Leica HR 4x/0.45 Objective On Ebay How is That Even Possible

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

Moderators: Pau, rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S.

RobertOToole
Posts: 1617
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:34 pm
Location: United States
Contact:

Leica HR 4x/0.45 Objective On Ebay How is That Even Possible

Post by RobertOToole »

Image

Browsing Ebay I cam across this ad with the title:

'Leica HR 4x/0.45 Infinity Objective'

I have never heard of this one before, thats something like f/0.8 Nominal or f4 effective, how is that even possible, the F-80mm is a clue, then I see the Mitutoyo Plastic case and I have seen some Mitutoyo Objectives re-named Leica, here is what looks exactly like a Mitutoyo 5x M Plan APO called a Leica 35x 0.14.

Image

So I thought can this be an $8000 Mitutoyo HR 10X for $1700, Maybe Leica is pushing it down the M Plan HR 10x down to 4x with an 80mm tube lens?

No. The specs match the Optem/Edmunds 10x HR not the Mity 10x HR.

Bummer. The Optem HR unit has an 11mm field stop.

Leica is selling Optem objectives? What is the world coming to?


Image

ray_parkhurst
Posts: 2750
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 10:40 am
Location: Santa Clara, CA, USA
Contact:

Post by ray_parkhurst »

I would presume this is just a re-branded 10x 0.45 objective designed for 200mm and spec'd to operate at 80mm. Probably vignettes or just looks bad at corners but great in the center!

edited to add: anyone tested the Edmund/Optem(I believe) 5x NA 0.225 objectives? If so, how good is the coverage?

RobertOToole
Posts: 1617
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:34 pm
Location: United States
Contact:

Post by RobertOToole »

ray_parkhurst wrote:I would presume this is just a re-branded 10x 0.45 objective designed for 200mm and spec'd to operate at 80mm. Probably vignettes or just looks bad at corners but great in the center!

edited to add: anyone tested the Edmund/Optem(I believe) 5x NA 0.225 objectives? If so, how good is the coverage?
Yes, thats what it looks like exactly.

For a minute I thought I might have an excellent deal for an HR lens.

I believe the spec for the 5x is also 11mm field, actually its a field stop of 11mm (hardware limit)


Robert

RobertOToole
Posts: 1617
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:34 pm
Location: United States
Contact:

Post by RobertOToole »

ray_parkhurst wrote:I would presume this is just a re-branded 10x 0.45 objective designed for 200mm and spec'd to operate at 80mm. Probably vignettes or just looks bad at corners but great in the center!

edited to add: anyone tested the Edmund/Optem(I believe) 5x NA 0.225 objectives? If so, how good is the coverage?
Found this on my disk.

Image

ChrisR
Site Admin
Posts: 8560
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 3:58 am
Location: Near London, UK

Post by ChrisR »

I have a Nikon 4x 0.4 from one of their AZ scopes, I thought you'd tried one. The magnification quoted seems a bit arbitrary to me - it depends what "tube" and other lens you use it with. It's a bit odd - 20 or 25mm working distance, 25mm FL, a clip on waveplate, and a rear focal plane outside the objective. So something like a phase ring would be external. Good in the middle, less so as you go out!
It's therefore a 25mm f/1.0 lens.
And the Leica is an f/0.88.

Maybe it's aspherical, which would help. I believe asphericals have been made down to something like f/0.2, beating the widest-theoretical spherical lens aperture of f/0.5.
Chris R

rjlittlefield
Site Admin
Posts: 21027
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
Contact:

Post by rjlittlefield »

ChrisR wrote:I believe asphericals have been made down to something like f/0.2, beating the widest-theoretical spherical lens aperture of f/0.5.
If you have a reference on that, I would be very interested to see it. On the surface, using the standard relationship between f-number and resolution, that would seem to imply an ultimate resolution of 5 line pairs per wavelength of light, versus the usual limit of 2 line pairs per wavelength at NA=1. I have a little problem believing that implication, so I'm assuming that the "f/0.2" number actually means something different. (See HERE for one example of f/0.2 meaning "something different".)

--Rik

Lou Jost
Posts: 4579
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2015 7:03 am
Location: Ecuador
Contact:

Post by Lou Jost »

I have the Optem 20x 0.60 HR objective. The sharp portion of the image is tiny!!!! Worthless piece of garbage except perhaps on a tiny sensor.

[Edited to remove the phrase "Pure marketing hype".]

In contrast the Nikon 20x 0.75 Plan Apo that we have been discussing lately has better resolution in the center and a much larger image circle.
Last edited by Lou Jost on Wed Jan 02, 2019 3:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

ChrisR
Site Admin
Posts: 8560
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 3:58 am
Location: Near London, UK

Post by ChrisR »

rjlittlefield wrote:
ChrisR wrote:I believe asphericals have been made down to something like f/0.2, beating the widest-theoretical spherical lens aperture of f/0.5.
If you have a reference on that, I would be very interested to see it. On the surface, using the standard relationship between f-number and resolution, that would seem to imply an ultimate resolution of 5 line pairs per wavelength of light, versus the usual limit of 2 line pairs per wavelength at NA=1. I have a little problem believing that implication, so I'm assuming that the "f/0.2" number actually means something different. (See HERE for one example of f/0.2 meaning "something different".)

--Rik
No It wasn't "Brenizer", which by the way is great fun, but the product of one of those burrowings into the internet which brings up a detail which appears to be "true about something"..

