Macro rig
Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau
Hi Saul,
Now I see how this works...thanks. The F mount on the lens assembly just interfaces with the Nikon bellows and the other end of the bellows mounts to the camera body with an F mount.
Looks like you have about 60mm from the Raynox front to the objective, how much adjustment range do you need with the focus helicoid? You show the PB-5 in your prior images, is this any better or worse than the PB-6, 4 or 3 for this type of work?
Thanks for showing all this, very nice setup indeed!!
Cheers,
Mike
Now I see how this works...thanks. The F mount on the lens assembly just interfaces with the Nikon bellows and the other end of the bellows mounts to the camera body with an F mount.
Looks like you have about 60mm from the Raynox front to the objective, how much adjustment range do you need with the focus helicoid? You show the PB-5 in your prior images, is this any better or worse than the PB-6, 4 or 3 for this type of work?
Thanks for showing all this, very nice setup indeed!!
Cheers,
Mike
Thanks Mike for the warm comment !
My first bellows were PB-5, so rig design was based on it. PB-6 & PB-4 have different dimensions and does not play with how parts are placed on the the granite base. And especially with new Nikon Labophot table. Do not want touch anything for now . Nikon Labophot table is big improvement for my setup (cannot complain about old one, served very good), now next step is to finish assembly of the new controls - program is written, parts assembled, tested, just one problem - everything is still sitting in the shoe box
Regarding distances - I played more with Nikon MXA20696, I can confirm that best distance for his combo was between 60-80mm, so I used 76.5mm ( according Edmund Optics directions). I'm using Mitu 5x-Raynox 250 combo only, just to get 2.5x. All other magnifications are covered by other objectives and lenses. Even without any distance between them I was getting good results . I have to make more tests in order to find out what is better - directly, reversed, with gap or without (for 2.5x range)...
My first bellows were PB-5, so rig design was based on it. PB-6 & PB-4 have different dimensions and does not play with how parts are placed on the the granite base. And especially with new Nikon Labophot table. Do not want touch anything for now . Nikon Labophot table is big improvement for my setup (cannot complain about old one, served very good), now next step is to finish assembly of the new controls - program is written, parts assembled, tested, just one problem - everything is still sitting in the shoe box
Regarding distances - I played more with Nikon MXA20696, I can confirm that best distance for his combo was between 60-80mm, so I used 76.5mm ( according Edmund Optics directions). I'm using Mitu 5x-Raynox 250 combo only, just to get 2.5x. All other magnifications are covered by other objectives and lenses. Even without any distance between them I was getting good results . I have to make more tests in order to find out what is better - directly, reversed, with gap or without (for 2.5x range)...
Last edited by Saul on Fri Dec 01, 2017 10:24 am, edited 1 time in total.
Saul
μ-stuff
μ-stuff
Update pictures from the another thread:
http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... hp?t=30646
...and first test:
http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... ht=#190256
http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... hp?t=30646
...and first test:
http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... ht=#190256
Saul
μ-stuff
μ-stuff
2 questions
Hi Saul,Saul wrote:Mitutoyo - Raynox assembly
Thanks a lot for sharing the setup pictures with us.
I am planning on going for a similar setup (as described herehttp://www.mindat.org/article.php/2089/ ... chronology) and I have two questions related to the setup you provided:
1) what is the "Focuser", what is it necessary (if it really is!) for and could you provide a link (e.g. ebay or similar) where I could get more specs and be able to purchase.
2) is it really necessary to have that "extension ring"? If so, same, could you please provide a link to a supplier?
Thank you very much for your support.
Re: 2 questions
Hi Vikcious,
http://www.ebay.com/itm/M42-to-M42-Moun ... SwDk5T4OJJ
It is not necessary, just keep 60-80mm gap between Raynox and objective (according Edmund Optics - 76.5mm). I used helicoid during my tests looking for the best distance. Sometimes it is useful for the fine magnification adjustment if the specimen does not fit on the FOV.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/M42-to-M42-Moun ... SwDk5T4OJJ
BR,
http://www.ebay.com/itm/M52-to-M42-Moun ... Sw91NTrrl5vikcious wrote:1) what is the "Focuser", what is it necessary (if it really is!) for and could you provide a link (e.g. ebay or similar) where I could get more specs and be able to purchase.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/M42-to-M42-Moun ... SwDk5T4OJJ
It is not necessary, just keep 60-80mm gap between Raynox and objective (according Edmund Optics - 76.5mm). I used helicoid during my tests looking for the best distance. Sometimes it is useful for the fine magnification adjustment if the specimen does not fit on the FOV.
It is necessary to maintain that ~75mm gap which I mentioned above. It is simple M42 extension ring.vikcious wrote: 2) is it really necessary to have that "extension ring"? If so, same, could you please provide a link to a supplier?
http://www.ebay.com/itm/M42-to-M42-Moun ... SwDk5T4OJJ
BR,
Saul
μ-stuff
μ-stuff
Re: 2 questions
Thanks a lot for your feedback, Saul!Saul wrote:Hi Vikcious,
http://www.ebay.com/itm/M52-to-M42-Moun ... Sw91NTrrl5vikcious wrote:1) what is the "Focuser", what is it necessary (if it really is!) for and could you provide a link (e.g. ebay or similar) where I could get more specs and be able to purchase.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/M42-to-M42-Moun ... SwDk5T4OJJ
It is not necessary, just keep 60-80mm gap between Raynox and objective (according Edmund Optics - 76.5mm). I used helicoid during my tests looking for the best distance. Sometimes it is useful for the fine magnification adjustment if the specimen does not fit on the FOV.
It is necessary to maintain that ~75mm gap which I mentioned above. It is simple M42 extension ring.vikcious wrote: 2) is it really necessary to have that "extension ring"? If so, same, could you please provide a link to a supplier?
http://www.ebay.com/itm/M42-to-M42-Moun ... SwDk5T4OJJ
BR,
- rjlittlefield
- Site Admin
- Posts: 23625
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
- Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
- Contact:
Re: 2 questions
Saul, I am confused by these comments.Saul wrote:Hi Vikcious,
It is not necessary, just keep 60-80mm gap between Raynox and objective (according Edmund Optics - 76.5mm). I used helicoid during my tests looking for the best distance. Sometimes it is useful for the fine magnification adjustment if the specimen does not fit on the FOV.vikcious wrote:1) what is the "Focuser", what is it necessary
As background, I note that with any infinite setup, if the rear lens is focused at infinity to match the objective's design, then changing the separation between objective and rear lens will have no effect on magnification. The recommended spacing depends on fine details of the rear lens design (not the objective) and is for the purpose of minimizing aberrations. I am not aware that Edmund Optics has ever specified a recommended distance for a Raynox rear lens.
So, your comment about "fine magnification adjustment" makes me think that your setup has the rear lens focused somewhere other than infinity, and I'm guessing that the 76.5 mm you mention actually relates to some other rear lens, such as the Mitutoyo MT-4/MT-40 in the setup described at http://www.edmundoptics.com/resources/a ... ve-setups/ .
Can you clarify, please?
--Rik
Rik, thank you for your comment !
Thanks for the link. Few years ago in the the printed Edmund catalog version I saw very similar information (not available in the later editions)
Question...
http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... hp?t=30766
Am I missing something ?
Rechecked - you are right ! Before I focused my tube lens to the distant tree. I had to focus to the "very very" distant tree This difference gave me wrong understanding, that I can make "micro" magnification adjustments by changing distance between tube lens and objective.makes me think that your setup has the rear lens focused somewhere other than infinity
Thanks for the link. Few years ago in the the printed Edmund catalog version I saw very similar information (not available in the later editions)
Question...
How too short distance can cause vignetting ? In the combination with the normal 200mm (70-200 other members or 70-300 in my case) lens we are trying to keep objective as close as possible . With Sigma Life size attachment - same story ( with bigger distance results were not good). When I tested Mitutoyo 5x/Reichert tube lens, gap was around 1cm and results were pretty goodIt is important to note that 76.5mm is the recommended distance since these objectives are infinity corrected. However, if the distance is too short, the system may experience vignetting
http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... hp?t=30766
Am I missing something ?
Saul
μ-stuff
μ-stuff
As I mentioned in the one of the previous posts, I was looking for something to replace my horizontal setup which could be used in the field and studio and could be used in the manual and auto modes.
http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... ht=deltron
Finally my purchase has arrived... Assembly took few minutes, except 1/4 hole for the tripod at the bottom - had to spend some time to assemble back linear bearings.
Movement is ~2.0 - 2.5mm per turn, what is OK for my horizontal lower magnification shots. For the high magnification I'm using vertical setup
http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... ht=deltron
Finally my purchase has arrived... Assembly took few minutes, except 1/4 hole for the tripod at the bottom - had to spend some time to assemble back linear bearings.
Movement is ~2.0 - 2.5mm per turn, what is OK for my horizontal lower magnification shots. For the high magnification I'm using vertical setup
Last edited by Saul on Tue Feb 21, 2017 10:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Saul
μ-stuff
μ-stuff
One more update for the focus stacking setup head ( I hope it is last one ... ).
Changes:
-shortened nosepiece with bracket. Now it allows me easily interchange different parts.
-shortened trinocular head top port "neck" - now I can keep infinity distance between sensor and Sigma Life size attachment - no need to use original Reichert tube lens (which is little bit worse than Sigma ) inside trinocular head and allows to use finite objectives when needed.
Changes:
-shortened nosepiece with bracket. Now it allows me easily interchange different parts.
-shortened trinocular head top port "neck" - now I can keep infinity distance between sensor and Sigma Life size attachment - no need to use original Reichert tube lens (which is little bit worse than Sigma ) inside trinocular head and allows to use finite objectives when needed.
Saul
μ-stuff
μ-stuff
- rjlittlefield
- Site Admin
- Posts: 23625
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
- Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
- Contact:
I had forgotten this thread, and I see that one of your earlier questions went unanswered.
If the distance is too short, the system may experience aberrations (depends on the tube lens), but short distance certainly will not add vignetting.
I have added to your quote the original continuation, about if the distance is too long, the resultant image will be dim because of insufficient light. This is not quite correct either, but there is a grain of truth in it. No light is lost due to distance per se. However, if the distance becomes too long then vignetting will start to occur, and the first symptoms of that will be corner darkening as edge rays are blocked.
--Rik
No, you're not missing anything. The author of that bit was confused.Saul wrote:Question...
How too short distance can cause vignetting ?It is important to note that 76.5mm is the recommended distance since these objectives are infinity corrected. However, if the distance is too short, the system may experience vignetting; if the distance is too long, the resultant image will be dim because of insufficient light.
...
Am I missing something ?
If the distance is too short, the system may experience aberrations (depends on the tube lens), but short distance certainly will not add vignetting.
I have added to your quote the original continuation, about if the distance is too long, the resultant image will be dim because of insufficient light. This is not quite correct either, but there is a grain of truth in it. No light is lost due to distance per se. However, if the distance becomes too long then vignetting will start to occur, and the first symptoms of that will be corner darkening as edge rays are blocked.
--Rik