Some lens tests at 0.7x with an ancient coin

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

Moderators: Pau, rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S.

kaleun96
Posts: 195
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2018 3:47 pm
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

Some lens tests at 0.7x with an ancient coin

Post by kaleun96 »

I'm still a bit new to testing lenses at any level that could be considered serious, these are just some quick tests I have been doing to see how a few of my lenses compare. I'll likely be adding a few here and there over time. My interest isn't coin macrophotography, nor the 0.5-1x range, but I just received this coin and started taking photos!

The subject: an Athenian tetradrachm from approximately 400BC. It's about 25x21mm in size and about 7mm in depth. Due to the shiny surface, irregularities, and depth of the subject, I thought it would be good for testing my setup in its entirety (e.g. lighting, reflections, vibrations, etc).

The lenses:
Schneider Kreuznach APO Componon HM 6.7/60
Schneider Kreuznach Componon-S 2.8/50
FISBA Optik 9/76 7° (random eBay purchase, the angle marking should've been a sign to stay away)
Scanner Nikkor ED 7 element lens
Osawa Tominon 3.5/40
Sigma 2.8/105 macro lens

All stacks were approximately 90-100 photos at 0.07mm increments. Due to different extension requirements, the lighting differed a fair amount between each stack.

APO Componon 6.7/60 (full size)
Image


Componon-S 2.8/50 reversed (full size)
Image


FISBA 9/76 (full size)
Image


Scanner Nikkor ED (full size)
Image


Osawa Tominon 3.5/40 @ f3.5 (full size)
Image


Osawa Tominon 3.5/40 @ f5.6 (full size)
Image


Sigma 2.8/105 (full size)
Image


I'm not very good at objective rankings of lenses but my preference follows in the order:
1. Scanner Nikkor ED
2. Apo Componon 6.7/60 (a close second and the only one shot 0.6x)
3. Osawa Tominon 3.5/40 @5.6
4. Sigma 2.8/105 (a close third and benefited from better lighting due to longer working distance but maybe some CAs near the edges?)
5. Osawa Tominon 3.5/40 @3.5
6. FISBA 9/7.6
7. Componon-S 2.8/50 (worse overall than the FISBA but better in the centre).

The Osawa was the only one I tried at a different aperture (only this one, the Componon-S, and Sigma had variable aperture though) after I was disappointed with its performance wide-open. It ended up being quite sharp and with high contrast stopped down to 5.6 and competed well for the price.

The Componon-S was a disappointment but until I try it stopped down and/or in normal orientation I'm reserving judgement. The FISBA was just a bit of fun as it has a "7°" marking on the lens and was intended as a "spherical test optic for the µPhase compact interferometers" that generates a beam with an open angle of 7 degrees. Naturally it falls off in the corners and is generally poor in resolution.

Lou Jost
Posts: 4644
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2015 7:03 am
Location: Ecuador
Contact:

Post by Lou Jost »

While these are helpful, we really need to see 100% crops to judge lenses. It would be useful to show those. Looking forward to more tests!

ChrisR
Site Admin
Posts: 8564
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 3:58 am
Location: Near London, UK

Post by ChrisR »

I'll say it before someone else does - it's easier to compare lenses if the lighting stays the same !
Chris R

ray_parkhurst
Posts: 2773
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 10:40 am
Location: Santa Clara, CA, USA
Contact:

Post by ray_parkhurst »

At m=0.7, the Componon-S will do better in forward direction rather than reversed. It's not good from 0.5:1...2:1, but mounting it reversed when <1:1 will make it even worse.

kaleun96
Posts: 195
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2018 3:47 pm
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

Post by kaleun96 »

ChrisR wrote:I'll say it before someone else does - it's easier to compare lenses if the lighting stays the same !
How do you manage this when the working distance varies so much between lenses? Of the top of my head it varies from maybe 5-20cm between these lenses.

The light source is always the same and on the same settings n these but it's clear that the coin has parts that are difficult to illuminate, particularly when it's close to the lens. I'm thinking I need a diffuser surrounding the object but I don't have anything suitable on hand.
While these are helpful, we really need to see 100% crops to judge lenses
Ah good to know. I do have the originals linked there if needed and had just been pixel peeping on those. I think the differences in lighting might make it hard to choose a good spot for the 100% crop.
At m=0.7, the Componon-S will do better in forward direction rather than reversed. It's not good from 0.5:1...2:1, but mounting it reversed when <1:1 will make it even worse.
Makes sense given the results! Is there an easy way to know this upfront before doing tests? There are so many variables it's difficult to know when lens A is better than lens B given parameters C.

ray_parkhurst
Posts: 2773
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 10:40 am
Location: Santa Clara, CA, USA
Contact:

Post by ray_parkhurst »

kaleun96 wrote:How do you manage this when the working distance varies so much between lenses? Of the top of my head it varies from maybe 5-20cm between these lenses.
I usually figure out which lens is the "lowest common denominator" for lighting, shoot it first, then follow with the other lenses with same lighting. The lights may not be optimized for the ones with longer WD but at least they are all the same. Of course different WD produces different angles of light, so they aren't exactly the same, but reasonable. I will often kick a lens out of a shootout if the lighting required is so different from the other lenses as to cause confusion in the results.
kaleun96 wrote:
At m=0.7, the Componon-S will do better in forward direction rather than reversed. It's not good from 0.5:1...2:1, but mounting it reversed when <1:1 will make it even worse.
Makes sense given the results! Is there an easy way to know this upfront before doing tests? There are so many variables it's difficult to know when lens A is better than lens B given parameters C.
Not really. Just need to try things and learn by doing or by getting feedback like you're doing here, and of course by reading the other posts by folks doing similar things.

ray_parkhurst
Posts: 2773
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 10:40 am
Location: Santa Clara, CA, USA
Contact:

Post by ray_parkhurst »

Forgot to ask...why do you call the Tominon lens "Osawa"? Does the lens have that name on it? The original maker of the Tominons was Tomioka, which was purchased by Yashica, which was purchased by Kyocera. The lenses were used in many machines of course, so folks will call them by the machine name such as "Noritsu". Is "Osawa" a brand of printing machines?

kaleun96
Posts: 195
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2018 3:47 pm
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

Post by kaleun96 »

The lights may not be optimized for the ones with longer WD but at least they are all the sam
In this case the setup wouldn't have been too different. All using the same flash with TTL on the same settings, coming from the same angle (left of the camera), but the degree of that angle would've changed a bit as you say between the tests. There may be some differences in the photos due to me not applying the same colour correction and things (highlights, shadows, whites, etc) in Lightroom but I can make sure I do next time (or go back and do it for the originals).
Forgot to ask...why do you call the Tominon lens "Osawa"? Does the lens have that name on it? Is "Osawa" a brand of printing machines?
Something to that effect I believe. Osawa is written on the lens barrel with "Tominon". From the information I gathered researching this lens it seems that Hoya, Osawa, and Bogen all white-labeled the same lenses manufactured by Tomioka (or whoever owned it at the time).

They are in the following combinations (all 6-4 element designs bar the 4/60):
3.5/40
2.8/50
4/60 (8-4 element design)
4.5/75
5.6/90
5.6/105
5.6/135

The reviews I found regarded these lenses fairly highly, particularly the 4/60. The 2.8/50 and 3.5/40 also had good reviews so that's why it was the only lens here I tried at two apertures.

The Bogen's are sold as WAs and I think the Hoya's may have had this designation at some point too. I think I saw a review somewhere saying they covered a larger film format than similar lenses (e.g. standard Componon's and Rodagon's).

Some info:
http://www.photocornucopia.com/1061.html
https://www.digicamclub.de/showthread.php?t=19767
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/a ... mm.146596/
http://forum.mflenses.com/osawa-tominon ... 65165.html

ray_parkhurst
Posts: 2773
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 10:40 am
Location: Santa Clara, CA, USA
Contact:

Post by ray_parkhurst »

Thanks for the info and links. The 60/4 looks interesting. I'd bet it could do well at 2:1 reversed on a 120mm, operating at f8 effective.

kaleun96
Posts: 195
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2018 3:47 pm
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

Post by kaleun96 »

Yeah and I've been looking for a 4/60 the past few weeks and haven't had any luck so far. The other variations seem to come up occasionally under one of the three brands though.

RobertOToole
Posts: 1618
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:34 pm
Location: United States
Contact:

Post by RobertOToole »

Interesting test.

One question.

The text isn't clear to what a Apo Componon 6.7/60 is exactly?

Just found the thread for reference:

http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... hp?t=39268

Robert

kaleun96
Posts: 195
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2018 3:47 pm
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

Post by kaleun96 »

Thanks Robert. Yeah I couldn't find much info on that lens and even with Ray's help in that thread we can only assume it came from something like a Colortrak.

kaleun96
Posts: 195
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2018 3:47 pm
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

Post by kaleun96 »

ray_parkhurst wrote:Thanks for the info and links. The 60/4 looks interesting. I'd bet it could do well at 2:1 reversed on a 120mm, operating at f8 effective.
I've just picked up a Bogen 4/60 on eBay in New Old Stock condition, but it's got to make it's way here from the States first.

There's a Osawa 4/60 (as mentioned above, this and the Bogen are the same 8-element lenses) on eBay UK but at 99GBP in used condition it wasn't particularly tempting.
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/333130771149

Will post some tests with the Bogen when it arrives.

RobertOToole
Posts: 1618
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:34 pm
Location: United States
Contact:

Post by RobertOToole »

kaleun96 wrote:
ray_parkhurst wrote:Thanks for the info and links. The 60/4 looks interesting. I'd bet it could do well at 2:1 reversed on a 120mm, operating at f8 effective.
I've just picked up a Bogen 4/60 on eBay in New Old Stock condition, but it's got to make it's way here from the States first.

There's a Osawa 4/60 (as mentioned above, this and the Bogen are the same 8-element lenses) on eBay UK but at 99GBP in used condition it wasn't particularly tempting.
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/333130771149

Will post some tests with the Bogen when it arrives.
I was looking at that lens, the price is ok, but that damage scared me away. Looks like someone dropped it and tried to 'fix' it.


Hope the Bogen is a decent performer, give us a short report after you test it, ok?

You are correct that all of those 8- element 4/60 lenses with the different labels are all made by Tomioka. When you compare the barrels and some of the cosmetics, like the aperture figures, are all shared.

Robert

kaleun96
Posts: 195
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2018 3:47 pm
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

Post by kaleun96 »

RobertOToole wrote: I was looking at that lens, the price is ok, but that damage scared me away. Looks like someone dropped it and tried to 'fix' it.


Hope the Bogen is a decent performer, give us a short report after you test it, ok?
Yeah exactly, the ding on the filter thread doesn't bode well. I was thinking of offering a fair amount less for that lens before the Bogen popped up.

I will be away later this month so lens tests will likely have to wait until May but it will be the first thing I do when I return!

Out of interest, has anyone here tested a Computar/Kowa 1.9/55?

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic