mostly find the biggest issue with the twin flash and the MP-E is inverse square law fall off over the image depth rather than diffusion.

This is where the LordV off camera flash with a big diffuser scores I think, reducing the light source to subject relative distance change over the depth of the image.

[Dalantech]

I guess the results shown provide the effective working distance for 1.5X, so not too far off the minimum magnification which is the worst case for light source size.

How did you come to that working distance? Again, the MPE-65mm with a TC will not give you the working distance gain of a normal lens...


I mostly find the biggest issue with the twin flash and the MP-E is inverse square law fall off over the image depth rather than diffusion.

This is where the LordV off camera flash with a big diffuser scores I think, reducing the light source to subject relative distance change over the depth of the image.

I don't see how Brian's rig changes the equation: If you get enough light to expose the subject then odds are you won't have enough light to fully expose the background no matter what light source you use. About the only benefit to a normal camera flash on a bracket is the change in angle, getting the flash high relative to the subject so that when the light hits more of it is reflected back into the lens, and I can get a similar effect using a Kaiser adjustable flash shoe on the MT-24EX's flash mount.

Another way to say it: With the MT-24EX's flash heads at a low angle (connected to its flash mount) light has a tendency to skip off of the surface the subject is on and bounce out into space instead of coming back into the lens. Get the flash heads higher relative to the subject and the light will hit the surface the critter is on and more of it will "splash" back into the lens.

[Lester Wareham]

How did you come to that working distance? Again, the MPE-65mm with a TC will not give you the working distance gain of a normal lens...


I admit I just said 2/1.4~=1.4, I have tried a TC on my one when I first had it but never any more, it is quite dark enough as it is.

The MP-E is basically a reversed retrofocus design I thought, why should this change the magnification effect of a TC?


I don't see how Brian's rig changes the equation: If you get enough light to expose the subject then odds are you won't have enough light to fully expose the background no matter what light source you use. About the only benefit to a normal camera flash on a bracket is the change in angle, getting the flash high relative to the subject so that when the light hits more of it is reflected back into the lens, and I can get a similar effect using a Kaiser adjustable flash shoe on the MT-24EX's flash mount.

Another way to say it: With the MT-24EX's flash heads at a low angle (connected to its flash mount) light has a tendency to skip off of the surface the subject is on and bounce out into space instead of coming back into the lens. Get the flash heads higher relative to the subject and the light will hit the surface the critter is on and more of it will "splash" back into the lens.

Simple. Assume the depth of the picture is 1 cm.

The distance of the MT-24EX flash heads to the subject is say 10cm, so the ratio of light intensity over the depth of the image is (10/(10+1))^2 ignoring quasi near field effects.

For an off camera flash at a distance of say 20cm so the ratio of light intensity is (20/(20+1))^2.

Obviously this gets worse the larger the distance between the nearest and furthest objects in the image (even if out of DOF) and with smaller working distance.

[Dalantech]

The MP-E is basically a reversed retrofocus design I thought, why should this change the magnification effect of a TC?

Because it's a reversed lens you don't gain much extra working distance with the TC. You do get the full efect of the magnification.


Simple. Assume the depth of the picture is 1 cm.

The distance of the MT-24EX flash heads to the subject is say 10cm, so the ratio of light intensity over the depth of the image is (10/(10+1))^2 ignoring quasi near field effects.

For an off camera flash at a distance of say 20cm so the ratio of light intensity is (20/(20+1))^2.

Obviously this gets worse the larger the distance between the nearest and furthest objects in the image (even if out of DOF) and with smaller working distance.

10/11 = .909
20/21 = .952

Not much of a change in intensity, but the added distance of the off camera flash means that it will require a larger diffuser to give you decent diffusion and it will have to turn on longer. The longer the flash fires the lower your ability to freeze motion. Always trade offs... ;)

[Dalantech]

I received a set of the SW-11s in the mail and tested them shooting a test target that I use for this sort of thing (one of my son's Hot Wheals cars). The diffusion was OK, but not as good as what I can get with my current diffuser. Unfortunately the big show stopper for me was the efficiency of the SW-11s -after modding them to let more light in from the MT-24EX's flash heads I was still losing three stops of light. With the Puffer set that I built (http://nocroppingzone.blogspot.com/2009/11/mt-24ex-diffuser-how-to.html) I only lose one. Above life size it could really make the difference between being able to freeze motion with the flash and losing detail due to motion blur, especially if you shoot hand held like me...