Qioptiq d.fine HR 2.4/128 3.33x Lens Test is Online

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

Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau

RobertOToole
Posts: 2627
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:34 pm
Location: United States
Contact:

Qioptiq d.fine HR 2.4/128 3.33x Lens Test is Online

Post by RobertOToole »

_Qioptiq-d.fine-HR-2.4-128mm-3.33x-Line-Scan-Lens-www-Closeuphotography-com.jpg
The Qioptiq d.fine HR 2.4/128 3.33x Lens test is online. The full test: https://www.closeuphotography.com/dfine-hr-lens


d.fine KEY FEATURES

-Fast f/2.4 maximum aperture

-Apochromatic design

-New diffraction-limited optical design

-82mm image circle

-Thread mounts + V-mount front and rear

-Flat image field with no corner shading

-All metal barrel with locking aperture ring

Test notes:

-Image quality is at an extremely high level

-The level of correction is similar to that of a Printing-Nikkor !

-Area scan module is available to use the lens with normal lighting

-Lens is designed to use either the area scan module or coaxial prism

-High end fit and finish

_Rodagon-inspec.x-Qioptiq-Linos-d-fine-HR-2.4-128-3.33x-Line-Scan-Lens-www-Closeuphotography-com.jpg

3.4X TEST: LINOS D.FINE HR VS NIKON RAYFACT 3.5X
_Qioptiq-Linos-d-fine-HR-and-Nikon-Rayfact-3.5x-Line-Scan-Lens-www-Closeuphotography-com.jpg

3.4x TEST SET-UP

3.4x is within the recommended magnification range for both lenses. The lenses are made for fine pattern inspection of FPDs ( Flat Panel Display ), and PCBs ( Printed Circuit Boards ) with large format 12K and 16K, 3.5 - 5μm, line sensor cameras.

The dfHR lens is a much newer design with a larger image circle, Ø 82 vs Ø 64mm. The Rayfact 3.5x when available new (now out of production) was about 43% more expensive than the dfHR, $10,000 USD compared to only $7,000 USD (new). On the used market the Rayfact 3.5x is much less now, expect to pay about $1500+ USD. The biggest difference between the two is in chromatic correction, the dfHR is an apochromatic design where the Rayfact is not as well corrected.

Qioptiq LINOS d.fine HR Set-up
image arrow towards sensor
maximum f/2.4 effective f/8.16

Nikon Rayfact 3.5x Set-up
small diameter end towards the subject
maximum f/2.4 effective f/8.16

Camera: Sony α7R IV, Sony Alpha ILCE-A7R IV (A7R4)
Sensor size: Full Frame. 35.7mm x 23.8mm. 42.91 mm diagonal. 3.76 micron sensor pitch
Flash: Godox TT350s wireless flash x 2 with one Godox X1s 2.4G wireless flash transmitter
Vertical stand: Nikon MM-11 with a Nikon focus block

The sharpest frame was then selected out of a stack of images made in 4 micron steps. Separate images were selected for center, edge, and corner if needed. Each image was processed in PS CC with identical settings with all noise reduction and lens correction turned off, all settings were zeroed out (true zero) and the same settings were used for all of the images. All of the images shown here are single files.

__-outlines-Qioptiq-Linos-d-fine-HR-2.4-128-3.33x-Line-Scan-Lens-www-Closeuphotography-com.jpg

Click on the link below each image to see a larger version.

Center 100% View

_Center-crop-Qioptiq-Linos-d-fine-HR-2.4-128-3.33x-Line-Scan-Lens-vs-Rayfact-3.5x-at-3.4x-www-Closeuphotography-com.jpg
https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/cont ... rmat=2500w


APSC Corner 100% View


_APSC-corner-crop-Qioptiq-Linos-d-fine-HR-2.4-128-3.33x-Line-Scan-Lens-vs-Rayfact-3.5x-at-3.4x-www-Closeuphotography-com.jpg
https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/cont ... rmat=2500w



Full Frame Corner 100% View

_FF-corner-crop-Qioptiq-Linos-d-fine-HR-2.4-128-3.33x-Line-Scan-Lens-vs-Rayfact-3.5x-at-3.4x-www-Closeuphotography-com.jpg
https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/cont ... rmat=2500w


This is a quick summary of the test but be sure to see the full test for more details and other results (d.fine vs Rayfact vs Mitutoyo 5x M Plan pushed down). https://www.closeuphotography.com/dfine-hr-lens

FINAL VERDICT

The d.fine HR 2.4/128 3.33x gets my highest recommendation. The performance was sensational, the image quality was on a level that I’ve rarely seen, similar to the level of correction of a Printing-NIKKOR!

The Rayfact 3.5x sharpness was fantastic but the chromatic aberrations were not on the same level of the dfHR. The Rayfact 3.5x is no longer available and has replaced by the Rayfact 3.5S, I would assume the newer design has improved performance and would probably be a closer match for the d.fine.

Thanks to all the people on the forum that helped me with ideas, and proofreading! Also big thanks to Qioptiq for making the test even possible! =D>

Questions, comments wecome.

Best,

Robert

Lou Jost
Posts: 5944
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2015 7:03 am
Location: Ecuador
Contact:

Re: Qioptiq d.fine HR 2.4/128 3.33x Lens Test is Online

Post by Lou Jost »

it is very exciting to see such a perfect lens. I hope that before I die it will appear on the used market.

In your website's review, you mentioned that the new lens was designed to take into account the sensor filter pack thickness, and you said:
Technically this should give a newer lens an advantage over older legacy designs. I said technically since it doesn’t seem to matter to some lenses like the Printing-NIKKORs, but some lenses are affected by a variety of factors .
The sensor thickness makes a difference only below f/2.8. The dFine lens at f/2.4 would be sensitive to this, but PN lenses at f/2.8 and above are not. The Rayfact 3x f/2.4 should be as sensitive as the dFine, and maybe this explains some of the minor defects of this Rayfact.

chris_ma
Posts: 570
Joined: Fri Mar 22, 2019 2:23 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Qioptiq d.fine HR 2.4/128 3.33x Lens Test is Online

Post by chris_ma »

Incredibly detailed test, thanks for the full write up.

Concerning cover glass: at this focal length and magnification there is about 50cm of extension, which means the rays hit the sensor nearly at a right angle, so maybe this causes fewer problems. (I remember vaguely that using leica M lenses on sony alpha cameras causes the most problems with lenses of short focal length)
chris

RobertOToole
Posts: 2627
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:34 pm
Location: United States
Contact:

Re: Qioptiq d.fine HR 2.4/128 3.33x Lens Test is Online

Post by RobertOToole »

Lou Jost wrote:
Sun Jun 06, 2021 2:22 pm
it is very exciting to see such a perfect lens. I hope that before I die it will appear on the used market.

In your website's review, you mentioned that the new lens was designed to take into account the sensor filter pack thickness, and you said:
Technically this should give a newer lens an advantage over older legacy designs. I said technically since it doesn’t seem to matter to some lenses like the Printing-NIKKORs, but some lenses are affected by a variety of factors .
The sensor thickness makes a difference only below f/2.8. The dFine lens at f/2.4 would be sensitive to this, but PN lenses at f/2.8 and above are not. The Rayfact 3x f/2.4 should be as sensitive as the dFine, and maybe this explains some of the minor defects of this Rayfact.
Yes, also as I mention in the test that the 3.5x Rayfact was designed to be used for a prism (Sold as an accessory) for coaxial lighting, but no area scan attachment, so some of the CAs might be due to this where is the new 3.5S lens has a beamsplitter version of the lens available as a separate optic.

Best,

RobertOToole
Posts: 2627
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:34 pm
Location: United States
Contact:

Re: Qioptiq d.fine HR 2.4/128 3.33x Lens Test is Online

Post by RobertOToole »

chris_ma wrote:
Sun Jun 06, 2021 2:59 pm
Incredibly detailed test, thanks for the full write up.

Concerning cover glass: at this focal length and magnification there is about 50cm of extension, which means the rays hit the sensor nearly at a right angle, so maybe this causes fewer problems. (I remember vaguely that using leica M lenses on sony alpha cameras causes the most problems with lenses of short focal length)

I agree, correct, but there are other issues. Last week on a flight to Minneapolis, I watched some youtube video interview with a Zeiss optical designer where he mentions a critical issue with digital is moving the ghost image away from the sensor glass to avoid reflections that didn't happen with film. Interesting! First thing I thought of is the MacroVaron! Other designs like the Printing-Nikkors seem to not even require any flocking for deep blacks. :shock:

Best,

Robert

ray_parkhurst
Posts: 3415
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 10:40 am
Location: Santa Clara, CA, USA
Contact:

Re: Qioptiq d.fine HR 2.4/128 3.33x Lens Test is Online

Post by ray_parkhurst »

Nice test results, and it's great to see performance of a lens that is so far only available to those with deep pockets, not to those of us who must buy surplus.

I assume from the text that both lenses were shot wide open at f2.4. In my own testing of the RF3.5x, I found that f2.8 had improved sharpness and CA performance vs f2.4. I think that @Jonathan Sager also found the same thing with his own copy of the lens. I'd expect some of the subtle CAs shown in your report may improve at f2.8.

My testing also showed that even though the RF3.5x is rated at 62mm, it is actually good out at least to 82mm. In fact I saw a slight improvement in performance at 82mm! This may vary from copy to copy though since it's questionable if the lenses were verified by Rayfact to this extreme given it's beyond the spec limits.

RobertOToole
Posts: 2627
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:34 pm
Location: United States
Contact:

Re: Qioptiq d.fine HR 2.4/128 3.33x Lens Test is Online

Post by RobertOToole »

Thanks for the notes/comments Ray.
ray_parkhurst wrote:
Mon Jun 14, 2021 5:05 pm
Nice test results, and it's great to see performance of a lens that is so far only available to those with deep pockets, not to those of us who must buy surplus.
This is true right now but, the lens was just releases last year and the area scan module March this year, so maybe these might pop up on the used market from Korea or China, fingers crossed?

There are not many lenses are in this same class, closest would be the Xenon-Diamond.
I assume from the text that both lenses were shot wide open at f2.4. In my own testing of the RF3.5x, I found that f2.8 had improved sharpness and CA performance vs f2.4. I think that @Jonathan Sager also found the same thing with his own copy of the lens. I'd expect some of the subtle CAs shown in your report may improve at f2.8.
Yes, f/2.4. All the apertures from 2.4 to 4.0 had red/purple CAs with the Rayfact but there was a little less at 2.8 but also a little less sharpness. F/4 was a little better even but sharpness dropped off more.

Normally I shoot multiple apertures and both reverse and normal as a habit and I did this with the Rayfact 3.5x. Even a lens that I've tested more than a few times, like the MP-E 65, I will still shoot at multiple apertures to be sure.

__-Aperture-comp-Nikon-Rayfact-3.5x-OFM35162MN-Line-Scan-Lens-www-Closeuphotography-com.jpg


My testing also showed that even though the RF3.5x is rated at 62mm, it is actually good out at least to 82mm. In fact I saw a slight improvement in performance at 82mm! This may vary from copy to copy though since it's questionable if the lenses were verified by Rayfact to this extreme given it's beyond the spec limits.
Good to know.

Some of the Schneider lenses come with a spec for 12K and another for 16K, usually a smaller IC. I think its amazing what some of these lenses can do considering the huge image circle!

ray_parkhurst
Posts: 3415
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 10:40 am
Location: Santa Clara, CA, USA
Contact:

Re: Qioptiq d.fine HR 2.4/128 3.33x Lens Test is Online

Post by ray_parkhurst »

Looks just like what I saw at the center. The 82mm "corner" had more improvement, and actually looked a bit sharper at f2.8 than at f2.4, which is why I chose f2.8 for my testing.

This also shows why I was dissatisfied with the 105IXL3p5, since the diffraction limitation is already very noticeable at f4.

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic