Apo lens question

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

Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau

leonardturner
Posts: 713
Joined: Thu Mar 14, 2013 11:40 am
Location: Atlanta, GA, USA

Apo lens question

Post by leonardturner »

I am suffering from some perceived need for a 4-5X Apo for use on my full-frame Nikon setup. I am puzzled by the fact that the 5X infinity Mit is offered for about half the price of the 4X CF Nikon apo in various ads. Does anyone have experience or thoughts? What would be a proper tube lens for the Mit?

Thanks,
Leonard

ChrisR
Site Admin
Posts: 8669
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 3:58 am
Location: Near London, UK

Post by ChrisR »

The Nikon 4x Apo is NA 0.2, which makes it more expensive.
It has a smaller image circle and shorter working distance than the Mitutoyo.
I doubt the Nikon will cover your sensor, but sorry, I can't remember! Not many objectives cover full frame well.

Mitutoyo and Nikon make "tube" lenses at 200mm, there's also a "High definition" ITL200 from Thorlabs. You'll find them mentioned from time to time.
You can also use a reversed Raynox 150 close-up lens (diopter), (210mm) or a camera lens. You won't cover your sensor if you go "short" though.

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

Post by Blame »

The Mitutoyo WILL cover short. As short as 3.5x with a 135mm enlarger lens on a FF camera. Catch is that the quality resolution area is much smaller than coverage. 200mm and 5x is a better compromise between corner and center resolution so ChrisR is pointing you in the right direction.

The raynox makes a good choice but I doubt you will find a camera lens that won't vignette when used FF. They do sterling service as APS-c tube lenses.

The old finite nikon 4x 0.2 NA is rather less coverage. not optimal on a FF camera but the newer 4x 0.2 NA infinite might be interesting.

ChrisR
Site Admin
Posts: 8669
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 3:58 am
Location: Near London, UK

Post by ChrisR »

the newer 4x 0.2 NA infinite might be interesting.
It was the infinite I was referring to - though there may be an even newer one than mine. It also may pass some light to the corners of full frame, but I'm pretty sure it's not sharp though I haven't done a lot with it. Memory tells me it's a smaller usable image circle than the Mitutoyo.

Chris S.
Site Admin
Posts: 4042
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 9:55 pm
Location: Ohio, USA

Post by Chris S. »

Another possibility for a converging lens is an old manual-focus AI or AI-S Nikkor 200mm prime. There are a lot of these in the world. A quick look yesterday found a nice 200mm f/4 AI for $65 from a reputable dealer. Looking just now shows several dozen on eBay, including one that looks OK for $56 with free shipping. (However, I would avoid the old-style, manual-focus 200mm micro-Nikkor, which doesn't do well at infinity.)

--Chris

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

Post by Blame »

ChrisR wrote:It was the infinite I was referring to - though there may be an even newer one than mine. It also may pass some light to the corners of full frame, but I'm pretty sure it's not sharp though I haven't done a lot with it. Memory tells me it's a smaller usable image circle than the Mitutoyo.
Bout what I expected then. Somewhere between the Mitutoyo 5x 0.14NA and 10x 0.28NA in terms of both resolution and usable image circle. The finite was pushed at rated magnification on aps-c so perhaps 6x-7x best with a full frame camera? That is going to be a tube lens of 300-350mm. About 3 diopter.

leonardturner
Posts: 713
Joined: Thu Mar 14, 2013 11:40 am
Location: Atlanta, GA, USA

Post by leonardturner »

My thanks to all of you for sharing your knowledge on this. I know the FF camera is problematic, but I want to stay with it for a variety of reasons. I earlier--with a 10X Nikon M-- tried an older Nikon 200 AI but it was such a tight fit on my body that I was afraid that it might do damage over time. A Nikon 70-200 f2.8 (at 200) produced ok but not (to my eye) stellar results with the same M objective.

I wasn't even thinking of image circle and resolution fall-off laterally when I started mulling on this. Glad I asked! Guess I'll stay with my reversed enlarger lens in the lower magnifications, at least for now.

Thanks,

Leonard

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

Post by Blame »

A FF Camera has an inherently larger dynamic range at optimum ISO. Given that stacking stacks noise they are worth the bother.

You don't have to drop much under 5x before reversed enlarger lenses and such come into there own so no bad decision. You could still try for a tube lens.

Reversed enlarger lenses are closer to infinite than finite in design so the lower the magnification the more advantage to a tube lens - but sadly the more dificulty in avoiding vignetting when you do.

Online
ray_parkhurst
Posts: 3419
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 10:40 am
Location: Santa Clara, CA, USA
Contact:

Post by ray_parkhurst »

leonardturner wrote:My thanks to all of you for sharing your knowledge on this. I know the FF camera is problematic, but I want to stay with it for a variety of reasons. I earlier--with a 10X Nikon M-- tried an older Nikon 200 AI but it was such a tight fit on my body that I was afraid that it might do damage over time. A Nikon 70-200 f2.8 (at 200) produced ok but not (to my eye) stellar results with the same M objective.

I wasn't even thinking of image circle and resolution fall-off laterally when I started mulling on this. Glad I asked! Guess I'll stay with my reversed enlarger lens in the lower magnifications, at least for now.

Thanks,

Leonard
You might consider the Canon MP35. It is RMS mount so fits within constraints of objective mounting. It is also sharp and flat over a wide coverage. It is not as sharp as a 4/0.2 PlanApo at the center (nothing else is!) but is sharper at the corners even on APS-C.

Chris S.
Site Admin
Posts: 4042
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 9:55 pm
Location: Ohio, USA

Post by Chris S. »

Blame wrote:A FF Camera has an inherently larger dynamic range at optimum ISO. Given that stacking stacks noise they are worth the bother.
Blame, I disagree that such a blanket statement can be made about sensor size. As an example, my crop-frame Nikon D7100 has much less noise at base ISO than my full-frame Nikon D700.

I also take issue with the idea that this should matter much to most photomacrographers. A much higher priority for me is to use the best portion of the image circles produced by my optics. I chose the D7100 for use with microscope objectives because it places the most pixels currently available—24mp—within the high-quality image circle of the optics. The D810 places only 16mp in this zone; to collect the other 20mp, you need to accept the comparatively poor edges.

A better reason to shoot full-frame in the macro studio is for its greater field of view. This is exactly why I use full-frame for landscapes. Here, the D810’s 1.2x crop might be a nice compromise—more field of view than the 1.5x crop of Nikon APS-C, with less corner degradation than the 1x crop of FF.
leonardturner wrote:I . . . tried an older Nikon 200 AI but it was such a tight fit on my body that I was afraid that it might do damage over time.
Leonard, my bet is that you tried a bad copy of that lens--perhaps somebody took it apart and didn't properly reassemble it? I have a number of AI and AI-S lenses, and none of them mount differently from my modern lenses. I did once buy a used Nikkor that was so tight I was afraid to mount it. Needless to say, it went back to the seller rather quickly. I had the strong sense that someone had taken it apart and didn't get things quite right when he put it back together.

--Chris

ChrisR
Site Admin
Posts: 8669
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 3:58 am
Location: Near London, UK

Post by ChrisR »

Nikon 200 AI but it was such a tight fit on my body
Another thought - was it "AI Converted"? Some were done with a part from Nikon, and some were done by "others" with a file. The latter can be OK, or not.

I have a few pre-AI but unaltered odds and ends of lenses and adapters, some of which are too tight to use on my D700, others clearing everything perfectly well. I believe it's only the aperture index slider which is a potential problem.

leonardturner
Posts: 713
Joined: Thu Mar 14, 2013 11:40 am
Location: Atlanta, GA, USA

Post by leonardturner »

Thanks to all for your further thoughts--I will try some other older 200 f4 lenses on my body; I think I can find some locally. But would this focal length used as a tube lens be useful for the 4X as well as 10X objectives?

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

Post by Blame »

Chris S. wrote: Blame, I disagree that such a blanket statement can be made about sensor size. As an example, my crop-frame Nikon D7100 has much less noise at base ISO than my full-frame Nikon D700.

I also take issue with the idea that this should matter much to most photomacrographers. A much higher priority for me is to use the best portion of the image circles produced by my optics. I chose the D7100 for use with microscope objectives because it places the most pixels currently available—24mp—within the high-quality image circle of the optics. The D810 places only 16mp in this zone; to collect the other 20mp, you need to accept the comparatively poor edges.

--Chris
Alass just about any statment that doesn't have so many provisions to it as to be uninteligable... well it will have something of the blanket about it. That D700 does have an inherent advantage by being full frame and back somewhere a lot closer to the dark ages when it was state of the art it beat every aps-c going. The D7100 just happens to have a more developed sensor that is another and greater advantage. It still wouldn't compete with a FF sensor of the same generation like the D600.

APS-c sensors are a bit easier to match to field of view than FF but to me it is worth the effort. There is at least one affordable tube lens that won't vignette - the raynox. And here I will stand up on my soapbox - don't recomend even prime camera lenses as tube lenses and then blame FF for the results. They are a great choice for aps-c but on a FF most are going to vignette and otherwise deliver poor corners (aperture in the corners effectively cut and seriously non-circular).

Reversed enlarger lenses will actually deliver better with FF as they are used at a higher magnification to deliver the same results. Better optimization for glass that wants to be about 1 meter to subject unreversed. That just leaves finite microscope objectives where you are spot on but there are few bargains there at the resolution someone with the budget for a FF camera should be after. Think it over. Could be that one reason your objectives don't cover is because you set up your glass to suit your favourite camera.

Now I know this looks like I am taking a slash at you but please look at the original post. It is from a FF camera owner. It is not wrong for me to encorage him to take pride in what he has. Had he owned a D7100 I also would have praised its advantages. It is, at the lower price point of aps-c, a great choice.

TheLostVertex
Posts: 317
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 9:55 am
Location: Florida

Post by TheLostVertex »

To be a little bit more clear on the sensor noise topic, what really matters is the pixel pitch of the sensor. If there is an aps-c sensor and a full frame sensor with the same physical pixel size, they will have the same noise level(minus heat noise and readout noise). If you are comparing an aps sensor and a full frame sensor which have the same resolution but different pixel pitches, then the full frame should have a lower signal to noise ratio.

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic