Mitutoyo QV 3d Usage

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

Moderators: Pau, rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S.

Posts: 2
Joined: Fri May 15, 2020 5:54 am
Location: Austria

Mitutoyo QV 3d Usage

Post by skarabaeus »

Hello, I have an application I would like to record insects in 3D on APS-C and would use telecentric lenses. Is there anyone who can give me information about the quality of the Mitutoyo QV 1x, 2.5x and 5x lenses? Unfortunately, there is little information on the internet about these lenses. Is the quality comparable to the M-Plan Apo and do I have to pay special attention to step sizes ect. Would the nikon MM measuring lenses possibly be more suitable?
Thank you for your help and I hope the googel translation is understandable.

Posts: 472
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2018 10:26 am

Re: Mitutoyo QV 3d Usage

Post by Scarodactyl »

I have a qv 1x. When used on a 200mm tube lens there's no visual dofference between it and a mitutoyo 2x, though I haven't done a shootout yet.
Generally their reputation is of not being quite as good but still being quite good.

Posts: 990
Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2018 9:23 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Mitutoyo QV 3d Usage

Post by Macro_Cosmos »

I have used 3 and owned 2.
QV-objectives require 100mm TLs, however Mit's metrology system has a dial for 100-600mm TLs. Of course, benefit of infinity corrected systems.

100mm TL, fullframe, the QVs aren't adequate. There's very heavy corner falloff. If somehow your TL has a large enough image circle, you won't get mechanical vignetting but the corners are still horrible. Large format 100mm TLs seem to work. I tested the 120mm Schneider Apo-digitar, results were good. Xenon-Sapphire 97mm yielded alright results too, in the centre of course, the corners are mush.

I recommend using a 200mm (and beyond!) TL for fullframe and APS-C.

QV 2.5x: It's not too bad, at 200mm, it's a 5x that's comparable to the 5x M Plans.
QV 2.5x HR (NA 0.21): Very good objective, at 200mm, it beats the 5x M Plans that aren't "high resolution".
QV 5x (NA 0.28): Very good objective, at 200mm, it's pretty much indistinguishable to a native 10x M Plan.

I don't think these QVs are Plan objectives, quite a lot of distortion, even with my ITL200. Maybe Mit's own little TLs for their measurescopes fix it, maybe it's because I'm using it on fullframe cameras. They are however apochromatic. I sold my 5x a while ago, never owned the non-HR 2.5x, just played with it a bit.

Some older posts here will lead you to believe that QVs are just reskinned M Plans, ie the QV 5x NA0.28 is a 10x M Plan NA0.28 but with "100mm" as the TL written on it. This is not true!!

Examples of 2.5x HR on a 200mm TL, making it 5x with an NA of 0.21.
You can see how there's vignetting in the corners and how it's distorted. Surprisingly, even though the single frame exposures show a lot of smear, the stacks make it pretty sharp and clean.

Comparison between a 5x M Plan (Edmund Optics). I don't own the 5x mit anymore. The QV is clearly better.

Posts: 2
Joined: Fri May 15, 2020 5:54 am
Location: Austria

Re: Mitutoyo QV 3d Usage

Post by skarabaeus »

Thanks for your information. The lenses should do their job in an insect scanner. Is the telecentric effect affected by a longer tube lens?
I would like to create similar 3d models as the DISC3D does and construct a device myself.
The Telezentic is important that you can measure the insects

I am very impressed by this project idea, but the mechanical design and the optics used in this construction seem to me to be improved.
When it came to the lenses, I thought of the QV or the Nikon Measuring, you can think of other telezentic lenses that would be suitable.

Chris S.
Site Admin
Posts: 3549
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 9:55 pm
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Mitutoyo QV 3d Usage

Post by Chris S. »

That article is well-worth a look--particularly the supplemental document that goes into wonderful detail on the how and why of each element in the design and processing.
skarabaeus wrote:
Fri Oct 23, 2020 8:53 am
I thought of the QV or the Nikon Measuring, you can think of other telezentic lenses that would be suitable.
I know little of the QV lenses, but have tested and used several Nikon Measuring (aka "Nikon MM" or "Measurescope") objectives. The Nikons are pretty nice, and on APS-C can be used with considerably shorter extensions than nominal, for reduced magnification. Their working distance is so long as to seem like cheating. Their downsides are relatively low numerical aperture for their nominal magnification, and the fact that they are acromats, rather than apochromats. (No idea whether or not the QV lenses are also acromats--though in a brief scan of Mitutoyo's literature, the word "apo" did not jump out, so my quick guess would be that they are not apo's.)

Edmund Optics lists a number of telecentric lenses. However, most are specified for smaller sensors than APS-C

--Chris S.

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic