Has anyone had a chance to try the above lens as tube? It seems to me that the extending design might allow for larger usable range as tube lens than the old internal zooms. On the other hand, there is the distinct possibility of zoom creep in vertical setup. The optical construction is also a lot l...

Thanks Robert! I should have guessed they were yours - much of the useful stuff is.

Thanks for the information. I'm interested in full frame corners, so I'll have to think about it a bit. If someone else takes it meanwhile ... I won't have to decide.

I seem to recall seeing explanations for Schneider-Kreutznach lens parameters somewhere, but I can't find them now. Anybody have such a document they could share? f' eff is focal length, but what are the others? S F & S' F' are likely distances to focal point, but from where? From nodal points or el...

Hi,

Did you use it with APS-C, full frame or some other size sensor?

I suspect that painting the inside thread will lead to unpleasant amount of paint powder inside the system after you screw in the front tube. Not that the flocking would be any easier. What do you think if the outer tube had only 10 ... 20 mm of thread at the front end and the rest would have larger...

Unfortunately that article doesn't give the distance from Raynox to sensor in the nominal position.

A quick measurement gives 202.8 mm. The Raynox was much shorter (15.5 mm) than I recalled. So It should be sufficient to use 205 mm as maximum length with reversed DCR-150.

Yes, Raynox DCR reverse. +/-2cm means between 18cm and 22cm will be good enough. I'm not entirely sure about that. I'm using it in forward position and the distance from sensor to the rear flange of Raynox is 210.6 mm. There is some uncertainty in that, but that shouldn't be more than 1mm. There mi...

Instead of using a helicoid for distance A, I had the intension of machining 2 tubes sliding inside each other like a helicoid. If I make it 20cm and have +/- 2cm for fine adjustment, would that be enough ? and would you recommend that I mount the raynox150 reversed or not ? I would think that inst...

M42x0.75 would have been nice, though. :wink: There is very limited number of rings ending at female M42x1, but almost unlimited number ending with female T2 (M42x0.75). Always thought the opposite, M42x1 was more popular, I have been trying to sell a set of T2 x 25mm extension rings, 5 pieces, Sch...

The inner diameter of RMS is smaller than the D21.8 opening, so that would have to grab the lens from the end only.

M42x0.75 would have been nice, though. There is very limited number of rings ending at female M42x1, but almost unlimited number ending with female T2 (M42x0.75).

I supect it should be relatively easy to design and print two sleeves with conical surface between them. On would have full circumference cone and on the other the cone would be split to sections. Then use two fixing rings to tighten them around the scanner lens.

Are you sure your dimensions are right? It seems that you are using Raynox reversed. I'm not, but the distance from sensor to the rear flange of Raynox was something like 210mm. In your picture the rear flange is roughly 230 mm from the back of the rear cap. The sensor is likely a bit further still....

As a matter of fact, you shouldn't expect very much resolution from 50x/0.55. Something like 1500px from APS-C is my guess.

32 GB of RAM.

Note the difference in transfer speed. Is this about SSD performance? If your Sabrent is Rocket Q4, it shouldn't be.