Printing-Nikkor Adapter

[Oskar O]

Incidentally, my understanding is that the Apo-Rodagon 90 is among the weaker of the bunch, while the 80 mm versions should be better. Just in case gear upgrade fever hits you...

But at the end of the day (and many lenses later...), I feel that the lenses mentioned here are all very good for the magnifications they are optimized for.

For what it's worth, I'm happy with the Apo-Rodagon 90 that I have. The image of the 20X objectives here was taken with this lens at f/8. At 1X, the 75mm and 74mm lenses are both superior.

David

Yeah, at this level comparisons easily become an exercise in splitting hairs... The picture you linked to also does "everything right" in what comes to product photography, which is much more important than minute difference in performance. Whenever I consider new lenses, I remind me of this

[ray_parkhurst]

Also these are short stacks - sometimes an individual frame looks slightly sharper.
These differences are as a rule insignificant , to me. There's always other things - like here the lighting, which needs improvement first. I imagine you have a standard way with coins. I used a diffused flash one side with a silver reflector the other.

Stacking isn't fair! I am looking for flatness of field as well as ultimate sharpness and if you stack it artificially flattens the field. Stacking can allow you a wider aperture and possibly higher center resolution, but so far none of the lenses I've tested showed acceptable edge resolution more open than around f/5.6 or f/7.1, so stacking won't help anyway.

There's no standard lighting on coins. It's quite an art trying to get the right amount of direct vs diffused, lighting angles, heights/sizes, etc for different coins to come out well, and I am never completely happy with the results. Coins have qualities like luster, toning, and surface textures and defects that are difficult (impossible? I keep trying) to capture all with the same lighting setup.

[ChrisR]

Ah, well I did the sums for pixel sharpness and the depth of field was I thought marginal at f/5.6, which is the aperture recommended for the 1:1 lens.
I forgot you were only trying to justify your expenditure

I suppose if all you wanted was sharpness you could just stitch enough frames together for whatever you needed, so , point taken

[ray_parkhurst]

M=1, 75mmf/4, yes.
The same lens or its twin was used here where the limiting factor was the sensor. Have you tried a 55 f/2.8 micro?

I've compared with my 55/2.8 Micro (and 55/3.5), but they are inferior both in center and at the edges compared with the PN and AEN. That 75/4 may give the exotics a run (especially for the money!) though.

I actually don't think the sensor or the lens is the limiting factor in your earlier comparison. I think the AA filter is probably at fault.

It took me a while to decide which was queen of the current three - where are you seeing the difference?

I usually pick single central and peripheral elements from the photo and make a quick tabbed comparison. In your photos I chose a denticle. As everyone has said the differences are small, and our brains are good at quickly interpreting an image within a hundred milliseconds or so. Exact scale and position matching and quick tabbing is needed to be sure. In the end the difference is an overall quality of focus and clarity to the image. I have no idea how to interpret MTF curves to come to the same conclusions.

[ChrisR]

I suspect you're right about thte AA filter - some have them removed from their D3X cameras.
We'll all have 50, 100Mpixels soon, then your PN will be in its "element"!

my 55/2.8 Micro (and 55/3.5),

I found the 2.8 to be sharper than the 3.5, contrary to some reviews. Did you?

[ray_parkhurst]

OK which is best from these - not so easy huh?

Actually, the D75/4 is the clear winner of the 3. The only thing making the decision difficult is the 55 Micro scale is smaller so resolution is harder to compare, but the D75/4 has better contrast.

Step back 6-10 feet from your monitor and the comparison is easier and more relevant in context of a larger overall image.

[ray_parkhurst]

I suspect you're right about thte AA filter - some have them removed from their D3X cameras.
We'll all have 50, 100Mpixels soon, then your PN will be in its "element"!

my 55/2.8 Micro (and 55/3.5),

I found the 2.8 to be sharper than the 3.5, contrary to some reviews. Did you?

Yes, the 2.8 is sharper and flatter, at least the samples I tested.

I want to remove the AA filter from my D5000 but already gave it to my wife...

[Oskar O]

I wouldn't stack a coin picture -- the coin is fairly flat anyway and no stacking means the whole process is faster.

You could consider a high resolution medium format camera; no AA filter, a lot of pixels

[ChrisLilley]

I wouldn't stack a coin picture -- the coin is fairly flat anyway

So are moth wings fairly flat. The question is, whether the zone of acceptable sharpness fully covers the depth of the coin face (and sides, depending on how it was struck) and whether 'acceptable' means 'small prints, web use' or 'critical sharpness at optimum aperture'.

Its not as if the coin is going to walk off. No ethical issues about anesthetizing or killing it. No reason not to stack it.

[ChrisR]

Using Magnification 1.2:1, f/5.6, CofC 1/2000 of width (about 2 pixels), I got 0.3mm DOF.
That's what I meant by marginal

[Oskar O]

So are moth wings fairly flat. The question is, whether the zone of acceptable sharpness fully covers the depth of the coin face (and sides, depending on how it was struck) and whether 'acceptable' means 'small prints, web use' or 'critical sharpness at optimum aperture'.

Its not as if the coin is going to walk off. No ethical issues about anesthetizing or killing it. No reason not to stack it.

The moth wing images I've seen have been at much higher magnification. ChrisR helpfully provided a DOF calculation for a typical case.

The argument not to stack if that it brings small or no added benefits. The photographer's time is limited and stacking might in some cases introduce problems, so it shouldn't be done unless the benefits can be demonstrated.

[ChrisLilley]

The argument not to stack if that it brings small or no added benefits. The photographer's time is limited and stacking might in some cases introduce problems, so it shouldn't be done unless the benefits can be demonstrated.

Okay, here is a single coin image taken with the Apo-Rodagon-D


Coin macro test by Nantonos, on Flickr

Here is a link to a full-size version. Would you say that all areas of this coin were critically sharp?

[Craig Gerard]

Would you say that all areas of this coin were critically sharp?

No.

By the way, what is this particular coin's story? (what details do you have regarding the coin)

Craig

[dmillard]

Chris,

I'm also curious - that's a very intriguing coin!

David

[ChrisLilley]

Would you say that all areas of this coin were critically sharp?

No.

Even on the 1k picture I posted inline, its very clear that both the raised decoration and also the edges of the coin are not in focus. On the full size picture its clear that there are small patches at a particular depth in focus and the rest of the coin is not.

So clearly, to me, stacking on this coin is merited and not a waste of time.