Tube Lens Test With MITUTOYO 5X M Plan APO

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

Moderators: Pau, rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S.

Lou Jost
Posts: 4644
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2015 7:03 am
Location: Ecuador
Contact:

Post by Lou Jost »

Robert, do you know why the Raynox performed so much better than the Sigma LSA in these tests?

rjlittlefield
Site Admin
Posts: 21139
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
Contact:

Post by rjlittlefield »

RobertOToole wrote:Thanks for that, but did you do an infinity focus check?
Yes, that was the basis for my number. If I had just copied it out of the literature there would be no difference from spec.

I'll check again later today.

--Rik

RobertOToole
Posts: 1618
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:34 pm
Location: United States
Contact:

Post by RobertOToole »

Lou Jost wrote:Robert, do you know why the Raynox performed so much better than the Sigma LSA in these tests?
Chris R asked me the same question Lou and I think it was maybe that I was using a Nikon objective last time I tested them so I attributed the CAs to the objective maybe? I have been using Mitutoyos now sometime, so I think my eyes are more tuned in to seeing CAs now.

BTW I don't remember if I mentioned this in the post but I tried four Sigma LSAs and two Raynox +4.8 lenses just to be sure.

The Raynox was really impressive.

Robert

RobertOToole
Posts: 1618
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:34 pm
Location: United States
Contact:

Post by RobertOToole »

rjlittlefield wrote:
RobertOToole wrote:Thanks for that, but did you do an infinity focus check?
Yes, that was the basis for my number. If I had just copied it out of the literature there would be no difference from spec.

I'll check again later today.

--Rik
Thanks Rik, It will be interested to see what you find!

Robert

rjlittlefield
Site Admin
Posts: 21139
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
Contact:

Post by rjlittlefield »

Robert,

I just rechecked my measurements, by repeating the infinity-focus test and shooting pictures through a Mitutoyo 5X objective.

I confirm your recommended configuration, within expected variation. I measure 241.1 mm where you have 245, for "infinity focus" on a target about 1/2 mile away, examined in Live View at 10X. I also confirm that in that configuration, my Mitutoyo 5X gives a magnification that I measure as 4.992X .

However...

I also confirm Thorlabs' recommended configuration, also within expected variation. I measure 149.6 mm where they have 148, and in that configuration I again measure the "5X" magnification as 4.992X.

These results make perfect sense to me. The lens that I have is weakly telephoto when mounted in Thorlabs' configuration, which makes it weakly retrofocus when reversed. The focal length must be very close to 200 mm, based on the measured magnification, so it's completely reasonable that the two distances from lens to sensor lie about equal amounts on either side of the focal length.

What does not make sense to me are your left-side results, where the ITL200 was very far from infinity focus and the magnification was way off. (Those two deviations go together, of course.)

Can you recheck your lens?

--Rik

Davids
Posts: 182
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2016 2:20 pm

Post by Davids »

As per usual, excellent work Robert! We all appreciate the time and effort you put into making these comparisons. I'm curious to see how the Century optics diopter compares with the rest. I know that in the past you've given them high praise.
Have you had a chance to test the Raynox DCR-5320pro? Nathan demonstrated its efficacy as a tube lens for a phase one system. I keep going back and forth between trying the DCR-5320 or the Century optics 58mm +4 apochromatic diopter. I just wish there was a +4 century optics at 72mm.

RobertOToole
Posts: 1618
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:34 pm
Location: United States
Contact:

Post by RobertOToole »

rjlittlefield wrote:Robert,

I just rechecked my measurements, by repeating the infinity-focus test and shooting pictures through a Mitutoyo 5X objective.

I confirm your recommended configuration, within expected variation. I measure 241.1 mm where you have 245, for "infinity focus" on a target about 1/2 mile away, examined in Live View at 10X. I also confirm that in that configuration, my Mitutoyo 5X gives a magnification that I measure as 4.992X .

However...

I also confirm Thorlabs' recommended configuration, also within expected variation. I measure 149.6 mm where they have 148, and in that configuration I again measure the "5X" magnification as 4.992X.

These results make perfect sense to me. The lens that I have is weakly telephoto when mounted in Thorlabs' configuration, which makes it weakly retrofocus when reversed. The focal length must be very close to 200 mm, based on the measured magnification, so it's completely reasonable that the two distances from lens to sensor lie about equal amounts on either side of the focal length.

What does not make sense to me are your left-side results, where the ITL200 was very far from infinity focus and the magnification was way off. (Those two deviations go together, of course.)

Can you recheck your lens?

--Rik
Thanks for the help with this Rik now we are getting somewhere!

After making a mistake and running the Nikon MXA20696 thinking it was a ITL200 I have re-tested the ITL200 again.

ITL200 Retest

Center and Corner 100% Crops

Normal mount and 148mm of extension I get 4.91x
Results below: Some lateral CAs and slightly soft corners

Image

Reverse mount and 148mm of extension I get 4.30x
Results below: Very nice image quality, maybe the best set-up of all, a little less than 5x magnification.

Image

Normal mount and infinity focus, or 150mm of extension I get 5x
Results below: More lateral CAs and slightly soft corners. The worst performance.


Image


Reverse mount and infinity focus, or 241mm of extension I get 5.07x
Results below: Consistent good image quality from center to corners. Best image quality for 5x.


Image



Robert
Last edited by RobertOToole on Thu Aug 09, 2018 10:05 pm, edited 2 times in total.

RobertOToole
Posts: 1618
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:34 pm
Location: United States
Contact:

Post by RobertOToole »

Hi Davids,
Davids wrote:As per usual, excellent work Robert! We all appreciate the time and effort you put into making these comparisons. I'm curious to see how the Century optics diopter compares with the rest. I know that in the past you've given them high praise.
Thanks.

I did shoot that lens as part of the test, that and the Cosina diopter which is also over 250mm. The Century is still my favorite over 200mm for sure. The Century +4 is an easy recommendation.

This is a comparison image with Century +4 at the top and the ITL200 below with the Century image re-sized down to match the ITL200.

Very clean image from corner to corner.

Image

Davids wrote: Have you had a chance to test the Raynox DCR-5320pro? Nathan demonstrated its efficacy as a tube lens for a phase one system. I keep going back and forth between trying the DCR-5320 or the Century optics 58mm +4 apochromatic diopter. I just wish there was a +4 century optics at 72mm.
No, the price kept me away. I was lucky to find an open box Century at Samys camera/video. They do pop up on Ebay quite a bit. I have a +7 also from Ebay.

Best,

Robert
Last edited by RobertOToole on Wed Aug 08, 2018 6:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

dmillard
Posts: 596
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 7:37 pm
Location: Austin, Texas

Post by dmillard »

Hello Robert,

Just another confirmation - I saw your earlier thread about the 6.7X magnification you got when setting up the ITL200 following Thorlabs' diagrams, and ran a test this afternoon using this tube lens in both orientations with a 10X Mitty. I got 9.9X using it in both directions.

This may be redundant information now that I see that you and Rik had already arrived at the same conclusion, but it does give me an opportunity to thank you for all the valuable work you have done with your testing. I especially appreciate the recommendation on the Minolta Dimage Scan Elite 5400!

David
Last edited by dmillard on Wed Aug 08, 2018 6:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Lou Jost
Posts: 4644
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2015 7:03 am
Location: Ecuador
Contact:

Post by Lou Jost »

I have the 5320 and like it. I'll test it against these recent alternatives in a few months, as I have a Thorlabs tube lens waiting for me in the US.

Lou Jost
Posts: 4644
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2015 7:03 am
Location: Ecuador
Contact:

Post by Lou Jost »

I'd like to echo David about the DiMage. Today I finally was able to test mine, and it is really good at 2x on FF. Another comparable scanner lens at this magnification is the Scitex S-3 89mm lens, used in reverse (threads towards subject). I'll make a full report on the three kinds of Scitex lenses later. But those come from a 150 pound, $50000 scanner. The Dimage 5400 is just as good at 2x and comes from an inexpensive little consumer scanner. Amazing!

RobertOToole
Posts: 1618
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:34 pm
Location: United States
Contact:

Post by RobertOToole »

dmillard wrote:
Just another confirmation - I saw your earlier thread about the 6.7X magnification you got when setting up the ITL200 following Thorlabs' diagrams, and ran a test this afternoon using this tube lens in both orientations with a 10X Mitty. I got 9.9X using it in both directions.
Hi David,

Thanks, I appreciate the info.

Looks like I need to keep more accurate notes, and, or test smaller batches of lenses.

I am just glad that I got the reverse mounting info correctly. The image quality is nearly perfect in reverse, I should say it introduces nearly zero aberrations!
This may be redundant information now that I see that you and Rik had already arrived at the same conclusion, but it does give me an opportunity to thank you for all the valuable work you have done with your testing. I especially appreciate the recommendation on the Minolta Dimage Scan Elite 5400!
Glad to hear.

That little lens continues to amaze. I've finished up shooting two big tests that I haven't published yet. 17 lenses at 2.1x and 8 lenses (5 lenses and 3 objectives) at 3x.

Can you guess the top lens in each of those?

It took a NA0.20 objective to beat the Minolta, it beat a Nikon Objective and was almost identical to the Mity 5x pushed down to 3x!

Unbelievable!

I would never have believed anyone if they told me a year ago that a lens like the Minolta 5400 existed.

Best,

Robert

dmillard
Posts: 596
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 7:37 pm
Location: Austin, Texas

Post by dmillard »

RobertOToole wrote:
That little lens continues to amaze. I've finished up shooting two big tests that I haven't published yet. 17 lenses at 2.1x and 8 lenses (5 lenses and 3 objectives) at 3x.

Can you guess the top lens in each of those?

It took a NA0.20 objective to beat the Minolta, it beat a Nikon Objective and was almost identical to the Mity 5x pushed down to 3x!
I could probably list some of the candidates, but I am sure I will be surprised by the identity of the winning lenses. I'm especially looking forward to your 3X results :)

I do have a DCR-5320 that I would be happy to loan you, although I hesitate to burden you with additional testing. Send me a PM if you are interested.

Best regards,
David

Lou Jost
Posts: 4644
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2015 7:03 am
Location: Ecuador
Contact:

Post by Lou Jost »

The most unbelievable thing about that Minolta is how tiny and weightless it is. I used to associate big heavy lenses with quality. The massive 14 element Scanner Nikon, now that was a real lens, one might expect miracles from something like that. But that little Minolta? No way would I have guessed its quality by looking at it.

RobertOToole
Posts: 1618
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:34 pm
Location: United States
Contact:

Post by RobertOToole »

Lou Jost wrote:The most unbelievable thing about that Minolta is how tiny and weightless it is. I used to associate big heavy lenses with quality. The massive 14 element Scanner Nikon, now that was a real lens, one might expect miracles from something like that. But that little Minolta? No way would I have guessed its quality by looking at it.
Image

I agree.

Now that most interesting thing to think about? I wonder if someone could even make a lens like the Minolta 5400 now in 2018.

There is a slideshow out there by Kevin P. Thompson and optical design expert called A Brief History of Optical Glasses (particularly wrt Schott) AND Why you care where he talks about what happened in 2002 or so, and why the manufacturers dropped arsenic and lead glass for EU regulation so designers lost 75% of available glass, taking designers back to the 1880s. I don't think anyone could argue that there is some really special glass in that lens that is probably just not available now 20 yrs later.

Thanks to all the Minolta salary men that created that lens :D

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic