Lens Tests in Progress Coming Soon 2018

[RobertOToole]

Over the past couple of months I have been very busy with work but I've found that I can run a test or at least part of a test on breaks during the day.

Now I have a problem.

This is the list of lens tests that have been shot but still need to have images processed, uploaded and posted.

If you see a test that you find especially interesting let me know and I can push that one to the top of the list.

Also let me know if you have any questions or any suggestions.

These are all based on an APS-C sensor camera.

Extension Only Tests

Canon MP-E 65mm 1-5x Macro Lens at 3.4x
JML 21mm f/3.5 Lens at 3.4x
Leica Photar 25mm f/2.0 lens on extension only
Lomo 3.7x on extension only
Noritsu 48.5 printing machine lens on extension only
Schneider 2.8/28 Machine Vision Lens on extension only
Schneider Xenoplan 17mm f1.4 Machine Vision Lens on extension only

Note: These were done only for comparison with a tube lens test done at the same time. For example I tested the Lomo 3,7 lens on extension and on a tube lens at the same time.

Stacked Setup Tests

Schneider 120mm f/5.6 Makro-Symmar lens tube lens as a rear lens for stacking

Basic 35mm f3.5 Enlarging Lens + Schneider 120mm f/5.6 Makro-Symmar lens at 3.4x
Copal 35mm f4 E18C Lens + Schneider 120mm f/5.6 Makro-Symmar lens at 3.4x
Leica Photar 25mm f/2.0 lens + Schneider 120mm f/5.6 Makro-Symmar lens at 3.4x
Lomo 3.7x + Schneider 120mm f/5.6 Makro-Symmar lens
Noritsu 48.5 printing machine lens + Schneider 120mm f/5.6 Makro-Symmar lens
Rodenstock 25mm f4 lens + Schneider 120mm f/5.6 Makro-Symmar lens at 3.4x
Rodenstock Eurygon 35mm f4 lens + Schneider 120mm f/5.6 Makro-Symmar lens at 3.4x
Schneider APO-Xenoplan 35mm f1.8 Machine Vision Lens + Schneider 120mm f/5.6 Makro-Symmar lens at 3.4x
Schneider Xenoplan 17mm f1.4 Machine Vision Lens + Schneider 120mm f/5.6 Makro-Symmar lens
Schneider 2.8/28 Machine Vision Lens + Schneider 120mm f/5.6 Makro-Symmar lens
Tominon 35mm f/4.5 Lens + Schneider 120mm f/5.6 Makro-Symmar lens at 3.4x

Mejiro 5.6/90 Line Scan lens as a rear lens for stacking

Schneider 2.8/28 Machine Vision Lens + Mejiro 5.6/90 Line Scan lens

Note: excellent image quality

Scitex S110 S-3 as a rear lens for stacking

Schneider 2.8/28 Machine Vision Lens + Scitex S110 S-3 as a tube lens
Schneider 4/28 Machine Vision Lens + Scitex S110 S-3 as a tube lens
Schneider 2/28 Machine Vision Lens + Scitex S110 S-3 as a tube lens
Schneider 2/35 Machine Vision Lens + Scitex S110 S-3 as a tube lens

Note: another excellent main lens for stacking

Raynox 125mm as a rear lens for stacking

Schneider 2.8/28 Machine Vision Lens + Raynox 125mm as a tube lens
Schneider 4/28 Enlarger Lens + Raynox 125mm as a tube lens
Schneider 4/40 Enlarger Lens + Raynox 125mm as a tube lens
Schneider 2/28 Machine Vision Lens + Raynox 125mm as a tube lens
Schneider 2/35 Machine Vision Lens + Raynox 125mm as a tube lens

Note: An excellent main lens for stacking

Schneider 4/80 Componon - S as a rear lens for stacking

Leica Photar 25mm f/2.0 lens on extension only + Schneider 4/80 Componon - S

Note: huge improvement over extension only focus.

These lenses were tested but will not be posted usually due to poor image quality.

Schneider 4.5/90 Line Scan as a rear or main lens for a stacking > corner shading
Schneider Macro Varon CAS as a rear or main lens for a stacking > corner shading
Schneider 5.6/80 Makro-Symmar as a rear or main lens for a stacking > corner shading
Scitex S-3 67 as a rear or main lens for a stacking> corner shading and short WD
Scitex S-89 as a rear or main lens for a stacking> corner shading and short WD

Kowa 50mm f2.8 Machine vision lens as front lens for a stacking > poor IQ
Nikkor EL-Nikkor 2.8/50 as front lens for a stacking > poor IQ
Pentax 35mm f2.8 Line Scan lens as front lens for a stacking > poor IQ

Comments and questions welcome.

[Lou Jost]

I'd be very interested in the Scitex tests and Lomo stacked tests. I've had good results with both as well. I also had good results with the Scitex 89mm. I don't recall dark corners when used as a tube lens for a Mitutoyo objective, but I better dig out the hard drive with those results, maybe my memory is playing tricks on me. Edit: maybe the difference is due to my using MFT, though I ought to have used shifted MFT to test FF coverage-- will check on this.

[RobertOToole]

I'd be very interested in the Scitex tests and Lomo stacked tests. I've had good results with both as well. I also had good results with the Scitex 89mm. I don't recall dark corners when used as a tube lens for a Mitutoyo objective, but I better dig out the hard drive with those results, maybe my memory is playing tricks on me. Edit: maybe the difference is due to my using MFT, though I ought to have used shifted MFT to test FF coverage-- will check on this.

On the 89mm and 67 S-3 scitex, I believe the corner shading issue is related to the front element distance, its recessed almost 10mm, which is more than any other lens I tested.

The 89 S-3 works fine in reverse but the WD is really short so they arent the best choice.

The 110mm S3 was a really fantastic rear lens for stacking.

Thanks for the feedback on the tests Lou.

Robert

[Pau]

Wow! you don't stop testing
I'm very interested in the JML 21 alone and combined and in the results of the classic macro lenses like the Photar 25mm (and Zeiss Luminar?) as front lenses in combos.

Mainly curiosity, no need to speed up the publication.

[Munich]

After the lens-greed inducing teaser ("unable to output sharpen") on your homepage:

everything related to the Schneider APO-Xenoplan 35mm f1.8

Many thanks for your efforts!

[enricosavazzi]

The Schneider Makro Symmar 120 mm f/5.6 is relatively common and affordable, so it would be good for many members to know how it performs as a tube lens.

By the way, is the Makro Symmar 120 mm f/5.9 in V38 barrel optically the same as the f/5.6 model in ordinary enlarger barrel, only stopped down to f/5.9 by a fixed diaphragm in the V38 barrel? Or perhaps a sightly modified model with a slightly smaller diameter of the rear element to fit through the V38 mount? I suspect either way, but I have no concrete data.

[Macrero]

The Photar 2/25 (forward mounted) works really well in combos. Yesterday I played with an Apo-Componon MI 2.8/40 and it is also promising, used in combo reversed and stopped down a bit.

The Componon-S 4/80 does well as "relay lens" for combos, though I prefer using longer FL lenses.

I would not expect a good result from the Lomo used as infinty objective. I tried that with quite a few finte microscope objectives in a desperate attempt to improve their poor coverage. It only made things worse.

The JML 21 works better on bellows than in combos. Tried that years ago

The Apo-Xenoplan is a nice optics, but image circle is very small - 11mm. Will be interesting to see how it does in combos, though.

Looking forward to seeing the results of your new test.

Best,

- Macrero

Btw,I haven't tried the Makro-Symmar 120 as relay/tube lens, but I honestly doubt it is a kind of a miracle lens for that purpose and works any better than other good lenses. I actually didn't see any significant difference between relay/rear lenses in combos, and I tried quite a few. The rear lens focal length do makes a difference in coverage. And of course, the biggest difference comes from the front lens used.

[Lou Jost]

"On the 89mm and 67 S-3 scitex, I believe the corner shading issue is related to the front element distance, its recessed almost 10mm, which is more than any other lens I tested."

Most microscope objectives can be put into the recessed front of those Scitex lenses, so that they almost touch the front element. That's how I got my good results. Still, I do not think they would do well on APS, since my MFT corners were already soft. Nevertheless the results were very beautiful on MFT because the objectives were pushed down so much that the resolution was frighteningly high except in those corners.

[elimoss]

The APO-Xenoplan 35mm f1.8 and 17mm 1.4 have small image circles -- do they cover APS-C in stacked configuration?

[Lou Jost]

The APO-Xenoplan 35mm f1.8 and 17mm 1.4 have small image circles -- do they cover APS-C in stacked configuration?

Don't forget that this depends on the FOV of the front lens and the ratio of the focal lengths. If a front lens has a FOV of 10mm and a focal length of 50mm, then the magnification will be m= (focal length of tube lens)/(50) and the image will be m*10mm wide unless there is mechanical vignetting. If m*10mm <the diagonal of the sensor, then it will not cover the sensor.

So if X is the focal length of the tube lens and Y is the focal length of the front lens and FOV is the field of view of the front lens, then the image circle is less than or equal to (X/Y)*FOV.

Longer tube focal length therefore makes it easier to cover the sensor. With a long enough tube focal length, you should always be able to cover the sensor. But you have to consider the effective aperture to see if you are getting empty magnification. That's the real limiting factor.

[RobertOToole]

Wow! you don't stop testing
I'm very interested in the JML 21 alone and combined and in the results of the classic macro lenses like the Photar 25mm (and Zeiss Luminar?) as front lenses in combos.

Mainly curiosity, no need to speed up the publication.

Hi Pau,

Both the JML and 2/25 Photar are both loaners from friends so I don't have any experience with either other than the tests I ran.

JML

The JML at the tested magnification, 3.2x-3.4x, was decent but not as good as I hoped. CA correction was very good but the center sharpness was not the best and maybe due to the low magnification the corners had a drop off in sharpness. Maybe the IQ would be better at a higher mag?

I did not test the JML on a tube lens.

Leica Photar

The Photar 2/25 was very sharp in the center at 3.2x but the image circle was really small, maybe half of the APS-C frame? But this lens performed like new lens when stacked with a much larger image circle.

This is the leica made f2 version not the f2.5 version made by Minolta that was not as well corrected when I tested a sample a couple of years ago.

Will get to these two sooner rather than later.

Thanks for the feedback.

Best, Robert

[RobertOToole]

Hi Enrico,

The Schneider Makro Symmar 120 mm f/5.6 is relatively common and affordable, so it would be good for many members to know how it performs as a tube lens.

This lens I call the HM 5.6/120 Makro-Symmar is a very underrated lens on its own and I have a strong suspicion that it would be a superb tube lens also. The problem is mounting since its a much larger lens than the V38 version. The rear threads are M32.5 x 0.5 but the rear cell is larger so you have to set-up the threads. You can see all the details on my site if anyone is curious: https://www.closeuphotography.com/schne ... mar-120mm/

By the way, is the Makro Symmar 120 mm f/5.9 in V38 barrel optically the same as the f/5.6 model in ordinary enlarger barrel, only stopped down to f/5.9 by a fixed diaphragm in the V38 barrel? Or perhaps a sightly modified model with a slightly smaller diameter of the rear element to fit through the V38 mount? I suspect either way, but I have no concrete data.

I did look into this, the V38 versions optimized for different ranges and 84mm image circle and the optical data is different for all the versions.

The HM and V38 versions do have different sized rear cells but I have never actually measured the EV for both models wide open. I will make a note to do that at some point.



The HM version is optimized for a similar magnification as the V38 1x model but for a much larger image circle, something like 250mm!

I have the 5.6/120 HM and and SR120 5.6/120 V38 and they are both excellent.

There is a document posted on my site and shows the different optical layouts for the different SR120 5.6/120 V38 models.

https://www.closeuphotography.com/schne ... ar-sr-120/


Best,

Robert

[Lou Jost]

is the Makro Symmar 120 mm f/5.9 in V38 barrel optically the same as the f/5.6 model in ordinary enlarger barrel, only stopped down to f/5.9 by a fixed diaphragm in the V38 barrel?

Another possibility is that the "5.9" is just a typo on the lens label; as evidence for this, note that the lens is labeled "5.6" at the back.

[RobertOToole]

The Photar 2/25 (forward mounted) works really well in combos. Yesterday I played with an Apo-Componon MI 2.8/40 and it is also promising, used in combo reversed and stopped down a bit.

Let us know how the 2.8/40 works out Macrero.

The Componon-S 4/80 does well as "relay lens" for combos, though I prefer using longer FL lenses.


I would not expect a good result from the Lomo used as infinty objective. I tried that with quite a few finte microscope objectives in a desperate attempt to improve their poor coverage. It only made things worse.

The Lomo results are actually what drove me to post this. I ran across the results on my hard drive and realized that not only had completely forgotten about the great results but that I never posted the findings!

The JML 21 works better on bellows than in combos. Tried that years ago

Thanks, thats saves me some time!

The Apo-Xenoplan is a nice optics, but image circle is very small - 11mm. Will be interesting to see how it does in combos, though.

Btw,I haven't tried the Makro-Symmar 120 as relay/tube lens, but I honestly doubt it is a kind of a miracle lens for that purpose and works any better than other good lenses. I actually didn't see any significant difference between relay/rear lenses in combos, and I tried quite a few. The rear lens focal length do makes a difference in coverage. And of course, the biggest difference comes from the front lens used.

I agree that the front lens makes the biggest difference for sure.

Some lens pairs are just pure magic even cancelling out all visible CAs.

My best results so far for rear lenses have been with line scan lenses optimized for a close up distance, 0.75x for example. Some lens pairs are so good its impossible to find a flaw even at 100% view from edge to edge but this is only with a handful of combos out of something like 50+ pairs I have tried.

This is an excellent pair, the Mejiro 5.6/90 0.75x line scan lens + Componon 2.8.28 at f2.8.

Click on the 1000 pixel image below to open a new window with a 2500 pixel file.

[RobertOToole]

is the Makro Symmar 120 mm f/5.9 in V38 barrel optically the same as the f/5.6 model in ordinary enlarger barrel, only stopped down to f/5.9 by a fixed diaphragm in the V38 barrel?

Another possibility is that the "5.9" is just a typo on the lens label; as evidence for this, note that the lens is labeled "5.6" at the back.

I think the real answer Lou is one of the marketing department vs engineering. The 5.6 number sounds better for sales so it's called a 5.6 lens but the 5.9 is real EV (exposure value).

(the full doc is posted on my site BTW)