Minolta DiMAGE Scan Elite 5400 vs. Componon 4/28 Tested at 3,1x

[RobertOToole]

The title to this post is a little misleading but I wanted it to be easy to search for in the future. The title really should be Extension Vs. Stacking at 3.1x or Why You Should Always Test Your Lenses, maybe?

The goal of this test was not to compare the Minolta DiMAGE Scan Elite 5400 vs. Componon 4/28, but to test a couple lenses to see if they were okay to sell. One lens was a 15 blade older Componon 4/28 from the 1960s with the chrome iris mount. The other was a modern 5 blade B00 4/28. I made myself a promise to sell all of my extra lenses and I have 12+ CPN28s!

The results were really worth the 30 or so minutes testing, the older lens was sharp, really sharp, more on that later. The late model mint 4/28 was off, maybe it was dropped at some point (I will not be selling the damaged lens as a result).

So the better looking, newer lens was the poorer performer. If you are not sure about a lens, do a quick test.

The results from the older 15 blade Componon 4/28 was great, so I was curious to just how good it was. I thought about it, what would be an interesting lens to compare? The Minolta DiMAGE Scan Elite 5400 (Min5400) set it to 3.1x!

These are the results.

3.1x SETUP INFORMATION

Schneider Componon 4/28 chrome 15 blade iris mount (CPN28)
Front lens: Schneider Componon 4/28 reverse mounted
Rear lens: Entendue Mejiro OTH075 f90mm f/5.6 normal mount

Stacked lens nominal test aperture: f/4
Stacked lens effective test aperture: f/12.4

Minolta DiMAGE Scan Elite 5400 (Min5400) set up with grooves closer to the subject
Min5400 nominal test aperture: f/4
Min5400 effective aperture for this test: f/16.4

Camera: Sony α6300, model # ILCE-6300, also known as: A6300
Sensor size: APS-C 23.5 × 15.6 mm. 28.21 mm diagonal. 3.92 micron sensor pitch
Flash: Godox TT350s wireless flash x 2 with one Godox X1s 2.4G wireless flash transmitter
Vertical stand: Nikon MM-11 with a Nikon focus block

For this test a stack of images was made with 5 micron steps, and was repeated for each aperture. The sharpest frame was then chosen using Photoshop at 100% actual pixel view. Separate images were selected for center, edge, and corner if needed. Each image was processed in PS CC with identical settings with all noise reduction and lens correction turned off, all settings were zeroed out (true zero) and the same settings were used for all of the images.

Center crop 100% view, CPN28 vs Min5400. Interesting that both lenses have a nominal f/4 but the effective f-stop are very different and it shows in the micro-lettering sharpness and contrast. The Min5400 is good, the CPN28 is awesome, really fantastic results here. The CPN28 even shows better CA control than the Min5400!

Edge crop 100% view, CPN28 vs Min5400. Okay to be fair, I never shoot the Min5400 past 3x and this is why, the corners get a bit soft at this magnification. The important thing the edge crops show? There is almost zero fall off in IQ with the CPN28. Fantastic performance

Extreme corner crop 100% view, CPN28 vs Min5400. Similar results as the edge crops. The CPN28 is best, the Min5400 is out of range and it shows.

CA crop 100% view, CPN28 vs Min5400. The 1 14 micro-lettering edges are an extreme test for color fringing. Some really well corrected lenses lose control here. Both lenses in the test show excellent control.

The test shows a couple of things with the CPN28. Stacking makes a big difference in sharpness at this magnification, about 1 full stop. Stacking really improves IQ in regards to CAs, at least with the CPN28+Mejiro combo. Why no CPN28 on extension you might ask, I was not about to spend more time testing a CPN28 on extension at 3.1x, I've done many times already. This is a test at 4x: https://www.closeuphotography.com/4x-lens-test-part-3.

These results also shows that the Min5400 limit for good corners is about 3x. The Min5400 has been the best lens in quite a few tests at lower magnifications. Its a really fantastic lens, It's one of a kind.

2x: https://www.closeuphotography.com/2x-lens-test-2018
3x: https://www.closeuphotography.com/3x-lens-test

Questions and comments welcome.

Best,

Robert

[RobertOToole]

In regards to the test setup, just FYI, I did test the Min5400 lens in both directions as I normally do and when in the wrong orientation, the wrong way, the corners went away really quickly as you leave the center, it was really obvious. The two grooves should be closer to the subject, and farther away from the sensor.

Best,

Robert

[chris_ma]

lovely test and results as always, thanks for posting!

quick question:
is there a typo in "Mejiro 5.6/90 OT0075"?
I know there's a Mejiro 5.6/90 OTH075 lens, never seen a OT0 series.
just asking so in case somebody searches for the lens it shows up in the result.

[RobertOToole]

lovely test and results as always, thanks for posting!

Thanks for the interest.

quick question:
is there a typo in "Mejiro 5.6/90 OT0075"?
I know there's a Mejiro 5.6/90 OTH075 lens, never seen a OT0 series.
just asking so in case somebody searches for the lens it shows up in the result.

Need to have a talk with my proofreading department looks like

The lens is sitting literally 10 inches from the computer and I got the name wrong!

Entendue Mejiro OTH075 f90mm f/5.6 A00019

Will make the correction, thanks Chris!

[Lou Jost]

Great test, it's always exciting to see (again) that the theoretical advantages of coupled lenses (versus lenses on extension) can be realized in practice.

[jnh]

I had a Minolata Dimage Scan 5400 that died on me a few years ago, and then I gave it away on Craigslist for a pittance. Could still kick myself.

[Medwar]

Robert,
could you please explain,
why the combo's effective apperture is f/12.4 ?
How have you calculated it?

I understand only where f/16,4 come from.

[RobertOToole]

Robert,
could you please explain,
why the combo's effective apperture is f/12.4 ?
How have you calculated it?

I understand only where f/16,4 come from.

You leave off the +1 in the simple formula where effective aperture = f*(M+1) since there is no extension with both lenses focused at infinity.

Thats the advantage of the stacked configuraton.

Best,

Robert

[FotoChris]

I'm sorry for 'reviving' the old thread - but I have a question that is very much related to this:

Has anyone ever tried stacking the Minolta 5400 lens? I wonder how well it would perform with a Raynox DCR150 or DCR250 or another "tube" lens at +3x-4x.

I've experimented with stacking things like a reversed 50mm and 63mm enlarger lenses on the DCR150 and those have worked really well (under the right conditions) - as did some finite microscope lenses like an old Reichert 10x.

I've not yet received my Minolta-RMS adapter so I have no way of testing it, but maybe someone else would be interested and able to check it in the meantime?

[Macrero]

I'm sorry for 'reviving' the old thread - but I have a question that is very much related to this:

Has anyone ever tried stacking the Minolta 5400 lens? I wonder how well it would perform with a Raynox DCR150 or DCR250 or another "tube" lens at +3x-4x.

I've experimented with stacking things like a reversed 50mm and 63mm enlarger lenses on the DCR150 and those have worked really well (under the right conditions) - as did some finite microscope lenses like an old Reichert 10x.

I've not yet received my Minolta-RMS adapter so I have no way of testing it, but maybe someone else would be interested and able to check it in the meantime?

In my experience, scanner lenses (unlike enlarging and some industrial lenses) generally do not work well in stacked configuration.

None of the scanner lenses I tried (Minolta 5400 included) did work well in "combos". There was either haze, good center, but poor corners, etc.
In all cases result was clearly worse than using the lens by itself.

Best,

- Macrero

[Bakwetu]

I have not done it myself, but I have read of others that had, f.x Robert. The results were, as I remember it, a dissapointment; it is not a good lens for stacking. I use mine with a few empty tubes for a magnification of about 2.1X and it works great as that.

It is sensitive to stray light and reflections so I have made sure there are no shiny parts in the path of the ligth and use black cloth around the things I photograph. Unfortunately the insides of the lens is also a bit shiny, but there is nothing to be done about that.

[FotoChris]

Alright, thanks, that's good to know!

[Beatsy]

...
It is sensitive to stray light and reflections so I have made sure there are no shiny parts in the path of the ligth and use black cloth around the things I photograph. Unfortunately the insides of the lens is also a bit shiny, but there is nothing to be done about that.

I "made" (aka bodged) a simple lens hood for mine. Just a tube of flocking material (black side in) extending about 15mm from the end of the lens. It works very well in a studio situation to block stray light from diffusers etc. Also helps a lot if used "in the field" on bright/sunny days. Best to avoid very bright objects in an otherwise dim FoV though or you may get veiling flare. This is for use at around 1.6x or above. You need a shorter hood for lower magnifications or it will vignette.

[FotoChris]

I think a simple PCV tube with a diameter of 24-25mm and a wall thickness of 2mm should also be pretty suitable - after flocking it should slip onto the lens barrel with no issues.

Maybe the 5400 II lens handles flares better due to its different coating?

Anyway, it'll be interesting to see how it performs compared to a reversed enlarger lens at 1x-2.5x

[Beatsy]

Just for clarity - my bodge slips onto the lens too as it's flocking all the way down. The tape just fixes the cylinder's shape and diameter but doesn't stick it to the lens. Friction does that.