New Lens Tests in April

[RobertOToole]

Lens test updates.

In addition to the list I posted last month: https://www.photomacrography.net/forum/ ... 25&t=43372&

I'm due to receive or have received even more that will be of interest to some people here:

Qioptiq d.fine 2.4/128 HR 3.33x lens with extras, all with Fedex now

Minolta CE Rokkor 2.8/30 lens (Japanese market 2.8/30 lens) with Fedex now

RafCamera adapters, 32 piece shipment, from a few different orders placed in one giant order, with Belpost EMS. Plan to test each one and write a mini-review for each. Important note; I paid full price for all the adapters, no freebies.

Rodenstock Eurygon 1:4/35mm Lens. With USPS.

Any tips of comments to any of the above? Post them below.

Testing now: Printing-NIKKOR 95mm F2.8A

Started testing some of the lenses from last month's list and am now working on maybe 5 lenses at once. The Printing-Nikkor 95mm will be first to finish, if anyone has any time to help, you can check out the early version of the page: https://www.closeuphotography.com/print ... -95mm-test and lend me a hand with any errors, tips, material or any advice on content. Spoiler alert: the PN95A is awesome, even at f/2.8!

Also one last thing, Fedex is slowing down even more over the last couple of weeks in Asia there is a shortage of flights so packages are running 7 to 14 days behind, that is with priority international! This is important since Fedex carries all USPS Express Mail International packages. I was told by two Fedex guys, if you are in a rush, use DHL, they have their own small jets so they are getting packages out a lot faster.

Thanks!

Best,

Robert

[ray_parkhurst]

Nice report on the 95PNA. I have to admit I was a little bit on the edge of my seat waiting for it, as I have been using them for many years as my go-to lens for 2x, and was wondering if you'd see something different. In my much earlier testing at 2.4x, the 95PN (not A) did not beat the 35MP. I no longer have that 95PN and thus can't compare it with my 95PNAs, so can't say if it was a problem with the lens or with the magnification being higher than the design optimum.

I find it interesting that you see f2.8 as the optimum for the lens. In my testing I saw no improvement in sharpness going from f3.3 to f2.8, but did see a slight reduction in overall contrast. My testing was not with a pixel-shifting camera though, so it's very likely I did not see the potential sharpness improvements due to the larger aperture. They're probably buried in the undersampling and other demosaicing issues on my camera. This confirms for me that I need to upgrade my camera to get the most out of the lens, which is not a surprise.

I only saw one typo...you wrote Nikon Kogaku rather than Nippon Kogaku.

Ray

[RobertOToole]

Nice report on the 95PNA.

I have to admit I was a little bit on the edge of my seat waiting for it, as I have been using them for many years as my go-to lens for 2x, and was wondering if you'd see something different. In my much earlier testing at 2.4x, the 95PN (not A) did not beat the 35MP. I no longer have that 95PN and thus can't compare it with my 95PNAs, so can't say if it was a problem with the lens or with the magnification being higher than the design optimum.

My first choice was the MP35 (Canon MacroPhoto 2.8/35) for this test but after I searching I realized that I sold my last copy when I noticed the prices were really high for some reason on eBay so I got rid of them. They were only $100-something at one point then zing....$350+. Almost like AMC or GME stock

I find it interesting that you see f2.8 as the optimum for the lens. In my testing I saw no improvement in sharpness going from f3.3 to f2.8, but did see a slight reduction in overall contrast. My testing was not with a pixel-shifting camera though, so it's very likely I did not see the potential sharpness improvements due to the larger aperture. They're probably buried in the undersampling and other demosaicing issues on my camera. This confirms for me that I need to upgrade my camera to get the most out of the lens, which is not a surprise.

F/3.3 wasn't any sharper with the micro-lettering at the test disk at least. Also right about pixel-shift, the results are really incredible with that lens.

I can't think of anything sharper that I own, that Optikos f/2 lens I have is super sharp but its rated at 2.8x and anything less the corners go a little soft so its not going to beat the PN95!

I only saw one typo...you wrote Nikon Kogaku rather than Nippon Kogaku.

I'll correct that now. Thanks for the feedback.

Best,

Robert

[RobertOToole]

Forgot one unit!

Noritsu 112-145 8-9.4 Printing Machine Lens

Solid well-made lens. Hard to go wrong for $10!

Anyone with any experience by an chance?

64.3mm major diameter mounting threads?

[Lou Jost]

Really interesting test. Thanks as always for this wonderful service to our community. You should get a medal (or a free lens crowd-sourced for you by us)!

There is one bit of important information that would be helpful to give. Given an eBay photo of the lens, how can you distinguish the "A" version from the older version?

Also, you said "According to the optical expert Marco Cavina, the Nikon RN is the forerunner and the basis for the design of the later new and improved Scanner-Nikkor ED and Printing-NIKKOR lenses." His statement seems wrong to me. I have had examples of all three of these, and the RN has no obvious similiarity to the PN and Scanner Nikkors. It is a 1x f/1.0 lens, three stops faster than the 1x PN 105, with a very short working distance compared to the PN 105, much less than the difference in focal lengths would suggest. On a Nikon body the rear element is almost right at the camera mount flange, and it is symmetric so the WD is also very short. The aerial image on mine (examined witha microscope objective) is sharper at f/2.0 than at 2.8, suggesting that it can outresolve the PN and Scanner Nikkors. At least in terms of resolution, the PN and SN are not "improved" over the RN. I should add, however, that my PN is actually sharper than my RN at 2.8 on a digital camera. I suspect the RN is not optimized for digital sensors and filter packs, and its design might be more susceptible to the presence of filter packs since its rear element is so close to the sensor.

[Bakwetu]

Thanks for a really nice review of a really interesting lens. Your ability to sniff out these marvellous lenses at good prices is really remarkable. Here are some things you might consider:

- The first image under the 2500pxl overview; the image with the text "100% View Crops Printing NIKKOR 95mm F2.8A with Sony A7R IV Pixel Shift Multi Shooting 4 Image Mode" - It might not be clear what this image is showing at first. I would clarify it better, perhaps with adding "Center of image above, at APSC corner and at the corner of the full frame." Most people will get it by reading the line under, but it is better if it is introduced directly by the image.

- Text to first image comparing PN with Macro-varon "It is interesting to note how they handle the colors differently. The colors out of the PN look fantastic. " This might be elaborated on a bit more, immidiately to me the colours of the PN and Macro-Varon seems similar?

Some aspects that would be interesting:
- You have previously named the Konica Minolta 5400 lens the king of 2X, so that comparison would obviously interesting to make. Will the 5400 lens be as sharp in the center, will it be much worse in the corners etc?

- Rayfact GF 80 mm is also very good at 2.1X and migth be interesting to compare with.

- How does The PN perform at 0.5X? It is certainly not as interesting as 2x, since there are so many great lenses at 1X and below, but mentioning something about it would be nice.

- I am seeing moiré in the rounded bronze parts of the image with the PN lens but not with the Macro Varon or the MP-E 65. I wonder why?

You talk about the decline in the number of glass types that are allowed these days and that is fine. Still there is the counterpoint that current lenses are really good and in many cases better or equal (like the Rayfact 2x to the PN 2X) to the old ones with prohibited glass.

[RobertOToole]

Hi Lou,

Really interesting test. Thanks as always for this wonderful service to our community. You should get a medal (or a free lens crowd-sourced for you by us)!

Thanks!

There is one bit of important information that would be helpful to give. Given an eBay photo of the lens, how can you distinguish the "A" version from the older version?

Great idea, I will add something on that in the text!

Older PN95 has a gold box with white and black Nikon logos and a rear metal cop. The lens itself and has a much shorter rear section. Easiest and most foolproof way is the serial. The first or early PN95 have a 300000 serial. A or late have 500000. Rayfact 2x have a 200000.

Or if you have access to an x-ray machine the A and Rayfact have a couple extra elements. 14 vs 12. (joke of course).

Also, you said "According to the optical expert Marco Cavina, the Nikon RN is the forerunner and the basis for the design of the later new and improved Scanner-Nikkor ED and Printing-NIKKOR lenses." His statement seems wrong to me. I have had examples of all three of these, and the RN has no obvious similiarity to the PN and Scanner Nikkors.

I am not sure how Marco Cavina does it but he has a lots of contacts in Japan and is friends with quite a few lens designers all over the world, I used to follow him on Facebook and he's amazing with all the info he shares. I have no idea how he does it!

In this case he is compared the designs. I believe the Repro lenses were made for specific mag ranges with zero distortion and even recommended for optical printing, similar to the Printing-Nikkor and even the number of elements is the same as the early PN lenses, 12 elements.

This is an ad for the 100mm Repro-Nikkor. One of these was listed in eBay for at least a year before selling. One of the forum guys here bought it.

It is a 1x f/1.0 lens, three stops faster than the 1x PN 105, with a very short working distance compared to the PN 105, much less than the difference in focal lengths would suggest. On a Nikon body the rear element is almost right at the camera mount flange, and it is symmetric so the WD is also very short. The aerial image on mine (examined witha microscope objective) is sharper at f/2.0 than at 2.8, suggesting that it can outresolve the PN and Scanner Nikkors. At least in terms of resolution, the PN and SN are not "improved" over the RN. I should add, however, that my PN is actually sharper than my RN at 2.8 on a digital camera. I suspect the RN is not optimized for digital sensors and filter packs, and its design might be more susceptible to the presence of filter packs since its rear element is so close to the sensor.

The biggest difference was the glass used. I can dig up the reference, its on Marco's site someplace. The PN uses all low-dispersion glass, except for the outer protective glass, the RN uses none, all normal crown and flint glass.

I'm jealous you have a Repro-Nikkor, all beautiful legacy designs, with amazing specs!

Nikon Museum has some on display and they look like gems of optical design.

Thanks for the helpful reply Lou!




Best,

Robert

[Lou Jost]

Robert, thanks a lot for the tip on recognizing the A version!!

The PN uses all low-dispersion glass, except for the outer protective glass, the RN uses none, all normal crown and flint glass.

Yes, I had forgotten that.

I'm jealous you have a Repro-Nikkor, all beautiful legacy designs, with amazing specs!

I actually found my RN on eBay for about the same price as an average PN. I do love it. Supposedly it required a lot of hand-work, and Nikon could only make one or two per month. I can see why a collector would want one. But they are also extraordinary optics!


Bakwetu:

I am seeing moiré in the rounded bronze parts of the image with the PN lens but not with the Macro Varon or the MP-E 65. I wonder why?

Robert mentioned that the resolution of the PN was greater than those other two lenses, so you would expect to see moire in the PN and not the other two. Moire in lens tests is generally a good sign!

[RobertOToole]

Thanks for a really nice review of a really interesting lens. Your ability to sniff out these marvellous lenses at good prices is really remarkable. Here are some things you might consider:

One thing you don't realize is all the huge misses or fouls I hit, believe me I don't always hit home runs. Just in the last week I missed a Minolta 5400 scanner for $100. Another also sold for less, I think $90!

Also a Fuji Quattro, high-end scanner that uses 4 lenses, sold for $300.

- The first image under the 2500pxl overview; the image with the text "100% View Crops Printing NIKKOR 95mm F2.8A with Sony A7R IV Pixel Shift Multi Shooting 4 Image Mode" - It might not be clear what this image is showing at first. I would clarify it better, perhaps with adding "Center of image above, at APSC corner and at the corner of the full frame." Most people will get it by reading the line under, but it is better if it is introduced directly by the image.

Got it, okay, will look at that now. Thanks.

- Text to first image comparing PN with Macro-varon "It is interesting to note how they handle the colors differently. The colors out of the PN look fantastic. " This might be elaborated on a bit more, immidiately to me the colours of the PN and Macro-Varon seems similar?

It could be my monitor but I get comments like this quite a lot. I've been staring at photos professionally for something like 16+ years so I tend to see things other people might miss.

The MacroVaron images are processed at the same time with same setting with the same actions in Photoshop and has a more neutral colors.

Some aspects that would be interesting:
- You have previously named the Konica Minolta 5400 lens the king of 2X, so that comparison would obviously interesting to make. Will the 5400 lens be as sharp in the center, will it be much worse in the corners etc?

Good question. I do plan to compare the two. I think the PN will have a slight edge in center and corners.

- Rayfact GF 80 mm is also very good at 2.1X and migth be interesting to compare with.

Thought about that also but the GF is so rare I'm not sure how interesting to others.

- How does The PN perform at 0.5X? It is certainly not as interesting as 2x, since there are so many great lenses at 1X and below, but mentioning something about it would be nice.

I do plan to show some examples and comparison photos at 0.5x. Also I will do some normal photography at 1/2 life-size.

- I am seeing moiré in the rounded bronze parts of the image with the PN lens but not with the Macro Varon or the MP-E 65. I wonder why?

Yes, thats Color moiré. You will get that with repetitive patterns of high spatial frequencies and is the result of aliasing in Bayer CFAs. Pixel-shift will clear that up, also stopping down will lower the resolution and clear it up also. The sharpest lenses are more prone to Color moiré, lots of scanner lenses I've tested have this issue with the patterns on wafers.

Thanks, I will add a note to the PN95 page!

You talk about the decline in the number of glass types that are allowed these days and that is fine. Still there is the counterpoint that current lenses are really good and in many cases better or equal (like the Rayfact 2x to the PN 2X) to the old ones with prohibited glass.

Modern lenses are a lot more complex, larger and more expensive and take more processing power to design. I paid something like $2700 for my first 2.8/300 telephoto new (Canon USM III L 2.8/300) and have you seen the latest prices, they are almost $6,000 USD now. So take the DiMAGE Minolta 5400 lens. I don't think a new startup company could copy the 5400 lens, use new glass types, offer similar performance for anywhere near the same $899 Minolta DiMAGE 5400 sold for in 2003? I don't think so.

I'm not sure Rayfact 2x really is a new glass design. I've read that Zeiss and others have waiver exemptions in place for certain glass types for special objectives and lenses. It's not like the Japanese Corporations are world leaders in following ECO related guidelines. Maybe that is why the Rayfact 2x was discontinued in 2019. It sounds good in press releases but I would not be surprised to hear the PN95A and Rayfact 2x are the same lenses with different badges.

Thanks for taking time to write the nice comments!

Best,

Robert

[RobertOToole]

...and Nikon could only make one or two per month. I can see why a collector would want one. But they are also extraordinary optics!...

Found a pricelist from 1977 (thanks to Marco Cavina) and the Repro-Nikkor 85mm list price was $2260 USD.

$2,200 in 1977 is worth $9,616.00 today!

Best,

Robert

[Lou Jost]

I got mine for slightly less than what it cost in 1977, in mint condition, from a US owner. There were a lot of beat-up ones from eastern Europe appearing on eBay for a while, but I don't often see mint ones for sale. I waited years for a good one to show up. There appear to be none on eBay now.

[Lou Jost]

The real champions of high-markdown lenses are the stepper lenses. Marco writes that some of those used to cost hundreds of thousands of dollars but are now just a few hundred dollars.

[RobertOToole]

The real champions of high-markdown lenses are the stepper lenses. Marco writes that some of those used to cost hundreds of thousands of dollars but are now just a few hundred dollars.

Yes, exactly right.

Here are some interesting ones, again thanks to Marco Cavina (http://www.marcocavina.com/)

In 1977 US dollars:

Ultra-Micro-Nikkor 4/250 e-line: $10,850. $10,850 USD in 1977 is worth $47,424.35 today
Ultra-Micro-Nikkor 1.2/30 e-line: $9414.
Ultra-Micro-Nikkor 1.2/30 h-line: $10,394.
Ultra-Micro-Nikkor 4/155: e-line $8,850.

The Ultra-Micro-Nikkor 1.8/50: e-line is a bargain at only $2714. USD. ($2,714 in 1977 is worth $11,862.64 today)

Best,

Robert

[Lou Jost]

But those are the "cheap" early generation ones. The later-generation 1980's Zeiss versions with high NA and large image circles (for their time) were the ones Marco said were hundreds of thousands of dollars back then!!! I think you have one.

[chris_ma]

great write up Robert!
will give it another read more time, but didn't spot any obvious gotchas.

thanks for all the nice details.