Differences between Nikon BE Plan 4x and E Plan 4x?

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

Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau

fergus
Posts: 24
Joined: Sat Jan 25, 2014 7:10 am
Location: Sydney

Differences between Nikon BE Plan 4x and E Plan 4x?

Post by fergus »

Hi all,

I'm new to macro photography but am enjoying the learning curve.

I have read the threads here about the Nikon BE Plan objectives, as a result I bought the 10x Nikon BE Plan MRN70100, mounting on my 105mm, 200mm and 300mm Nikon lenses. This sure demonstrated the need for a sturdier mount/rig! That's another project, already underway.

Now looking to buy a 4x objective, again looking at the Nikon offerings. I've read posts (e.g. by Rik) about the BE Plan 4x.

I note on Optics Planet there's only a small price difference between the 'BE Plan' and 'E Plan' objectives.

Is there any significant optical / practical difference between the two?

I note the dearer objective doesn't have the 'achromat' feature, at least in the description on the website. I also note the pics on the website are incorrect so therefore the descriptions may also be incomplete?

Nikon CFI BE Plan Achromat 4x MRN70040 $74 http://www.opticsplanet.com/nikon-cfi-b ... copes.html

Nikon CFI E Plan 4x MRP70040 $110
http://www.opticsplanet.com/nikon-cfi-e ... copes.html

Thanks if anyone can help.

Fergus

rjlittlefield
Site Admin
Posts: 23561
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
Contact:

Post by rjlittlefield »

I've had very little success in finding documentation about these objectives. As you know, I've personally tested the CFI BE and find it to be a competent performer especially given its low price. Based on documentation at http://www.nikoninstruments.com/en_FR/P ... at-Series/ and one question posted HERE, I see that the CFI E Plan series follows the CFI60 interface specification (25 mm threads, 60 mm parfocal distance), but I'm guessing it does not have as large an image circle as the CFI Plan Achromat series such as the MRL00102 discussed HERE. For the E Plans, Nikon says "with virtually no curvature of field when the field number is 20 millimeters", while for the CFI Plan Achromat they say "incredible image flatness over the entire 25mm field of view".

For no particularly good reason, I would expect the E Plan's image quality to be equal or a bit better than the CFI BE away from image center. I notice also that it has a slightly longer working distance (nominally 30 mm vs 25 mm). Slightly on the downside, it will require a different adapter than the 10X BE Plan and you'll have to refocus by about 15 mm if you switch between the two.

Be aware that "achromat" is the lowest level of correction used in any serious microscope objective. It's a safe bet that the E Plans are achromats because Nikon wouldn't sell any less and if they were better they would say so.

Sorry I can't give you a head-to-head comparison!

--Rik

fergus
Posts: 24
Joined: Sat Jan 25, 2014 7:10 am
Location: Sydney

Post by fergus »

Thanks Rik, I'll go with the CFI BE I think.

I was kind of hoping that the small extra cost would achieve a reasonably noticeable difference, maybe in the future I will try other brands of objectives to get that?

Thanks again :)

rjlittlefield
Site Admin
Posts: 23561
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
Contact:

Post by rjlittlefield »

In my experience, the words "small extra cost" and "reasonably noticeable difference" are what you get by hopping from a no-name 4X NA 0.1 whose center is OK but corners suffer, to the CFI BE which holds up all across the frame and and can even be pushed down and still cover.

The next significant jump would come from an apochromat or semi-apochromat that would have a larger NA, but then it's more challenging (and expensive) to get large working distance.

The Mitutoyo M Plan Apo series is excellent, and we've recently seen good results from a Nikon TU Plan Fluor (HERE). But for those lines you're looking at list prices roughly 10X higher than the CFI BEs.

--Rik

fergus
Posts: 24
Joined: Sat Jan 25, 2014 7:10 am
Location: Sydney

Post by fergus »

Rik I wasn't clear, sorry; I meant that that other brands might achieve the reasonably noticeable difference, not the small extra cost.

I have read on this forum about the Mitutoyo objectives, given the positive comments they must be of high quality, for example this thread

After reading that I went hunting online for Mitutoyo at various magnifications, the price of admission heads north fast!

Maybe those objectives are in my future

Cheers...
Fergus

OioMik
Posts: 40
Joined: Mon May 06, 2013 1:24 pm

Post by OioMik »

may i ask if someone has tried the Nikon CFI BE 4X with a major distance than the standard needed?

ist it possible to use it to reach 6X .. 9X magnification without significant problems?

If no one ever try, i will soon anyway.. :-)

thank you

RobertOToole
Posts: 2627
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:34 pm
Location: United States
Contact:

Re: Differences between Nikon BE Plan 4x and E Plan 4x?

Post by RobertOToole »

fergus wrote:.....

Thanks if anyone can help.
Hi Fergus,

This might be interesting, I tested both the BE and E Plan and others:

https://www.closeuphotography.com/4x-le ... 00-dollars

Image

Robert

fergus
Posts: 24
Joined: Sat Jan 25, 2014 7:10 am
Location: Sydney

Re: Differences between Nikon BE Plan 4x and E Plan 4x?

Post by fergus »

RobertOToole wrote:
Hi Fergus,

This might be interesting, I tested both the BE and E Plan and others:

https://www.closeuphotography.com/4x-le ... 00-dollars

<image snipped>

Robert
Hi Robert,

Yes I've been reading your image test threads recently. The little BE 4x did very well, impressive.

The tests & analysis must take a lot of work & time, thank you for doing them.

Cheers...
Fergus

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic