i am considering to change my equipment now, any suggestion?

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

Moderators: ChrisR, Chris S., Pau, rjlittlefield

foxultra
Posts: 18
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2012 5:35 pm

i am considering to change my equipment now, any suggestion?

Post by foxultra »

Nowi have a nikkor 60mm 2.8D work pretty well in 1:1 magnification;

for 2:1 the reverse 28mm is work in a acceptable way;

However, for 3:1 and larger, which i propose to work with 28mm lens reversed + extension tubes. i keep fail to take a sharp piture and i dont know why, but i am still trying to understand why and try to fix that, and some friends in this forum give me lots of supports

Anyway, now im planing to invest some equipments to let me reach 5:1 or even higher magnification;

For Nikon full frame user, what is the best combination for 5:1-10:1 macrography?

i have some rough ideas but i dont know which one is more suitable for me:

1. reversed 20mm + extension tube or bellow (to reach around 5:1? but how about the image quality?)

2. objective +bellows? (4X 10X 20X?)

3. enlarging lens such as EL-NIKKOR 50mm?

4. any accessories can make me work better? like better tripod? (if your guys still use tripod for 5:1 -10:1 shooting?) second flash light?

5. for those guys still using wide angle lens reversed shooting, what lens your using, can anyone recommend a prime lens with excellent optics performance can work under this magnification?
Last edited by foxultra on Wed Jun 06, 2012 7:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

abpho
Posts: 1486
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2011 7:11 pm
Location: Earth

Post by abpho »

Ha. You are asking similar questions that I am.

I hear the El-Nikkor 50mm f/2.8N is a good lens. I just don't know how good or to what magnification it can be used.

Some objectives require a tube lens. Typically a 200mm lens. These are infinitely corrected objective lenses. Others can be used just with a set of bellows, extension rings, etc. Watch out which one you get.

Eg: Nikon M Plan 10x 0.25 160/- is a finite objective that requires 150mm (160-10mm) space between the objective and the camera's sensor.

Eg: Nikon LC Plan 10x 0.30 ∞/0 is a infinitely corrected objective that requires a 200mm 'tube' lens between the camera and the objective.

As for setup, yours is similar to mine. It will work fine as long as vibrations are not an issue. If you find that the slightest movement causes the camera of subject to move then you will have to make some changes. For higher magnifications you will want a very precise method of incrementing your camera or subject. For 10x and up you might be down to the micro (1µm or 0.0254" or 25 thou) in movement. It depends on the lens. There are some good linear stages with micrometers that a good for manual adjusting. I have a Newport Linear Stage #423 with an SM-25 micrometer. 50mm of travel with 10µm course increments or 1µm fine increments. I find that 4µm is the best I can do. This works fine for 10x. Then there are electronic solutions. Cost more. Less work. More consistent. Will allow you to do smaller steps for those higher magnification shots. Some folks here us parts from a microscope to increment their camera. All depends what you can get your hands on and what you want to spend.

If you can, do all the research now and then buy what you really want/need. It could save you some cash in the end. Instead of trying and buying.

I do not use any reversed wide angle lenses. I would not know what makes a good macro lens in that respect.

For a good primer on macro photography check out this thread on www.photography-on-the.net. Brian Valentine is a true inspiration to macro photography. He really knows his stuff. Not that the folks here don't. :D Brian does not do much stacking but you will find him here on occasion.
Last edited by abpho on Wed Jun 06, 2012 5:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.

abpho
Posts: 1486
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2011 7:11 pm
Location: Earth

Post by abpho »

PS: I find attaining 5:1 pretty doable and I enjoy photographing down to that level. Once I get past that it really becomes a chore and things do not always turn out for the better. I myself and in the market for a good 5-10x lens. But I am still not sure what to get for that.

I have a Canon MP-E lens that gives AWESOME results from 1:1 to 5:1. Check out this thread I recently started on the MP-E. I do not think that Nikon has a similar package. But I am sure that other Nikon shooters will chime in soon with their suggestions.

foxultra
Posts: 18
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2012 5:35 pm

Post by foxultra »

I'm sure that MP-E will be one and the only motivation to switch my system to canon. (why nikon, why?!)

now i am having LOTS OF FUN in exploring different combination of lens, tube, rings, lighting and so on. suffering but fun! one day when i want to sattle down and start some serious macro work, i may sell all my macro stuffs in hand, and buy a MP-E +canon body instead.

next step i will go for EL-NIKKOR 50mm first, it is the cheapest,and it will the last hope of nikon "lens", looking for a bargain with mint condition on ebay is another kinds of fun : D

oH! how about a MP-E on NEX? anyone have this experience? :wink:

Thanks for the tips abpho.

abpho
Posts: 1486
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2011 7:11 pm
Location: Earth

Post by abpho »

Nikon had some awesome macro lenses out in the past. A set of 4 that went on E-bay for $6,600US end of last last year. With a set of bellows you could shot from 1:1 all the way down to 20:1. Not sure if it was worth it.

The MP-E is very nice. My love for that lens is rekindled since I used it for some studio stacks. A few others here have that lens. Not sure if the NEX would benefit from the MP-E, or vise versa. I would not use it past 5:1 though. Image quality starts to suffer. At 5:1 and f/4 it is very decent for stacking.

Try the El-Nikkor. Make sure you get the f/2.8N. It's supposed to be better than the non-N versions. I believe you will need a set of bellows (to change magnification) to go along with that and a slew of adapters to make it all work. Make sure that you can move both the front (lens) and rear (camera) end of the bellows. Otherwise, with a rear only adjusting bellows you will have the rails sticking out the front to contend with when trying to get close to your subject. Also get a bellows with a focusing rail. And/or, a linear stage with micrometer (much better).

Just doing a quick look...it seems you need a 40.5mm adapter for the Nikkor lens. According to my notes, a 40.5mm to 52mm step up adapter, and a 52mm to M42 (Pentax) reversing adapter was needed to mount onto a M42 (Pentax) bellows. And in your case, then you would need an M42 (Pentax) to Nikon adapter on the camera end to mount your camera. Not sure what is currently available. At one point someone was selling an Enlarging Lens Reversing Kit on e-bay that covered a whole slew of enlarging lenses. You will have to look based on what you need.

Good luck.

Blame
Posts: 342
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 11:56 am

Post by Blame »

A lot of lenses work best close to infinity.

I am getting good results with a 40mm f/3.5 schnieder microfilm lens treated as an infinite lens and mounted on a 80mm f/4 componon-s. I am extending to 2.25x. It covers to the corners with some vignetting.

Up to about a 12mm image circle the image quality looks equal to my best non-macro photographs so it is probably best used at 3x although I can't be sure an alternative to the 80mm might not give more.

You could bid for a similar lens here: http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Olympus-40mm- ... 2BUA%26otn%

Alternately you may get good results by mounting two of the lenses you already have or wait till I start selling my spare 40mm schneider's (might be a long wait)

Craig Gerard
Posts: 2877
Joined: Sat May 01, 2010 1:51 am
Location: Australia

Post by Craig Gerard »

Blame,

Did your SK 40/3,5 come supplied a small retaining ring? Do you have an image of the optic? I'm wondering if it is similar to the item discussed here:
http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... php?t=6322

I still have my copies, but will need to dig them out of storage to photograph.

http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... php?t=6404


Craig
To use a classic quote from 'Antz' - "I almost know exactly what I'm doing!"

Blame
Posts: 342
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 11:56 am

Post by Blame »

Sadly no retainer ring. It uses a single 25mm thread with a pitch I can't find. I just jammed a 25-28mm adapter with the wrong pitch as far as it would go and then added adapters and filters with removed glass to pad it out till it fit.

I mentioned them here: http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... highlight=

These microfilm lenses do turn up occasionally. I think they have been misunderstood. They were designed to be used with a very high magnification which for our purposes results in very low resolution. The point being that one side is designed to converge only slightly with a focal length of one meter. That is as close to no convergence at all as to make it a good infinite lens.

I would imagine that most microfilm lenses were much the same.

foxultra
Posts: 18
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2012 5:35 pm

Post by foxultra »

Thanks guys, i grab a mint EL-NIKKOR 50mm 2.8 and M39-AI adapter yesterday, the bellows and 40.5-52ring are on the way.

I took some samples yesterday, but didn't give me any surprise, in same magnification, the resolution looks even abit worse than my nikkor 60 2.8D micro.

i checked some article on line, this article demonstrated my point.
http://savazzi.freehostia.com/photograp ... nsespm.htm

Far as i know, this lens is design to work in certain magnification range, when i shooted, the magnification is relativle low(1:1-1.25:1). will the resolution of the lens go sharper in higher maginifcaiton?
Last edited by foxultra on Fri Jun 08, 2012 12:05 am, edited 1 time in total.

rjlittlefield
Site Admin
Posts: 20976
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
Contact:

Post by rjlittlefield »

The EL Nikkor 50 mm f/2.8 that I've tested is a decent performer at 4-5X, somewhat lower contrast and sharpness than the Olympus 38 mm f/2.8 and MP-E 65. See HERE for discussion and test images. That was a pre-N version. I have not seen any direct comparisons of the pre-N and N versions of EL Nikkor.

At 10X, all of these lenses will be quite soft compared to a 10X microscope objective. See HERE and HERE for some comparisons.

The challenge, however, is that at 10X the field diagonal with a full-frame camera is 4.3 mm, and that's larger than the high-quality field of almost all 10X objectives. Three exceptions that do have this large a field are:
- Nikon CFI60 10X NA 0.25, described HERE
- Mitutoyo 10X NA 0.28, compared with the Nikon CFI60 at HERE.
- Nikon CFI BE 10X NA 0.25, described HERE

I have tested all of these lenses at 5X on an APS-C sensor, using a 100 mm tube lens. This gives a field diagonal about 5.3 mm.

In conjunction with a 200 mm tube lens, any of these three lenses should cover full frame at 10X with high quality.

To some extent, they can also be pushed down to lower magnifications, with some loss of corner quality starting around 8X. However, it's not easy to do this because then what you need are tube lenses with focal lengths of 20*magnification, for example 160 mm to get 8x.

5X-10X on a full frame sensor is an awkward range. The 5X end is barely reached by f/2.8 lenses, which by then are already running at effective f/17 wide open. (Even the Olympus 20mm bellows lens, despite its nominal rating of f/2.0, really acts more like f/2.6 because of its pupil factor.) The high end, 8X and above, can be reached by 10X objectives pushed down, but not easily, and even so that leaves the range from 5X to 8X as being unreachable with effective apertures of f/16 or wider.

If you really want to pursue highest image quality in that range, I speculate that a good approach would be a 5X NA 0.14 Mitutoyo, pushed up by using a tube lens longer than 200mm, or less optimally by adding extension behind a 200mm. However, I'm not aware of test results showing that this method actually does work as expected.

--Rik

ChrisR
Site Admin
Posts: 8557
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 3:58 am
Location: Near London, UK

Post by ChrisR »

I'm sure that MP-E will be one and the only motivation to switch my system to canon.
I had, and still have, a Nikon D700, with similar questions.

This is the route I've trodden so far:
I wanted another body to take on a comparatively expensive trip, and I wanted a new longish lens.
Canon had ( & still have, to me) more appealing good long lenses.
A Canon will work with the MPE, with its auto diaphragm working.
Canon has a huge advantage for non flash macro, with its vibration-free mode (search for EFSC)( & nb it doesn't work on a 60D)
A smaller format suits microscope objectives better.

So I bought a Canon t3i/600D.

Looking at digtal-picture.com's iso resolution chart comparisons I find almost no lens of interest to me where a Canon isn't better and/or cheaper than its Nikon counterpart, or indistiguishable. (Exception is 12-24).

Even accounting for the price difference, I prefer the way Nikon design their cameras. Tha Canon Rebel/x00 series in particular makes you press too many buttons.

It turned out that, having wooden floors in the house and lack of space for a rigid rig, EFSC is of no use at all, I still get too many vibrations to not use flash.

I don't have an MPE (yet?). Coupled with the APS-C sensor , 1:1 means 22mm across. That's the end where I'd use that lens more, in the field. Full frame at 36mm would be much more convenient. (? a used 5D/II ?)

Some traditional macro lenses like the Olympus 20mm f/2 and Canon MPE work nicely with full frame cameras because they're designed to cover that field and their aperture, focal length, and intended magnification range combines nicely. On smaller sensor cameras they're effectively at higher magnifications because of the reduced FOV, but that's where microscope objectives start to win. There really is a "gap" at about 5-6mm field width on full frame.

rjlittlefield
Site Admin
Posts: 20976
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
Contact:

Post by rjlittlefield »

ChrisR wrote:There really is a "gap" at about 5-6mm field width on full frame.
True, but I don't think we really need the part about "on full frame".

Following the principle of equivalent images, sensor size should not matter. So just to see what happens, let's translate down to the smaller APS-C sensor.

5-6 mm field width on a 22 mm sensor means 3.7X to 4.4X, and sure enough, there's a problem.

I know how to do really good 5X on APS-C: push down a Nikon CFI 10X NA 0.25 using a 100 mm tube lens. That runs at effective f/10 and will handily outresolve my current 15 Mpix sensor.

But I can't reach 4X and keep good corners that way. At 4X, I have to drop down to a 4X or 5X microscope objective. Then the problem is that most objectives in that range are only NA 0.10, which at 4X will be running at effective f/20 -- too small to fully exploit the sensor.

To pick up that last increment of performance, I need something around NA 0.15, with a high quality image circle that's large enough to cover the area I care about. Again that's hard, and again the best solution I can think of right now would be a Mitutoyo 5X NA 0.14, just like for full frame.

So yep, there's a gap at 5-6 mm field width, period.

From a technical standpoint, I suspect the folks who design objectives could fill that gap quite easily. A convenient point roughly midway between standard 10X NA 0.25 and 4X NA 0.10 objectives would be 7X NA 0.18. That would work really well for the needs discussed here, but apparently the marketplace hasn't called for it.

--Rik

Chris S.
Site Admin
Posts: 3506
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 9:55 pm
Location: Ohio, USA

Post by Chris S. »

rjlittlefield wrote:At 4X, I have to drop down to a 4X or 5X microscope objective. Then the problem is that most objectives in that range are only NA 0.10, which at 4X will be running at effective f/20 -- too small to fully exploit the sensor.

To pick up that last increment of performance, I need something around NA 0.15, with a high quality image circle that's large enough to cover the area I care about. Again that's hard, and again the best solution I can think of right now would be a Mitutoyo 5X NA 0.14, just like for full frame.
The Nikon N Planapo 4X NA 0.20 may deserve mention here. It's not easy to find, nor inexpensive if one does find it, but it is an excellent optic--one of my favorites, with 15mm WD. Given its scarcity, it won't be a widely applicable filler for this gap, but it certainly demonstrates that such a lens can be made.
A convenient point roughly midway between standard 10X NA 0.25 and 4X NA 0.10 objectives would be 7X NA 0.18. That would work really well for the needs discussed here, but apparently the marketplace hasn't called for it.
The Mitutoyo 7.5X NA 0.21 comes to mind. Perhaps the market has indeed not embraced it very fully--I've never seen one for sale on the used market, and I've been looking quite a while. The $1,220 price for a new specimen has kept me off.

--Chris

rjlittlefield
Site Admin
Posts: 20976
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
Contact:

Post by rjlittlefield »

Good info -- I'd forgotten about the Mitutoyo 7.5X.

Scanning the Nikon price list from a couple of years ago, there are also:

- CFI Plan APO 4X NA 0.2 WD 15.7 mm (MRD00041, $1384)
- CFI Super Fluor 4X NA 0.20 WD 15.5 mm (MRF00040, $1901)
- CFI Plan Fluor 4X NA 0.13 WD 17.1 mm (MRH00040, $394)
- CFI LU Plan Fluor EPI P 5x [NA 0.15, WD 23.5] (MUE11050 $678)

In theory, these could be bought new at any time if you can find a dealer. To pick them up used, good luck, and again I haven't seen test reports of these so I don't know if there are any gotcha's.

BTW, it's interesting to look at the price sequence for those Mitutoyos (prices from Edmund):
5X NA 0.14, $650
7.5X NA 0.21, $1220
10X NA 0.28, $819

--Rik

Chris S.
Site Admin
Posts: 3506
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 9:55 pm
Location: Ohio, USA

Post by Chris S. »

The price of the Mitty 7.5x seems aberrent, doesn't it? Iirc, David Millard brought this up quite some time ago, asking if anyone had additional info about this optic. Is the high price due to an absence of economy of scale because of limited demand? Or is there something else special about this optic that makes it expensive to produce? My guess is the former. Of course, demand would likely go up if Mitutoyo dropped the price to midway between the 5x and 10x. I'm quite certain it would go up by at least one unit.

The current Nikon CFI Plan APO 4x 0.2 you mention suggests an infinite version of the CFN Planapo 4x/0.20 finite that I find so useful. Wonder how similarly it performs? Also interesting that the Super Fluor with the same NA is more expensive--I've have expected it to be a step down from the apo; perhaps someday we'll see them tested.

--Chris

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic