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

enricosavazzi
Posts: 1275
Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2009 2:41 pm
Location: Borgholm, Sweden
Contact:

Post by enricosavazzi »

Chris S. wrote: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.
...
--Chris
I cannot find the Mitutoyo M Plan Apo 7.5x in old catalogs, so it may be a relatively new addition (perhaps 10 years or so, not enough to see second-hand specimens). The cheaper 5x will do fine up to about 7x-8x on a zoom Mitutoyo scope, so many Mitutoyo scope users don't need a 7.5x. The design and construction should not be that different from a 5x or 10x.
--ES

seta666
Posts: 864
Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2010 8:50 am
Location: Castellon, Spain

Post by seta666 »

The miyutoyo 7.5X is on my wish list but I do not think they will ever be frequent on ebay. Probably the high price tag is because is a low production unit but I think it would fill the gap between 5 and 10X very nicely.

I bought a Nikon LU 5/0.15 but I will not recieve it until end of month as I am going to be abroad; I am eager to test it and to see how it does compare with the mitutoyo 5/0.14

Answering foxultra question best lenses for that range 5-10X could be:

- JML 21/3.5
- Photar 25/2 (I read the 25/2.5 performs better but I have never used it)I own a beatten up 25/2 with some fungus and performs vey well
- Olympus 20/2 could be also good but it is an expensive lens and I have never tried it
- Mitutoyo 5/0.14 this lens is a very good performer but to reach 7X+ is better to use a teleconverter, at least with my set up as it needs a lot of extension

Lenses like canon macrophoto 35/2.8 could also perform well but the focal length means lots of bellows extension to get 8-10X work (same as mitu 5/0.14 really)

Rik mentioned Nikons 4/0.20 or 4/0.13, these could be good options pushed up; in their designed range these lenses perform pretty bad on full frame due to very poor corners; however lots of extension would be needed to reach 8-10X
rjlittlefield wrote: 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
I have never worried about focusing to infinity my morfanon 172mm; I just add or take extension to get the magnification I need
Here some examples adding extension with mitu 5/0.14. bear in mind that with morfanon focused to infinity magnification should be more like 4.3X

These examples are no proper tests but show the kind of results that can be achived, all pictures with EOS 5D mkII

At 6X
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7251/7044 ... 15c1_o.jpg
At 7X
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8163/7102 ... 376e_o.jpg

And at 8X using a cheap vivitar 1.5X TC
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7029/6703 ... 1431_o.jpg

Here you can see the TC in place, note the short extension tube behind the TC, reason is to remove heavy vigneting caused by the TC; the whole configuration(very short tube lens extension well below infinity plus TC plus extra extension) may look like an aberration if we think of how this lens should be used

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7164/6702 ... 47b4_b.jpg

In my opinion pushing lenses up has some benefits on FF cameras, like corner quality improvement (more even picture)
Of course center resolution is afected but in my opinion this is because of a higher efective aperture.

I also feel that infinity lenses are less afected than finite ones by extension, regarding aberrations etc but this is just a feeling; I have used finite lenses outside its designed range and I have been equally happy with the results (when pushing them up)

Outside this range but also interesting as a test; some time ago I tested a mitutoyo 10X plus 2X TC against a nikon 20/0.40
http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... hp?t=12827

Regards
Javier

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

Post by ChrisR »

Rik wrote:
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.


A post got lost in the ether...
Yes, though some 4x apos "nearly" make the corners of APS-C, as does the 4x 0.13 finite.
None I've tried actually cut off, all/most show aberrations.
Unless photographing test charts, and after losing some frame in stacking, I find the corners are usually not a problem.
The 4x 0.2 finite doesn't stretch to 7x particularly well, it's about the same as the Olympus 20mm f/2 centrally, less good at the edges. I posted that some time ago.
(That Oly wouldn't go close enough on the bellows to give lower magnification.)
(The specimen of 4x 0.2 does have a small chip, which probably makes any difference as it just looks like a dark dot from behind. Another one, without a chip, hasn't been compared yet. It works, is all I know!)

The 4x 0.13 finite is slower to degrade at the corners, but not as good in the middle.
An infinite 4x 0.1 pol - also goes off a bit towards the corners iirc. A non-pol is still resting, abroad.

There's an interesting graph here:
http://www.coinimaging.com/nikon_4apo.html
third graph, red line which may explain why the 4x 0.2 finite doesn't work so well pushed longer. I don't know. Like Javier, I suspect that infinites may not be as sensitive, they don't seem to mind; a linear fall-off of resolution looks about right.
I haven't pushed the infinites, 4x0.2 or 5x0.15, as far as I remember.

It seems to me that two particular lenses, the Olympus 20mm f/2, and the Nikon CFI 10x 0.25, happen to be highly relevant if looking at the last pixel. Other lenses having narrower application, depending on your format.
Imagine the angst when we all have 200MP sensors. :roll:

The 7mm , approx 3x on APS, range, isn't ideally covered as far as I can tell. Those two lenses just mentioned, drop off the radar.
Many lenses, eg enlarger lenses and Luminars, work best at marked f/5,6 or less , some are rather "short" - or 3x is off the end of their specified range. Again there's Olympus 38mm, Canon 35mm, but not many others we see commonly (eg the 25mm Photars).
Anything modern? A Zeiss 50mmf/2 Makro, reversed, or a Nikon 40mm micro? Canon 50mm f/2.5 macro?

I have a Nikon 2x 0.1 infinite, I could try that on a 300mm :)

Charles Krebs
Posts: 5859
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:02 pm
Location: Issaquah, WA USA
Contact:

Post by Charles Krebs »

An aside to an earlier comment...

Chris S. wrote:
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.
This is one of what might be considered a "specialty" objective series. It is designed to have very high UV transmission and extremely low internal fluorescence. So it works exceptionally well with certain fluorochromes used in research. Likely not any advantage at all for what we do here.

conkar
Posts: 200
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2010 2:22 am
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Post by conkar »

seta666 wrote: I bought a Nikon LU 5/0.15 but I will not recieve it until end of month as I am going to be abroad; I am eager to test it and to see how it does compare with the mitutoyo 5/0.14
Regards
Javier
I had decided not to buy anymore lenses but unfortunately the dumb side of my wise side said - why not........... :roll: , so I also have the interesting Nikon 5X na 0.15 on my way..........

Due to the matter of the Mitu 7.5X, I suppose the good results with the Rodenstock Apo Gerogon 150mm and the "Morfonon" 172mm as a tube lens you almost will hit the same image quality when used together with the Mitutoyo M Plan 10X na 0.28. NA wise you almost hit the same range.

So in my own opinion there is no need for the Mitu 7.5 if you have the 10X and a tube lens in the range of 150mm to 200mm.

The "Morfonon" as tube lens has it's focal length at 172mm and I suppose that some tube lenses around 180mm will be of interest, like the Apo rodagon 180mm.

Regards,
Conny

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

Post by Chris S. »

Thanks, Charlie. With your added information, the Nikon Super Fluor makes sense.
conkar wrote:Due to the matter of the Mitu 7.5X, I suppose the good results with the Rodenstock Apo Gerogon 150mm and the "Morfonon" 172mm as a tube lens you almost will hit the same image quality when used together with the Mitutoyo M Plan 10X na 0.28. NA wise you almost hit the same range.

So in my own opinion there is no need for the Mitu 7.5 if you have the 10X and a tube lens in the range of 150mm to 200mm.
Conny, I'd suggest that there are two divergent approaches, here. For myself, I've chosen to work with a single 200mm tube lens tightly integrated in a very rigid assembly. Benefits include: solid, simple, mechanics; parfocality for all Mitutoyo lenses; rapid change from one magnification to another; and known capability to place the objective far from the tube lens, leaving room to insert polarizer, iris, axial lighting, color filtration, and Nomarski illumination. What I lose is the ability to change the focal length of the converging lens (my preferred term, as most lenses used in the PMN community for converging infinite objectives are not official "tube" lenses) to vary the magnification--so I'd find "in-between" magnifications rather useful.

Others might choose to employ a variety of converging lenses with different focal lengths. Main benefits would be the ability to get "in-between" magnifications with fewer objectives, and the possible increase resolution available from using larger NA's than lower-magnification objectives offer. On the downside, mechanical integration is likely to be more complex and less rigid, as various converging lenses will have different sizes, shapes, and attachments; changing magnifications involves not just changing objectives, but also converging lenses; parfocality goes out the window; and the ability to place the objective far from the converging lens remains to be tested with most potential converging lenses.

Each of these approaches has merits, and an individual photographer's requirements might be better matched to either one. For those of us in the first category, the Mitty 7.5x would appear to address a need. You seem to be commenting from the second category, and if so, I see your point!

Cheers,

--Chris

seta666
Posts: 864
Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2010 8:50 am
Location: Castellon, Spain

Post by seta666 »

conkar wrote: Due to the matter of the Mitu 7.5X, I suppose the good results with the Rodenstock Apo Gerogon 150mm and the "Morfonon" 172mm as a tube lens you almost will hit the same image quality when used together with the Mitutoyo M Plan 10X na 0.28. NA wise you almost hit the same range.

So in my own opinion there is no need for the Mitu 7.5 if you have the 10X and a tube lens in the range of 150mm to 200mm.

The "Morfonon" as tube lens has it's focal length at 172mm and I suppose that some tube lenses around 180mm will be of interest, like the Apo rodagon 180mm.
Well, I have used the Mitutoyo down to 8X on Full frame and the corners are pretty bad; same with the 5/0.14, corners degrade fast bellow 5X. But both lenses can be pushed up with excellent results.

The miyutoyo 7.5/0.21 should give same quality as the 5/0.14 and 10/0.28 at their designed magnification, which is excellent and also would feel the gap to 10X with excellent corner performance (just a guess)

Do I need the mitu 7.5X? not really Would I get one if could? definetily yes

I have not tried any of those fancy apo enlarger lenses as tube lens, but I have tried several other lenses and the morfanon has been the best to my taste. I have another surplus tube lens "SOMCO 240mm" and it performs very well too but it is twice as large and leaves some vigneting in extreme corners

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

Post by ChrisR »

Conny wrote:the interesting Nikon 5X na 0.15

Yep, been there.. :wink:
Wouldn't it be nice to find a 5x with the flexibility of the CFI 10x 0.25.
I haven't found it yet!

ChrisLilley
Posts: 674
Joined: Sat May 01, 2010 6:12 am
Location: Nice, France (I'm British)

Post by ChrisLilley »

Chris S. wrote:The price of the Mitty 7.5x seems aberrent, doesn't it?
On the basis of that data set, yes; on the basis of the full data set for that range, the prices of the 10x and (to a lesser extent), the 5x are aberrant.

Code: Select all

2x         €825.55
5x         €617.50	
7.5x     €1,159.00
10x        €778.05	
20x      €1,804.05
50x      €2,365.50	
100x     €3,030.50
Last edited by ChrisLilley on Sun Jun 17, 2012 6:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

conkar
Posts: 200
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2010 2:22 am
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Post by conkar »

Chris S. wrote: Conny, I'd suggest that there are two divergent approaches, here. For myself, I've chosen to work with a single 200mm tube lens tightly integrated in a very rigid assembly. Benefits include: solid, simple, mechanics; parfocality for all Mitutoyo lenses; rapid change from one magnification to another; and known capability to place the objective far from the tube lens, leaving room to insert polarizer, iris, axial lighting, color filtration, and Nomarski illumination. What I lose is the ability to change the focal length of the converging lens (my preferred term, as most lenses used in the PMN community for converging infinite objectives are not official "tube" lenses) to vary the magnification--so I'd find "in-between" magnifications rather useful.

Others might choose to employ a variety of converging lenses with different focal lengths. Main benefits would be the ability to get "in-between" magnifications with fewer objectives, and the possible increase resolution available from using larger NA's than lower-magnification objectives offer. On the downside, mechanical integration is likely to be more complex and less rigid, as various converging lenses will have different sizes, shapes, and attachments; changing magnifications involves not just changing objectives, but also converging lenses; parfocality goes out the window; and the ability to place the objective far from the converging lens remains to be tested with most potential converging lenses.

Each of these approaches has merits, and an individual photographer's requirements might be better matched to either one. For those of us in the first category, the Mitty 7.5x would appear to address a need. You seem to be commenting from the second category, and if so, I see your point!
Cheers,
--Chris
I mostly use my prime Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM as converging lens and I am pleased with the results that setup gives me. It covers the Canon 5DmkII FF sensor well and the image quality is good, so I also often work with a fixed/static converging lens.

Recently I have tested different setups to find alternatives to the EF 200mm. One is the Mitutoyo MT-1 tube lens on bellows, it gives me good results and I especially likes its good color rendition, but its image circle do not cover a FF sensor. I can use that setup with an APS-C DSLR with very good results.

Another setup that I have tested is the Rodenstock APO Gerogon 150mm F9.0 as converging lens. The barrel thread of Gerogon 150mm is 39mm and the filter thread is 40,5mm, so that implementation of that lens is solid and easy to do. Nikon F to 39mm adapter ->Apo Gerogon 150mm -> 40,5mm step up to 52mm - and step down 52mm to 26mm for the Mitutoyo microscope objectives. I like the initially test results that I have got and it cover a FF sensor pretty good.

I think it would be possible to built a 75% version as a fixed/static converging lens similar to your BratCam setup with the Rodenstock APO Gerogon 150mm as optics. It can be built with T2 tubes as extensions and a T2 to M39 adapter and there also would be a need to calculate and calibrate the right extension length between the Gerogon and the DSLR's sensor to get it all right. The Infinity space would be smaller, so there will not be so much room for extras there, but I think it would be possible to implement an iris diaphragm. So the 75% version will give 3,75X with the 5X, 7,5X with the 10X and 15X with the 20X.

I have also tested the Rodenstock APO Gerogon 210mm as a converging lens, but that lens has a barrel thread size of 50mm so it's a little bit harder to get a solid setup with that. I have to fine tune that setup a little bit more, but I also liked the results from the Gerogon 210mm that it gave me.

As you said it is nice to have the opportunity to hit these "between magnifications" when put the converging lens on a variable extension, like bellows. I have tested that approach and I like the opportunities that it gives me to compose the image.

So for now I work with both the fixed and variable approach depending the subject I like to photograph.
seta666 wrote: Well, I have used the Mitutoyo down to 8X on Full frame and the corners are pretty bad; same with the 5/0.14, corners degrade fast bellow 5X. But both lenses can be pushed up with excellent results.

I have not tried any of those fancy apo enlarger lenses as tube lens, but I have tried several other lenses and the morfanon has been the best to my taste. I have another surplus tube lens "SOMCO 240mm" and it performs very well too but it is twice as large and leaves some vigneting in extreme corners
Yes, I have the same feeling that it's better to push up the microscope objectives then down and on the Nikon Microscope site they says that the optimal focal lenght of a tube lens is between 200 and 250mm.

I think you can go +- 50mm from the reference focal lenght with good results. At the same time it confuse me that Rik got so good results with the Nikon CFI 10X on a 100mm lens.

These Rodenstock Gerogon was not so fancy for me, I had the luck to get them to a very good price. The Gerogon 150mm I paid 30USD for.:D
ChrisR wrote:
Conny wrote:the interesting Nikon 5X na 0.15

Yep, been there.. :wink:
Wouldn't it be nice to find a 5x with the flexibility of the CFI 10x 0.25.
I haven't found it yet!
........ done that... :D

I received the Nikon 5X na 0.15 on Friday and I just did a first test and it went very good.

I now have to find some good test subject to put the Nikon 5X against the Mitu 5X.

Regards,

Conny

rjlittlefield
Site Admin
Posts: 20975
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
Contact:

Post by rjlittlefield »

conkar wrote:I think you can go +- 50mm from the reference focal lenght with good results. At the same time it confuse me that Rik got so good results with the Nikon CFI 10X on a 100mm lens.
Confused by what aspect?

--Rik

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

Post by ChrisR »

Moi wrote:Wouldn't it be nice to find a 5x with the flexibility of the CFI 10x 0.25.
What I meant was, wouldn't it be nice to find a 5x infinite which covered APS on a 100mm "tube" lens, the way the Nik 10x does. That would make a high NA 2.5x, or 3.5x, etc which would cover an otherwise-awkward area

If your 5x 0.15 does, then it's not the same as mine!

One way to use an enlarger lens with a 50mm thread, by the way, is to use a 50x 1mm to 52mm filter thread adapter, then Nikon K rings, which serve as 52mm extension tubes, and come with a Nikon F mount. Nikon >Canon is easy of course.
The thread on the lens is too long for the ring so the thread "bottoms" before the shoulder goes tight, but it seems to be OK. Am I being clear? :?

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

Post by Craig Gerard »

Conny wrote:I have also tested the Rodenstock APO Gerogon 210mm as a converging lens, but that lens has a barrel thread size of 50mm so it's a little bit harder to get a solid setup with that. I have to fine tune that setup a little bit more, but I also liked the results from the Gerogon 210mm that it gave me.
Conny,
Those measurements sound similar to the Apo-Gerogon 240mm. If you have a selection of T2-mount adapters you can remove the insert of the T2 adapter and attach the outer ring of the adapter (and bayonet) to the rear of an Apo-Gerogon 240mm using the grub screws. It's just a matter of finding the right T2 adapter to accommodate the diameter of the rear of the Apo-Gerogon 240mm. This method may also apply to the 210mm. The 240mm Apo-Gerogon also has a 52mm filter thread.

As ChrisR has mentioned, a full set Nikon K Series extension tubes are very handy and provide a number of connection possibilities. The threaded components are 52mm.

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/ha ... index1.htm


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

conkar
Posts: 200
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2010 2:22 am
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Post by conkar »

rjlittlefield wrote:
conkar wrote:I think you can go +- 50mm from the reference focal lenght with good results. At the same time it confuse me that Rik got so good results with the Nikon CFI 10X on a 100mm lens.
Confused by what aspect?
--Rik
I don't remember my setup, but once i did a test with a 100mm lens as converging lens @10X and I did not like the result so I a decline it and decided to go with 5X objectives on 200mm instead. In my own testings I like the results best when I use a converging lens in the range of 150mm to 250mm.

100mm is also a bit far from the reference focal length.

With that said I was a little surprised when you presented your very good results with the 100mm @10X.

The good results with a 100mm converging lens VS the words on Nikons microscope site is what confuses me. Maybe the words do not fully represent how we use the equipment.

Tube lengths between 200 and 250 millimeters are considered optimal, because longer focal lengths will produce a smaller off-axis angle for diagonal light rays, reducing system artifacts. Longer tube lengths also increase the flexibility of the system with regard to the design of accessory components.

ChrisR wrote: What I meant was, wouldn't it be nice to find a 5x infinite which covered APS on a 100mm "tube" lens, the way the Nik 10x does. That would make a high NA 2.5x, or 3.5x, etc which would cover an otherwise-awkward area

If your 5x 0.15 does, then it's not the same as mine!
I will test the Nikon 5X 0.15 with converging lenses at different focal lenghts (100,150 and 200mm), so the magnification rate would be 2,5X, 3,75 and 5X and probably also magnifications in between.

A large Horse fly made ​​the big mistake of flying in through my car window, so I will do a shoot with my new Nikon 5X 0,15 on that subject (now in the freezer).
ChrisR wrote: One way to use an enlarger lens with a 50mm thread, by the way, is to use a 50x 1mm to 52mm filter thread adapter, then Nikon K rings, which serve as 52mm extension tubes, and come with a Nikon F mount. Nikon >Canon is easy of course.
The thread on the lens is too long for the ring so the thread "bottoms" before the shoulder goes tight, but it seems to be OK. Am I being clear? :?
Thanks Chris and Craig for the direction to the Nikon K-tubes, that approach looks to be more solid than mine.

My approach works but the Nikon K-tubes way looks better.

I went -> Nikon F 55mm reversing adapter -> One inch 55mm extension tube -> 55mm female to female adapter -> 55mm stepdown to 50mm -> Apo Geragon 210mm.

You are being clear, Sir! :)

Regards,

Conny

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

Post by ChrisR »

Conny - I have more or less repeated ( less rigorously,) Rik's test of the Nikon CFI 10x on a 100mm lens. I tried a Micro Nikkor f/2.8 (MF) 105mm, and a cheap Rodagon 100/105mm enlarger lens.
There was slight difference, the Nikkor being better, but not much. I suspect any lens which is good (perhaps it has to be at "good at small apertures" to be appropriate) would be fine.
I found the resolution to be surprisingly good.

The objective is focused at the same point it would be regardless of the diverging/"tube" lens, so as I understand it, there's no optical quality impact, which there would be if "pushing" a finite objective to an unintended extension. We are simply not enlarging the objective's output as much. (The remarkable thing being, that the APS field is pretty well covered). The NA is still a large 0.25, not otherwise available at 5x.
(Error edited - NA stays the same, effective aperture goes from f/20 to f/10 )

A direct comparison with a 4x Apo NA0.2 will be interesting, one day.
Last edited by ChrisR on Fri Jun 22, 2012 10:49 am, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic