Qioptiq LINOS d.fine HR-M 2.8/80 0.2x Lens Test Results

[RobertOToole]

Qioptiq sent me a loaner LINOS HR-M 80mm inspection lens to test for two months and I'm finally getting around to testing. This was an very usual test for me, and it turned out to be one of the most difficult and time consuming tests I've ever done. The 0.2x ratio was a big problem, and the M52 x 0,5 mount was another headache.

Anyway I finished shooting today and even processed some of the photos. I'll post some later tonight with some photos of how I got around the thread mount, I did not have time for a custom adapter.

The results are interesting. The lens lineup is below.

All tested at 0.2x
Qioptiq LINOS d.fine HR-M 2.8/80
Rodenstock APO-Rodagon-N 4/80
Rodenstock Rodagon-P 4/80 (plain Rodagon in an all Full Metal industrial mount)
Schneider Componon-S 4/80 Makro Iris
Sinar Sinaron Digital 4/80 (private label APO-Rodagon-N)

I'm on a break now and will post some 0.2x results later tonight when I get some time after dinner.

Any questions or suggestions are lenses to add, leave a comment below.

Best,

Robert

[chris_ma]

ah, looking forward to this one!

how much is the HR 80?
the inspec.x L 60mm (which looks to be in the similar series) lists as 2660EUR net on digikey.

[RobertOToole]

ah, looking forward to this one!

how much is the HR 80?
the inspec.x L 60mm (which looks to be in the similar series) lists as 2660EUR net on digikey.

Qioptiq has not gotten back to me with a price yet. I need to send them another email.

It seems like corporate customer service has really declined since the pandemic, or is it just me? The Qioptiq email answer rate has been abysmal lately for some reason. An engineer at Mejiro told me early in the pandemic that all the Tokyo staff was working remotely so he had no pressure and had plenty of time to answer all of my questions, Qioptiq has been the opposite. Mejiro customer service gets a 5 out of 5 rating from me, Qioptiq gets a big zero.

Best,

Robert

[RobertOToole]

Still finishing the HR-M test page but in the meantime I can share some results. The other lenses I've tested will be included in a separate 80mm lens test page, with probably one or two more lenses added. I am going to include images from the Componon-S 4/80 to compare with the HR-M lens.

Qioptiq LINOS d.fine HR-M 2.8/80
Focal length: 81mm
Maximum aperture: f/2.8
Aperture range: f/2.8 - f/16
Iris: 12 blade circular, no click-stops
Coverage: Ø 62mm image circle
Distortion: < 0.1% (design value)
Sensor pixel size: 3.5 - 5 μm
Manufacturers recommended magnification range:  0.2x ( 0.14…0.17x )
Wavelength range: 400nm - 750nm
Front accessory thread: M77 P= 0.75mm
Mounting thread: M52 P= 0.5mm
V-mount: No
Source: lens made in Germany
Design includes sensor cover glass: yes, 0.76mm D263

https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/cont ... rmat=2500w

Rodagon 50mm for scale.

0.2x Test: HR-M vs Componon-S

0.2x Test setup
Camera: Sony A7R IV, Sony Alpha ILCE-A7R IV (A7R4)
Sensor size: Full Frame. 35.7mm x 23.8mm. 42.9 mm diagonal. 3.76 micron sensor pitch
Flash: Godox TT350s wireless flash x 2 with one Godox X1s 2.4G wireless flash transmitter

A stack of images was made using a Nikon MM-11 stand with a Nikon focus block. The sharpest image was chosen at Photoshop at 100% view. The single RAW file was processed in PS CC 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 test image crops are taken from single image. All test image crops are taken from single images that have been processed identically.

https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/cont ... rmat=2500w



Mounting the lens
The HR-M uses M52 x 0.5 mounting threads. M52 and SM2 threads bind and Qioptiq did not send an mounting adapter for some reason, so I had mount the lens using the M77 x 0.75 front threads for the test.


Schneider Componon-S 4/80 Makro Iris
Focal length: 80mm
Maximum aperture: f/4
Aperture range: f/4 - f/22
Iris: 5 blade
Coverage: Ø 80mm
Distortion: < 0.5% (design value)
Designed magnification: 0.17x
Manufacturers recommended magnification range: 0.3 - 0.04x
Wavelength range: 400nm - 1000nm
Front accessory thread: M37 P= 0.75mm
Mount: V38
Source: lens made in Germany
Design includes sensor cover glass: no

0.2x Test Sample Images

Note: below each image is a link for a slightly larger image. For best results click the link and download the image. Web browsers soften images slightly for a smoothing effect.

https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/cont ... rmat=2500w

https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/cont ... rmat=1500w

https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/cont ... rmat=1500w

https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/cont ... rmat=1500w

https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/cont ... rmat=2500w

https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/cont ... rmat=1500w

https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/cont ... rmat=1500w

https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/cont ... rmat=1500w



Chip center crops

https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/cont ... rmat=2500w

https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/cont ... rmat=1500w

https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/cont ... rmat=1500w


Chip corner crops

https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/cont ... rmat=1500w

https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/cont ... rmat=1500w

https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/cont ... rmat=1500w



Will update this post later when the main test page on my site is up and finished.

Questions and comments welcome.

BR,

Robert

[simplejoy]

Thanks a lot for your testing - really interesting to see! It seems like the difference in the center is visible, but not that big, while it's a completely different story in the corners, where the difference is enormous.

I'm looking forward to your review and some sample shots outside, if you got a chance to do some regular shooting, particularly wide open. It's a pity those things are so extremely expensive - would be wonderful to try a high-end lens with those properties to see the difference compared to my lower-level 75/80 mm f/2.8 enlarging lenses...

[RobertOToole]

Hi Simplejoy

Thanks a lot for your testing - really interesting to see! It seems like the difference in the center is visible, but not that big, while it's a completely different story in the corners, where the difference is enormous.

Yes, true with the center. I think the main issue is the target area vs detail. I think the HR-M would do much better with a target with smaller and finer structures on it.

It was really hard to find something close to that size with enough detail.I shot 5+ different targets over the course of a few days and the details were too large (tiny printed text), too fine (wafer details), or too reflective (wafer), or would like great on my computer but really lackluster online (paper currency). The SSD chips were all I could find that looked decent online. Eventually I'm sure I can find proper target with the right sized structures but I'm sure I won't have the lens then

One more note, I don't want to move to a USAF 1951 group type target either. I'd like to keep using more interesting than that but I have to say that might work pretty well in this case.

I'm used to drop off in the corners, it's pretty typical.

I'm looking forward to your review and some sample shots outside, if you got a chance to do some regular shooting, particularly wide open. It's a pity those things are so extremely expensive - would be wonderful to try a high-end lens with those properties to see the difference compared to my lower-level 75/80 mm f/2.8 enlarging lenses...

Too bad you don't live closer!

I do plan to shoot the lens, at infinity (for a stacked setup) and in reverse but I don't see the performance there to anything special. It would be ideal to shoot something outdoors at f/2.8....I'll try my best. Did you see how I had to mount the lens from the front threads?

I think 80 to 105mm EL lenses look great for most subjects. My most used lens over the last couple of years? A 90mm APO-Componon HM (the linescan version), I think I mentioned that before?

Best,

Robert

[simplejoy]

Hi Simplejoy

Yes, true with the center. I think the main issue is the target area vs detail. I think the HR-M would do much better with a target with smaller and finer structures on it.

It was really hard to find something close to that size with enough detail.I shot 5+ different targets over the course of a few days and the details were too large (tiny printed text), too fine (wafer details), or too reflective (wafer), or would like great on my computer but really lackluster online (paper currency). The SSD chips were all I could find that looked decent online. Eventually I'm sure I can find proper target with the right sized structures but I'm sure I won't have the lens then

One more note, I don't want to move to a USAF 1951 group type target either. I'd like to keep using more interesting than that but I have to say that might work pretty well in this case.

I'm used to drop off in the corners, it's pretty typical.

As you're aware I don't know the first thing about shooting test targets, but I can absolutely appreciate how hard it is, to find something appropriate for such a comparison.

Too bad you don't live closer!

I do plan to shoot the lens, at infinity (for a stacked setup) and in reverse but I don't see the performance there to anything special. It would be ideal to shoot something outdoors at f/2.8....I'll try my best. Did you see how I had to mount the lens from the front threads?

I think 80 to 105mm EL lenses look great for most subjects. My most used lens over the last couple of years? A 90mm APO-Componon HM (the linescan version), I think I mentioned that before?

Best,

Robert

Yeah, I've seen the mounting, but I'm not familiar with the properties of the parts you had to use... is it pretty heavy and cumbersome to shoot outside? I'm somewhat used to being forced to mount lenses via the front thread (inside my bellows) but I'm usually able to keep it down to a reasonable weight for regular shooting. Given how big this lens seems, this would definitively be a challenge to mount for me. What were they thinking when they decided to use a 52x0.5mm thread?

Do you have any interesting enlarging/industrial lenses in that focal length range which are fast enough to compare them at f/2.8? Maybe the Magnogon 75 mm (https://www.closeuphotography.com/roden ... on-75mm-f4)? I'm sure the d.fine will blow that one out of the water though wide open...

Interesting that you used the Apo-Componon HM 90 mm the most, but I'm sure it's an excellent and versatile lens and given how much I appreciate the same aspects about the Apo-Componon 60 mm Makro-Iris I totally get it.

[lothman]

I think 80 to 105mm EL lenses look great for most subjects. My most used lens over the last couple of years? A 90mm APO-Componon HM (the linescan version), I think I mentioned that before?

Hi Robert,

your lens test are very welcome and as usual a big pleasure for me to read through :-)

But at 0.2 magnification how would let's say a Sigma 105/2.8 macro lens compete (with AF and automatic aperture) compared to those hard to adopt and all manual lenses at a considerable higher price. Is this worth the effort for a FF camera? Especially when we can use the lens at f5.6 for such magnification. How much better are colors or sharpness?

regards
Lothar

[chris_ma]

But at 0.2 magnification how would let's say a Sigma 105/2.8 macro lens compete (with AF and automatic aperture) compared to those hard to adopt and all manual lenses at a considerable higher price. Is this worth the effort for a FF camera? Especially when we can use the lens at f5.6 for such magnification. How much better are colors or sharpness?

I think it's not so much about color and sharpness, but rather distortion, quality control and corner sharpness that makes the lens expensive (and the manufacturing process is probably lower volume too)

[chris_ma]

I think the test targets are very appropriate, to me it seems rather that the lens approach the resolution of the sensor pixel size.

a very interesting detail is that corner sharpness of the Schneider Componon-S 4/80 Makro Iris is prety poor wide open, but sharpens up a lot by F8 and seems to have a built-in unsharp mask filter ie. the resolution is still lower, but the apparent sharpness gets a boost and seems higher then the HRM. very strange.

[RobertOToole]

I think the test targets are very appropriate, to me it seems rather that the lens approach the resolution of the sensor pixel size.

a very interesting detail is that corner sharpness of the Schneider Componon-S 4/80 Makro Iris is prety poor wide open, but sharpens up a lot by F8 and seems to have a built-in unsharp mask filter ie. the resolution is still lower, but the apparent sharpness gets a boost and seems higher then the HRM. very strange.

Yes, I noticed that. All of the Componons makro iris lenses are designed to be used 2 stops down so the results fit. The newer lenses for digital like the Sinaron I tested are best at f/5.6 looks like. I'll post the 80mm EL lenses test results as soon as I finish with this one, its interesting to see the different lenses sharpness peak at different apertures.

An interesting note on magnification. Schneider quotes different design optimum magnification depending on who was writing the marketing PDF. For the 4/80 makro iris, it was 0.5x (doubt it) other times 0.3x (doubt that also) but the MTF graphs in the PDF are; 0.04, 0.1 and 0.3x (with worse corners). But the EL 4/80 PDF says 0.16x is the designed magnification. Then I found an internal engineering copy of the 4/80 makro iris lens with an optimum magnification for 0.17x. So optical engineers say 0.17x is optimum, marketing department says 0.5x is optimum.

Best,

Robert

[RobertOToole]

...... What were they thinking when they decided to use a 52x0.5mm thread?

My first thought was that it was an internal thread that would be used for a larger v-mount. That makes the most sense since using a lens with an azimuth mark with a stationary non-rotating mount means the lens f-stop indicator ring will always be under the lens, at least it was on this copy

This lens makes me appreciate the connivence of a V-mount a little more.

Do you have any interesting enlarging/industrial lenses in that focal length range which are fast enough to compare them at f/2.8? Maybe the Magnogon 75 mm (https://www.closeuphotography.com/roden ... on-75mm-f4)? I'm sure the d.fine will blow that one out of the water though wide open...

Great idea, I wish it was comparable. That lens is designed to down at least two+ stops for good CA control and sharpness.

Interesting that you used the Apo-Componon HM 90 mm the most, but I'm sure it's an excellent and versatile lens and given how much I appreciate the same aspects about the Apo-Componon 60 mm Makro-Iris I totally get it.

I've had that lens for years and even tried to sell it a few times, I didn't like the performance at all. Then a friend told me that lens is really popular with the fuji GFX MF owners for lack of CAs, sharpness and big image circle. But thats the opposite of what I found! Turns out I was using in the wrong mag range! I was using at 0.5x and larger. That is what the Schneider spec sheet says, optimum IQ is at 0.5x. (its not correct). SK marketing department content writers strike again! Now the 4.5/90 is one of my favorite lenses and probably my most used lens.

I think the APO-Componon 4/60 is the same case as the 4.5/90. I've never gotten good results out of the 4/60. It's okay but nothing great. Maybe I was using outside the designed range all along?

BTW, I have a few APO-CPN 4/60s, both makro-iris and EL iris housings so I'll be testing those later.

Best,

Robert

[RobertOToole]

Hi Lothar,

But at 0.2 magnification how would let's say a Sigma 105/2.8 macro lens compete (with AF and automatic aperture) compared to those hard to adopt and all manual lenses at a considerable higher price. Is this worth the effort for a FF camera? Especially when we can use the lens at f5.6 for such magnification. How much better are colors or sharpness?

Macro lenses with autofocus are indispensable for shooting live subjects outdoors so I think if I could only have one lens it would be a modern macro lens with AF. The Sigma Art probably. But in the studio I prefer older lenses for a couple of reasons but its just a personal preference for how I work I guess.

A few things come to mind:

Manual lens pros
-Cheaper (I've paid nothing $0 - $200 maybe $250 for all of my APO-Componons)
-lock on the aperture ring
-big image circle for movements
-very precise focus (stage or variable extension tube or mount)
-No image stabilization components to break so more relable
-No AF components to fail
-Easy to adapt to any camera
-Tiny size

Manual lens cons
-Need tubes or bellows to use
-No built in focus control
-No AF
-No auto aperture
-No EXIF reported to the camera
-No lens Auto correction (this can also be a plus)


AF macro lens Pros
-AF!
-Auto lens corrections (can be a con also)
-EXiF data

AF macro lens cons
-Twitchy or fiddley manual focus
-Things like to break
-can be expensive

Best,

Robert

[RobertOToole]

Test Update

A Thorlabs USAF 1951 Resolution (R3L3S1P) target arrived today and I was able to make some tests. The 3 x 3 inch target goes from -2 down to 7. Looking at the results I decided to re-shoot all the lenses over again.

There goes my Sunday but it should be interesting

At some point I will make a tutorial on using the USAF 1951 Resolution target since I couldn't find any online, which I thought is a bit strange.


Best,

Robert

[rjlittlefield]

Perhaps you're already well experienced with using these targets, but if not, then be aware they don't tell you a lot of what you'd like to know.

For illustration, see the lens comparisons at https://www.photomacrography.net/forum/ ... 82#p136282 versus real subject comparisons of the same objectives at https://www.photomacrography.net/forum/ ... 75#p129875 .

--Rik