KUBOTEK Nikon Rayfact 80MM F/3.5 Line Scan Lens Test Saga
Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau
Robert, it is so true. Very often I see exactly same pictures from different sellers and they have different prices. The ProOptics for example, one listed as 288RMB and the other listed it as 495RMB, almost same contents. I am glad I did the search and bought the 288 one instead of the link provided by the guy in the shop. It always pays to do a search.
-
- Posts: 2627
- Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:34 pm
- Location: United States
- Contact:
Hi John,dolmadis wrote:Thanks Peter.
I will make some tentative enquiries.
BR
John
Just FYI. I have had some successful transactions from online sellers in China like Taobao, and had a couple successful transactions but then I had two really bad experiences so I won't risk it again, and I would not recommend others. Its too risky.
A few notes;
-I bought 4 objectives on one transaction, 2 of these were bad, thankfully the TU Plan and a LU Plan Fluor were cheap.
- The sellers don't seem to understand or care that they are shipping something delicate. They use very old packing material and boxes and the lenses can easily slip out of the protection and impact the box/ground.
-They don't speak english, at least the sellers that I used.
-No Guarantee, and no return for overseas buyers.
-They like to bait and switch, show one item and ship a different item.
-Most do not accept credit cards or Paypal.
These are just a few notes, PM me if you would like more info.
Robert
-
- Posts: 2627
- Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:34 pm
- Location: United States
- Contact:
This thread; KUBOTEK Nikon Rayfact 80MM F/3.5 Line Scan Lens Test Saga is about my experiences with a lens I bought that is made by Rayfact.ray_parkhurst wrote:This thread has me a bit confused. The thread is discussing the Kubotek 80mm f3.5 lens, which is supposedly sourced by Nikon Rayfact. The GF series lenses are f4, so not the same lens I believe. Is there a prototype Rayfact lens that corresponds to the Kubotek f3.5 offering?
I know this since the hardware is the same as other Rayfact lenses I have own/owned and the fact that Kubotek does not manufacture lenses.
Klaus and Peter started a conversation about other Kubotek lenses branded Rayfact. I mentioned that I know of two different lenses that I own or have owned, labeled Rayfact, the 0,5x - 1x and a 2x. I have been told and it seems to be the case that the Kubotek 2x is in fact just a private label Rayfact GF 80mm, and its a fantastic lens. So the thread morphed into one on the Kubotek 2x / Rayfact GF lens thread.
Robert
Thanks Robert.
When I said tentative I was wary having noted concerns and issues on other threads.
The "problem" is that it is very tempting to take a chance to be able to try out such high spec products at a fraction of the first hand costs.
I remember the "too good to be true" maxim.
It is a pity that there are none of these surplus shops easily accessible from Europe.
We need an honest trade broker.......... just for our forum/interest of course.
BR
John
When I said tentative I was wary having noted concerns and issues on other threads.
The "problem" is that it is very tempting to take a chance to be able to try out such high spec products at a fraction of the first hand costs.
I remember the "too good to be true" maxim.
It is a pity that there are none of these surplus shops easily accessible from Europe.
We need an honest trade broker.......... just for our forum/interest of course.
BR
John
Sorry, but we haven't, we talk about exactly that mentioned lens in the title: KUBOTEK Nikon Rayfact 80MM F/3.5 Line Scan Lens Test SagaRobertOToole wrote:This thread; KUBOTEK Nikon Rayfact 80MM F/3.5 Line Scan Lens Test Saga is about my experiences with a lens I bought that is made by Rayfact.ray_parkhurst wrote:This thread has me a bit confused. The thread is discussing the Kubotek 80mm f3.5 lens, which is supposedly sourced by Nikon Rayfact. The GF series lenses are f4, so not the same lens I believe. Is there a prototype Rayfact lens that corresponds to the Kubotek f3.5 offering?
I know this since the hardware is the same as other Rayfact lenses I have own/owned and the fact that Kubotek does not manufacture lenses.
Klaus and Peter started a conversation about other Kubotek lenses branded Rayfact. I mentioned that I know of two different lenses that I own or have owned, labeled Rayfact, the 0,5x - 1x and a 2x. I have been told and it seems to be the case that the Kubotek 2x is in fact just a private label Rayfact GF 80mm, and its a fantastic lens. So the thread morphed into one on the Kubotek 2x / Rayfact GF lens thread.
Robert
If there is a deviation, it was by "others" ;-)
Klaus
http://www.macrolenses.de for macro and special lens info
http://www.pbase.com/kds315/uv_photos for UV Images and lens/filter info
http://photographyoftheinvisibleworld.blogspot.com/ my UV diary
http://www.macrolenses.de for macro and special lens info
http://www.pbase.com/kds315/uv_photos for UV Images and lens/filter info
http://photographyoftheinvisibleworld.blogspot.com/ my UV diary
-
- Posts: 2627
- Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:34 pm
- Location: United States
- Contact:
Thats what I get from going from memory!kds315* wrote:Sorry, but we haven't, we talk about exactly that mentioned lens in the title: KUBOTEK Nikon Rayfact 80MM F/3.5 Line Scan Lens Test SagaRobertOToole wrote:This thread; KUBOTEK Nikon Rayfact 80MM F/3.5 Line Scan Lens Test Saga is about my experiences with a lens I bought that is made by Rayfact.ray_parkhurst wrote:This thread has me a bit confused. The thread is discussing the Kubotek 80mm f3.5 lens, which is supposedly sourced by Nikon Rayfact. The GF series lenses are f4, so not the same lens I believe. Is there a prototype Rayfact lens that corresponds to the Kubotek f3.5 offering?
I know this since the hardware is the same as other Rayfact lenses I have own/owned and the fact that Kubotek does not manufacture lenses.
Klaus and Peter started a conversation about other Kubotek lenses branded Rayfact. I mentioned that I know of two different lenses that I own or have owned, labeled Rayfact, the 0,5x - 1x and a 2x. I have been told and it seems to be the case that the Kubotek 2x is in fact just a private label Rayfact GF 80mm, and its a fantastic lens. So the thread morphed into one on the Kubotek 2x / Rayfact GF lens thread.
Robert
If there is a deviation, it was by "others" ;-)
My mistake.
Next time I will reread the thread first.
Robert
-
- Posts: 3417
- Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 10:40 am
- Location: Santa Clara, CA, USA
- Contact:
Guys, sorry to create an argument! I was not critizing, only trying to make sure I understand what's being discussed.
Robert, the table you shared clearly shows the GF series, but I don't see an f3.5 lens. I'm curious what lens type is being used by Kubotek. It could be a full-custom design I guess.
Robert, the table you shared clearly shows the GF series, but I don't see an f3.5 lens. I'm curious what lens type is being used by Kubotek. It could be a full-custom design I guess.
Totally missed this, thanks Robert for all the info.RobertOToole wrote: Hi Peter,
The 95mm f2.8 2x and the 95mm Reversed are the same lens, the Eco-printing nikkor version. The 2x lens is at the top, the Rayfact GF.
That seller likes to post images for lenses from other peoples ads or from taoboa. I dont think the seller actually has the lens, I think, because of the 'borrowed' photos, I think he re-sells other sellers equipment without actually having the product in hand.
Robert
-
- Posts: 2627
- Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:34 pm
- Location: United States
- Contact:
No problem Ray.ray_parkhurst wrote:Guys, sorry to create an argument! I was not critizing, only trying to make sure I understand what's being discussed.
Robert, the table you shared clearly shows the GF series, but I don't see an f3.5 lens. I'm curious what lens type is being used by Kubotek. It could be a full-custom design I guess.
Yes, the f/3.5 seems to be a custom design with a big 1/4x to 1x range.
Information on Kubotek lenses seems to just about impossible to find. This could be since Kubotek designed industrial inspection equipment for factory automation, and so as far as I can tell they never sold or marketed the lenses separately. You can see images of the 80mm f/3.5 lenses in the inspection equipment section of the Kubotek site but no info.
There was an Ebay seller in China claiming that the 80mm f/3.5 lens magnification range was infinity to 2X, maybe he had a different lens, but I can tell you for sure that if you use the same 36mm register that Kubotek cameras use, the 80mm f/3.5 lens has nice magnification range from 0.25x to 1.0x exactly. At least this is true with 80mm lens that I have.
Robert
I think the 2x version of the Kubotek has an optical core of 1x but being put in longer focus tube (helicoid?), the guy in China says its length is 165mm. But Klaus says it is 155mm. I guess it could be different customization.RobertOToole wrote:No problem Ray.ray_parkhurst wrote:Guys, sorry to create an argument! I was not critizing, only trying to make sure I understand what's being discussed.
Robert, the table you shared clearly shows the GF series, but I don't see an f3.5 lens. I'm curious what lens type is being used by Kubotek. It could be a full-custom design I guess.
Yes, the f/3.5 seems to be a custom design with a big 1/4x to 1x range.
Information on Kubotek lenses seems to just about impossible to find. This could be since Kubotek designed industrial inspection equipment for factory automation, and so as far as I can tell they never sold or marketed the lenses separately. You can see images of the 80mm f/3.5 lenses in the inspection equipment section of the Kubotek site but no info.
There was an Ebay seller in China claiming that the 80mm f/3.5 lens magnification range was ?-2X, maybe he had a different lens, but I can tell you for sure that if you use the same 36mm register that Kubotek cameras use, the 80mm f/3.5 lens has nice magnification range from 0.25x to 1.0x exactly. At least this is true with 80mm lens that I have.
Robert
And now I am clear that the 2x version is NOT Rayfact 2x, rather it is GF 80mm. I just have to have the guts to pull the trigger to get it and be done with it
-
- Posts: 2627
- Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:34 pm
- Location: United States
- Contact:
Just measured my Kubotek 80/3.5 and its 159.5 mm barrel length but you are probably right about the different versions.mjkzz wrote: I think the 2x version of the Kubotek has an optical core of 1x but being put in longer focus tube (helicoid?), the guy in China says its length is 165mm. But Klaus says it is 155mm. I guess it could be different customization.
And now I am clear that the 2x version is NOT Rayfact 2x, rather it is GF 80mm. I just have to have the guts to pull the trigger to get it and be done with it
I can recommend any of the Rayfact GF lenses.
Did you see the 80mm GF test on my site?
The 0.47-2x, is very sharp and a super corrected lens, in the same performance level of a Macro Varon, and only slightly below the minolta 5400, the mini-Godzilla of a lens, that little lens is almost unbeatable.
https://www.closeuphotography.com/nikon ... t-gf-lens/
Robert
https://item.taobao.com/item.htm?spm=20 ... 4954264603dolmadis wrote:Is this the one? (but fungus).
https://item.taobao.com/item.htm?spm=68 ... 3958600769
BR
John
is the one I meant, it is already converted. Yours look even better.
-
- Posts: 3417
- Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 10:40 am
- Location: Santa Clara, CA, USA
- Contact:
I purchased one of these 80mm lenses recently and just finished some testing, so thought I'd publish my observations and thoughts...
Build quality is indeed excellent
Robert, in your report you say the front filter thread is 61mm, but mine is a normal 62mm, and it came with a 62mm MC Protector filter attached. This kept the insides clean, but unfortunately there was still some fungus on the lens front element and the inside surface of the filter. I was able to clean it off the lens with no apparent damage to the coatings. The filter was worse, but oh well.
I removed the rear lens mount by loosening the 3 screws that hold it in place. This gave me 8 mm less extension, and allowed me to mount the lens onto the camera mount of a Pentax AB by drilling 3 holes to match. I still have more total extension than in the original configuration when using EOS camera.
With my modified configuration, the magnification ranges from 0.32 to 1.14, a bit higher than the intended 0.25 to 1 that Robert found with the correct extension.
Question for Robert>>in the configuration you tested, is the lens parfocal vs magnification? It is far from parfocal in my configuration, with WD varying quite a lot vs magnification. I assume with the correct extension it is also not parfocal, but want to be sure.
Unfortunately, in the configuration I am testing, the corner performance degrades a bit, even on APS-C. I'm also not seeing great performance wide open. At the center, f4 and f5.6 show aboutn the same performance, but in the APS-C corner f5.6 is a bit better than f4. I wonder if this is due to the non-optimum extension?
I plan to test the lens with a mirrorless camera with shorter register distance, but that will have to wait a bit. I was hoping to see great performance even with the longer extension.
Build quality is indeed excellent
Robert, in your report you say the front filter thread is 61mm, but mine is a normal 62mm, and it came with a 62mm MC Protector filter attached. This kept the insides clean, but unfortunately there was still some fungus on the lens front element and the inside surface of the filter. I was able to clean it off the lens with no apparent damage to the coatings. The filter was worse, but oh well.
I removed the rear lens mount by loosening the 3 screws that hold it in place. This gave me 8 mm less extension, and allowed me to mount the lens onto the camera mount of a Pentax AB by drilling 3 holes to match. I still have more total extension than in the original configuration when using EOS camera.
With my modified configuration, the magnification ranges from 0.32 to 1.14, a bit higher than the intended 0.25 to 1 that Robert found with the correct extension.
Question for Robert>>in the configuration you tested, is the lens parfocal vs magnification? It is far from parfocal in my configuration, with WD varying quite a lot vs magnification. I assume with the correct extension it is also not parfocal, but want to be sure.
Unfortunately, in the configuration I am testing, the corner performance degrades a bit, even on APS-C. I'm also not seeing great performance wide open. At the center, f4 and f5.6 show aboutn the same performance, but in the APS-C corner f5.6 is a bit better than f4. I wonder if this is due to the non-optimum extension?
I plan to test the lens with a mirrorless camera with shorter register distance, but that will have to wait a bit. I was hoping to see great performance even with the longer extension.