Another snip?
Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau
And also lifted the text from my listing here:ChrisR wrote: He's used the same picture though.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vi ... K:MESOX:IT
My intent was not to insult (I apologize) - why is it worth that -
other than someone will pay that much for it?
I am a naive beginner that has been reading through these various messages - and I see great results with the EL Nikkor 50mm 2.8 enlarging lens. Great results with Nikon CF 10X too. But this is a much larger expense.
other than someone will pay that much for it?
I am a naive beginner that has been reading through these various messages - and I see great results with the EL Nikkor 50mm 2.8 enlarging lens. Great results with Nikon CF 10X too. But this is a much larger expense.
-
rjlittlefield
- Site Admin
- Posts: 23606
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
- Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
- Contact:
The objective will give slightly higher resolution than macro lenses at the same magnification, but less resolution than the 10X NA 0.30 at somewhat higher magnification.
Think of it this way:
If you're satisfied with the resolution of an EL Nikkor 50/2.8, then you should stop there because those lenses are delightfully inexpensive. If you need more resolution at low mags, then you'll have to spend more and buy a high end macro lens. If you need lots more resolution and can live with higher magnification, then buy a 10X NA 0.30 objective. If (and only if) you need 4-7X at highest resolution, then buy the 4X NA 0.20 objective. Just be aware that we're now talking about the small regime inside that black box on the graph. It's worth noting also that subjects inside the black box can be captured at even higher resolution using stack-and-stitch with the 10X objective.
For my work, it's not worth the money to be able to operate in that regime. Other people have different needs or bigger budgets.
--Rik
Think of it this way:
If you're satisfied with the resolution of an EL Nikkor 50/2.8, then you should stop there because those lenses are delightfully inexpensive. If you need more resolution at low mags, then you'll have to spend more and buy a high end macro lens. If you need lots more resolution and can live with higher magnification, then buy a 10X NA 0.30 objective. If (and only if) you need 4-7X at highest resolution, then buy the 4X NA 0.20 objective. Just be aware that we're now talking about the small regime inside that black box on the graph. It's worth noting also that subjects inside the black box can be captured at even higher resolution using stack-and-stitch with the 10X objective.
For my work, it's not worth the money to be able to operate in that regime. Other people have different needs or bigger budgets.
--Rik
Even at the current lofty prices, I won't sell my copy of the Nikon 4x apo. I have a subjective feeling that without this lens, the sun would lose its luster and salt would lose its savor.
When I work a subject, it's nice to have a range of lenses that work pretty much the same way--are of the same size, respond to light the same way, have similar working distance, etc. For me, this means having--at least--the 4x Nikon apo, the 10x Nikon M Plan, and the 20x Nikon M Plan ELWD. While I value other lenses, these three form my triumvirate.
As for not covering a 24x36mm sensor, I'm not sure why I would care. I have a 24x16mm sensor D200 and a 36x24mm sensor D700, and consider the D200 the better camera for macro work. At base ISO--where I do my macro images--the D200 colors are better. The larger photosites of the D700 certainly offer benefits for other kinds of work (they gather more photons and offer more dynamic range); but for macro work, where the amount and dynamic range of light is very much under control, I don't see the benefit of the larger sensor.
So while I can't argue against the objective analyses presented above, from the heart I'd tell any interested photographer, "If you want this lens, pay the price and make pictures--it's worth it."
--Chris
When I work a subject, it's nice to have a range of lenses that work pretty much the same way--are of the same size, respond to light the same way, have similar working distance, etc. For me, this means having--at least--the 4x Nikon apo, the 10x Nikon M Plan, and the 20x Nikon M Plan ELWD. While I value other lenses, these three form my triumvirate.
As for not covering a 24x36mm sensor, I'm not sure why I would care. I have a 24x16mm sensor D200 and a 36x24mm sensor D700, and consider the D200 the better camera for macro work. At base ISO--where I do my macro images--the D200 colors are better. The larger photosites of the D700 certainly offer benefits for other kinds of work (they gather more photons and offer more dynamic range); but for macro work, where the amount and dynamic range of light is very much under control, I don't see the benefit of the larger sensor.
So while I can't argue against the objective analyses presented above, from the heart I'd tell any interested photographer, "If you want this lens, pay the price and make pictures--it's worth it."
--Chris