tube lens comparison

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

Moderators: Pau, rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S.

jin
Posts: 91
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2012 6:35 am
Location: Singapore

tube lens comparison

Post by jin »

Hi,

need advice is there Olympus U-TLU 180 vs ITL 200 Thorlabs tube lens comparison as i could not decide which to keep and start my 1st infinity lens system (currently own both these two tube lenses).

Is it good to stick oly TL with Oly. objectives (f = 180mm) and ITL 200 with Nikon and Mitutoyo (expensive!) (200mm) only?

BR/Jin

enricosavazzi
Posts: 1284
Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2009 2:41 pm
Location: Borgholm, Sweden
Contact:

Re: tube lens comparison

Post by enricosavazzi »

jin wrote:Hi,

need advice is there Olympus U-TLU 180 vs ITL 200 Thorlabs tube lens comparison as i could not decide which to keep and start my 1st infinity lens system (currently own both these two tube lenses).

Is it good to stick oly TL with Oly. objectives (f = 180mm) and ITL 200 with Nikon and Mitutoyo (expensive!) (200mm) only?

BR/Jin
I have both tube lenses, but never tested the U-TLU with Mitutoyo objectives.

Both the Olympus UIS/UIS2 objectives and the Mitutoyo M Plan Apo objectives supposedly completely correct all aberrations, so the main expected difference in using the Olympus tube lens is the slightly lower magnification (0.9x) with respect to the nominal magnification of the M Plan Apos.

Whether there is a detectable or significant difference in image quality of the two lenses, only a test will show. The Olympus UIS system is pretty sharp, though, so the tube lens should also be good. However, the Olympus UIS system is designed only for an image circle of 22 mm, the UIS2 system for over 26 mm. This *might* limit the usable image circle of the U-TLU (which is a UIS component, not UIS2) to Micro 4/3, or possibly APS-C.

The ITL 200 is a little more versatile because it can be reversed more easily, while the U-TLU is mounted near the end of a longish tube, and reversing it places it relatively far from the objective (unless the objective is somehow mounted deep within the tube).
--ES

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

Post by dmillard »

Hello Jin,

I also have both tube lenses. Inspired by Charles Krebs' post here, I mounted an Olympus super-widefield trinocular head (which incorporates a U-TLU) on my Nikon UM-2 Measurescope, and use it with both Olympus UIS/UIS2 and Mitutoyo objectives. I have been very pleased with the results on an APS-C Sony NEX 7 camera. I also have a U-TLU tube mounted in another housing that gives similar performance.

I have used both sets of objectives on a modified Aristophot stand with an ITL200 tube lens, and have been equally happy. The primary difference I have seen (of which you are probably already aware) is that the Mitutoyo objectives will produce images at 9/10 their marked magnification when used with the U-TLU, and the Olympus objectives will work at 10/9 their nominal magnification when used with the Thorlabs tube lens. However, I haven't yet performed a rigorous comparison (something to add to my list).

I would be happy to post some comparative images after this weekend.

Best regards,
David

jin
Posts: 91
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2012 6:35 am
Location: Singapore

Post by jin »

thank you David & ES for the info and looking forward to seeing David's tube lens comparison.

Rgds,
Jin

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

Re: tube lens comparison

Post by dmillard »

enricosavazzi wrote: However, the Olympus UIS system is designed only for an image circle of 22 mm, the UIS2 system for over 26 mm. This *might* limit the usable image circle of the U-TLU (which is a UIS component, not UIS2) to Micro 4/3, or possibly APS-C.
Hello Enrico,

I just reread your comments a little less hastily. In a brochure published in 2005, Olympus introduced the four element U-TLU, described as a super-widefield lens with a field number of 26.5mm. This contrasted with their previous three element widefield lens, with a field number of just 22mm. The majority of the UIS objectives were capable of covering the larger field with the U-TLU tube lens. I would be happy to send you a PDF copy if you would PM me.

Best regards,
David

pbraub
Posts: 76
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2018 1:23 pm

Post by pbraub »

Hi,

regarding Olympus tube lenses. I have a U-TLU around but some time ago I have noticed a super wide-field tube lens in the Olympus OEM components (U-SWTLU-C). Has anybody had the chance to try this lens?

It is available through edmund optics and even cheaper than the U-TLU - however it is not fitted with the standard Olympus dovetails - i suppose it is for integration only.

https://www.olympus-lifescience.com/en/ ... s/swtlu-c/
https://www.edmundoptics.com/p/Olympus- ... gth/34693/

Kind regards
Peter

enricosavazzi
Posts: 1284
Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2009 2:41 pm
Location: Borgholm, Sweden
Contact:

Post by enricosavazzi »

pbraub wrote:Hi,

regarding Olympus tube lenses. I have a U-TLU around but some time ago I have noticed a super wide-field tube lens in the Olympus OEM components (U-SWTLU-C). Has anybody had the chance to try this lens?

It is available through edmund optics and even cheaper than the U-TLU - however it is not fitted with the standard Olympus dovetails - i suppose it is for integration only.

https://www.olympus-lifescience.com/en/ ... s/swtlu-c/
https://www.edmundoptics.com/p/Olympus- ... gth/34693/

Kind regards
Peter
It is most likely the same tube lens used in the various super-wide Olympus bi- and trinocular heads and in the U-PHOTO head for the AX70 and AX80.

I have a U-Photo on its way to me right now, but it is not here yet. This is the ~13 kg head with multiple camera outputs - two 35 mm full-frame, one large-format or Polaroid, and one for direct projection on Micro 4/3 or for use with the U-SPT tube and one of the PE eyepieces, in addition to a binocular super-wide head. I already have the SWH10X-H/26.5 eyepieces for the bino viewer of the U-PHOTO and they are very large, 70 mm long with 47 mm barrel diameter.

I have tried to find a U-PHOTO user guide, but the only one I found is in Czech, so not useful to me.
--ES

pbraub
Posts: 76
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2018 1:23 pm

Post by pbraub »

The U-Photo is a monster. Can you share your experiences?

I have a SWTR30 with SWHK eyepieces, but it is currently fitted to my work scope and will remain there for the foreseeable future (I enjoy the 26.5 image circle). I cannot easily use it in my test setups.

Has somebody noticed any differences in the image circle out of the trino port of SWTR30 (or similar) and TR30.

I also thought that this (SWTLU) is the tube from the SW heads. The absence of proper dovetails should make it more difficult to integrate this tube, but i doubt that this hinders forum members from finding a solution.

Kind regards
Peter

enricosavazzi
Posts: 1284
Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2009 2:41 pm
Location: Borgholm, Sweden
Contact:

Post by enricosavazzi »

pbraub wrote:The U-Photo is a monster. Can you share your experiences?
[...]
I am afraid that this is going to be a long-term project. I also purchased a partly equipped AX70 stand, but it has been lost in the mail for about a month. In any case, it came without external power supply and control terminals, and my plan was to gradually convert it to manual operation of the various controls. The AX70 has several functions controlled by internal servomotors, but in principle it should be possible to convert the most important ones to manual, or to use on the AX70 some of the manually operated components from the BX system. The attachments for condenser, table, nosepiece, head and illuminators are the same in the BX and AX series.

The same idea applies to the U-PHOTO. I don't know yet what its innards look like, but it should be possible to convert to manual at least some of its motorized functions. I have a U-TR30 on another scope and I always leave the slider in the visual + photo position, so I might add a manual plunger to the U-PHOTO slider, or always leave it in the same position.

This assuming that it has a combined visual + photo position, of which I am not certain - there might actually be two variants of the U-PHOTO, one with combined 80%/20% position and the other with only a 100% visual and a 100% photo position.
--ES

enricosavazzi
Posts: 1284
Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2009 2:41 pm
Location: Borgholm, Sweden
Contact:

Post by enricosavazzi »

The following is only in part related to the thread subject, but some discussion about these parts has already taken place in this thread, so I decided to just continue it here.

The Olympus U-PHOTO is gigantic compared to an ordinary trinocular head (at the right is a U-TR30, which is not superwide):

Image

Compared with Olympus WH10X/22 eyepieces, the SWH10X-H/26.5 eyepieces for the U-PHOTO are also very large. Incidentally, the latter eyepieces are too long by a few mm to fit in the U-TR30 head. They also have a locating pin on the flange to keep the barrel from turning around when the diopter adjustment is manually turned. The U-TR30 head has no sockets for these pins.

The two 135 film camera bodies have proprietary "lens mounts" that I have not seen before, with six electrical contacts evenly spaced all around the mouth. All functions are motorized. I guess I would need to disassemble the camera bodies and salvage the lens mounts to build custom adapters for connecting a current full-frame digital camera to either of the two 135-format ports. It might be too much work to do so, anyway, since I already have a photo tube and PE 2.5X projection eyepiece to mount atop the photo port in the foreground in the picture.

An alternative I intend to investigate is whether it is feasible to just cut off the big rear "box" of the U-PHOTO and keep only the super-wide trinocular part. I paid far less than the ordinary price of a superwide head for this U-PHOTO, so it would make perfect sense pricewise. There might also be some usable optical goodies within the rear part, including prisms and beam splitters.

Unless there is a possible use for the three rear photo ports that I have not thought of? Suggestions welcome in this case.

PS - The bottom of the tube lens of the U-PHOTO has a clear diameter of about 31 mm. The tube lens of the U-TR30 has a diameter of only 26.5 mm. So they are clearly different.
--ES

Scarodactyl
Posts: 440
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2018 10:26 am

Post by Scarodactyl »

Why did they need so many camera hookups? I can understand having two on a modern system, one for a small chip video camera and one for a dslr, but what benefit did they get in the film era from having so dang many?
It looks like a beautiful piece of equipment anyway.

Pau
Site Admin
Posts: 5163
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 8:57 am
Location: Valencia, Spain

Post by Pau »

35 mm film was limited to 36 frames, you could also use different ISO, BW and color or different color temperature film at each camera
Pau

JohnyM
Posts: 463
Joined: Tue Dec 24, 2013 7:02 am

Post by JohnyM »

Front for video CCD. Rear "side" for low and high iso 35mm automated photography (back then we actually often wanted 3 ports: low iso brightfield, medium DIC, high fluorescence).
Top is for medium / large format / manual 35mm. In my cases that was used with 35mm film and ISO exceeding auto (side ports) boundaries.

In modern times, it's rather obsolete. Sometimes researchers use double ports for color / monochromatic cameras. Some industrial vision systems use double port with different magnification ratios from same objective. Most commonly seen (biosciences) is double port for confocal / camera. Inverted microscopes tend to have many ports too. Ie: confocal + camera + time lapse camera.

enricosavazzi
Posts: 1284
Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2009 2:41 pm
Location: Borgholm, Sweden
Contact:

Post by enricosavazzi »

As a partial update, I got a better idea of the internal workings. They are quite intricate optically, electronically and mechanically.

Image

Electronics and motors are useless in my case, so I removed them. The interior of the bigger box (at the rear) is divided into a lower and an upper compartment.

Image

The lower compartment is taken up by a complicated pantograph-like mechanical transmission from the joystick on the right side to another, internal, joystick-like 2D swivelling mirror assembly that directs light from a small, selectable portion of the image plane to a sensor for spot metering. Also useless to me, so it went to the junk bin.

Image

A few more parts with no immediate use.

The top compartment is cramped with optics on two separate levels.

The slider in the small box has just two positions. One sends all light to the bino viewer, the other sends all light to a beam splitter.

The bottom level in the big box receives light from this beam splitter. No light is sent (yet) to the bino viewer. Light from the small box enters the big box, passes through about a dozen optical groups (including a zoom assembly), and is partly split through a 0-100/50-50/100-0 slider, and finally sent to the upper level and more optics to the three ports. Only one port at a time is active. The bottom level then sends light back into the small box via more optics. In the small box, half a dozen additional prisms perform several acrobatics and finally send whatever light is left out to the bino viewer.

This means in practice that cutting off the big box at the rear of the U-PHOTO would leave two positions available in the trinocular head: all light to bino viewer, and all light to the top camera port (plus some wasted in a beam splitter that sends light toward the rear).

To get a working simultaneous image through the bino viewer and the top camera port, one needs most of the optics contained in the big box. So my idea of cutting off the big box is not really feasible. Still, is does not seem difficult to add a plunger to the slider in the small box to get working 0-100/50-50 positions. The rest of the sliders and cams in the big box need to be epoxied at the right positions.

By removing the unused parts, weight of the U-PHOTO can be reduced by a few Kg, which helps handling the brick-like head. Manually setting and epoxying the various mechanisms in the right positions without removing the clutter of electronics boars, wires, motors and other subassemblies would be difficult or impossible.

Image

The big box (seen foremost, from its rear side in the above picture) is now only half full, with no parts sticking out above the top of the small box. Ideally, it would be possible to build a lower external cover for the big box, but in practice this is a lot of work for purely aesthetical reasons.

Image

Slider from the small box. A mirror (not a prism) is attached at the right of the prism and receives light that has been traveling all across the big box. The tube lens is partly visible behind.

Image

A peek through the bottom of the small box, showing a second slider that works in tandem with the bottom one of the preceding picture, and plenty of prisms and beam splitters filling every nook and cranny. There are a few more out of sight.

From a design point of view, it looks like the general idea is like sending the image to Japan to have it processed and photographed there, then having it sent back for visual observation via detours through Greenland and South Africa.

Edit: added pictures.
Last edited by enricosavazzi on Thu Dec 06, 2018 12:24 pm, edited 7 times in total.
--ES

Pau
Site Admin
Posts: 5163
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 8:57 am
Location: Valencia, Spain

Post by Pau »

This is complex! Not an elegant design I would say
enricosavazzi wrote:The slider in the small box has just two positions. One sends all light to the bino viewer, the other sends all light to a beam splitter
If you were able to exchange the second position prism (or mirror) for a beamsplitter you would have a simpler typical trino configuration
Pau

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic