Mitutoyo M Planapo 2x good for stacking?

Have questions about the equipment used for macro- or micro- photography? Post those questions in this forum.

Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau

Enoplometopus
Posts: 62
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 1:48 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

Post by Enoplometopus »

Just bought a Minoilta Dimage scanner last night (no function, but told to be complete, 90,- €), I will let you know about the result in a couple of days ;-) But I guess when buying a malfunctional scanner of this type, it's always a good idea to clearly ask wether it has the lens or not.

Chris S.
Site Admin
Posts: 4042
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 9:55 pm
Location: Ohio, USA

Post by Chris S. »

I own, use, and recommend the Mitutoyo 2X objective. (Have tested at least three specimens.) Am surprised when forum members disparage it. Are they being fair?

I have several lenses optimized at 2x, but among them, most often use the Mitutoyo 2x. In my experience, the Mitutoyo 2x covers APS-C just fine, without vignetting. It does exhibit a bit of the simplest form of chromatic aberration, which is easily corrected during raw conversion in Nikon software.

I find the Mitutoyo 2x objective very convenient when shooting a subject with a series of Mitutoyo objectives, and wanting to include a wider view than the higher-magnification objectives provide. As ChrisR explained, in this situation it is much more convenient to swap in a Mitutoyo 2x objective, rather than switch from tube lens to bellows, mount a high quality bellows lens (such as a lens from a scanner), then re-frame, re-light, and re-adjust everything in an attempt to match view and lighting.

The question "What lens best approaches optical perfection at 2x?" is worthwhile and interesting. It's this question that Robert's fine tests inform so well. But I'd submit that the question "What lens is most practical at 2x?" is different, and at least as important for real-world shooting. The Mitutoyo 2x objective gets my vote as "most practical" for those of us who may be shooting a series of magnifications with other Mitutoyo objectives or infinite objectives of other brands.

Cheers,

--Chris S.

Macrero
Posts: 1166
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 8:17 am
Location: Valladolid , Spain

Post by Macrero »

Chris S. wrote:I own, use, and recommend the Mitutoyo 2X objective. (Have tested at least three specimens.) Am surprised when forum members disparage it. Are they being fair?

I have several lenses optimized at 2x, but among them, most often use the Mitutoyo 2x. In my experience, the Mitutoyo 2x covers APS-C just fine, without vignetting. It does exhibit a bit of the simplest form of chromatic aberration, which is easily corrected during raw conversion in Nikon software.

I find the Mitutoyo 2x objective very convenient when shooting a subject with a series of Mitutoyo objectives, and wanting to include a wider view than the higher-magnification objectives provide. As ChrisR explained, in this situation it is much more convenient to swap in a Mitutoyo 2x objective, rather than switch from tube lens to bellows, mount a high quality bellows lens (such as a lens from a scanner), then re-frame, re-light, and re-adjust everything in an attempt to match view and lighting.

The question "What lens best approaches optical perfection at 2x?" is worthwhile and interesting. It's this question that Robert's fine tests inform so well. But I'd submit that the question "What lens is most practical at 2x?" is different, and at least as important for real-world shooting. The Mitutoyo 2x objective gets my vote as "most practical" for those of us who may be shooting a series of magnifications with other Mitutoyo objectives or infinite objectives of other brands.

Cheers,

--Chris S.
I am being fair. I own and love Mitus 5, 7.5, 10 and 20, but in my opinion the 2X (just like the vast majority of scanning objectives (1-3X)) is not a good choice for use on camera. It would be usable on m4/3 sensor, but there are better and cheaper options.

Small image circle does not necessarily means vignetting (corners darkening), but poor corner performance, aberrations, coma, etc. I just did a quick search and found a test stack I did with a Mitu 2X back in 2011 (APS-C sensor).

https://images2.imgbox.com/83/c1/PatcmYGY_o.jpg

Center resolution is fine, but see the eye and that's not even a corner... Far from "optical perfection". On FF it would be a complete disaster.

- Macrero
https://500px.com/macrero - Amateurs worry about equipment, Pros worry about money, Masters worry about Light

enricosavazzi
Posts: 1474
Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2009 2:41 pm
Location: Västerås, Sweden
Contact:

Post by enricosavazzi »

I tend to agree with Chris. I have Mitutoyo M Plan Apos 2x, 5x, 10x and 20x on the turret of a Mitutoyo FS-60 microscope modified for stacking. Nothing is more practical than turning the objective turret to engage the 2x.

I have no complaints about image quality with the 2x on 16-20 Mpixel Micro 4/3 cameras. It would take a very large improvement in image quality to encourage me to switch to an entirely different setup just to shoot at 2x.

** Warning ** The rest of this post is largely a digression.

I might change my mind once I am finished modifying an Olympus BXFM to mount finite RMS lenses. The easy parts are removing the head with its tube lens and modifying the focus rack for stacking. I still need to figure out a really stiff tube of easily variable length. Just adding a camera bellows would be simplest, but I am looking for a stiffer solution (perhaps an Olympus OM telescopic auto tube 65-116).

This still leaves out all the lenses that cannot be adapted to RMS, which could fit on a third stacker (a modified Zeiss measuring scope with tacked-on Nikon focusing rack), also in the works. I am already using the Printing Nikkor 105 mm and ordinary macro lenses on this one, but it is not yet set up for stacking. I was forced to build a small custom table with 45x45 and 45x90 aluminium profiles (similar to 80/20 profile but stronger) to carry the weight of this stand.

The trouble with the multiple-stand solution is of course the required table area. Last year I did try to build a single stand with 45x90 and 90x90 profile to accommodate all lenses and magnifications, but gave up because of flexing problems at high magnification. We will probably move again in one year or so, and a bigger lab will be high on my list of priorities. The alternative solution suggested by my better half (getting rid of all the junk) would indeed work, but is unfortunately too radical for my tastes, especially since I will be retiring relatively soon and for the first time in my life I will have both the equipment and the time to tinker with it.
--ES

Chris S.
Site Admin
Posts: 4042
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 9:55 pm
Location: Ohio, USA

Post by Chris S. »

RobertOToole wrote:. . . f/6 at 2x is going to produce really dark viewfinder, an almost unusable viewfinder image or even live view . . . .
Robert, in my experience, the Mitty 2x provides a bright viewfinder and live view image, very easy to see through and use. Not sure why this differs from your calculations. My sense, from using all standard M Plan Mitties 2x through 100x, is that each step up in magnification dims the viewfinder. This said, even the 100x provides a bright enough focusing image if enough light is put on the subject (easy, with my halogen illuminators). Comparatively, the view through 2x is brilliantly bright.
Macrero wrote:I just did a quick search and found a test stack I did with a Mitu 2X back in 2011 (APS-C sensor).

https://images2.imgbox.com/83/c1/PatcmYGY_o.jpg

Center resolution is fine, but see the eye and that's not even a corner... Far from "optical perfection". On FF it would be a complete disaster.
Macrero, I agree--the image you reference is horrible! The cross-shaped highlights on the eye put me in mind of severe astigmatism, both tangential and sagittal. But having tested at least three specimens of the Mitutoyo 2x (all behaved similarly), I don’t think your image is a true representation of this lens. If the specimens I tested had performed as yours does, I would not use or recommend them either. Is it possible that your specimen has a problem, such as decentering?

--Chris S.

Macrero
Posts: 1166
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 8:17 am
Location: Valladolid , Spain

Post by Macrero »

Chris S. wrote:Macrero, I agree--the image you reference is horrible! The cross-shaped highlights on the eye put me in mind of severe astigmatism, both tangential and sagittal. But having tested at least three specimens of the Mitutoyo 2x (all behaved similarly), I don’t think your image is a true representation of this lens. If the specimens I tested had performed as yours does, I would not use or recommend them either. Is it possible that your specimen has a problem, such as decentering?

--Chris S.
Chris,

truth be told, I am not sure at what magnification (with what tube lens) that test is. Given the insect size, I guess it was at less than 2X. The objective was perfect, that's for sure. Anyway, coverage is far from perfect even at nominal magnification.

I may be being too harsh on the Mitu 2X, but it's certainly not up to the 5, 7.5, 10 and 20. But that applies to virtually any microscope objective in the 1-2.5X range. I, at least, am not aware of a 1-2X objective that performs excellently on camera and can't be outperformed by an enlarging, macro, bellows lens. Is it usable? Sure. Are there better (and cheaper) options? Yep, quite a lot.

Best,

- Macrero
https://500px.com/macrero - Amateurs worry about equipment, Pros worry about money, Masters worry about Light

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic