Canon MP-E 65 versus 10X Mitutoyo Plan Apo At 5x

JohnDownie · Post by **JohnDownie** » Sun Jun 25, 2017 2:13 pm

Hello,

I am wondering if the Mitutoyo is ahead of the Canon, quality-wise, at 5x, using a 100mm tube lens. If so, what is the crossover magnification, where they are of equal quality?

This is on a full frame sensor.

TIA

John

ray_parkhurst · Post by **ray_parkhurst** » Tue Jun 27, 2017 10:12 am

I've never owned nor tested a MPE65, but by accounts I've read the optimum aperture at 5x is around f/5.6, which is effective f/34, deep into diffraction territory. I have also not tested my 10x Mitutoyo at 5x but there are reports in this forum that the result is quite good. Effective aperture would be f/9 so resolution would be expected to be far superior to the MPE65.

Perhaps someone who has both could comment more authoritatively...

rjlittlefield · Post by **rjlittlefield** » Tue Jun 27, 2017 11:05 am

JohnDownie wrote:I am wondering if the Mitutoyo is ahead of the Canon, quality-wise, at 5x, using a 100mm tube lens
...
This is on a full frame sensor.

The combination of full-frame sensor, 5X, and 100 mm tube lens is not a good match. 100 mm tube lens will make most Mitutoyo objectives run at half rated magnification, so 5X implies using a 10X objective. Mitutoyo's 10X M Plan Apo objective will cover APS-C pretty well on 100 mm tube lens, but on full frame the edges and corners will go blurred. At image center, however, the Mitutoyo 10X at NA 0.28 will be much sharper than the MP-E, which at 5X is NA 0.149 at its widest. In addition the Mitutoyo will have much less CA.

To cover a full-frame sensor with high quality image at 5X using a Mitutoyo objective, I think the best option would be a Mitutoyo 7.5X NA 0.21 on a 133.3 mm tube lens. Other Mitutoyo objectives are known to cover full frame well in that case, and nathanm has shown that the 7.5X has an unusually wide field. (See http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... 235#208235 for more about that.)

I do not have a Mitutoyo 7.5X. However, based on experience with 2X, 5X, 10X, 20X, and 50X, plus nathanm's report on the 7.5X, versus my copy of the MP-E 65, I am quite comfortable with saying that the 7.5X on 133.3 mm tube lens would be far superior to the MP-E 65, both in sharpness and in lack of CA.

ray_parkhurst wrote:MPE65 ... optimum aperture at 5x is around f/5.6

At 5X, my MP-E 65 is sharpest at f/2.8. Some other units test better at f/4. I don't recall ever seeing a report of best at f/5.6 at 5X.

Even so, at 5X and f/2.8, the MP-E gives nominal NA 0.149, only slightly wider than Mitutoyo M Plan Apo 5X at NA 0.14 and substantially less than the Mitutoyo M Plan Apo 7.5X at NA 0.21. Further, the MP-E gives a lot of false color at that width, while the Mitutoyos are almost free of it.

The charm of the MP-E is that it provides good quality over a wide range of magnifications, with auto diaphragm, in a robust package that is excellent for field work. For bench work, at matched magnifications, the MP-E 65 does not compare very well with high quality microscope objectives.

John, considering these issues, can you tell us more about why you're asking the question?

--Rik

ray_parkhurst · Post by **ray_parkhurst** » Tue Jun 27, 2017 12:51 pm

rjlittlefield wrote:
JohnDownie wrote: At 5X, my MP-E 65 is sharpest at f/2.8. Some other units test better at f/4. I don't recall ever seeing a report of best at f/5.6 at 5X.
The sites below found f5.6 best:

http://www.waynesthisandthat.com/macro.html

http://nocroppingzone.blogspot.com/2007 ... tings.html

The conclusion in the one below is hard to find, but the images at f5.6 are as good or better than f4, though he talks about it being good at f/4:

http://macrosmuymacros.com/index.php/en ... x-aps-c-en

JohnDownie · Post by **JohnDownie** » Tue Jun 27, 2017 3:03 pm

Hello Rik,

I have an (unused) Mitutoyo 10X and came across a reasonable deal on the Canon, so I was puzzling through the options in the 1X - 5X range. I am weighing the quality cost differences, including the non-trivial set up, stack execution, and other costs. It seems to me that the incremental cost of a good microscope objective versus the Canon, for example, is not that large, if you include time and other costs.

Perhaps I should trade the 10X in on a 7.5X, giving up the 10X magnification for more range.

John

rjlittlefield wrote:
JohnDownie wrote:I am wondering if the Mitutoyo is ahead of the Canon, quality-wise, at 5x, using a 100mm tube lens
...
This is on a full frame sensor.
The combination of full-frame sensor, 5X, and 100 mm tube lens is not a good match. 100 mm tube lens will make most Mitutoyo objectives run at half rated magnification, so 5X implies using a 10X objective. Mitutoyo's 10X M Plan Apo objective will cover APS-C pretty well on 100 mm tube lens, but on full frame the edges and corners will go blurred. At image center, however, the Mitutoyo 10X at NA 0.28 will be much sharper than the MP-E, which at 5X is NA 0.149 at its widest. In addition the Mitutoyo will have much less CA.

To cover a full-frame sensor with high quality image at 5X using a Mitutoyo objective, I think the best option would be a Mitutoyo 7.5X NA 0.21 on a 133.3 mm tube lens. Other Mitutoyo objectives are known to cover full frame well in that case, and nathanm has shown that the 7.5X has an unusually wide field. (See http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... 235#208235 for more about that.)

I do not have a Mitutoyo 7.5X. However, based on experience with 2X, 5X, 10X, 20X, and 50X, plus nathanm's report on the 7.5X, versus my copy of the MP-E 65, I am quite comfortable with saying that the 7.5X on 133.3 mm tube lens would be far superior to the MP-E 65, both in sharpness and in lack of CA.

ray_parkhurst wrote:MPE65 ... optimum aperture at 5x is around f/5.6
At 5X, my MP-E 65 is sharpest at f/2.8. Some other units test better at f/4. I don't recall ever seeing a report of best at f/5.6 at 5X.

Even so, at 5X and f/2.8, the MP-E gives nominal NA 0.149, only slightly wider than Mitutoyo M Plan Apo 5X at NA 0.14 and substantially less than the Mitutoyo M Plan Apo 7.5X at NA 0.21. Further, the MP-E gives a lot of false color at that width, while the Mitutoyos are almost free of it.

The charm of the MP-E is that it provides good quality over a wide range of magnifications, with auto diaphragm, in a robust package that is excellent for field work. For bench work, at matched magnifications, the MP-E 65 does not compare very well with high quality microscope objectives.

John, considering these issues, can you tell us more about why you're asking the question?

--Rik

ChrisR · Post by **ChrisR** » Tue Jun 27, 2017 3:52 pm

I think the frst two of Ray's quoters are non-stacking people, so they're concerned about DOF.
At 5x my MPE is better at 2.8 (just) then 4 then 5.6.

If you have a perfect Mitty 10x, I'd say keep it!

There's certainly a hi-q gap around 7mm field.

JohnDownie · Post by **JohnDownie** » Tue Jun 27, 2017 4:47 pm

ChrisR wrote:I think the frst two of Ray's quoters are non-stacking people, so they're concerned about DOF.
At 5x my MPE is better at 2.8 (just) then 4 then 5.6.

If you have a perfect Mitty 10x, I'd say keep it!

There's certainly a hi-q gap around 7mm field.

Thanks, Chris.

I am open to keeping it, but am curious as to the best portfolio to fill in below it, without blowing the bank completely. The best lens set is evolving, as more information is gathered here, so I have not been completely successful in figuring out the current view on the optimal <10X magnification lens combination.

John

ChrisR · Post by **ChrisR** » Wed Jun 28, 2017 1:58 pm

A good Mitutoyo 5x is a lot less money than a 7.5x, and is good.

"Coverage" is a moot point. Some would say your 10x covers full frame at 10x, others don't like the quality falloff, which if you really look hard, is even visible on APS.

Odd how microscopists are happy (ish) with 4x, 10x, 40x and 100x, whereas we photographers want to be able to zoom to all points in between!

Pau · Post by **Pau** » Wed Jun 28, 2017 2:38 pm

ChrisR wrote:Odd how microscopists are happy (ish) with 4x, 10x, 40x and 100x, whereas we photographers want to be able to zoom to all points in between!

...I have for my microscope 1X, 2.5X, 4X, 6.3X, 10X, 16X, 25X, 40X, 50X, 63X and 100X

but all they don't fit together at the same turret

and I don't use all with the same frequency

ChrisR · Post by **ChrisR** » Wed Jun 28, 2017 5:15 pm

I suppose I have most of those, plus 2x, 3.7x, 5x, 8x,9x,.....
but no turret holding more than 5, or is it 4? Some only take 3...!
A (say) 5 place turret means steps of about x2.

JohnDownie · Post by **JohnDownie** » Wed Jun 28, 2017 5:28 pm

ChrisR wrote:A good Mitutoyo 5x is a lot less money than a 7.5x, and is good.

"Coverage" is a moot point. Some would say your 10x covers full frame at 10x, others don't like the quality falloff, which if you really look hard, is even visible on APS.

Odd how microscopists are happy (ish) with 4x, 10x, 40x and 100x, whereas we photographers want to be able to zoom to all points in between!

I would be happy with 2X, 5X and 10X. If I got the Mitutoyo 5X, what would you recommend for the 2X duty (doesn't have to be a microscope objective).

John

Lou Jost · Post by **Lou Jost** » Wed Jun 28, 2017 5:33 pm

Reversed macro lenses and coupled lenses work well in that range. Lots of choices. What lenses do you already have? Your 100mm, if it is a good macro lens, can be reversed to get decent results at 2x. Older lenses work best, since they have manual aperture rings.

JohnDownie · Post by **JohnDownie** » Thu Jun 29, 2017 12:05 am

Lou Jost wrote:Reversed macro lenses and coupled lenses work well in that range. Lots of choices. What lenses do you already have? Your 100mm, if it is a good macro lens, can be reversed to get decent results at 2x. Older lenses work best, since they have manual aperture rings.

I have an APO Rodagon D 75mm 1:1. How high can would you say I could take the magnification at good quality on a FF sensor?

John

Lou Jost · Post by **Lou Jost** » Thu Jun 29, 2017 12:19 am

I don't have experience with that lens. I think Ray can give you advice about that. Also check coinimaging.com which has detailed graphs of resolution versus magnification for many lenses, perhaps including that one.

ray_parkhurst · Post by **ray_parkhurst** » Fri Jun 30, 2017 4:36 am

The 75ARD1 does very well at 2:1 on APS-C, but the corners are starting to show issues. FF would not be great. The 75ARD2 in reverse has much better coverage, but the center is not quite as sharp.

For 2...3:1, my recommendation would be the 35mm Macrohoto lens. It's RMS mount as well, though I suppose you will be much higher than 2:1 if you attempt parfocality with your other objectives.

An unlikely sounding candidate is the 50mm Tominon. I've been finding them very useful at 0.7...2:1. This lens is a real sleeper that can be had for peanuts, making them relatively low risk.

As Lou says there are many choices for 2:1.