Tube lens tests for MFT and FF

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: 4581
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2015 7:03 am
Location: Ecuador
Contact:

Post by Lou Jost »

Robert, no, this is a FF lens. It only vignettes when used as a tube lens with an objective. Even then, it would be fine on FF if the objective had a wider image circle.

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

Post by mawyatt »

Lou,

Very interesting and thanks for all the work!! How would you compare the Nikon zoom to the 200mm F4 "Q" lens?

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

dmillard
Posts: 595
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 7:37 pm
Location: Austin, Texas

Post by dmillard »

Lou,

Thank you for the excellent review!

Best regards,
David

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

Post by RobertOToole »

Lou Jost wrote:Robert, no, this is a FF lens. It only vignettes when used as a tube lens with an objective. Even then, it would be fine on FF if the objective had a wider image circle.
Some of the Nikon zooms actually vignette/corner shade on FF even though the specs are to cover a FF sensor. :)

Lou Jost
Posts: 4581
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2015 7:03 am
Location: Ecuador
Contact:

Post by Lou Jost »

Mike, I should have done that test....Looking back at my previous tests with the Nikkor Q (before I had bought the zoom), I see excellent center sharpness, but a very small amount of purple fringing on very bright dust spots. The zoom was chromatically cleaner in these extreme spots.

Lou Jost
Posts: 4581
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2015 7:03 am
Location: Ecuador
Contact:

Post by Lou Jost »

You're welcome David!

Robert, I have limited experience with Nikon zooms. I was always prejudiced towards prime lenses. So this one's good performance as a tube lens continues to surprise me.

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

Post by RobertOToole »

Lou Jost wrote:You're welcome David!

Robert, I have limited experience with Nikon zooms. I was always prejudiced towards prime lenses. So this one's good performance as a tube lens continues to surprise me.
Good to know!

I have to admit I am prejudiced also against zoom and telephoto lenses other than the Sigma 150 and Voigtlander 125 I try to not to use them since they are harder to mount compared to a smaller lens like a makro-symmar but I should be more open minded about using the other types of lenses.

Thanks again for sharing your findings Lou. I'm about 50% through a big comparison that I hope to share this weekend so I'm too familiar with all the work involved in running a test :shock:

Robert

santiago
Posts: 109
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2018 5:56 am
Location: Nijmegen, The Netherlands

Post by santiago »

Lou Jost wrote:This is the good zoom. I got mine cheap because the autofocus was broke. This had no effect on manual focus. For MFT it is a truly great tube lens. It beats most others at their fixed focal lengths, and on a 10x Mitu it lets me vary the magnification from 100% of nominal m down to 50-60% of nominal m. It shows hard vignetting on FF though, even at 200mm.
Super interesting, thanks for the tests and the info, I only used the DCR-150 so far as tube lens... will need to try using a "regular" lens some day!
Santiago
Flickr

leonardturner
Posts: 597
Joined: Thu Mar 14, 2013 11:40 am
Location: Atlanta, GA, USA

Post by leonardturner »

Has anyone tested the newer Nikon 70-200 against the 80-200?

Leonard

Lou Jost
Posts: 4581
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2015 7:03 am
Location: Ecuador
Contact:

Post by Lou Jost »

No, that would be interesting.

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

Post by RobertOToole »

leonardturner wrote:Has anyone tested the newer Nikon 70-200 against the 80-200?

Leonard
The Nikon AF-S Nikkor Telephoto Zoom 70-200mm f/2.8E FL ED VR
is supposed to the best ever from Nikon but thats for normal focus.

For $2799 its a little expensive for a tube lens. :?

Lou Jost
Posts: 4581
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2015 7:03 am
Location: Ecuador
Contact:

Post by Lou Jost »

My 80-200 Nikon currently goes for around $400, and with patience you can get one for less with a broken AF motor. Seems that this motor fails often.

On the other hand, it would be nice to do focus bracketing with this zoom as a tube lens, so finding one with a working motor might be worth the extra cost, if you have a Nikon camera.

leonardturner
Posts: 597
Joined: Thu Mar 14, 2013 11:40 am
Location: Atlanta, GA, USA

Post by leonardturner »

Having raised the question of how the 70-200 f2.8 Nikon might function as a tube lens in the face of good reports on the 80-200, I had a look at one I had on hand, which earlier served me admirably in racing and general photography. It functioned well for this purpose also with the 5X Mitty and the 10X Nikon MRLOO102 objectives, although there was a small (but dense at the extremes) 4-corner vignette at 200mm, and vignetting made it unusable at shorter zoom settings. I found little difference when it was focused slightly before or past infinity setting. That said, in comparison with the Raynox 150, which produced an approximately 8% larger and a somewhat cooler image, direct comparison favored the Raynox both centrally and peripherally. Some of this this subjective judgment, at least in the central area, may have been from more apparent contrast from the Raynox setup (comparison images were size corrected to make them equivalent).

Incidentally, I also tested an old manual 300mm f4.5 Nikon, and found it quite good, though with some lateral fall-off with the Mitty, less so with the Nikon objectives (it tested about 16X on sensor with the 10X NIkon).

A Nikon 105mm f2.8 was unusable because of extreme vignetting, but the 135 f4.5 was quite good, as you noted. It produced about 7.2X measured with the 10X Nikon objective, and lost less peripherally than with the Mitty.

My thanks for the serious work you are all doing.

Leonard

leonardturner
Posts: 597
Joined: Thu Mar 14, 2013 11:40 am
Location: Atlanta, GA, USA

Post by leonardturner »

I should have mentioned in my post above that my tests were done with a low-contrast subject, a water stone made for blade sharpening. The camera was a FF.

Leonard

dmillard
Posts: 595
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 7:37 pm
Location: Austin, Texas

Post by dmillard »

leonardturner wrote: A Nikon 105mm f2.8 was unusable because of extreme vignetting, but the 135 f4.5 was quite good, as you noted. It produced about 7.2X measured with the 10X Nikon objective, and lost less peripherally than with the Mitty
Leonard
Just curious about the 135mm f/4.5, were you referring to the Nikon 135mm f/3.5, or to some other lens?

Thanks,
David

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic