200mm Tube Lens Full Frame Test

[RobertOToole]

Hi Guys,

Just returned from an eventful 20 day overseas trip last week and have had some time to work on some projects. This test is the first of a series:

200mm Tube Lens Test (5x M Plan APO + A7RIV)
240mm Tube Lens Test (5x Mag.x LD Plan + A7RIV)
Mitutoyo HR 5x Test (A7RIV)
Mitutoyo HR QV 2.5x Test (A7RIV)
Mitutoyo HR 5x vs 5x Magx LD Plan (A7RIV)

I'll post the 200mm test results in a few min. I'm finishing up the test report on my site right now.

Comments, questions welcome.

Best,

Robert

[RobertOToole]

Forgot to ask if anyone has time to proof read the page, I would appreciate it.

https://www.closeuphotography.com/200mm-tube-lens-test

PM me for the pass, or you can use the same pass from previous pages



Thanks!

[typestar]

Hi Robert,

nice to see a new tube lens-test here. Thankyou again for this!
And again a surprising result for the "simple" Raynox!

This helps many of the readers here saving there hard earned money.
(Let's hope Raynox, will not push the price for their 150 lens - if they have silent readers here)

Proof read the 200 mm Tube Lens Full Frame test.
from my (non-native-speaker) side, so far found no typos.

All the best,

Christian

[RobertOToole]

Hi Robert,

nice to see a new tube lens-test here. Thankyou again for this!
And again a surprising result for the "simple" Raynox!

This helps many of the readers here saving there hard earned money.
(Let's hope Raynox, will not push the price for their 150 lens - if they have silent readers here)

Proof read the 200 mm Tube Lens Full Frame test.
from my (non-native-speaker) side, so far found no typos.

All the best,

Christian

Hi Christian,

Don't give away too much the test isn't public yet. I'll post the results here tonight or tomorrow. Just checking for errors and maybe adding some photos now.

Plan to start the 240mm tube lens test tomorrow. Just waiting for a 72mm to 95mm step up ring that I need to clear the rear element cell on the Rodagon G 240mm that I have high hopes for but I have a feeling a low-dollar more simple lens will do better. Rodagon Gs are very rare and sell for high prices, similar to Componon-G lenses, so I would rather not use if as a tube lens but maybe the performance will be a surprise.
Best,

Robert

[lothman]

Hello Robert,

again I ow you a beer for another excellent test.
regards
Lothar

[Medwar]

Thank you Robert!

Have I got it right that you are going to compare
Mitutoyo 5x HR 0.21 on 200mm TL
vs
Mitutoyo 2.5x QV HR 0.21 on 100mm TL
vs
5x Magx LD Plan 0.20
and maybe also vs
Mitutoyo 7.5x 0.21 on 200mm TL?

It would be an ultra-interesting test because all of them have almost the same NA and the result will depend on their optical design and condition.

[Scarodactyl]

I don't think there's much point in testing a QV objective on a 100mm tube lens (at least in particular, over testing a normal m plan apo on a 100mm). They're only specced that way for the tiny sensors in quickvision systems.
I'm really interested in the results. I believe that the qv 1x is an essentially unaltered m plan apo 2x on a spacer based on my testing, and given that all qv objectives have a direct m plan apo equivalent I kind of wonder if there actually is a design differance in any of them (amd if they're a new design why glue a spacer on instead of just making them longer?). 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.

[RobertOToole]

Thank you Robert!

Have I got it right that you are going to compare
Mitutoyo 5x HR 0.21 on 200mm TL
vs
Mitutoyo 2.5x QV HR 0.21 on 100mm TL
vs
5x Magx LD Plan 0.20
and maybe also vs
Mitutoyo 7.5x 0.21 on 200mm TL?

It would be an ultra-interesting test because all of them have almost the same NA and the result will depend on their optical design and condition.

Yes. I'm going to be very careful and shoot the same target for each and post the results as separate tests but it should be easy to compare image. I'm handling the disk carefully to avoid dropping and shattering the disk or snapping it in two while cleaning it.

Also I plan to try the QV with 100 and 200mm tubes, maybe 150mm also.

Best,

Robert

[RobertOToole]

I don't think there's much point in testing a QV objective on a 100mm tube lens (at least in particular, over testing a normal m plan apo on a 100mm). They're only specced that way for the tiny sensors in quickvision systems.

Yes, right. I don't have a link but I posted a quick report the system was designed to cover an 11mm diagonal Sony CCD camera! The 3 tube lenses inside were absolutely tiny (and the 2x tube lens had been serviced, all the retainer rings had marks).

I'm really interested in the results. I believe that the qv 1x is an essentially unaltered m plan apo 2x on a spacer based on my testing, and given that all qv objectives have a direct m plan apo equivalent I kind of wonder if there actually is a design differance in any of them (amd if they're a new design why glue a spacer on instead of just making them longer?). 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.

I'm looking forward to testing the QV. I did have the plain QV 1x for a short time, it was included with the QV scope, and I gave it quick look but the IC was not even large enough for APS-C coverage.

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

[Scarodactyl]

The mitutoyo 2x/qv 1x is a bit unfortunate. I wonder if the slightly dofferent longer working distance version is any better, or maybe the 1x, but I guess I don't wonder enough to shell out for one. Still, CA and all the 2x is still really useful to me as a finder on my nosepiece and for shots where corners don't matter.
I haven't tried the Nikon 2x but I did have an Olympus 2x planapo for a bit which was pretty good if I remember right, similar story with the mplanapo 2.5x. I didn't do a head to head but my test photos on aps-c seem to indicate very decent corners, easily a million times better than the mitutoyo IQwise. I'm very curious about the Nikon, they've managed down to 0.5x with a little optical cheating which impresses me.

[Medwar]

I don't think there's much point in testing a QV objective on a 100mm tube lens

Thank you for correction! You are right - I've made a stupid mistake here.
Of course I meant testing QV 2.5 also with 200mm TL, to adjust the mag to 5x, because the 'nominal' TL length for QV is 100mm.

[Medwar]

Also I plan to try the QV with 100 and 200mm tubes, maybe 150mm also.

Thank you so much! That is even better. The test is going to be a bomb.

[Duke]

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?

[RobertOToole]

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?

Privet Duke,

Thats good to know on the Mikroplanar. I had a single unit and my sample the IQ wasn't as good as I was hoping. The 150 is better you say. Thanks. I should try one!

Did not test the Plan APO yet but I have a borrowed copy waiting here. I will get to it in a week or so. I'm finishing up a 240mm Tube Lens Test now.

Best,

Robert

[RobertOToole]

Also I plan to try the QV with 100 and 200mm tubes, maybe 150mm also.

Thank you so much! That is even better. The test is going to be a bomb.

Yes, all thanks to a good friend to loan me a 2.5x HR QV. I've been looking at testing the QV HR for a long time!

Best,

Robert