Hello to all,
There were months when I read your useful discussions and I have almost finished my setup ...
but I have not a GOOD lens that covers the range of around 5x
reading a lot, I got more confusion than help, kindly can you help?
sorry for my bad English
Roberto
help choosing 5x lens
Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau
HI Roberto, and welcome to the forum.
The first question is - what is your camera? Covering the sensor fully, can be an issue.
A good and relatively simple low cost option is to use a Nikon 4x BE objective on a 200mm "tube" lens.
We have a couple of good comparisons/posts at about 5x, eg Lenses for use at 4-5X on an APS-sized sensor
see also Pixels for use at 4-5X on an APS-sized sensor (including analysis of f/11 vs diffraction)
Chris
The first question is - what is your camera? Covering the sensor fully, can be an issue.
A good and relatively simple low cost option is to use a Nikon 4x BE objective on a 200mm "tube" lens.
We have a couple of good comparisons/posts at about 5x, eg Lenses for use at 4-5X on an APS-sized sensor
see also Pixels for use at 4-5X on an APS-sized sensor (including analysis of f/11 vs diffraction)
Chris
Hello Chris,ChrisR wrote:HI Roberto, and welcome to the forum.
The first question is - what is your camera. Covering the sensor fully, is the issue.
We have a couple of good comparisons at about 5x, such as, ...
...searching..... will edit
opsss sorry!!!
right if I do not say what I use ...:
Pentax k5 APSC (23,6x15,7) CMOS 16,3 MPixel (4928x3264)
thanks again
Roberto
fits, thenA good and relatively simple low cost option is to use a Nikon 4x BE objective on a 200mm "tube" lens.
To go "better" and to 5x, the objectives get more expensive, such as the Mitutoyo apo 5x NA 0.15 (working distance, from memory about 30mm)
Or, one of the best options, is to use a 100mm "tube" lens and a 10x Niikon CFI or BE or similar objective which means a 5x result - covered in the comparisons. Working distance about 10mm, depending exactly which 10x objective.
"Best" means sharpest here, also means least depth of field. You will almost certainly want to "stack" images at 5x, otherwise the d-o-f is so shallow you can't see very much.
Often slightly "less good" optics, with their smaller effective apertures, and consequest increased d-o-f, are more convenient. On a 1500 pixel wide image, you probably wouldn't see a difference.
You can add an adjustable iris(aperture) to a microscope objective, to achieve the "more convenient" combination. I'll let you search for that one!
Well in THAT case you may find it much easier to look for a Nikon Mplan 5x NA 0.1 , TL 210mm, as you aren't using a "tube" lens.
There's also a 4x NA 0.1, very good good 4x NA 0.13, and an excellent 4x NA 0.2. (160mm TL rather than 210mm).
The 5x shouldn't be (:roll: ) too expensive, work pretty well, and you can use the same tube/bellows ( no tube lens) that you're using for your 10x.
With those objectives you can change the extension somewhat, to give different magnifications..
For below about 4x, the "finite" objectives aren't convenient. There must be a dozen ways of going, for 2-3x though. None of them particulalry outstanding (unless you get a Canon and an MP-E
! ) .
There's also a 4x NA 0.1, very good good 4x NA 0.13, and an excellent 4x NA 0.2. (160mm TL rather than 210mm).
The 5x shouldn't be (:roll: ) too expensive, work pretty well, and you can use the same tube/bellows ( no tube lens) that you're using for your 10x.
With those objectives you can change the extension somewhat, to give different magnifications..
For below about 4x, the "finite" objectives aren't convenient. There must be a dozen ways of going, for 2-3x though. None of them particulalry outstanding (unless you get a Canon and an MP-E
! ) .Probably - it's a compromise. As you'll see from the links I gave, diffraction (from a restricted aperture) can be a problem. With a microscope objective you get a large "effective aperture".
A very few expensive macro bellows lenses can be more flexible, with longer working distances, and have adjustable irises.
A very few expensive macro bellows lenses can be more flexible, with longer working distances, and have adjustable irises.
-
Olympusman
- Posts: 5090
- Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2012 12:31 pm
5X objective
Bear in mind, most of us use a4X or 5X objective as a "survey" lens to see what we have in our specimen. If you intend to use the 5X objective as a photo lens, that may justify a more expensive purchase.
When I put a pond drop on a slide, I first suevry it with the 5X objective to see if there is anything of interest in the drop, for instance, if I find a Hydra. Then I can use a pipette to isolate the specimen to other slides until I get a clean enough water field to put on a cover slip.
If you are using a 4X orn 5X objective for surveying a speciemn, an inexpensive one may suit your purposes.
When I put a pond drop on a slide, I first suevry it with the 5X objective to see if there is anything of interest in the drop, for instance, if I find a Hydra. Then I can use a pipette to isolate the specimen to other slides until I get a clean enough water field to put on a cover slip.
If you are using a 4X orn 5X objective for surveying a speciemn, an inexpensive one may suit your purposes.
Michael Reese Much FRMS EMS Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, USA
-
ray_parkhurst
- Posts: 3438
- Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 10:40 am
- Location: Santa Clara, CA, USA
- Contact:
I'd suggest the Nikon 5x MM (Measuring Microscope, or more properly Measurescope) lens. You can't push it below 5x due to astigmatism in the corners, but at 5x I have not seen a sharper lens in the center (except maybe the 4x/0.2 PlanAPO), and it is still decent at the corners on APS-C. But the reasons to recommend it are its huge working distance of around 75mm, which gives you complete freedom to light the specimen however you want, and it's telecentricity (or nearly so), which may be part of the reason the results are so good with it (elimination of frame-to-frame scaling errors).
The 5x shows up on eBay occasionally, and they often go for peanuts. I bought mine for about $80 (not peanuts, but not too bad). The 5x seems to be sell for the least of the whole MM series, though that distinction should go to the 3x since it was the only "stock" lens included with the MM20 Measurescope. Other magnifications had to be purchased separately.
DealCorner is selling the 5x for $290 here:
http://dealcorner.com/NikonObjectives.html
The 5x shows up on eBay occasionally, and they often go for peanuts. I bought mine for about $80 (not peanuts, but not too bad). The 5x seems to be sell for the least of the whole MM series, though that distinction should go to the 3x since it was the only "stock" lens included with the MM20 Measurescope. Other magnifications had to be purchased separately.
DealCorner is selling the 5x for $290 here:
http://dealcorner.com/NikonObjectives.html
Memory failureChrisR wrote: To go "better" and to 5x, the objectives get more expensive, such as the Mitutoyo apo 5x NA 0.15 (working distance, from memory about 30mm)
The correct working distance for the 5X Mitutoyo M Plan Apo is 34mm and the na is 0.14 not 0.15.
I agree about the Mitutoyo m plan apo 5X na 0.14 WD 34mm. That objective is my own personal favorite at the magnification range around 5x.
One favorite setup for what I like to achieve with my pictures are to use that objective and Rodenstock Apo Gerogon 150mm F 9.0 as converging lens (tube lens) on bellows. That's a good pair for the magnifications I like to use when I photograph some Diptera (flies).
This test was done with Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM as converging lens (tube lens). Has there been done some other tests with other "tube lenses" at 100mm focal lenght that confirms that theory.Or, one of the best options, is to use a 100mm "tube" lens and a 10x Niikon CFI or BE or similar objective which means a 5x result - covered in the comparisons. Working distance about 10mm, depending exactly which 10x objective.
Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM maybe are one of the sharpest and best lenses that Canon has released.
Regards,
Conny
At my age I have to be happy with a memory accurate to 13% 
I suppose the point is that the Mitty has a usefully longer working distance than the Mplan 5x at 20mm, though the 4x BE, comes as 25mm but the front hood removes to give a few mm more.
Nikon 4x NA 0.13 is 16mm, which is still enough for most things, I find. (Ray finds otherwise, with his coins).
I do possess an apo Gerogon 150 f/9, but so far haven't tried it. A 135mm prime Nikkor works well.
I have tried a few around 100mm, such as Nikon Micros, a couple of enlarger lenses and a Nikon "E". All were good, though some differences were visible. A plain $10 Rodagon enlarger lens was certainly "good" too. (This is with a 10x objective, though I can't remember which one. Nikon CFI 10x 0.25 or Mitutoyo 10x).
The only lens I tried as a tube lens which I'd say was "bad" was a 100- 200mm projector lens. Nasty CA.
As the "tube" lens is being used at about f/16 - 20 perhaps it's not surprising that they're mostly quite reasonable, and fairly close.
I'm sure I'm relaxing about pixel-peeping. More often than not, different optics can look remarkably similar after some clicking and wafting in Photoshop.
I suppose the point is that the Mitty has a usefully longer working distance than the Mplan 5x at 20mm, though the 4x BE, comes as 25mm but the front hood removes to give a few mm more.
Nikon 4x NA 0.13 is 16mm, which is still enough for most things, I find. (Ray finds otherwise, with his coins).
I do possess an apo Gerogon 150 f/9, but so far haven't tried it. A 135mm prime Nikkor works well.
I have tried a few around 100mm, such as Nikon Micros, a couple of enlarger lenses and a Nikon "E". All were good, though some differences were visible. A plain $10 Rodagon enlarger lens was certainly "good" too. (This is with a 10x objective, though I can't remember which one. Nikon CFI 10x 0.25 or Mitutoyo 10x).
The only lens I tried as a tube lens which I'd say was "bad" was a 100- 200mm projector lens. Nasty CA.
As the "tube" lens is being used at about f/16 - 20 perhaps it's not surprising that they're mostly quite reasonable, and fairly close.
I'm sure I'm relaxing about pixel-peeping. More often than not, different optics can look remarkably similar after some clicking and wafting in Photoshop.
I agree with Ray that the working distance of the Nikon 5x MM objective makes it very good for certain kinds of work, but there are a few details on which I'd offer a counterpoint.
Neither term may be more proper than the other, as Nikon itself seems to have used both terms for microscopes that used these objectives. Some of these instruments were indeed called "Measurescopes." But here is a snip from the front of the "Measuring Microscope MM-200" brochure:
Here is a blowup of the instrument, showing that the objective is indeed in this series:
I recently checked two specimens of this lens at a series of magnifications from 5x down to 1.85x on an APS-C sensor. My takeaway was that it may deserve consideration down to about 2.2x for certain kinds of work. As I pulled the magnification down, I saw increasing curvature of field, but this isn't much a problem for focus stacking. I didn't particularly notice astigmatism being a problem, but the test subjects I used may be less revealing of this than Ray's subjects. Or there may be sample variation between lenses; since I had the opportunity to work with two samples, and they were indistinguishable, I have a hope that what I observed was representative.
In the studio, I tend to reach for the Nikon N Plan apo 4x/0.20 (as Ray mentioned) if working on the bellows, and the Mitutoyo M Plan apo 5x/0.14 if working on the tube lens. The fact that these are apochromats is probably a big part of why they are go-to lenses for me, since chromatic aberration bothers me strongly. (Sensitivity to particular lens faults seems to be highly individual from one photographer to another.) And their working distances (15mm and 34mm, respectively) make then very easy to use.
But the enormous working distance (officially listed at 64mm, rather than 75mm) of the Nikon 5x MM (NA unmarked on the objective, but listed as 0.13) might make it very nice for field work. This is why I tested it in the studio at different magnifications. ChrisR had suggested to me that this might make a good field lens, smaller and lighter than the Canon MP-E 65, but potentially covering a good portion of its range. So far, I tentatively think he may be onto something. I'll soon have a chance to take this lens, along with a few extension tubes, out into the field, and hope to find out.
Roberto, I hope I haven't strayed too far from the central question of your thread! I'm sorry if I have. Please be aware that among the three lenses I discussed, the Nikon 5x MM objective is uncommon on the used market and in macro use; the Nikon 4x/0.20 objective is also uncommon on the used market, and expensive if you find it (but truly wonderful); the Mitutoyo 5x is more common on the used market, and is also in current production and available new (unlike the other two lenses), but not cheap. The two Nikons mentioned are "finite"--for use on a bellows or extension tubes*; the Mitutoyo is "infinite"--for use on a converging lens.
*edit: There is also a Nikon 4x/0.20 infinite with 15.7mm working distance, which I have not used, but would expect to be very good.
Cheers,
--Chris
ray_parkhurst wrote:. . .the Nikon 5x MM (Measuring Microscope, or more properly Measurescope) lens.
Neither term may be more proper than the other, as Nikon itself seems to have used both terms for microscopes that used these objectives. Some of these instruments were indeed called "Measurescopes." But here is a snip from the front of the "Measuring Microscope MM-200" brochure:
Here is a blowup of the instrument, showing that the objective is indeed in this series:
You can't push it below 5x due to astigmatism in the corners. . .
I recently checked two specimens of this lens at a series of magnifications from 5x down to 1.85x on an APS-C sensor. My takeaway was that it may deserve consideration down to about 2.2x for certain kinds of work. As I pulled the magnification down, I saw increasing curvature of field, but this isn't much a problem for focus stacking. I didn't particularly notice astigmatism being a problem, but the test subjects I used may be less revealing of this than Ray's subjects. Or there may be sample variation between lenses; since I had the opportunity to work with two samples, and they were indistinguishable, I have a hope that what I observed was representative.
In the studio, I tend to reach for the Nikon N Plan apo 4x/0.20 (as Ray mentioned) if working on the bellows, and the Mitutoyo M Plan apo 5x/0.14 if working on the tube lens. The fact that these are apochromats is probably a big part of why they are go-to lenses for me, since chromatic aberration bothers me strongly. (Sensitivity to particular lens faults seems to be highly individual from one photographer to another.) And their working distances (15mm and 34mm, respectively) make then very easy to use.
But the enormous working distance (officially listed at 64mm, rather than 75mm) of the Nikon 5x MM (NA unmarked on the objective, but listed as 0.13) might make it very nice for field work. This is why I tested it in the studio at different magnifications. ChrisR had suggested to me that this might make a good field lens, smaller and lighter than the Canon MP-E 65, but potentially covering a good portion of its range. So far, I tentatively think he may be onto something. I'll soon have a chance to take this lens, along with a few extension tubes, out into the field, and hope to find out.
Roberto, I hope I haven't strayed too far from the central question of your thread! I'm sorry if I have. Please be aware that among the three lenses I discussed, the Nikon 5x MM objective is uncommon on the used market and in macro use; the Nikon 4x/0.20 objective is also uncommon on the used market, and expensive if you find it (but truly wonderful); the Mitutoyo 5x is more common on the used market, and is also in current production and available new (unlike the other two lenses), but not cheap. The two Nikons mentioned are "finite"--for use on a bellows or extension tubes*; the Mitutoyo is "infinite"--for use on a converging lens.
*edit: There is also a Nikon 4x/0.20 infinite with 15.7mm working distance, which I have not used, but would expect to be very good.
Cheers,
--Chris
Last edited by Chris S. on Fri Jun 28, 2013 11:23 am, edited 1 time in total.