JML 20X Results (keep adding pictures)

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

Moderators: Pau, rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S.

lauriek
Posts: 2402
Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2007 6:57 am
Location: South East UK
Contact:

Post by lauriek »

Here's one more, small greeny-blue fly abdomen..

Image

I had to crank the jpeg compression up quite a lot to squeeze this shot in the 300kb limit!

The only difference with this shot to my previous ones with this lens, this time I set the bellows to maximum extension, which is around 250-260mm, so this is a bit beyond 20x.

Here's a slightly larger and less-compressed version

canonian
Posts: 890
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2010 4:00 am
Location: Rotterdam, Netherlands
Contact:

Post by canonian »

There is one more test I like to do:
ChrisR wrote:AH - I thought we "knew" it was a finite.
rjlittlefield wrote:I tried it both ways. The difference in image quality was not compelling...
I received my 52mm->42mm ring today from HongKong to mount the M42->RMS converter, which hold the JML20X.

Image
First an overview: a fruitfly (previously used in "what is it" post)

Image
Canon EF 100-300mm 1:4.5-5.6 tubelens @200mm, 55 frames@3µm

Image
Bellows @200mm extension, 44 frames@3µm

I gave them both the same treatment in PP.
In CameraRaw, I upped clarity and added slight sharpening and exposure, copied and applied settings to 2nd.
Using bellows gave me better DOF, 11 frames less?
I think using empty extention gives - slightly- better quality than on a tubelens, agree?

It's a strange phenomenon, I allways thought finite and infinite lenses were very different by design and use.
I still have a lot to learn on characteristic and behaviour of optics (noob) .
Last edited by canonian on Thu Jul 05, 2012 3:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

abpho
Posts: 1496
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2011 7:11 pm
Location: Earth

Post by abpho »

Looks like the tube picture is sharper.
I'm in Canada! Isn't that weird?

lauriek
Posts: 2402
Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2007 6:57 am
Location: South East UK
Contact:

Post by lauriek »

Here's another test shot on Flickr with the JML20x. I have to say I'm really liking this lens - bang for buck it's pretty hard to beat!

Harold Gough
Posts: 5786
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 2:17 am
Location: Reading, Berkshire, England

Post by Harold Gough »

canonian wrote: Using bellows gave me better DOF, 11 frames less?
I think using empty extention gives - slightly- better quality than on a tubelens, agree?
It certainly seems to be the case. Is that about sharpness of individual frames or an indication that there is an optimal number of frames for a stack?

Harold
Last edited by Harold Gough on Sun Jul 08, 2012 12:39 am, edited 1 time in total.
My images are a medium for sharing some of my experiences: they are not me.

canonian
Posts: 890
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2010 4:00 am
Location: Rotterdam, Netherlands
Contact:

Post by canonian »

lauriek wrote:I have to say I'm really liking this lens - bang for buck it's pretty hard to beat!
I must say you get excellent results with this lens, Laurie. Mine seems a little "muddier." Might be the way we light things differently.
Harold Gough wrote:Is that about sharpness of individual frames or an indication that there is an optimal number of frames for a stack?
I'm not sure about frame sharpness, usually before shooting I check the 'travel' distance so at both extremes everything in the frame is in focus.
With bellows it seems to give me shorter travel. Comparing was not exactly the same and hard to get the same magnification. On the tubelens there were a lot of conversions that added from frontlens to objective: 58-55,55-52,52-42 and 42-RMS, adding 2cm.
I do know now that this lens covers DOF at about 3-5 micron steps. I wonder if other JML20X users use the same stepsize.

BugEZ
Posts: 818
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 7:15 pm
Location: Loves Park Illinois

Tiny doli

Post by BugEZ »

I found a Doli that is minute (1.2mm from head to tip of abdomen) so I photographed it with my JML20X. It is mounted to my 200 mm f4 telephoto.

I am pleased with the results in general, but focus is a bit soft near the corners on my APS size sensor.

Note the Doli was not "fresh" and the eye color has transitioned from green/red to black. It has also lost a bit of the antenna.

Keith

Image

BugEZ
Posts: 818
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 7:15 pm
Location: Loves Park Illinois

Post by BugEZ »

Second try after I soaked the doli in warm water for 30 minutes. That made the eye colors a bit brighter!

I discovered some settings that I had wrong on the RAW to JPEG conversion in my post above so the color abboration was not properly compensated... Using the proper settings helped the softness on the corners...

K

Image

canonian
Posts: 890
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2010 4:00 am
Location: Rotterdam, Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Tiny doli

Post by canonian »

BugEZ wrote:I am pleased with the results in general...
As you probably discovered it is a nice little gem, Keith. Both in price, performance, magnification and workability.
Have you also tried it without a tubelens, with just a 200-222mm empty extention?

Harold Gough
Posts: 5786
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 2:17 am
Location: Reading, Berkshire, England

Post by Harold Gough »

I have yet to use mine. I am not practiced in working at the higher magnifications so I don't want to rush into using it just to show some images. That said, the results posted indicate it will give the kind of results I am working towards.

Harold
My images are a medium for sharing some of my experiences: they are not me.

BugEZ
Posts: 818
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 7:15 pm
Location: Loves Park Illinois

Post by BugEZ »

canonian wrote
Have you also tried it without a tubelens, with just a 200-222mm empty extension?
No, I just swapped it onto the telephoto, replacing the 10X OLY that normally lives there... I recall that Rik did quite a thorough test of the lens with/without a tube lens and his conclusion was that it was slightly better with the tube. So I started with his recommended configuration. Rik pointed out that the color aberration can be somewhat compensated with software. Taking Rik's advice, I made some tweaks in my processing and the images were improved. I described that here http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... 871#104871
near the middle of the thread.

I too like the lens. To bad there is not a "big brother" 40X JML lens of comparable value!

canonian
Posts: 890
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2010 4:00 am
Location: Rotterdam, Netherlands
Contact:

Post by canonian »

Well Keith, like some say: YMMV ! You bought yours very early and things got spiraling out since Rich got us all one.
There's so much posts going on about the JML20X I forgot (or overlooked) your reply in that post.
I didn't apply any abberation correction in software but any tip on how to enhance the quality of the shot is welcome.
I will try this in the stack to follow.

I using the JML 20X very frequently now but a JML 40X would be very nice in the future.

canonian
Posts: 890
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2010 4:00 am
Location: Rotterdam, Netherlands
Contact:

Post by canonian »

Image

I just applied the Chromatic Abberation setting on the first image I shot with the JML 20X, following the instructions in the post by Keith (BugEZ).
I do most of my editing in Adobe Camera Raw which also has a "Fix Blue/Yellow Fringe" slider and chose to edit the highlight edges.
It fixed most of the lens abberations so I decided to repost the first image.

The slight green color cast from the background in the facet eyes are removed by using the Adjustment Brush to reduce saturisation, turning them almost colorless.
The brush also reduce the exposure slightly, which lowered the specular highlight in the facettes.
I still don't master all the editing skills in photoshop fully but posts like Keith's and Rik's helps a great deal.

Image
Turning these abberations >-----------------------------------------------------------------------> into this.

rjlittlefield
Site Admin
Posts: 21194
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
Contact:

Post by rjlittlefield »

BugEZ wrote:I recall that Rik did quite a thorough test of the lens with/without a tube lens and his conclusion was that it was slightly better with the tube.
I don't recall that conclusion. Checking my postings, the main one that turns up is http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... 871#104871. The sample image linked there is with 222 mm of plain extension, no tube lens. As I recall, I shot it both ways, didn't notice any compelling difference in quality, and posted the plain extension version because it was 20X and thus directly comparable to my Nikon CF M Plan 20X NA 0.40 ELWD at rated magnification.

I vaguely recall seeing other people report that they thought the JML was a little better on tube lens, but I don't recall seeing detailed imagery to support that judgement.

--Rik

lauriek
Posts: 2402
Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2007 6:57 am
Location: South East UK
Contact:

Post by lauriek »

I posted this over in 'technical' but thought it deserved to be posted in this thread too as it was with the JML20x..

Tiny mite, as yet unidentified any further. (Alive)

Image

53 slices with JML20x at around 200mm of extension, approx 4-5 micron steps. Zerene PMAX.

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic