Tube lens comparisons for MFT with Mitu 10x

Lou Jost · Post by **Lou Jost** » Wed Feb 15, 2017 7:29 pm

Ah yes, that was the comment I was (more or less) remembering. Beatsy in the same thread reports that he purchased the lens and found it very sharp, and that he would post a test of its performance as a tube lens, but if he did post it, I missed it.

mawyatt · Post by **mawyatt** » Wed Feb 15, 2017 8:01 pm

Lou,

Hopefully he'll (Beatsy) spot this thread a chime in.

BTW I did do the test with the Rokinon 135mm and a reversed Nikon 50mm f1.8. Sorry I didn't post this as I said I would, my bad!! The result was pretty good with the 50mm at f5.6, but not as good as the Mitutoyo 5X with Raynox 250 (that's from my notes after I got the proper adapters).

Best,

Mike

abpho · Post by **abpho** » Wed Feb 15, 2017 8:29 pm

Will these Raynow lenses be better suited for the Mitutoyos than using Canon L prime lenses? I see so many people using them. It's making me curious.

mawyatt · Post by **mawyatt** » Wed Feb 15, 2017 8:56 pm

abpho,

I assume you mean Raynox. I'm a Nikon user, so can't commet on Canon lenses. The Raynox 150 is superior to my Nikon 70-200 F2.8 used at 200mm, the Raynox 250 is superior to my Nikon 105 F2.8 Macro, or Rokinon 135mm F2. Yes, these are used as "tube" lenses with Mitutoyo objectives.

Best,

Mike

rjlittlefield · Post by **rjlittlefield** » Wed Feb 15, 2017 8:58 pm

abpho wrote:Will these Raynow lenses be better suited for the Mitutoyos than using Canon L prime lenses? I see so many people using them. It's making me curious.

The big advantage of Raynox is that it will cover full frame with no vignetting. Canon L primes may do the same thing. I have no personal experience with them. The Canon 70-200 f/2.8L has visible corner darkening but works well enough to be the kit lens for macroscopicsolutions.com .

--Rik

Lou Jost · Post by **Lou Jost** » Thu Feb 16, 2017 5:08 am

Mike, why did you stop the 50mm down so much? Was that the optimum aperture?

Rik as shown that it's better to use a paper stop between the two lenses rather than the lens's own aperture. Though some say that when the front lens is much shorter than the rear lens, it's ok to use the front lens' aperture.

mawyatt · Post by **mawyatt** » Thu Feb 16, 2017 6:18 am

Lou,

Yes, the best aperture was between 4~5.6.

rjlittlefield · Post by **rjlittlefield** » Thu Feb 16, 2017 9:36 am

Lou Jost wrote:Rik as shown that it's better to use a paper stop between the two lenses rather than the lens's own aperture. Though some say that when the front lens is much shorter than the rear lens, it's ok to use the front lens' aperture.

I'm missing something. Which comment of mine is this a response to?

--Rik

Lou Jost · Post by **Lou Jost** » Thu Feb 16, 2017 2:37 pm

Oops, there is a typo. It should have said "Rik has shown..."
It is a reference to your explanation elsewhere about the behavior of apertures in coupled lenses. It is not a response to a comment of yours.

rockycarter · Post by **rockycarter** » Tue Feb 21, 2017 7:20 pm

Lou Jost i was wondering have you ever tried this tube lens. Nikon MXA20696 i have a chance to purchase one. i have been reading here on another thread. i saw it listed there. do you think this would be a good tube lens. if you do not mind my asking. i have been offered one at a very reasonable price. your thoughts greatly appreciated.

Lou Jost · Post by **Lou Jost** » Tue Feb 21, 2017 7:28 pm

I am sorry but I have no experience with that lens. I know that others on the forum do use it. I also recall a test (by Rik I think) which showed that the corners were sharper using a Raynox as a tube lens than with dedicated tube lenses such as the one you mention.

Saul · Post by **Saul** » Tue Feb 21, 2017 10:37 pm

rockycarter wrote:...have you ever tried this tube lens. Nikon MXA20696 i have a chance to purchase one. ...

Lou Jost wrote:...the corners were sharper using a Raynox as a tube lens than with dedicated tube lenses such as the one you mention.

Lou is right , Raynox 150 is better than Nikon MXA20696. And Sigma Life-Size attachment is little bit better than Raynox 150 ( https://www.keh.com/shop/misc-35mm-sigm ... ch-52.html ).

rjlittlefield · Post by **rjlittlefield** » Tue Feb 21, 2017 11:27 pm

Lou Jost wrote:I also recall a test (by Rik I think) which showed that the corners were sharper using a Raynox as a tube lens than with dedicated tube lenses such as the one you mention.

I'm guessing that you're referring to http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... hp?t=23898. That's on full frame, and differences are mostly in the edges/corners. On APS-C, my impression is that there's not a big difference between any of the tube lenses. That thread links to full-size images from Nikon D800 (full frame, 36 megapixels), so you can evaluate for yourself.

--Rik

rockycarter · Post by **rockycarter** » Wed Feb 22, 2017 5:26 pm

that is what i wanted to know. thank you all for the information.