100mm Tokina macro lens, newest model f/2.8
125mm Raynox (DCR-250) reversed
135mm Vivitar/Komine f/2.8
135mm Carl Zeiss Jena f/3.5
135mm Pentax f/3.5
150mm Schneider-Kreuznach Apo-Componon HM enlarger lens
170mm DCR-5320Pro Raynox 72mm diameter close-up lens set
200mm Nikkor-Q f/4
208mm Raynox (DCR-150) not reversed
210mm Sironar f/5.6 view camera lens Edit: accidentally used in reverse!
This set represents a wide variety of lens types and quality, so I did not know what to expect. In particular I had high hopes for the very expensive Apo-Componon HM and the Sironar view camera lens. I was sure that some of these would do better than my first, and cheapest, purchases, the 135mm Vivitar/Komine (just $60) and the old 200mm Nikkor-Q (also cheap though I forget how much).
I was wrong. The exotic solutions hardly differ from the cheapest, and are sometimes worse. $1000+ down the drain.
To be fair, there are some caveats here. The Pentax and Zeiss 135mm lenses were in M42 mounts and the adapter to MFT didn't come yet, so I used an M42-Nikon F adapter on my Nikon-MFT adapter. This does not permit these lenses to focus at infinity, so they were focusing slightly closer. I don't know if this mattered; I should do another test to check that. Or redo the test when my adapter comes.
Another caveat: neither the Pentax nor Zeiss lenses were the "best" versions ever made; they were the versions that were available to me on eBay last time I was in the US.
Yet another caveat: when I got the Apo-Componon, I noticed that a lens wrench had removed some of the black paint in the slots on mounting ring of the front element. This means somebody once took it apart, and that can't be good.
Method: The objective was always placed as close as possible to the lens. This sometimes involved complex arrangements of step-up and step-down rings to get below the lens flange. The enlarger lens had no front threads so the whole front element was surrounded by step-up and step-down rings that were attached to the shutter [Edit: I just mean the mounting threads, there being no shutter], which did have threads.
My subject was the outer surface of the hindwing of a Vanessa altissima or related butterfly, a "universal" butterfly that you all can go out and catch for yourselves, so you can compare your tube lenses using the same subject. The wing is glued to a slide. Photos were taken with an Oly PEN F and a Stackshot, step size 4um.
I used FastRawViewer to make sure every exposure was using the entire dynamic range available. I used high speed flash to control for camera and environmental vibrations. I used heavy physical diffusion to reduce heat-induced butterfly scale movement.
I stacked from the RAW files. I used exactly the same Photoshop batch action for all the conversions: Sharpening at ACR default, 25%; exposure slider adjusted down, whites adjusted down. Nothing else touched. Final stacked results were adjusted again slightly with the levels slider to equalize them so they all had the same exposure.
Here is the full image for the SK 150:
The cheapest solutions were quite good, hardly distinguishable from the expensive ones. Here is the SK 150mm versus Vivitar/Komine 135mm, compared in the center of their frames at 100%. In spite of the greater m of the SK and its 7x higher cost and its fantastic reputation, its resolution is only very slightly greater on the subject.
SK 150mm (left) vs Vivitar/Komine 135mm (right).
Among the four 125mm -135mm options, the Raynox DCR-250 and the Vivitar/Komine 135 were best. The Raynox was slightly contrastier than the camera lenses, but had some very slight red fringing on highlights in the center, while the Viv 135 had no color fringing in the center. Stronger (and redder) fringing on CZJ esp in corners, PMax. Edges of the Raynox may be slightly sharper than those of the Vivitar, but with more purple fringing than the Vivitar.
Comparing the Raynox DCR5320 (170mm) to the SK 150mm, the Raynox had more magenta fringing and perhaps very slightly less resolution at the same FOV.
The Raynox DCR-5320 had less contrast and slightly lower resolution in center than the 200mm Nikkor-Q, and shows stronger purple fringing on the corners compared to the Nikkor-Q, which had only slight fringing on the brightest highlights. Nevertheless the corners of the DCR-5320 might have slightly more resolution than those of the Nikkor-Q.
Between the 200mm Nikkor-Q and the 210mm Sironar view camera lens, the Nikkor is contrastier and slightly sharper. In the corners, the Sironar showed more purple fringing. PMax shows less fringing than DMap. Edit: I used the Sironar in reverse accidentally, so this result may improve when used correctly.
Between the 200mm Nikkor Q and the 208mm Raynox DCR-150, the Nikkor outresolves the Raynox in the center but the Raynox seemed slightly more contrasty. On the edges, the Nikkor shows slight blue-purple fringes on the outer edges of bright highlights, but the Raynox shows stronger blue fringing and it is on the inner (more central) edges of the highlights.
So that's my surprising report.
