200mm Tube Lens Full Frame Test

[Lou Jost]

I briefly had a normal qv 2.5x earlier this year (setting up a system for someone on a budget). I didn't get to run a head to head against a 5x but the image quality was sure reminiscent of a 5x to the eye.

My QV objective is great, slightly better than my copy of the corresponding normal Matu. I used to dislike them because it seemed so cheesy to just change the tube lens label and call it a different objective.

[RobertOToole]

I briefly had a normal qv 2.5x earlier this year (setting up a system for someone on a budget). I didn't get to run a head to head against a 5x but the image quality was sure reminiscent of a 5x to the eye.

My QV objective is great, slightly better than my copy of the corresponding normal Matu. I used to dislike them because it seemed so cheesy to just change the tube lens label and call it a different objective.

At least Schneider doesn't hide the fact that they like to re-use or re-badge lens designs.

On my website I have an example of Schneider re-using the standard 50mm 6 element 4 group recipe, for different lenses, the 50mm enlarger, 50mm line-scan and 50mm xenoplan. There are actually more maybe 5 or 6 that I know of, all 50mm lenses, all same optics. Yesterday I found a 50mm Componon-S HM for sale, why the HM label? I would bet money that its just the normal 6 element 4 group 50mm recipe as the others.

Sony just released a new 70-200 lens, it looks like the sharpest 70200 ever made. Less elements and lighter than the last model. Completely new design. List price is $2700!!

(https://www.lenstip.com/617.4-Lens_revi ... ution.html)

(Nikon Z 70-200 for comparison: https://www.lenstip.com/616.4-Lens_revi ... ution.html)

[Scarodactyl]

I do wonder if the QVs receive different QC if nothing else.

[mjkzz]

I briefly had a normal qv 2.5x earlier this year (setting up a system for someone on a budget). I didn't get to run a head to head against a 5x but the image quality was sure reminiscent of a 5x to the eye.

My QV objective is great, slightly better than my copy of the corresponding normal Matu. I used to dislike them because it seemed so cheesy to just change the tube lens label and call it a different objective.

I thought QV series are suppose to be telecentric while a normal Mitty is not, so I am not sure if it is fair to call it a re-labelled normal Mitty, unless of course, it is known to be structurally identical for FACT. To me, a novice in optical stuff, a slight change in design must have reasons behind it.

[JLyle]

Just wondering the status of the 200mm Tube lens test. Is it done yet?

Lyle

[RobertOToole]

Just wondering the status of the 200mm Tube lens test. Is it done yet?

Lyle

Hi Lyle,

Thanks for the interest. I just added some final corrections today and need to add one or two photos and its all done. I'll send a note.

Best,

Robert

[dolmadis]

BTW, any experience with the late model Nikon Plan APO 2x 0.1? Have one of those here, a loaner, its a good looking lens.

Best,

Robert

I do own one of those. It's a nice lens for microscopy, certainly, but for macrophotoghaphy there's much overall better and cheaper options. For once it's not that terribly sharp as it should be, very close to mikroplanar f=100mm @f/4.5 N. A.=0.11, which has ~10 times more (80mm vs 8.5mm) working distance, aperture diaphragm and much better coverage (medium or even large format film) for 75$, even better Korrektar f=150mm @ f/5.6 is so sharp eyes actually hurt.
But that's me, did you test it, what is your opinion on this lens?

Duke, Could I query the Korrektar f=150mm @ f/5.6 please. Googling I can only find examples at f/6.3. I always have problems with Soviet lenses so .......help !!

Thanks, John

[Duke]

Duke, Could I query the Korrektar f=150mm @ f/5.6 please. Googling I can only find examples at f/6.3. I always have problems with Soviet lenses so .......help !!

Thanks, John

It is the same lens. Older lenses made by Progress optical factory Label: Singlet Plano-Convex Lens KorrectOr F-150/5.6 newer LOMO KorrektAr F-150/6.3.
Both are identical. The thing with the lenses on both Microplanar F-100 and Korrektar F-150 diaphragm opens beyond the maximum value on the scale, so fully open they are ~f/4.0 and ~f/5.6.
Regardless, you should be aware that IQ varies greatly from copy to copy, some may be better than the others, please consider thoroughly and don't buy every lens mentioned here on impulse, even if it may be very tempting.
At lest wait a little while, I'll try to post some test images next week.

[dolmadis]

Duke

Thank you. I will be interested to see the example images and perhaps how to get a tested and verified copy.

Best, John

[Duke]

Duke

Thank you. I will be interested to see the example images and perhaps how to get a tested and verified copy.

Best, John

Posted as separate topic:
viewtopic.php?f=25&t=44140
Only 5 images per day are allowed, so no Nikon CFN Plan 2x 0.05 160/- or Plan 2.5x 0.075 210/0 or my many other 2x today.

[Pau]

Only 5 images per day are allowed, so no Nikon CFN Plan 2x 0.05 160/- or Plan 2.5x 0.075 210/0 or my many other 2x today.

This rule (actually 6 images) applies to image galleries fora but not to technical ones

Take a look at the Posting Guidelines viewtopic.php?p=518#p518

The image posting limit for all Image Galleries is six (6) images during the course of one (1) calendar day. You can post one topic containing all six images, or three topics with two images each, or any other combination within the specified limits.

*Note: There is no limit for image postings in the technical discussion forums, as long as the images are specifically referenced in the discussions.

[RobertOToole]

I briefly had a normal qv 2.5x earlier this year (setting up a system for someone on a budget). I didn't get to run a head to head against a 5x but the image quality was sure reminiscent of a 5x to the eye.

Quick update then back to work!

My QV objective is great, slightly better than my copy of the corresponding normal Matu. I used to dislike them because it seemed so cheesy to just change the tube lens label and call it a different objective.

I have some information relating to the QV HR objective at least. The QV HR 2.5, the HR objective is a different optic entirely than the QV, M Plan or APO HR.

Spent a solid 2 hrs yesterday testing and the results revealed some very interesting facts, a few were a nice surprise and one was a really big, I don't want to overstate or exaggerate but.... I was shocked.

I don't want to give anymore away but that APO HR 5x is something else, one of the most amazing optics I've tested.

Tested yesterday:

Mitutoyo APO HR 5x on 200mm tube lens
Mitutoyo M Plan 5x on 200mm tube lens
Mitutoyo QV HR 2.5x on 200mm tube lens

This is my progress so far, as of today:

Mitutoyo HR/QV HR Test: shooting finished
200mm Tube Lens Test: 95% finished
240mm Tube Lens Test: 80% finished

Best,

Robert

[RobertOToole]

Test is finally up and public:

https://www.closeuphotography.com/blog/ ... -test-2021

Coming next:

240mm Tube Lens Test is 80% finished.

Mitutoyo APO HR and QV HR test shooting is done.

Any questions or comments share them below or message me.

Thanks.

Robert

[Scarodactyl]

These results are really handy since I'll be putting a system together soonish for a friend with a full frame camera. I was going to get one of the itl200 clones but it sounds like it would be more money for less corner performance. I wonder if it holds up that way across the whole suite of mitutoyos--I'll try to take some test pics when I have his scope together.

[Lou Jost]

Scarodactyl, I think it is important to consider how the tube lens will be used. Will you be able to put it in the position Robert's tests recommend? If you use epi-illuminators or fluorescence heads, there are serious restrictions on where to put the tube lens. The tube lens will have to perform well even if mounted very far from the objective, perhaps farther than the distance Robert found to be best. The ITL200 is designed for exactly these kinds of long distances.

It has always seemed strange that in many of our applications, cheap simple tube lenses like the Raynox are better than the expensive purpose-built tube lenses of the best microscope objective makers. I think that there has to be a reason for that. I suspect the reason is simply that the "casual" tube lenses don't have the design constraints that a real general-purpose microscope tube lens must obey. In most of our tests and most of our applications, we aren't asking our "casual" tube lenses to work well when placed far from the objective; we're putting them at whatever distance they work best, usually not very far from the objective. However, purpose-built tube lenses have to work from far away. Sacrifices will have to be made in the design. That needs to be kept in mind when choosing a tube lens for epi or fluorescence work, where the total thickness of turret, turret mount, and illuminator can be substantial.