Thorlabs ITL200 as tube lens&setup for Coolscan 8000ED l

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

Moderators: Pau, rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S.

nielsgeode
Posts: 302
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 11:47 am
Location: Groningen, Netherlands

Thorlabs ITL200 as tube lens&setup for Coolscan 8000ED l

Post by nielsgeode »

I'd like to modify my setup for the ITL200 tube lens from Thorlabs. I'm following closeupphotography.com's 52mm setup.

The Thorlabs Variable Extension tube is
Not required but highly recommended, see the use of this item in the photo below, it sits behind the Sigma tube lens. Supplied with lock ring.
Is there an advantage for the ITL200? How about the Coolscan 800ED scanner lens?

The adapter that is mounted between camera body and the SM2A20 would be available here. However, I don't see which exact adapter I need. Which one is it?

The raf-camera M52 - M26 adapter has internal M25 thread, internal M52 thread and external M52 thread. I don't see the purpose of the internal M52 thread. It looks like the external M52 thread is used to attach the "Thorlabs SM2 Extension Tube Without Male Threads 3 inches long". This suggests a "basic" Chinese external-M52 to internal M26 adapter would work as well. Is this the case? Is SM2 thread identical to standard M52 thread?

Thanks
Niels

Miljenko
Posts: 170
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 11:53 pm
Location: Zagreb, Croatia
Contact:

Post by Miljenko »

Hi Niels,
according to my MTF tests and others' tests and experience, about 90% of all lenses we tried benefit from using tube lens instead of plain extension tubes (or bellows). But majority of scanner lenses (Coolscan 8000 included) perform better when just extended. And their magnification sweet spot is really a "spot" instead of "range". For slide scanners this is usually around 1.4x. Resolution and CA gets considerably worse as soon as 1x and 2x.
Best,
Miljenko
All things are number - Pythagoras

Macro_Cosmos
Posts: 993
Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2018 9:23 pm
Location: Sydney

Post by Macro_Cosmos »

You need adaptor for the ITL200 which has some oddball M38 threading:
https://www.thorlabs.com/thorproduct.cf ... ber=SM2A20

For Mitutoyo, you can use Thorlabs SM2 > SM1 then SM1 > M26x0.706
That's what I use.
https://www.thorlabs.com/thorproduct.cf ... mber=SM2A6
https://www.thorlabs.com/thorproduct.cf ... ber=SM1A27

To get the 148mm flange distance, you want one variable tube to finetune it.
Then thorlabs says the optimal distance between the tube lens and the objective is 70-140mm. I'm mounted the objective with minimal distance, didn't see much of a difference.

You can use a couple of these to mount the setup on a long arca-swiss rail: https://www.thorlabs.com/thorproduct.cf ... mber=SM2RC

These work well too but more expensive: https://www.thorlabs.com/thorproduct.cf ... mber=SM2TC

Here's the ITL-200 setup on a Z6:
Image

To answer your question, yes the variable tubes are a requirement.
Between the SM2A20 which houses the ITL-200, you need various tubes to reach 148mm minus your camera's flange distance: https://www.thorlabs.com/newgrouppage9. ... up_id=3383
I have two each of thin couplers that features male>male and female>female threads. They have tubes without external threads and ones without internal threads which makes it possible to apply flocking adhesives. However I still suggest the ones with threads, you can just roll flocking material up and insert them into the tubes.

Note that the ITL-200 sticks out slightly, about 4.6mm or so, so you actually want about 153mm minus your camera's flange distance between the sensor and the ITL-200.

If you're going to buy these expensive Thorlabs SM2 stuff, I see no reason to buy the RAF adaptors when Thorlabs offers everything you need.

The prices are similar. Thorlabs are sometimes cheaper, their SM2>M52 adaptors are $21.54, Raf charges $24.95, Raf charges I believe $5 for shipping, and it takes at least 2 weeks. I just looked at their website, seems like shipping would be messy due to the virus.

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

Post by mawyatt »

Macro_Cosmos wrote:You need adaptor for the ITL200 which has some oddball M38 threading:
https://www.thorlabs.com/thorproduct.cf ... ber=SM2A20

For Mitutoyo, you can use Thorlabs SM2 > SM1 then SM1 > M26x0.706
That's what I use.
https://www.thorlabs.com/thorproduct.cf ... mber=SM2A6
https://www.thorlabs.com/thorproduct.cf ... ber=SM1A27

To get the 148mm flange distance, you want one variable tube to finetune it.
Then thorlabs says the optimal distance between the tube lens and the objective is 70-140mm. I'm mounted the objective with minimal distance, didn't see much of a difference.

You can use a couple of these to mount the setup on a long arca-swiss rail: https://www.thorlabs.com/thorproduct.cf ... mber=SM2RC

These work well too but more expensive: https://www.thorlabs.com/thorproduct.cf ... mber=SM2TC

Here's the ITL-200 setup on a Z6:
Image

To answer your question, yes the variable tubes are a requirement.
Between the SM2A20 which houses the ITL-200, you need various tubes to reach 148mm minus your camera's flange distance: https://www.thorlabs.com/newgrouppage9. ... up_id=3383
I have two each of thin couplers that features male>male and female>female threads. They have tubes without external threads and ones without internal threads which makes it possible to apply flocking adhesives. However I still suggest the ones with threads, you can just roll flocking material up and insert them into the tubes.

Note that the ITL-200 sticks out slightly, about 4.6mm or so, so you actually want about 153mm minus your camera's flange distance between the sensor and the ITL-200.

If you're going to buy these expensive Thorlabs SM2 stuff, I see no reason to buy the RAF adaptors when Thorlabs offers everything you need.

The prices are similar. Thorlabs are sometimes cheaper, their SM2>M52 adaptors are $21.54, Raf charges $24.95, Raf charges I believe $5 for shipping, and it takes at least 2 weeks. I just looked at their website, seems like shipping would be messy due to the virus.
Have you considered using a Z mount to 42 or 52mm adapter rather than the Nikon FTZ, then the F mount to SM2 (or 42 or 52mm) adapter? I don't use the FTZ for this type of macro use, but prefer the direct Z to 42 or 52mm adapters. However I don't have the really nice Thorlabs tube set, use the Weamcro which is a pretty good option IMO.

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

JKT
Posts: 184
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 9:29 am
Location: Finland
Contact:

Post by JKT »

Heads up for Canon shooters: Canon EF to SM2 adapter is likely going to appear on RAF camera inventory soon. For those using full frame that should eliminate vignetting, which M42 or T2 could cause. The flange distance should be identical to EF->M42 + Thorlabs M42->SM2.

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

Post by mawyatt »

JKT wrote:Heads up for Canon shooters: Canon EF to SM2 adapter is likely going to appear on RAF camera inventory soon. For those using full frame that should eliminate vignetting, which M42 or T2 could cause. The flange distance should be identical to EF->M42 + Thorlabs M42->SM2.
JKT,

I was pleasantly surprised at the little vignetting the Wemacro Lens Kit exhibited on my Nikon FF camera. This lens kit is based on 42mm tubes and has internal flocking. Before I had used 42mm based tubes only on APC cameras or where I would crop the corners.

https://www.photomacrography.net/forum/ ... c&start=45

I can't say about Canon as I only use Nikon cameras, but considering the result might be worth the risk to give this lens kit a try.

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

rjlittlefield
Site Admin
Posts: 21134
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
Contact:

Post by rjlittlefield »

mawyatt wrote:I was pleasantly surprised at the little vignetting the Wemacro Lens Kit exhibited on my Nikon FF camera. This lens kit is based on 42mm tubes and has internal flocking.
I think the exact post that you're referring to is this one: https://www.photomacrography.net/forum/ ... 697#255697

Note also Ultima-Gaina's report that trimming off a bit of the flocking material totally eliminated dark corners in his FF system: https://www.photomacrography.net/forum/ ... 441#258441 .

(Compare against his earlier report at https://www.photomacrography.net/forum/ ... 438#258438, showing vignetting.)

--Rik

Macro_Cosmos
Posts: 993
Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2018 9:23 pm
Location: Sydney

Post by Macro_Cosmos »

mawyatt wrote: Have you considered using a Z mount to 42 or 52mm adapter rather than the Nikon FTZ, then the F mount to SM2 (or 42 or 52mm) adapter? I don't use the FTZ for this type of macro use, but prefer the direct Z to 42 or 52mm adapters. However I don't have the really nice Thorlabs tube set, use the Weamcro which is a pretty good option IMO.

Best,
Nope. Unless the tubes cause mechanical vignetting down the road (which it won't on FX), I'm sticking to this setup.

There are several reasons.
1. My entire database of required tubings for the various lenses I own are standardised for the F-mount using this incredibly expensive Thorlabs SM2NFM2.
2. The adaptor is very well made, no wobble at all. Feels better than some cheap first party lenses. I've had misalignment issues with cheap M42 adaptors on the market, haven't found ones up my desired standards yet.
3. I've already designed several dedicated tube fittings for lenses I will never sell, they are matched to the Thorlabs SM2NFM2 and the F-mount
4. At work, there's F-mount and C-mount (I use a C-F adaptor for those) industrial Cameras that I use, makes stuff convenient!

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

Post by mawyatt »

rjlittlefield wrote:
mawyatt wrote:I was pleasantly surprised at the little vignetting the Wemacro Lens Kit exhibited on my Nikon FF camera. This lens kit is based on 42mm tubes and has internal flocking.
I think the exact post that you're referring to is this one: https://www.photomacrography.net/forum/ ... 697#255697

Note also Ultima-Gaina's report that trimming off a bit of the flocking material totally eliminated dark corners in his FF system: https://www.photomacrography.net/forum/ ... 441#258441 .

(Compare against his earlier report at https://www.photomacrography.net/forum/ ... 438#258438, showing vignetting.)

--Rik
Yep that's the one! Thx

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

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

Post by mawyatt »

Macro_Cosmos wrote:
mawyatt wrote: Have you considered using a Z mount to 42 or 52mm adapter rather than the Nikon FTZ, then the F mount to SM2 (or 42 or 52mm) adapter? I don't use the FTZ for this type of macro use, but prefer the direct Z to 42 or 52mm adapters. However I don't have the really nice Thorlabs tube set, use the Weamcro which is a pretty good option IMO.

Best,
Nope. Unless the tubes cause mechanical vignetting down the road (which it won't on FX), I'm sticking to this setup.

There are several reasons.
1. My entire database of required tubings for the various lenses I own are standardised for the F-mount using this incredibly expensive Thorlabs SM2NFM2.
2. The adaptor is very well made, no wobble at all. Feels better than some cheap first party lenses. I've had misalignment issues with cheap M42 adaptors on the market, haven't found ones up my desired standards yet.
3. I've already designed several dedicated tube fittings for lenses I will never sell, they are matched to the Thorlabs SM2NFM2 and the F-mount
4. At work, there's F-mount and C-mount (I use a C-F adaptor for those) industrial Cameras that I use, makes stuff convenient!
Good reasons.

Thorlabs stuff is expensive, but precise & very well made. I know I have a whole Vertical/Horizontal setup based upon Thorlabs 95mm Precision Components, and don't want to think how much invested :shock:

Also know exactly what you mean about various adapters not up to your standards, now it's try once and if questionable it's heading for the garbage, not getting a 2nd chance to bite me again :oops:

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

JKT
Posts: 184
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 9:29 am
Location: Finland
Contact:

Post by JKT »

mawyatt wrote:
JKT,

I was pleasantly surprised at the little vignetting the Wemacro Lens Kit exhibited on my Nikon FF camera. This lens kit is based on 42mm tubes and has internal flocking.
Yes, it is not much and it is limited to corners. Nevertheless, this adapter will eliminate it for good and one can use any flocking. Mine is rather thick, so the need for improvement was obvious.

Macro_Cosmos
Posts: 993
Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2018 9:23 pm
Location: Sydney

Post by Macro_Cosmos »

rjlittlefield wrote: Note also Ultima-Gaina's report that trimming off a bit of the flocking material totally eliminated dark corners in his FF system: https://www.photomacrography.net/forum/ ... 441#258441 .

(Compare against his earlier report at https://www.photomacrography.net/forum/ ... 438#258438, showing vignetting.)

--Rik
I'll pass this information on to William. Good to know.
mawyatt wrote: Good reasons.

Thorlabs stuff is expensive, but precise & very well made. I know I have a whole Vertical/Horizontal setup based upon Thorlabs 95mm Precision Components, and don't want to think how much invested :shock:

Also know exactly what you mean about various adapters not up to your standards, now it's try once and if questionable it's heading for the garbage, not getting a 2nd chance to bite me again :oops:

Best,
Yep... lots of low quality adaptors are in my junk box. I tried to list them all for sale, no one wants them and I'm not surprised. The misalignment was so bad once, that at just 2x, on a 2k monitor with no zooming in, there's very obvious unconventional aberrations and weird softness issues.

The focusing helicoid I used (very expensive one) wasn't helping either. Contacted the person that makes them and he said he never considered slight wobbling when zooming. I was the first one that brought it to him. He is right, people typically buy them to use weird old lenses, not for photomacrography. Thorlabs' SM2Vxx variable tubes are pretty precise, downside is obviously the entire mechanism rotates, but that doesn't matter to us.

I own a couple of those "Precision grade" Thorlabs 95mm construction rail pillars, 2 flat rails and numerous 95mm sliders... and a bunch of other stuff. I was lucky enough to get a short section of the XT95XP rails that comes with a carrier for $40. Yeah it's all very well made and pretty expensive! I'd rather not open that spreadsheet which logs my expenses... wait I lost it in an SSD failure crash :oops:

To be fair, comparatively, Thorlabs stuff are actually quite cheap. Similar offerings from competitors cost a lot more, ie Newport and EO. Chinese ones are sometimes more expensive even.

Olaf G
Posts: 11
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2019 11:37 am
Location: Germany

Post by Olaf G »

Miljenko wrote:Hi Niels,
according to my MTF tests and others' tests and experience, about 90% of all lenses we tried benefit from using tube lens instead of plain extension tubes (or bellows). But majority of scanner lenses (Coolscan 8000 included) perform better when just extended. And their magnification sweet spot is really a "spot" instead of "range". For slide scanners this is usually around 1.4x. Resolution and CA gets considerably worse as soon as 1x and 2x.
Best,
Miljenko
Yes, the Coolscan 8000 works best just with extension. The sweet spot is approx. 0.9x (dot towards the sensor) and 1.1x when reversed.

nielsgeode
Posts: 302
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 11:47 am
Location: Groningen, Netherlands

Post by nielsgeode »

Olaf G wrote:
Miljenko wrote:Hi Niels,
according to my MTF tests and others' tests and experience, about 90% of all lenses we tried benefit from using tube lens instead of plain extension tubes (or bellows). But majority of scanner lenses (Coolscan 8000 included) perform better when just extended. And their magnification sweet spot is really a "spot" instead of "range". For slide scanners this is usually around 1.4x. Resolution and CA gets considerably worse as soon as 1x and 2x.
Best,
Miljenko
Yes, the Coolscan 8000 works best just with extension. The sweet spot is approx. 0.9x (dot towards the sensor) and 1.1x when reversed.
It's a shame I have the 8000ED lens here in my drawer for a year without even having used it even once.

Olaf G
Posts: 11
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2019 11:37 am
Location: Germany

Post by Olaf G »

nielsgeode wrote: It's a shame I have the 8000ED lens here in my drawer for a year without even having used it even once.
It's a great lens. Give it a try.

ImageFlowers V by Olaf Gnau, auf Flickr

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic