Thanks!
The Nikon 20 ELWD looks interesting. Just to make sure (because microscope objectives are extremely confusing) are all of the following true?
1) This is the Nikon 20 .4 ELWD
2) This is a copy of it for sale - http://www.ebay.com/itm/Nikon-BD-Plan-2 ... 5190fa8586
3) The keys when buying this lens are to make sure it is BD (brightfield/darkfield). Many of the copies are DIC, EPI, Fluor and I do not want those because they are for other types of illumination. I also need to make sure the aperture is .40 and it states ELWD.
4) The working distance for this lens is 10.5mm from this post - http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... ikon++elwd
5) This objective does not require a tube lens like the Mitutoyo or the Nikon CFI 10x .25 10.5. The best solution for this objective would be to purchase a bellows.
For the price this does look like a better solution than the Mitutoyo 20x.
I truly appreciate all of the assistance here. It is quite confusing getting started and I want to make sure I buy the right things.
Equipment for moving past 5x
Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau
-
kirispupis
- Posts: 21
- Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 9:25 am
- Location: Bellevue, WA
- Contact:
Depending how you want to illuminate the subject: you need a BD if the light comes through the lens, otherwise a regular M Plan works well.
Images of the 20x ELWD M Plan here = a great lens
http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... hp?t=10661
Images of the 20x ELWD M Plan here = a great lens
http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... hp?t=10661
NU.
student of entomology
Quote – Holmes on ‘Entomology’
” I suppose you are an entomologist ? “
” Not quite so ambitious as that, sir. I should like to put my eyes on the individual entitled to that name.
No man can be truly called an entomologist,
sir; the subject is too vast for any single human intelligence to grasp.”
Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr
The Poet at the Breakfast Table.
Nikon camera, lenses and objectives
Olympus microscope and objectives
student of entomology
Quote – Holmes on ‘Entomology’
” I suppose you are an entomologist ? “
” Not quite so ambitious as that, sir. I should like to put my eyes on the individual entitled to that name.
No man can be truly called an entomologist,
sir; the subject is too vast for any single human intelligence to grasp.”
Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr
The Poet at the Breakfast Table.
Nikon camera, lenses and objectives
Olympus microscope and objectives
-
kirispupis
- Posts: 21
- Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 9:25 am
- Location: Bellevue, WA
- Contact:
I see. So given that I plan to illuminate the subject through flashes aimed at it, as I understand a BD lens would not work out for me. According to the discussion you linked M stands for metallurgical - which happens to work well for the kind of illumination I need.
Looking on Fleabay, the following objectives would seem to work
M Plan 40x .5 210 ELWD - http://www.ebay.com/itm/Nikon-M-Plan-40 ... 19c7d6699b
M Plan 60x .70 210 ELWD - http://www.ebay.com/itm/NIKON-Mplan-60x ... 1e6ab15d21
Unfortunately I do not see the 10x and the 20x for sale right now.
Looking on Fleabay, the following objectives would seem to work
M Plan 40x .5 210 ELWD - http://www.ebay.com/itm/Nikon-M-Plan-40 ... 19c7d6699b
M Plan 60x .70 210 ELWD - http://www.ebay.com/itm/NIKON-Mplan-60x ... 1e6ab15d21
Unfortunately I do not see the 10x and the 20x for sale right now.
It has been a long time since I bought objectives (I have all I need!), and so have not kept up to date.
I believe the 20x BD and the 20x M Plan have the same glass; just different barrels. Also I believe the BD is a lot wider and will not screw into a 'regular' objective thread.
Not sure of the quality of the ELWD M Plan 40x and 60x.
Wait for other people to comment before committing to buy; prices seem high.
I believe the 20x BD and the 20x M Plan have the same glass; just different barrels. Also I believe the BD is a lot wider and will not screw into a 'regular' objective thread.
Not sure of the quality of the ELWD M Plan 40x and 60x.
Wait for other people to comment before committing to buy; prices seem high.
NU.
student of entomology
Quote – Holmes on ‘Entomology’
” I suppose you are an entomologist ? “
” Not quite so ambitious as that, sir. I should like to put my eyes on the individual entitled to that name.
No man can be truly called an entomologist,
sir; the subject is too vast for any single human intelligence to grasp.”
Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr
The Poet at the Breakfast Table.
Nikon camera, lenses and objectives
Olympus microscope and objectives
student of entomology
Quote – Holmes on ‘Entomology’
” I suppose you are an entomologist ? “
” Not quite so ambitious as that, sir. I should like to put my eyes on the individual entitled to that name.
No man can be truly called an entomologist,
sir; the subject is too vast for any single human intelligence to grasp.”
Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr
The Poet at the Breakfast Table.
Nikon camera, lenses and objectives
Olympus microscope and objectives
Check these downloads which Charles is/was hosting :
http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... 0247#90247
The BDs have a small advantage if you can manage to mount them, in that access to the front end can be easier, useful for lighting. Otherwise yes they are the same glass as the Mplans.
I don't think I'd bother. I have a couple and have an adapter but can't remember when I used them last.
Working distance is one of those things about which folk will disagree. There have been many marvellous photos published here with lenses which only give a couple of millimetres, somehow. If you go less than about 4mm things get quite difficult. The odd "apparent behaviour of reflections" becomes more of a problem, especially with higher magnifications, so WD is very valuable to allow a wide incident angle of diffuse light.
The 40x ELWD is certainly quite good and quite usable. I find the 60x ELWD WD is OK, if not ideal, but working with it takes time and patience and skills I'm short of! There have been many images here from the 40x, far fewer from the 60x.
I have a BD plan apo 40x, NA 0.8, WD 0.8mm, with an internal ring of leds stuffed in for illumination. It's capable of a very sharp image. However, the combination of number of steps needed, my lashed together rigs, my patience and ability, and the ease of running the lens into the subject, don't make for something likely to lead to mass production of prize-winning imagery.
http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... 0247#90247
The BDs have a small advantage if you can manage to mount them, in that access to the front end can be easier, useful for lighting. Otherwise yes they are the same glass as the Mplans.
I don't think I'd bother. I have a couple and have an adapter but can't remember when I used them last.
Working distance is one of those things about which folk will disagree. There have been many marvellous photos published here with lenses which only give a couple of millimetres, somehow. If you go less than about 4mm things get quite difficult. The odd "apparent behaviour of reflections" becomes more of a problem, especially with higher magnifications, so WD is very valuable to allow a wide incident angle of diffuse light.
The 40x ELWD is certainly quite good and quite usable. I find the 60x ELWD WD is OK, if not ideal, but working with it takes time and patience and skills I'm short of! There have been many images here from the 40x, far fewer from the 60x.
I have a BD plan apo 40x, NA 0.8, WD 0.8mm, with an internal ring of leds stuffed in for illumination. It's capable of a very sharp image. However, the combination of number of steps needed, my lashed together rigs, my patience and ability, and the ease of running the lens into the subject, don't make for something likely to lead to mass production of prize-winning imagery.
-
Charles Krebs
- Posts: 5865
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:02 pm
- Location: Issaquah, WA USA
- Contact:
krispupis,
Your 5 questions re. a 20X Nikon ELWD.
1) Yes. To get an overview of this series you might want to look at: www.krebsmicro.com/mplan.pdf
2) That is the BD version. Price is not unusual, but pretty high. Can be gotten for less.
3) Not really. There are two versions of the particular objective we are talking about.... the M Plan and the BD Plan. While I can't say they are optically "identical", I have both, and can't see any difference in image quality between them. The mount is the big difference.
4) The working distance of the M Plan is 10.5mm. The working distance of the BD Plan is 8.5mm. The reduction is due to the physically larger barrel needed for reflective darkfield illumination... it sticks out a little farther than the front element. . If you remove the outer barrel (easy to do) on the BD version the working distances are the same. After doing this, the outer dimension of the front is narrower than the M Plan which makes it easier to attach diffuser and such. (But you still need to deal with the larger 26mm BD mounting thread instead of the more common "RMS" thread).
5) Correct. No tube lens. "Ideally" there should be 200mm between the objective seating shoulder and the sensor. That'll give you 20X. But experience has been that you can go longer for higher magnifications and shorter for somewhat lower magnifications (in this case... lower magnifications... do some testing on the image corners to see how far you can go and still be satisfied with corner resolution).
The Mitutoyo will likely cost considerably more, but will have much better color correction. The longer working distance Nikon CF M Plans are Plan achromats, and you will find "bluish" and "greenish" haze around some features (mostly in out-of -focus regions) that will require some attention in post processing. This is actually less of a problem in stacked images.
Your 5 questions re. a 20X Nikon ELWD.
1) Yes. To get an overview of this series you might want to look at: www.krebsmicro.com/mplan.pdf
2) That is the BD version. Price is not unusual, but pretty high. Can be gotten for less.
3) Not really. There are two versions of the particular objective we are talking about.... the M Plan and the BD Plan. While I can't say they are optically "identical", I have both, and can't see any difference in image quality between them. The mount is the big difference.
Not necessarily because of the the illumination techniques... if it is marked "EPI" or "FLUOR" it is from a different series of objectives than we are currently discussing. There are some "BD" DIC M Plans in this series that you are considering, although I am not sure they were offered in the longer working distance versions. In any event, a "DIC" version of an objective will typically offer identical performance except perhaps in the most demanding polarized illumination techniques.Many of the copies are DIC, EPI, Fluor and I do not want those because they are for other types of illumination.
4) The working distance of the M Plan is 10.5mm. The working distance of the BD Plan is 8.5mm. The reduction is due to the physically larger barrel needed for reflective darkfield illumination... it sticks out a little farther than the front element. . If you remove the outer barrel (easy to do) on the BD version the working distances are the same. After doing this, the outer dimension of the front is narrower than the M Plan which makes it easier to attach diffuser and such. (But you still need to deal with the larger 26mm BD mounting thread instead of the more common "RMS" thread).
5) Correct. No tube lens. "Ideally" there should be 200mm between the objective seating shoulder and the sensor. That'll give you 20X. But experience has been that you can go longer for higher magnifications and shorter for somewhat lower magnifications (in this case... lower magnifications... do some testing on the image corners to see how far you can go and still be satisfied with corner resolution).
The Mitutoyo will likely cost considerably more, but will have much better color correction. The longer working distance Nikon CF M Plans are Plan achromats, and you will find "bluish" and "greenish" haze around some features (mostly in out-of -focus regions) that will require some attention in post processing. This is actually less of a problem in stacked images.
Last edited by Charles Krebs on Tue Jan 31, 2012 3:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
In regards to the Mitutoyo M Plan Apo 20x objectives, we should remember that there are two main types of this objective available for 'standard' (=brightfield) high-mag. photography: 1) M Plan Apo SL 20x/0.28, working distance 30.5mm, DOF .0035 (Mitutoyo #378-810-3); and 2) M Plan Apo 20x/0.42, w.d. 20.0mm, DOF .0016 (Mitutoyo #378-804-2). Chris S. has discussed the 0.42 NA objective in several posts, and I believe he has high regards for this lens.
-
kirispupis
- Posts: 21
- Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 9:25 am
- Location: Bellevue, WA
- Contact:
Thank you again for all of the helpful info.
I am mainly looking to purchase a 10x and a 20x right now. In the future I would like to pick up a 40x and above but I want to get used to these magnifications first before I go higher. I am aware that things such as lighting and subject handling will be more difficult at higher magnifications so I want to build to there.
In terms of the 10x, I am pretty much sold on the Nikon CFI 10x .25 10.5. I agree that 10mm vs. 30mm of working distance shouldn't matter too much and from the samples I have seen it does not look worth it to spend more for the Mitutoyo 10x. Besides, I already accidentally ordered the adapter for this objective anyways.
In terms of the 20x I am a bit more conflicted. For my purposes it sounds like the Mitutoyo 20x (non-SL) or the Nikon 20x ELWD (BD or M) should fit my needs. On the one hand the Nikon is cheaper but I will need to purchase a bellows for this route. My understanding on the Mitutoyo 20x SL from another thread that I cannot locate is it offers more WD but poorer optical performance than the standard 20x.
In terms of the BD mount, am I correct that an M27 adapter will work for the Nikon 20x BD ELWD such as this one? - http://www.ebay.com/itm/M27-Nikon-CF-in ... 0578507683
Right now I am tempted to pick up the Mitutoyo 20x mainly because I'd like to more easily switch between the objectives as necessary and they can both use the same tube lenses.
I am mainly looking to purchase a 10x and a 20x right now. In the future I would like to pick up a 40x and above but I want to get used to these magnifications first before I go higher. I am aware that things such as lighting and subject handling will be more difficult at higher magnifications so I want to build to there.
In terms of the 10x, I am pretty much sold on the Nikon CFI 10x .25 10.5. I agree that 10mm vs. 30mm of working distance shouldn't matter too much and from the samples I have seen it does not look worth it to spend more for the Mitutoyo 10x. Besides, I already accidentally ordered the adapter for this objective anyways.
In terms of the 20x I am a bit more conflicted. For my purposes it sounds like the Mitutoyo 20x (non-SL) or the Nikon 20x ELWD (BD or M) should fit my needs. On the one hand the Nikon is cheaper but I will need to purchase a bellows for this route. My understanding on the Mitutoyo 20x SL from another thread that I cannot locate is it offers more WD but poorer optical performance than the standard 20x.
In terms of the BD mount, am I correct that an M27 adapter will work for the Nikon 20x BD ELWD such as this one? - http://www.ebay.com/itm/M27-Nikon-CF-in ... 0578507683
Right now I am tempted to pick up the Mitutoyo 20x mainly because I'd like to more easily switch between the objectives as necessary and they can both use the same tube lenses.
-
Charles Krebs
- Posts: 5865
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:02 pm
- Location: Issaquah, WA USA
- Contact:
No, the older "finite" CF BD objective used a 26mm mounting thread.In terms of the BD mount, am I correct that an M27 adapter will work for the Nikon 20x BD ELWD such as this one?
You do need extension. Bellows are very nice, but it could also be accomplished with some of the inexpensive Chinese extension tubes.On the one hand the Nikon is cheaper but I will need to purchase a bellows for this route.
You can judge the potential resolution performance from the NA. One has an NA of 0.42, the other has an NA of 0.28 (you are giving up significant NA to obtain the longer working distance). Assuming good optics all around, the Super Long (SL) working distance Mitutoyo, at NA 0.28, could not resolve detail any finer than a 10X objective with a similar NA. It only "enlarges" that same detail twice as much. As long as your camera has sufficient pixel density to adequately "handle" a 10/0.28 with direct projection (about 15Mp or more for an APS-C sized sensor) a picture taken with a 10/0.28 would look (resolution-wise) just about as good. The 0.42 NA of the regular Mitutoyo could provide about 50% more resolution than the 0.28 SL version. (Whether or not any objective meets its theoretical "potential" resolution is another matter. That's why I don't get too excited about a relatively small difference in NA between two objectives. But 0.42 versus 0.28 is a pretty good gap, and given comparable quality objectives at the same objective magnification I would certainly expect to see a notable difference).My understanding on the Mitutoyo 20x SL from another thread that I cannot locate is it offers more WD but poorer optical performance than the standard 20x.
As Eric observed, I use the 20x Mitutoyo--as well as nearly the whole series of Mitutoyo M Plan Apo optics--and have a high regard for them. That said, I also use a wide complement of Nikon ELWD (and other Nikon) finites, and they are also very good. We're into the territory where the approach I'd recommend would depend on the particular photographer's needs.
When a lens is clearly bad or good, it's easy to say so and make decisions accordingly. But when you get to the point of deciding between two good lenses (or perhaps "really good" and "great" lenses), other issues come strongly into play: The photographer's budget, workflow, subjects, photographic goals, and--especially--integration capabilities and intents. How the photographer integrates a bellows, extension tubes, converging lens, or multiple converging lenses is a big factor, considering that all that integration has to be done in ways that minimize vibration and maximize convenience. Such integration may impact lens choices. I have a substantial investment in integrating finite optics, and another substantial investment in integrating infinite optics. Would either set of optics be the clear choice without the supporting gear? I doubt it.
Once we get to the level of the optics discussed here, it is no longer simply a question of "What is best?" but "What best fits your work?" And "What do you want to invest in making fit your workflow?"
PM sent to Kirispupis, suggesting a phone call. If we chat and Kirispupis finds my blathering useful, perhaps it can be netted out for the forum.
Cheers,
--Chris
When a lens is clearly bad or good, it's easy to say so and make decisions accordingly. But when you get to the point of deciding between two good lenses (or perhaps "really good" and "great" lenses), other issues come strongly into play: The photographer's budget, workflow, subjects, photographic goals, and--especially--integration capabilities and intents. How the photographer integrates a bellows, extension tubes, converging lens, or multiple converging lenses is a big factor, considering that all that integration has to be done in ways that minimize vibration and maximize convenience. Such integration may impact lens choices. I have a substantial investment in integrating finite optics, and another substantial investment in integrating infinite optics. Would either set of optics be the clear choice without the supporting gear? I doubt it.
Once we get to the level of the optics discussed here, it is no longer simply a question of "What is best?" but "What best fits your work?" And "What do you want to invest in making fit your workflow?"
PM sent to Kirispupis, suggesting a phone call. If we chat and Kirispupis finds my blathering useful, perhaps it can be netted out for the forum.
Cheers,
--Chris