www.photomacrography.net :: View topic - Not All that Glitters is Gold
www.photomacrography.net Forum Index
An online community dedicated to the practices of photomacrography, close-up and macro photography, and photomicrography.
Photomacrography Front Page Amateurmicrography Front Page
Old Forums/Galleries
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Not All that Glitters is Gold
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    www.photomacrography.net Forum Index -> Equipment Discussions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
conkar



Joined: 18 Dec 2010
Posts: 200
Location: Sweden

PostPosted: Sun Mar 18, 2012 5:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ChrisR wrote:
Sorry, my mistake, then , there's something else going on??
I took them both into photoshop, and put one on a layer above the other.
Setting the upper blending mode to "difference" and the entire picture looks black.
They are different on closer inspection, but the RGB values are all under about 10.
Have you used some software to align the images and match the colours, or something?
I always find it hard to compare images because of minor lighting, dimensional or colour diffrences, so I'm intrigued to know how you did it!


The illumination used for these pictures was 4 IKEA jansjö LED-lights WB 3000 kelvin.

Zerene Stacker Pmax was used to stack the images.

I liked to treat the images equivalent so I let photoshop handle most of that by it's auto functions.

- Auto tone,- Auto contrast, - Auto color, Auto levels and 100% unsharp mask.

I then finally cropped out the stacking artifacts from the lower and right border by my eyes.


Regards,

Conny
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
conkar



Joined: 18 Dec 2010
Posts: 200
Location: Sweden

PostPosted: Sun Mar 18, 2012 5:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ChrisR wrote:
Just to be clear, I'm not accusing you of cheating!


I did not think that was the case. Smile

naturephoto1 wrote:
ChrisR wrote:
Just to be clear, I'm not accusing you of cheating!

Hi Chris,
I do not think that what Conny was suggesting at all. I think what he meant was that this was supposed to provide blind test results, but that there are ways to "cheat" to figure out which lens was which.
Rich


You are right Rich, it's what I meant and it was a hint to to those who could not wait until I revealed how the images belonged to a particular objective.

Update: Now I have updated the images and labeled the pictures with the objectives as they related to.


Regards,

Conny
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
BugEZ



Joined: 26 Mar 2011
Posts: 615
Location: Loves Park Illinois

PostPosted: Fri Mar 23, 2012 8:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I purchased one of these lenses and I am pleased with the results on my Pentax *ist (small sensor). I have used it mounted in front of a 200mm telephoto. Previously I have used a 20X Olympus lens on extension tubes. I don't own the proper tube lens to pair with the OLY and so it has not produced good images. The color aberration with the JML + 200mm tele is much less and the sharpness is very good. The working distance is satisfactory. I like the narrow profile as it provides access for lighting the subject from the front.

In the net this was an inexpensive upgrade to my equipment.

Kind regards,

Keith
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Craig Gerard



Joined: 01 May 2010
Posts: 2877
Location: Australia

PostPosted: Fri Mar 23, 2012 9:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Keith,

Do you have an image taken with the JML 20X that you would consider uploading?


Craig
_________________
To use a classic quote from 'Antz' - "I almost know exactly what I'm doing!"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rjlittlefield
Site Admin


Joined: 01 Aug 2006
Posts: 17697
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA

PostPosted: Sat Mar 24, 2012 2:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

My copy of the JML 20X came yesterday. Here's what I see.

1. The JML 20X does not conform to any standard that I know. When used on a 200 mm tube lens, it delivers 17.3X. I can get 20X by using it finite, on 222mm total extension from sensor to shoulder of mounting threads.

2. The working distance is about 12 mm.

3. At 20X and finite, on an APS-C sensor, the image quality is about the same as my Nikon CF M Plan 20X NA 0.40 ELWD 210/0, except that the JML has significant lateral CA easily visible as color fringes in the corners. This CA can be almost completely canceled by a Photoshop lens correction filter with "Fix Red/Cyan Fringe" pushed clear left.

Sample moth wings (almost the same area) can be seen here:

JML on 222 mm extension
Nikon CF M Plan 20X NA 0.40 ELWD on 200 mm extension

Flash exposure for the Nikon lens was about 2/3 stop less than the JML. I don't know whether this reflects a smaller aperture in the JML, some difference in the way the light reached the subject, or a difference in transmission of the lenses. Given the smaller diameter of the JML, I would have expected it to go the other way if light were being blocked, but I did not investigate carefully. [Update: It's due to a smaller aperture. The JML measures NA 0.30. See HERE later in this same thread.]

The JML lens seems like a good buy at current prices ($55 plus shipping) but I don't believe it would come close to a Mitutoyo 20X when viewed at actual pixels.

--Rik


Last edited by rjlittlefield on Thu Apr 26, 2012 1:38 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
BugEZ



Joined: 26 Mar 2011
Posts: 615
Location: Loves Park Illinois

PostPosted: Sat Mar 24, 2012 6:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Craig Gerard wrote:

Quote:
Do you have an image taken with the JML 20X that you would consider uploading?


I posted several shots of a weevil here

http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=16462

The last photo is with the JML.

I think Rik's posting above where the lens is compared to another lens is quite helpful for contrasting the JML's strengths and weaknesses.

Keith
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BugEZ



Joined: 26 Mar 2011
Posts: 615
Location: Loves Park Illinois

PostPosted: Sun Mar 25, 2012 10:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rik wrote:

Quote:
the JML has significant lateral CA easily visible as color fringes in the corners. This CA can be almost completely canceled by a Photoshop lens correction filter with "Fix Red/Cyan Fringe" pushed clear left.


I don't own Photo Shop but I do have the ability to adjust for color aberration (CA) in the software that was shipped with my camera. This software is what I use for RAW to JPG conversion.

I found a single image that contained a well focused CA artifact near the edge of the frame. I played around with the CA settings (separate adjustments for red and blue) till I found the right "formula" to reduce the CA in the converted images. Finally I used the new settings and re-converted the RAW stack and combined them with Zarene.

The CA is substantially reduced and the sharpness at the boundaries is somewhat improved.

This has moved my impression of JML from the "glag I bought it" Smile catagory to "very glad I bought it". Very Happy Thanks for the tip!



I particularly like the CA artifact illustrated as it also makes a smiley face!

Keith
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
g4lab



Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 1424

PostPosted: Sun Mar 25, 2012 10:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

There is a finite tube length standard for metallurgical scopes that has a tube length of 210 or 215mm I have some Nikon 210s and Leitz used 215 and I think others did too.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rjlittlefield
Site Admin


Joined: 01 Aug 2006
Posts: 17697
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA

PostPosted: Sun Mar 25, 2012 11:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

g4lab wrote:
There is a finite tube length standard for metallurgical scopes that has a tube length of 210 or 215mm I have some Nikon 210s and Leitz used 215 and I think others did too.

True, but those are physical tube length. The total extension from shoulder to sensor is about 10 mm less due to the image being formed that far down inside the tube. The Nikon 210's deliver rated magnification at 200 mm extension, but the JML "20X" is more like 18X in that configuration.

--Rik
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
seta666



Joined: 19 Mar 2010
Posts: 859
Location: Castellon, Spain

PostPosted: Sat Mar 31, 2012 3:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

rjlittlefield wrote:
Flash exposure for the Nikon lens was about 2/3 stop less than the JML. I don't know whether this reflects a smaller aperture in the JML, some difference in the way the light reached the subject, or a difference in transmission of the lenses. Given the smaller diameter of the JML, I would have expected it to go the other way if light were being blocked, but I did not investigate carefully.


Could this lens be a 20/0.30 then? I remember seeing a JML 20/0.30 in their catalogue but I could not find it anymore.

NA 0.30 around f1.6 NA 0.40 around f1.2, 2/3 EV difference

Regards
Javier
_________________
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/seta666/
www.macrosmuymacros.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rjlittlefield
Site Admin


Joined: 01 Aug 2006
Posts: 17697
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA

PostPosted: Sun Apr 01, 2012 12:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

seta666 wrote:
Could this lens be a 20/0.30 then?

Could be. I measure the front element as 9 mm diameter = 4.5 mm radius. Combined with working distance of 12 mm, this implies NA of 0.35 or less. (0.35 = sin(atan(4.5/12))

--Rik
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
seta666



Joined: 19 Mar 2010
Posts: 859
Location: Castellon, Spain

PostPosted: Sun Apr 01, 2012 3:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

rjlittlefield wrote:
seta666 wrote:
Could this lens be a 20/0.30 then?

Could be. I measure the front element as 9 mm diameter = 4.5 mm radius. Combined with working distance of 12 mm, this implies NA of 0.35 or less. (0.35 = sin(atan(4.5/12))

--Rik

nikon 20X SLWD has NA 0.35 but 20mm WD, still a NA of 0.35 for a lens with a WD of 12mm seems pretty good.
However exposure difference should be around 1/3 of a stop, unless lens light transmission is very different

A couple of single shots with a continiuos light source would tell you for sure the difference ( just if you want to give it a try it ;-)

Regards
Javier
_________________
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/seta666/
www.macrosmuymacros.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rjlittlefield
Site Admin


Joined: 01 Aug 2006
Posts: 17697
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA

PostPosted: Sun Apr 01, 2012 4:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

rjlittlefield wrote:
I measure the front element as 9 mm diameter ... this implies NA of 0.35 or less

As with most lenses, the entrance cone does not utilize the whole diameter of the front element.

Running light backwards through the lens, I measure the cone of light as 7.8 mm diameter at 12.2 mm distance from focus. That calculates to NA 0.304, within measurement error of 0.30 but not 0.35.

--Rik
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
naturephoto1



Joined: 13 Nov 2011
Posts: 509
Location: Breinigsville, PA

PostPosted: Fri Apr 20, 2012 11:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Do we have anymore updates on the performance of these lenses? Sunnking has these reduced to $43.99 (20% off) for the next 3 days:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/200718941277?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1423.l2649

Rich
_________________
Richard A. Nelridge

http://www.facebook.com/RichardANelridgePhotographer
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
naturephoto1



Joined: 13 Nov 2011
Posts: 509
Location: Breinigsville, PA

PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2012 2:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The price of these lenses has dropped to $34.95 with 95 still available.

For those interested something to consider.

For those in possession of the lens, do you think that this is a good enough performer for the price?

Again, here is the link:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/200718941277?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1423.l2649&autorefresh=true

Rich
_________________
Richard A. Nelridge

http://www.facebook.com/RichardANelridgePhotographer
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    www.photomacrography.net Forum Index -> Equipment Discussions All times are GMT - 7 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Page 5 of 7

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group