Mitutoyo M Plan APO HR 5X 0.21 Test Results

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

Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau

lothman
Posts: 959
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2009 7:00 am
Location: Stuttgart/Germany

Re: Mitutoyo M Plan APO HR 5X 0.21 Test Results

Post by lothman »

rjlittlefield wrote:
Fri Nov 12, 2021 1:02 am
For the sake of discussion, can you say exactly what it means for an objective to "match" a sensor?
I understood it, that a 5x NA 0,14 taken on a 35 MPix fullframe sampled down looks better than 2,5x 0,21 taken on a 24MPix APS-C

rjlittlefield
Site Admin
Posts: 23564
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
Contact:

Re: Mitutoyo M Plan APO HR 5X 0.21 Test Results

Post by rjlittlefield »

lothman wrote:
Fri Nov 12, 2021 10:19 am
rjlittlefield wrote:
Fri Nov 12, 2021 1:02 am
For the sake of discussion, can you say exactly what it means for an objective to "match" a sensor?
I understood it, that a 5x NA 0,14 taken on a 35 MPix fullframe sampled down looks better than 2,5x 0,21 taken on a 24MPix APS-C
I doubt that Macro_Cosmos meant that, because he specifically wrote "a 5x NA0.14 and a 5x NA0.21 objective" (not a 2,5x NA0.21).

If you do want to make the comparison that you write about, then you also need to specify how you want to handle the different FOV's. 5X on FF is FOV 7.2 mm, 2.5X on APS-C is FOV about 10.4 mm.

So, do you want to crop the APS-C to 7.2 mm FOV also? If so, then that crop will reduce the APS-C pixel count to about 12.3 Mpix.

Or do you want to push up the 2.5X NA 0.21 to be 3.49X NA 0.21, spreading 7.2 mm FOV across the whole APS-C sensor?

Or do you want to leave the images at different FOV's, and define "looks better" in terms of image quality over different subject areas?

--Rik

lothman
Posts: 959
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2009 7:00 am
Location: Stuttgart/Germany

Re: Mitutoyo M Plan APO HR 5X 0.21 Test Results

Post by lothman »

rjlittlefield wrote:
Fri Nov 12, 2021 12:22 pm
I doubt that Macro_Cosmos meant that, because he specifically wrote "a 5x NA0.14 and a 5x NA0.21 objective" (not a 2,5x NA0.21).
but in the sample image it is written 2,5 HR NA0,21 and not 5x

rjlittlefield
Site Admin
Posts: 23564
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
Contact:

Re: Mitutoyo M Plan APO HR 5X 0.21 Test Results

Post by rjlittlefield »

lothman wrote:
Fri Nov 12, 2021 2:37 pm
rjlittlefield wrote:
Fri Nov 12, 2021 12:22 pm
I doubt that Macro_Cosmos meant that, because he specifically wrote "a 5x NA0.14 and a 5x NA0.21 objective" (not a 2,5x NA0.21).
but in the sample image it is written 2,5 HR NA0,21 and not 5x
True, but the tube lens FL is not specified. The Mitutoyo QV HR 2.5X NA 0.21 is designed for use with 100 mm tube lens, while the other lens uses 200 mm tube lens.

If he simply tested both lenses on the same setup, with 200 mm tube lens, then the image labels would be consistent with his words: 5X NA 0.14 and 5X NA 0.21, compared on the same sensor.

--Rik

Duke
Posts: 100
Joined: Tue May 12, 2020 10:06 am
Location: Leningrad, USSR
Contact:

Re: Mitutoyo M Plan APO HR 5X 0.21 Test Results

Post by Duke »

RobertOToole wrote:
Wed Nov 10, 2021 10:14 pm
I did plan on going longer to 300mm+ but from what I found in my recent 240mm tests, unless I find a Qioptiq tube lens, I'm not wasting my time pulling any HR objectives anytime soon. BTW Qioptiq does offer 400mm and 500mm tube lenses for the mag.x.

Best,

Robert
Robert, did you consider or maybe tried pairing shorter focal length tube lens with telecoverters?
I. E. Raynox DCR-250 + 2x tele =>~250mm or ITL-200 + 1.4 tele =>~280mm ...
“Thoroughly conscious ignorance is the prelude to every real advance in science.” - JCM

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

Re: Mitutoyo M Plan APO HR 5X 0.21 Test Results

Post by RobertOToole »

Duke wrote:
Sat Nov 13, 2021 11:40 am
RobertOToole wrote:
Wed Nov 10, 2021 10:14 pm
I did plan on going longer to 300mm+ but from what I found in my recent 240mm tests, unless I find a Qioptiq tube lens, I'm not wasting my time pulling any HR objectives anytime soon. BTW Qioptiq does offer 400mm and 500mm tube lenses for the mag.x.

Best,

Robert
Robert, did you consider or maybe tried pairing shorter focal length tube lens with telecoverters?
I. E. Raynox DCR-250 + 2x tele =>~250mm or ITL-200 + 1.4 tele =>~280mm ...
Privet Duke,

No did not try TL + TC. If I get a chance and I find my M42 1.4x I will try that. Thanks for the idea. That might be worthwhile to add to my 240-250mm TL test.

I did try TL+TL, as a +2 stacked on another +2, for +4 and that did not turn out as well as expected! Disappointing with the Raynox units I tried.


Best,

JKT
Posts: 420
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 9:29 am
Location: Finland
Contact:

Re: Mitutoyo M Plan APO HR 5X 0.21 Test Results

Post by JKT »

RobertOToole wrote:
Sat Nov 13, 2021 12:23 pm
No did not try TL + TC. If I get a chance and I find my M42 1.4x I will try that.
I don't think that will work. Not with M42 TC:s.

The progress in TC:s over the years has been huge. Canon FD 1.4x has good reputation, but it is pretty bad in my opinion. Canon EF 1.4x II is much better, but still causes considerable CA and some softness in corners. On the other hand RF 1.4x seems perfect ... at least with FF in 30 MP resolution. I suspect that none of the M42 TC:s will be significantly better than the FD 1.4x.

I just won an auction for EF 1.4x III to replace the II, so soon I can tell where it stands between the two. Based on the number of elements it could be closer to RF, but the latter is helped by the short flange distance. It will also be interesting whether EF 1.4x III + RF 1.4x beats RF 2x. :)

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

Re: Mitutoyo M Plan APO HR 5X 0.21 Test Results

Post by RobertOToole »

JKT wrote:
Sat Nov 13, 2021 1:01 pm
RobertOToole wrote:
Sat Nov 13, 2021 12:23 pm
No did not try TL + TC. If I get a chance and I find my M42 1.4x I will try that.
I don't think that will work. Not with M42 TC:s.

The progress in TC:s over the years has been huge. Canon FD 1.4x has good reputation, but it is pretty bad in my opinion. Canon EF 1.4x II is much better, but still causes considerable CA and some softness in corners. On the other hand RF 1.4x seems perfect ... at least with FF in 30 MP resolution. I suspect that none of the M42 TC:s will be significantly better than the FD 1.4x.

I just won an auction for EF 1.4x III to replace the II, so soon I can tell where it stands between the two. Based on the number of elements it could be closer to RF, but the latter is helped by the short flange distance. It will also be interesting whether EF 1.4x III + RF 1.4x beats RF 2x. :)
The optical design of the RF 1.4x is 7 elements in 4 groups, the EF1.4XIII is 7 elements in 3 groups but I'm sure they use a newer design with good glass to match the RF lenses. Not that the early glass 1.4x TCs compare, but I remember most, even in the 1980s touted that they used a modern 7 element design.

You are right about TC. The IQ depends on the design on the main lens, on the best the difference is hard to detect but on most its noticeable. Of course newer designs have improved to keep up with the new lenses.

An interesting note, hanging out with the Sigma engineers once, and they told me that Sigma actually was the first to patent a TC in 1961, I believe it was a 2x unit, and everyone for 20 years, other manufacturers had to pay a royalty.

Best,

Robert

JKT
Posts: 420
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 9:29 am
Location: Finland
Contact:

Re: Mitutoyo M Plan APO HR 5X 0.21 Test Results

Post by JKT »

RobertOToole wrote:
Sat Nov 13, 2021 4:40 pm
The optical design of the RF 1.4x is 7 elements in 4 groups, the EF1.4XIII is 7 elements in 3 groups but I'm sure they use a newer design with good glass to match the RF lenses. Not that the early glass 1.4x TCs compare, but I remember most, even in the 1980s touted that they used a modern 7 element design.
That must have been for 2x TC:s.

Canon FD 1.4x (????) 4/3 (elements/groups)
Tamron SP 1.4x [140F] (1984) 5/3
Canon EF 1.4x (1988) 5/4
Canon EF 1.4x II (2001) 5/4
Sigma APO TC 1.4x EX DG (2005) 5/3
Tamron TC-X14 (2014) 6/3
Canon EF 1.4x III (2010) 7/3
Sigma TC-1401 1.4x (2014) 7/5
Sigma TC-1411 1.4x (2020) 7/4
Canon RF 1.4x (2021) 7/4

Canon FD 2x-A (????) 6/4
Canon FD 2x-B (????) 7/5
Tamron SP 2x [01F] (1979) 6/5
Tamron SP 2x [200F] (1984) 6/4
Canon EF 2x (1987) 7/5
Canon EF 2x II (2001) 7/5
Sigma APO TC 2x EX DG (2005) 6/5
Canon EF 2x III (2010) 9/5
Tamron TC-X20 (2014) 9/5
Sigma TC-2001 1.4x (2014) 10/5
Sigma TC-2011 1.4x (2020) 8/4
Canon RF 2x (2021) 9/5

Macro_Cosmos
Posts: 1511
Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2018 9:23 pm
Contact:

Re: Mitutoyo M Plan APO HR 5X 0.21 Test Results

Post by Macro_Cosmos »

rjlittlefield wrote:
Fri Nov 12, 2021 2:57 pm
If he simply tested both lenses on the same setup, with 200 mm tube lens, then the image labels would be consistent with his words: 5X NA 0.14 and 5X NA 0.21, compared on the same sensor.

--Rik
200mm tube lens so it's a 5x NA0.14 and 5x NA0.21.
24MP sensor.

Resolution formula lifted from here: https://www.microscopyu.com/tutorials/m ... resolution
So the 5x NA0.14 is able to resolve a 36MP 35mm format sensor, the counterpart with higher NA can go beyond that, yet my detector here is just 24MP.
A difference should only be seen at above 36MP where the lower resolution objective will start to struggle, yet a clear difference was seen at 24MP, not 36MP. Both objectives out-resolve the sensor, why did I get extra detail?
Looking back, I don't think I matched for exposure. Images are gone anyway, I'll have to retake them with off-axis epi-illumination this time. The coaxial illumination setup won't work well with my current tube lens.

I tried using Olympus projection eyepieces, didn't work as well as I would have liked it to. I'm stuck with either using the objectives on my microscope where significant space exists between the objective and the tube lens (nosepiece and fluorescence turret) or I will just use my new and packed 500mm achromat to extend the magnification beyond 5x.

Caught a bad cold, hopefully I can get the test done soon, no promises.

ploum
Posts: 256
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2014 6:35 am
Location: France

Re: Mitutoyo M Plan APO HR 5X 0.21 Test Results

Post by ploum »

I noticed that two pixels is not enough for a diffraction spot. The contrast is too low. It would be interesting if Robert likes the tests that he does tests with a USAF HR test chart that does groups 9 and 10. The reconstruction according to the focal length of the tube lens should allow me to find my curves in LP / mm and LP / fov and thus determine what practically one takes as the number of pixels for a difrfaction spot or LP.

Then there is still a difference on the MTF if the sensor is exceeded since this will cause a decrease in the analyzed frequencies and the MTF of the objective will therefore increase.

By reconstructing a complete curve for a 61 Mpix sensor and this test pattern between for example 150 mm focal length and 400 mm focal length with the 5x 0.21 then I could determine the number of experimental pixels for a diffraction spot.
I work with a manfrotto 454 but uncommon system :).
Objectives : BW APO PLAN 5x, Mitutoyo APO PLAN 7.5x, 10x, 20x and 50x, Seiwa APO PLAN 20x, BW APO PLAN 20x, Seiwa APO PLAN 10x, Nikon CF PLAN 50x, componon APO 40 mm, Componon 50 mm, Componon S 80 mm, Componon 105 mm, Componon 150 mm, Rodagon 135 mm.....

rjlittlefield
Site Admin
Posts: 23564
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
Contact:

Re: Mitutoyo M Plan APO HR 5X 0.21 Test Results

Post by rjlittlefield »

Macro_Cosmos wrote:
Sun Nov 14, 2021 5:51 am
A difference should only be seen at above 36MP where the lower resolution objective will start to struggle, yet a clear difference was seen at 24MP, not 36MP. Both objectives out-resolve the sensor, why did I get extra detail?
Your model of the imaging process is too simple. Your math is looking only at limiting resolution, and ignoring MTF.

Here is a more complete picture for 5X NA 0.14 and 5X NA 0.21, both on the same FF 24 MPix sensor.:

NA0p14vs0p21_on24Mpix.png

This graph incorporates the combined effects of diffraction and finite pixel size. What is shown is system MTF = lens MTF * sensor MTF.

Lens MTF is computed from diffraction only, using the equations quoted at viewtopic.php?p=124831#124831 . Sensor MTF assumes perfect pixels (box filter width = pixel width) and is computed as a sinc function as described at http://mtfmapper.blogspot.com/2012/05/p ... d-mtf.html and shown in the 5th chart there. Lambda = 0.00055 mm.

As noted in the graph, NA 0.21 gives higher MTF at all levels of detail, and finer level of detail at any fixed MTF. For example at the sensor's Nyquist limit of 3000 cycles/FOV, NA 0.14 gives only MTF=0.057 while NA 0.21 gives MTF=0.217, so almost 4 times more contrast at the limit of the sensor. Or, if you decide to focus your attention on MTF=0.5, then NA 0.14 resolves only 1344 cycles/FOV while NA 0.21 resolves 1825 cycles/FOV -- an improvement of almost 36% in resolution at the same MTF.

Bottom line, the NA 0.21 image will look sharper and will reveal finer detail, unless you post-process the images so as to compensate for the differences in MTF.

In this particular case, a strong sharpening filter applied to the NA 0.14 image could bring its overall MTF up to match the NA 0.21. But that would come at the cost of also increasing fine scale noise by almost 4X.

The one downside to the NA 0.21 objective is that it provides a lot more opportunity for aliasing, if the subject contains fine detail that resolves above the Nyquist limit of the sensor. The beauty of Nikon's rule is that it guarantees no aliasing, because it matches the cutoff frequency of the objective with the Nyquist limit of the sensor. Unfortunately, for users who don't understand what's going on, that rule can also result in "recommending" an objective with small NA, which will produce an inferior image.

--Rik

ploum
Posts: 256
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2014 6:35 am
Location: France

Re: Mitutoyo M Plan APO HR 5X 0.21 Test Results

Post by ploum »

Great links :) from Rik :)
I work with a manfrotto 454 but uncommon system :).
Objectives : BW APO PLAN 5x, Mitutoyo APO PLAN 7.5x, 10x, 20x and 50x, Seiwa APO PLAN 20x, BW APO PLAN 20x, Seiwa APO PLAN 10x, Nikon CF PLAN 50x, componon APO 40 mm, Componon 50 mm, Componon S 80 mm, Componon 105 mm, Componon 150 mm, Rodagon 135 mm.....

dmillard
Posts: 637
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 7:37 pm
Location: Austin, Texas

Re: Mitutoyo M Plan APO HR 5X 0.21 Test Results

Post by dmillard »

rjlittlefield wrote:
Sun Nov 14, 2021 11:49 am

The one downside to the NA 0.21 objective is that it provides a lot more opportunity for aliasing, if the subject contains fine detail that resolves above the Nyquist limit of the sensor. The beauty of Nikon's rule is that it guarantees no aliasing, because it matches the cutoff frequency of the objective with the Nyquist limit of the sensor. Unfortunately, for users who don't understand what's going on, that rule can also result in "recommending" an objective with small NA, which will produce an inferior image.

--Rik
Please correct me if I am mistaken, but couldn't the aliasing be greatly diminished using pixel-shift mode in cameras that supported that function, although that would admitedly also take considerably more time and memory?

Best regards,
David

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

Re: Mitutoyo M Plan APO HR 5X 0.21 Test Results

Post by chris_ma »

dmillard wrote:
Sun Nov 14, 2021 12:47 pm
Please correct me if I am mistaken, but couldn't the aliasing be greatly diminished using pixel-shift mode in cameras that supported that function, although that would admitedly also take considerably more time and memory?
yes, pixel shift will help a lot with aliasing on certain subjects and lenses.

I've done a lot of comparisons with an S1R, for example the Printing Nikkor 105mm at 1x and F2.8 the single shots can create a lot of false color detail.
at F5.6 most of the false detail vanishes but the pixel shift shots still looks a bit cleaner.

most normal subjects don't have the fine detail structure where false detail becomes apparent though.
chris

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic