New 1.4x Lens Test Results Online

[Lou Jost]

I'm glad the Scitex/Rodenstock 80mm was useful. There were three of them in each of my three Scitex scanners; my recollection was that they were made for a large reduction, so reversed I expect they are optimized for a magnification somewhat greater than 1.4x. I'll check the model numbers of the scanners, I've forgotten now.

[Lou Jost]

I wondered if the glass of the scanners might filter out the red, so I asked the owner for a piece of it. It does not have any color.

All the Scitex scanner lenses have that same red glow, to a greater or leser degree, with the 110mm having the least. It is curious that the glow is exactly the same color for all these lenses. I wonder if their light source was filtered or designed to clip the spectrum close to the near infrared.

[RobertOToole]

I'm glad the Scitex/Rodenstock 80mm was useful. There were three of them in each of my three Scitex scanners; my recollection was that they were made for a large reduction, so reversed I expect they are optimized for a magnification somewhat greater than 1.4x. I'll check the model numbers of the scanners, I've forgotten now.

Three of them....I thought the 5.6/80 was one of a set of different FL lenses! Interesting.

If I remember my notes correctly, probably not, I read someplace that the 80 Scitex was used for line-art only....so it was meant for a monochrome image.

[RobertOToole]

I wondered if the glass of the scanners might filter out the red, so I asked the owner for a piece of it. It does not have any color.

All the Scitex scanner lenses have that same red glow, to a greater or leser degree, with the 110mm having the least. It is curious that the glow is exactly the same color for all these lenses. I wonder if their light source was filtered or designed to clip the spectrum close to the near infrared.

Going from memory, that can be dangerous sometimes, the Scitex 320 used a splitter to divert the light into 3 colors each with a separate sensor, and at the front of the splitter clock was a filter. I have pics someplace. I think it was pink or reddish.

The Scitex Eversmart uses a pink colored notch mirror to filter out UV and IR.

[RobertOToole]

I wondered if the glass of the scanners might filter out the red, so I asked the owner for a piece of it. It does not have any color.

All the Scitex scanner lenses have that same red glow, to a greater or leser degree, with the 110mm having the least. It is curious that the glow is exactly the same color for all these lenses. I wonder if their light source was filtered or designed to clip the spectrum close to the near infrared.

Hey Lou,

What I should do is find the notes and start a Scitex 5.6/80 lens thread so we can split the topic so it will be easier to find later.

I think its an interesting topic.

Really the red filter from the magnagon should help reduce CAs on the Scitex 5.6/80?

[Lou Jost]

Yes that's right about the lens being used for monochrome work. So it is quite possible that the illuminator was not a full-spectrum light.

The set of three 80mm enlarger lenses was one of the things that distinguished my higher-end Scitex scanners from more common ones. Two of these scanners also contained the three different Scitex S-3 lenses. The oldest of the three scanners contained three different Scitex S-2 lenses instead of the S-3 lenses, along with the three 80mm lenses. It looked like the S-2 lenses had different coatings than the S-3 lenses, and the 110mm looks slightly different from the S-3 110mm, if I recall correctly.

[Lou Jost]

Really the red filter from the magnagon should help reduce CAs on the Scitex 5.6/80?

I did try a moderately good MidOpt hot mirror filter and I think it didn't make much difference. But now that I am doing a lot of infrared work, I have a better IR-cut filter from Lifepixel. I should try it.

One thing-- if your filter is colored red (as opposed to having red reflections), that should make things worse. My Lifepixel filter is slightly blue. That's what you need to cut out red fringes.

It might be interesting to start a Scitex thread where all the Scitex info could be gathered in one place, with links to our previous posts about them.

[lothman]

@Lothar

I hope I get my Nikon Scanner lens 45/2,8 mounted and can compare it against the Laowa 100mm macro.

Some of us will be curious about this comparison Laowa vs. Nikon 7-elements 45 mm -
Perhaps you can show your findings here when you have this, then ...

All the best,

Christian

I heard you , just order some black POM material for a holding bushing that I will glue into a drilled M42 body cap.

[RobertOToole]

I'm glad the Scitex/Rodenstock 80mm was useful. There were three of them in each of my three Scitex scanners; my recollection was that they were made for a large reduction, so reversed I expect they are optimized for a magnification somewhat greater than 1.4x. I'll check the model numbers of the scanners, I've forgotten now.

Found my notes on the Rodenstock Scitex 5.6/80.

Scitex used it for scanning 10cm strips at 0.346x forward mount (in reverse that would be 2.89x).

That explains the sharp center but weak corners at 1.4x. Tried the lens forward and backward for the test.

I'll start a Scitex post here on the forum and on my site soon.

Big News! Finished tearing down my Mity QV scope yesterday, only took 2 years of procrastinating, no wait...make that 2.5 years, found some interesting stuff. Will post lots of pics here in a day or two.

Best,

Robert

[Lou Jost]

Thanks for the info on the 80mm lens, I will have to try mine at those magnifications. I look forward to learning about the QV microscope.

[lothman]

I just finished my comparison at 1,4x Magnification. The Nikon Sscanner lens was mounted with that white dot facing to the object. Is that the correct orientation, because the results were not encouraging?
I tested the Laowa 100mm/2,8 Macro lens at 2,8, the Nikon 7 Element Scanner lens, and a tiny scanner lens from a Minolta F2400 scanner.

Overview

I stacked at 15µm steps and snipped a square from the sharpest image, see the yellow marked spots. Camera was fullframe Sony A7r4.







as I told before, the Laowa lenses are worth the money and much easier to handle.

regards
Lothar

[RobertOToole]

I just finished my comparison at 1,4x Magnification. The Nikon Sscanner lens was mounted with that white dot facing to the object. Is that the correct orientation, because the results were not encouraging?
I tested the Laowa 100mm/2,8 Macro lens at 2,8, the Nikon 7 Element Scanner lens, and a tiny scanner lens from a Minolta F2400 scanner.

Nikon.jpg

Overview
overview_.jpg

I stacked at 15µm steps and snipped a square from the sharpest image, see the yellow marked spots. Camera was fullframe Sony A7r4.

as I told before, the Laowa lenses are worth the money and much easier to handle.

regards
Lothar

Good looking lens mount Lothar. Custom machined I assume?

From memory both the Nikon 7 element 45mm lenses I have, one white dot, one pink dot, are best dot towards the camera sensor at magnifications, that is my memory is correct

Well done test but the results will be better for the Nikon the other way around.

Okay, double checked. Dot towards sensor for the Nikon 7 element, 45mm, for 1x + for best results.

Best,

Robert

[lothman]

Good looking lens mount Lothar. Custom machined I assume?

From memory both the Nikon 7 element 45mm lenses I have, one white dot, one pink dot, are best dot towards the camera sensor at magnifications, that is my memory is correct

Well done test but the results will be better for the Nikon the other way around.

Okay, double checked. Dot towards sensor for the Nikon 7 element, 45mm, for 1x + for best results.

Best,

Robert

Thanks Robert, yes custom machined but as a base I use a metal 42 body cap. Drilled in order to center the plastic bushing which then is glued on the M42 body cap.

So now I changed the dot facing towards the camera, what made a big difference but on full frame the extreme corners never get sharp. So for APS-C an excellent lens, but probably I will sell it.

[RobertOToole]

Good looking lens mount Lothar. Custom machined I assume?

From memory both the Nikon 7 element 45mm lenses I have, one white dot, one pink dot, are best dot towards the camera sensor at magnifications, that is my memory is correct

Well done test but the results will be better for the Nikon the other way around.

Okay, double checked. Dot towards sensor for the Nikon 7 element, 45mm, for 1x + for best results.

Best,

Robert

Thanks Robert, yes custom machined but as a base I use a metal 42 body cap. Drilled in order to center the plastic bushing which then is glued on the M42 body cap.

So now I changed the dot facing towards the camera, what made a big difference but on full frame the extreme corners never get sharp. So for APS-C an excellent lens, but probably I will sell it.

Good to know Lothar, thanks!

I have coverage for the 38mm 6-element Scanner-Nikkor stated at APS-C only but I am not sure what I have for the 45mm 7-element Scanner-Nikkor coverage on my site!

Your image is not coming up, but I tried the link and the image works with a browser app.

[rjlittlefield]

Your image is not coming up, but I tried the link and the image works with a browser app.

The problem here is that the host for the image, www.lolux.de, does not work with HTTPS (secure HTTP). There is some problem with its certificate.

The reason that's a problem is that some browsers, notably Chrome, now feel insecure about having ordinary HTTP URLs used within a page that was initially loaded with HTTPS. The result is that when you view this page at photomacrography.net using HTTPS, the browser automatically promotes Lothar's inline HTTP reference to HTTPS, which then doesn't work because of the certificate problem. If you open the inline reference in a new tab, then the whole new tab is just HTTP, and in that case Chrome does not promote the reference so everything works.

--Rik