Zeiss made something too - though it "didn't work" - a mere detail. I'll see what I can find...
Chris R

ChrisR
Site Admin
Posts: 8560
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 3:58 am
Location: Near London, UK

Post by ChrisR »

The latter was easy: https://petapixel.com/2013/08/06/carl-z ... ever-made/

later:
Third post here -
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/1496978
though the fifth does make it sound maybe Brenizer-ish. Or maybe a sensor enveloping the lens.

Fourier ptychography also gets to <NA=1 in air, but I don't know how far in other immersions. Also "cheating".:).
Chris R

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

Post by dmillard »

ray_parkhurst wrote:
edited to add: anyone tested the Edmund/Optem(I believe) 5x NA 0.225 objectives? If so, how good is the coverage?
Mark Goodman tested it on a Nikon D300 (APS-C). His results can be found under Microscope objectives:

http://www.coinimaging.com/lens_tests_new.html

He was not impressed - his results confirm the specs that Robert posted.

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

Re: Leica HR 4x/0.45 Objective On Ebay How is That Even Poss

Post by Scarodactyl »

RobertOToole wrote:[
Leica is selling Optem objectives? What is the world coming to?
I think these 'HR' objectives are meant to be used on their z-series macroscopes and CMO stereo scopes (for fluorescence applications), standing in for the normal lower mag stereo objectives. Leica is in a bind for this application, as their stereo scopes and macroscopes do not have correcting optics, but their compound scopes do in the tube lens. As such their own compound objectives would perform terribly when put onto a stereo scope. They do offer their DM (inverted, lwd, achro) objectives as an option, but the image quality probably isn't that high and they explicitly vignette at lower mag. Aside from that they had the choice of either learning to make compound objectives that don't need tube lens corrections for this small market, or slap their label on an already established product.

I'd note that their z-series macroscope zoom lenses are made in Singapore. I've kind of wondered if Qioptiq had any involvement in their manufacture given their long experience with industrial zoom lenses, though that is probably too big a leap just because they're in the same country. Nevertheless it would be suggestive of an Optem partnership.

That said, are we sure these are by Optem? Are most/all third party m plan apo mitty clones by them, or do others like usmsc or seiwa and such make their own? Seiwa markets HR m plan apo objectives that they claim ~30mm coverage for if I remember right.

That said, poor coverage may not matter as much on a zoom body, where only the center will be seen at higher magnification.
Last edited by Scarodactyl on Thu Jan 03, 2019 1:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Macro_Cosmos
Posts: 932
Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2018 9:23 pm
Location: Sydney

Post by Macro_Cosmos »

To get such a high NA for such low magnifications requires a large front element diameter. Also 80mm... hmmm.

This smells like marketing fluff.

Macrero
Posts: 887
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 8:17 am
Location: Valladolid , Spain

Post by Macrero »

Lou Jost wrote:I have the Optem 20x 0.60 HR objective. The sharp portion of the image is tiny!!!! Worthless piece of garbage except perhaps on a tiny sensor. Pure marketing hype.
Well, to be fair it should be noted that Qioptiq (Nikon, Oly, Leica...) do not think of us, our cameras/sensors and our bugs, minerals, coins, chips or whatever we shoot, when they compute their optics. Those are special tools, designed for a specific purpose.

There are a lot (the vast majority) of high-resolution, extremely expensive APO objectives which are unusable on camera, but that does not mean that they are pieces of garbage :wink: They work brilliantly, but for what they were intended for.

I haven't tried any Mitty HR, but I am pretty sure performance/image circle will be similar to the Optem's. The 10X/0.42 cost nearly 10.000 €. That's a lot of money for a "piece of garbage".

Disclaimer: I do not work for Qioptiq or any other manufacturer :D

- Macrero
https://500px.com/macrero - Amateurs worry about equipment, Pros worry about money, Masters worry about Light

RobertOToole
Posts: 1617
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:34 pm
Location: United States
Contact:

Post by RobertOToole »

Macrero wrote:
Lou Jost wrote:I have the Optem 20x 0.60 HR objective. The sharp portion of the image is tiny!!!! Worthless piece of garbage except perhaps on a tiny sensor. Pure marketing hype.
Well, to be fair it should be noted that Qioptiq (Nikon, Oly, Leica...) do not think of us, our cameras/sensors and our bugs, minerals, coins, chips or whatever we shoot, when they compute their optics. Those are special tools, designed for a specific purpose.

There are a lot (the vast majority) of high-resolution, extremely expensive APO objectives which are unusable on camera, but that does not mean that they are pieces of garbage :wink: They work brilliantly, but for what they were intended for.

I haven't tried any Mitty HR, but I am pretty sure performance/image circle will be similar to the Optem's. The 10X/0.42 cost nearly 10.000 €. That's a lot of money for a "piece of garbage".

Disclaimer: I do not work for Qioptiq or any other manufacturer :D

- Macrero
The Optems are made for a different market since they are just achromats and not telecentric.

The Mity HR and Qioptiq HR are APO corrected plus a big image circle and a big NA. The Mag.x 5x for example has similar specs to the Mitutoyo 5x HR and it has a larger image circle than the Mity M Plan 0.14 and better APO correction, compared to the Mitutoyo its closer to a Super-apochromat.

The Mag.x is telecentric on both sides and was designed specifically to cover larger sensors they are not off the shelf, they are made to order in small batches and cost $7K-$8K with 6-8 delivery time.

They probably sell 10,000 Optem HRs for every one Mag.x. they sold.

Robert

Lou Jost
Posts: 4579
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2015 7:03 am
Location: Ecuador
Contact:

Post by Lou Jost »

I know, I wish I had your Mag.x. But that Optem 60x HR is a real piece of garbage for our purposes. To be fair, there is a warning in the Qioptiq catalog that these objectives aren't designed for ordinary microscopes.

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic