(LSA || DCR150 || ITL200) ? FF : CROP

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

Moderators: Pau, rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S.

enricosavazzi
Posts: 1291
Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2009 2:41 pm
Location: Borgholm, Sweden
Contact:

Post by enricosavazzi »

Lou Jost wrote:To add to David's tests, here are some Atlas moth scales using the Nikon 300mm f/4.5 ED-IF (...)
Would that be the Nikkor ED AI-S 300 mm f/4.5?

This thread gave me an idea of testing the Olympus 300 mm f/4 Pro as tube lens on Micro 4/3, which for general photography turned out to be sharper than any other 300 mm I tried. Unfortunately it will not be any time soon because I am already beginning to pack my (way too many) photo things for the next move (some time between December this year and July next year).

PS - There is also an Olympus OM 300 mm f/4.5 that is a lot cheaper than the Nikkor ED 300 mm f/4.5 and may be worth testing. I have never tried it but have obtained good results with the corresponding 100, 135 and 200 mm Olympus OM lenses used as tube lenses for full frame.
Last edited by enricosavazzi on Sat Sep 01, 2018 6:04 am, edited 1 time in total.
--ES

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

Post by Lou Jost »

Yes Enrico, that's the lens. I have used it on MFT also and will try to look up the results before you move. I do recall that the 400mm Nikon was very good on MFT. I also use the Oly 150mm f/2.0 Four-thirds lens, which was one of the sharpest consumer lenses ever made, as a tube lens on MFT, where it works very well. I would recommend the Sigma 135mm f/1.8 also. Excellent quality, perhaps better than the Oly 150.

I like using Four-thirds rather than Micro Four Thirds lenses when possible, because the former have a long flange distance, so they work well in reverse, alone or coupled to another lens. Some of my sharpest pictures are with the 135 f/1.8 reversed on the Oly 150mm f/2.0. though this is an awkward setup.

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

Post by dmillard »

Adalbert wrote:Hi David,
Many thanks for the test!
Can you change the power of the Vivitar 283? If yes, which value have you used?
I’m asking for that because your diffuser of Leelux 400 absorbs a lot of light.
BTW, what is a paper Waterhouse stop ?
BR, ADi
The Leelux 400 absorbs a lot, plus I used an inner cylinder of Lee#214 Toughspun (very non-reflective material), which soaks up even more light. I used each flash with fiber optic light guides through a pair of Novoflex Macrolights. I have pictures of this setup somewhere on the forum, from many years ago.

The flashes were used at approximately 1/4 power each, using Vivitar VP-1 rotary potentiometers to control the output. These are relatively difficult to find now, but Charles Krebs has posted excellent instructions on constructing a light controller for these flashes. A Waterhouse stop is just a fixed circular opening in an insert in the lens housing that functions as an aperture.

Sorry if this sounds a little rushed (but hopefully not too vague) - I'm leaving for the airport in about ten minutes!

Andy Davies
Posts: 132
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2014 3:25 pm

Post by Andy Davies »

I have the Raynox 5320 which is made up of two parts:

Raynox DCR5320 A, 486mm
Raynox DCR5320 B, 311mm

Would it be an option to use them individually with a Mitty 10x?

I also have a Nikkor 300mm AF-S F4.

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

Post by Lou Jost »

I have the same set but have no tried them individually. On a FF camera they might work well. One is a 3-element lens and the other is a two-element lens, so one might be better than the other. At some point, though, you will get into severe diffraction territory as the tube lens gets longer.

Andy Davies
Posts: 132
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2014 3:25 pm

Post by Andy Davies »

Nathan reported them as being F2.8 as a set. What would their effective aperture be individually?

Would the Nikon 300mm F4 ED ID be a btter bet or worse due to the smaller diameter?

I also have a 500mm F4 Nikkor!

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

Post by Lou Jost »

You don't need to worry about their aperture, since it is much larger than the 10x objective's aperture. The problem is due to the magnification. Using a 400mm tube lens makes the magnification 20x on the sensor, so the EA of the whole system is (1/(2*NA))*20 = 36. The aerial image will have only half the resolution (in lp/mm) of the aerial image produced by a 200mm tube lens.

mjkzz
Posts: 1237
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2015 3:38 pm
Location: California/Shenzhen
Contact:

Post by mjkzz »

I'd rather to "push down" an objective than to "push it up" -- empty magnification. If I were to match FOV, I'd rather push a higher mag objective down to take advantage of higher resolving power. The down side risk is vignetting. Just my 2 cents.

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

Post by Lou Jost »

If you have an objective with high NA and wide field, yes, it is much better to push down. But many objectives don't cover full frame well even at their nominal magnifications, so pushing down is not an option. Pushing up does not necessarily lead to empty magnification- this depends on the NA.

mawyatt
Posts: 2479
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 6:54 pm
Location: Clearwater

Post by mawyatt »

Lou,

The objective and tube lens produce a given image circle and produces a given image circle diameter resolution product, which is a constant over a reasonable image circle range. "Putting more pixels" on the subject seems like the way to a better overall IQ, wether push down or pulling up the objective. Correct me here if I'm off in left field.

Of course this assumes a quality (Mitutoyo) objective doesn't degrade over the range and the tube lenses don't affect the IQ significantly.

Best,
Research is like a treasure hunt, you don't know where to look or what you'll find!
~Mike

JH
Posts: 1279
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2013 9:46 am
Location: Vallentuna, Stockholm, Sweden
Contact:

Post by JH »

The microscope that I use, an old Nikon Optiphot, was indended to be used with finite objectives, a 2.5x projection lens and a FF camera. There is no problem to use a smaler sensor and ”waste” the rest if the potential picture.

One of the best lenses I have is the Nikon plan apo 160mm 4x NA 0.2 As you can read in other threads some excellent testing shows that the 4x degrades and the corners does not live up to the standard of other lenses. But with the 2.5x projection lens this is not a problem and the 0.2 NA is OK with my 20 mp FF sensor even though the picture is 10x and not 4x on the sensor.

The same is true for the 5x and 10x infinite lenses I have. If I need good corners I need more than 200mm tube lenses or a teleconverter, the NA is high enough for the sensor I have even If I use the objectives with a 360 tube lens instead of a 200mm.

My next camera will probably have FF and more pixels so I will walk into the teritory of empty magnification already at 5x.

Best regards
Jörgen Hellberg
Jörgen Hellberg, my webbsite www.hellberg.photo

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

Post by RobertOToole »

mjkzz wrote:I'd rather to "push down" an objective than to "push it up" -- empty magnification. If I were to match FOV, I'd rather push a higher mag objective down to take advantage of higher resolving power. The down side risk is vignetting. Just my 2 cents.
I also prefer to push down if the objective can cover the sensor.

FYI.

This company in Israel sells an 80mm TL to push the Mitutoyos down to cover a tiny sensor machine vision sensor.

Believe it or not these TL pop up on Ebay now and then.

http://omekoptics.com/low-magnification ... n-imaging/

Image

Adalbert
Posts: 1196
Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2015 1:09 pm

Post by Adalbert »

Hi Robert,
I have taken many photographs with TL=100mm eg.
https://www.photomacrography.net/forum/ ... highlight=
BR, ADi

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

Post by RobertOToole »

Adalbert wrote:Hi Robert,
I have taken many photographs with TL=100mm eg.
https://www.photomacrography.net/forum/ ... highlight=
BR, ADi
Thanks for the link Adi. Great image.

I only have experience using TL down to 125mm or so but its good to know that it is possible to go even lower in some cases.

Robert

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic