I went looking for a nikon 10x cfn in new zealand and could not find any was offered a nikon 4x cfn a nikon 10x 25 infinity focus a olympus 10x s plan and a zeiss s plan any suggestions the servise manager favoured the zeiss over the olympus both about same price and close to new
Grahame
olympus zeiss 10x ojective lens
Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau
-
rjlittlefield
- Site Admin
- Posts: 23625
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
- Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
- Contact:
I have no personal experience with any of those objectives.
At http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... php?t=6968, Antonio shows good results from an "olympus pln 10x". I'm sure he would be willing to tell exactly what that objective is, if asked.
In general you want to avoid "infinity" objectives for use on bellows. Those are designed for use with an additional "tube lens", specific to the manufacturer. They'll work without the tube lens, but the images may not be as good as possible.
--Rik
At http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... php?t=6968, Antonio shows good results from an "olympus pln 10x". I'm sure he would be willing to tell exactly what that objective is, if asked.
In general you want to avoid "infinity" objectives for use on bellows. Those are designed for use with an additional "tube lens", specific to the manufacturer. They'll work without the tube lens, but the images may not be as good as possible.
--Rik
-
rjlittlefield
- Site Admin
- Posts: 23625
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
- Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
- Contact:
Good to know. In theory, at 4X an NA 0.1 objective should be about equal to a really good macro lens set at f/4. So depending on prices and what flexibility you need, the objective could be a better buy.mgoodm3 wrote:I have an Olympus plan N 4x/0.1 infinity-corrected (RMS) that works quite well without a tube lens.
--Rik
-
Charles Krebs
- Posts: 5865
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:02 pm
- Location: Issaquah, WA USA
- Contact:
There are so many different objectives out there that it's tough to offer an opinion on ones that have not actually been "tried" and proven.
When considering objectives that no one has used before, it's probably best to consider the following "rules"....
-- Be a little wary of finite tube length objectives that were designed to to be used with eyepieces that provided additional correction of lateral chromatic aberrations. Nikon "CF" ("chrome free") were designed so that all the correction that is to be made was accomplished in the objective. (This does not mean they are all Apo's! Some were designed to be achromats, and others as apochromats, but they were all made so that chromatic eyepiece correction was not used).
-- "Infinity" objectives were designed to be used with a tube (or "telan") lens. They can be made to focus when attached to a bellows, but to do so you need to alter the working distance for which they were designed. (Note that with some manufacturers "infinity" systems, some chromatic correction is provided by the internal tube lens, while others do it all in the objective. Nikon and Olympus infinity systems do not use the tube lens for chromatic correction, while Zeiss and Leica do. Doesn't make one "better" than the other, and designers can make valid arguments in favor of either method. To the end user of a microscope it's all transparent and doesn't matter, but if you pull an objective off of a microscope and put it on a camera bellows it probably does.
These rules are "by-the-book". Things are never that straightforward. In some cases the negative effects of breaking these "rules" are negligible at low NA's, and become more obvious as the numerical aperture increases. moodm3 has reported good results with an Olympus plan N 4x/0.1 infinity-corrected. Some of us use the Nikon CFN 10/0.30 without a coverslip, and at "tube lengths" very different from the designed 160mm. The results are great. But I seriously doubt that deviating so greatly from the design parameters with, say, a 40/0.65 could be done without serious degradation of the image.
As to the specific objectives you mentioned. It's probably best to first eliminate ones that were made to have addition color correction accomplished with eyepieces. That knocks out the Olympus 10X S Plan and the Zeiss. So I would try either of the Nikon ones you mentioned. Realize that a Nikon CFN 4/0.13 objective on the bellows is roughly equivalent to a 40mm lens with a fixed f3.1 aperture, and a working distance of 16.22mm. The CFI 10/0.25 is roughly equivalent to a 20mm fixed f1.8 lens. The working distance when used with a tube lens is 10.5mm, but I believe that will be slightly shortened in order to get a "real" image on the sensor when mounted on a bellows (could be the other way around though... slightly lengthened... I forget.
) So the 10x gets you into territory that hard to obtain with more conventional "macro" optics. The 4X will be very good, but there are other optics that could be used cover the same range. In either case you will need to do image "stacking" for most pictures.
Also note that the Nikon "infinity" uses a 25mm thread mount (M25x0.75), not the "standard" 20.1mm RMS thread. So you may have make up your own adapter to mount it on a bellows.
Charlie
When considering objectives that no one has used before, it's probably best to consider the following "rules"....
-- Be a little wary of finite tube length objectives that were designed to to be used with eyepieces that provided additional correction of lateral chromatic aberrations. Nikon "CF" ("chrome free") were designed so that all the correction that is to be made was accomplished in the objective. (This does not mean they are all Apo's! Some were designed to be achromats, and others as apochromats, but they were all made so that chromatic eyepiece correction was not used).
-- "Infinity" objectives were designed to be used with a tube (or "telan") lens. They can be made to focus when attached to a bellows, but to do so you need to alter the working distance for which they were designed. (Note that with some manufacturers "infinity" systems, some chromatic correction is provided by the internal tube lens, while others do it all in the objective. Nikon and Olympus infinity systems do not use the tube lens for chromatic correction, while Zeiss and Leica do. Doesn't make one "better" than the other, and designers can make valid arguments in favor of either method. To the end user of a microscope it's all transparent and doesn't matter, but if you pull an objective off of a microscope and put it on a camera bellows it probably does.
These rules are "by-the-book". Things are never that straightforward. In some cases the negative effects of breaking these "rules" are negligible at low NA's, and become more obvious as the numerical aperture increases. moodm3 has reported good results with an Olympus plan N 4x/0.1 infinity-corrected. Some of us use the Nikon CFN 10/0.30 without a coverslip, and at "tube lengths" very different from the designed 160mm. The results are great. But I seriously doubt that deviating so greatly from the design parameters with, say, a 40/0.65 could be done without serious degradation of the image.
As to the specific objectives you mentioned. It's probably best to first eliminate ones that were made to have addition color correction accomplished with eyepieces. That knocks out the Olympus 10X S Plan and the Zeiss. So I would try either of the Nikon ones you mentioned. Realize that a Nikon CFN 4/0.13 objective on the bellows is roughly equivalent to a 40mm lens with a fixed f3.1 aperture, and a working distance of 16.22mm. The CFI 10/0.25 is roughly equivalent to a 20mm fixed f1.8 lens. The working distance when used with a tube lens is 10.5mm, but I believe that will be slightly shortened in order to get a "real" image on the sensor when mounted on a bellows (could be the other way around though... slightly lengthened... I forget.
) So the 10x gets you into territory that hard to obtain with more conventional "macro" optics. The 4X will be very good, but there are other optics that could be used cover the same range. In either case you will need to do image "stacking" for most pictures.Also note that the Nikon "infinity" uses a 25mm thread mount (M25x0.75), not the "standard" 20.1mm RMS thread. So you may have make up your own adapter to mount it on a bellows.
Charlie
Thank you for all your help. I think i am making progress I was under the impression that infinity focused was not as good as non. I can get a nikon 10x infinity focused (new) it appears that is all they make now. Is there any real problem or would it be satisfactory. Thank you for your input. I would be mounting it on a tilt shift bellows D300.
Grahame
Grahame
-
rjlittlefield
- Site Admin
- Posts: 23625
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
- Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
- Contact:
Actually you left out the "f", producing a banned word that printed as #####. I edited the post to fix the spelling error, which is why it now prints OK.scenario wrote:in my last post i typed shift and it was deleted
About the lens, the one I use is a Plan Achromat. But other people may have better information about the specific lenses you're considering.
--Rik
-
Charles Krebs
- Posts: 5865
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:02 pm
- Location: Issaquah, WA USA
- Contact:
All the major manufacturers have moved to "infinity" type objectives. They have real advantages on a microscope with many of the lighting methods now used. But they are designed to be used with a tube lens. The point is that a lower power "infinity" objective may give good results on a camera bellows without the tube lens, but then again they may not. Personally I've had very good results with a 5X "infinity" Mitutoyo, mgoodm3 has reported good results with an Olympus "infinity"4X. But as far as I know, no one here has tried the specific objectives you mention, so the performance used in this way would be an unknown. On the other hand, many here have tried the Nikon CFN Plan Achromat 10/0.30 (finite 160mm tube length) and several versions of Nikon CF M Plans (210mm finite) with very good results.I was under the impression that infinity focused was not as good as non.
You need to watch the working distance. The Nikon "infinity" Plan Apo working distance is only 4mm -- too small. The Achromat is 7mm, still a little small. The Plan Achromat is 10.5mm, and the 10/0.30 Plan Fluor is 16mm.Achromat ,Plan Achromat, Plan Fluor or Plan Apochromat lens the supplier would like to know cfn 10/o.30 which would be preference
If you are going to buy these "new" I would suggest being a little patient and watching for a Nikon CFN Plan Achromat 10/0.30, or a 10X Nikon CF M Plan. They show up pretty regularly, would cost much less, have an RMS thread, and have a record of working well.
I agree with Charly, Nikon CFN Plan Achromat 10/0.30 is semi-apochromatic, I think it is better than standard 10x (Nikon, Olympus, Zeiss)
Grahame, however, variable ( light, stacking software, colors subject) are different for testing lens, remember that no simple 3D stack with 10x
I think 10x is good for magnification, 4x is better for 3D stacks, solution Charly, NU (Bellows and Schneider Apo-Componon HM 40 / 2.8.) is optimal setup
Grahame, however, variable ( light, stacking software, colors subject) are different for testing lens, remember that no simple 3D stack with 10x
I think 10x is good for magnification, 4x is better for 3D stacks, solution Charly, NU (Bellows and Schneider Apo-Componon HM 40 / 2.8.) is optimal setup
Antonio
Thank you Antonio are you suggesting that the Bellows and Schneider Apo-Componon HM 40 / 2.8.) is the enlarging lens in reverse is one of the best set ups. I notice that you seem to use Olympus mainly.
. I like quality (sharpness colour) of image so any advice would be appreciated I dont want to go above 10x
Thank you for any advice
Grahame
. I like quality (sharpness colour) of image so any advice would be appreciated I dont want to go above 10x
Thank you for any advice
Grahame
-
rjlittlefield
- Site Admin
- Posts: 23625
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
- Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
- Contact:
Grahame,
Reviewing your posts, I see that you're getting back into photography after a long time away.
I strongly recommend starting with reversed enlarging lens on bellows.
Hold off on buying a microscope objective. As discussed HERE, objectives are hard to deal with because of their high magnification and very shallow DOF. It is impossible to use them for macro work without stacking, and even then stacks from objectives tend to reveal limitations in the stacking software. (This is a polite way of saying that many of the results are not worth saving.)
Enlarging lens on bellows is much easier to work with. At lower magnifications you can get good results even without stacking. When you do start stacking, you'll find that the software generally works pretty well.
--Rik
Reviewing your posts, I see that you're getting back into photography after a long time away.
I strongly recommend starting with reversed enlarging lens on bellows.
Hold off on buying a microscope objective. As discussed HERE, objectives are hard to deal with because of their high magnification and very shallow DOF. It is impossible to use them for macro work without stacking, and even then stacks from objectives tend to reveal limitations in the stacking software. (This is a polite way of saying that many of the results are not worth saving.)
Enlarging lens on bellows is much easier to work with. At lower magnifications you can get good results even without stacking. When you do start stacking, you'll find that the software generally works pretty well.
--Rik