New Scanner Nikkor ED Lens Information
Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau
-
- Posts: 350
- Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2014 10:53 am
I've seen that post many times before. the Pen F has a 20MP sensor please refer to it as such
Still learning,
Cameras' Sony A7rII, OLympus OMD-EM10II
Macro lenses: Printing nikkor 105mm, Sony FE 90mm F2.8 Macro G, Schneider Kreuznach Makro Iris 50mm , 2.8, Schnieder Kreuznach APO Componon HM 40mm F2.8 , Mamiya 645 120mm F4 Macro ( used with mirex tilt shift adapter), Olympus 135mm 4.5 bellows lens, Oly 80mm bellows lens, Olympus 60mm F2.8
Cameras' Sony A7rII, OLympus OMD-EM10II
Macro lenses: Printing nikkor 105mm, Sony FE 90mm F2.8 Macro G, Schneider Kreuznach Makro Iris 50mm , 2.8, Schnieder Kreuznach APO Componon HM 40mm F2.8 , Mamiya 645 120mm F4 Macro ( used with mirex tilt shift adapter), Olympus 135mm 4.5 bellows lens, Oly 80mm bellows lens, Olympus 60mm F2.8
Sure, it is a 20Mp sensor. But if you shift it around in half-pixel-width steps and process the results, it really becomes a higher-resolution sensor. I'll try to be clearer about my terms in the future, though. I thought it would be clear that I was referring specifically to its high-resolution mode. Also I should be clear that the effective resolution is less than 80 Mp, more like 50 Mp according to Olympus.
- enricosavazzi
- Posts: 1475
- Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2009 2:41 pm
- Location: Västerås, Sweden
- Contact:
Just as a note about the lenses of Coolscan 8000 and 9000 models, these scanners use also NIR LEDs to scan films. The NIR LEDs are used to create a mask for automatically removing dust and fingerprints.
I would expect therefore that these lenses are corrected for aberrations (especially axial and transversal CA) also in the NIR. I don't know what wavelength the NIR LEDs use in these scanners.
I would expect therefore that these lenses are corrected for aberrations (especially axial and transversal CA) also in the NIR. I don't know what wavelength the NIR LEDs use in these scanners.
--ES
-
- Posts: 2627
- Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:34 pm
- Location: United States
- Contact:
Very good point Enrico, thanks for mentioning that.enricosavazzi wrote:Just as a note about the lenses of Coolscan 8000 and 9000 models, these scanners use also NIR LEDs to scan films. The NIR LEDs are used to create a mask for automatically removing dust and fingerprints.
I would expect therefore that these lenses are corrected for aberrations (especially axial and transversal CA) also in the NIR. I don't know what wavelength the NIR LEDs use in these scanners.
I believe you are right, I have read that a couple times in the past.
Robert
- enricosavazzi
- Posts: 1475
- Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2009 2:41 pm
- Location: Västerås, Sweden
- Contact:
I found a simple and cheap way to mount the lens from the Coolscan 8000 scanner. A few weeks ago, it was mentioned on this site that cheap extension tubes with 52 mm mounts are available on Amazon (they are actually shipped from China).
The inner diameter of these tubes is just a fraction of a mm (less than 0.25 mm in my measurements) wider than the lens barrel, and the front or rear of the rings sits on the middle protuberance of the lens barrel, guaranteeing its alignment. I did not need to use any shims, only a little epoxy. In the example below, of the n.2 and n.3 stacked tubes, only the n.2 is actually epoxied, allowing me to unscrew the front n.3 tube if desired.
From left to right: original lens barrel, with 52mm tubes and a 52 mm to M42 adapter at the rear (you may want to use a wider mount for work on large sensors), and with added front and rear caps.
The inner diameter of these tubes is just a fraction of a mm (less than 0.25 mm in my measurements) wider than the lens barrel, and the front or rear of the rings sits on the middle protuberance of the lens barrel, guaranteeing its alignment. I did not need to use any shims, only a little epoxy. In the example below, of the n.2 and n.3 stacked tubes, only the n.2 is actually epoxied, allowing me to unscrew the front n.3 tube if desired.
From left to right: original lens barrel, with 52mm tubes and a 52 mm to M42 adapter at the rear (you may want to use a wider mount for work on large sensors), and with added front and rear caps.
--ES
-
- Posts: 1965
- Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 10:16 am
- Location: Bigfork, Montana
- Contact:
Just curious do you know HOW they tested the group of lenses? I have a device that was made by an optical engineer during the cold war. There is a belt inside that drives a lucite drum and the drum encases a RCA IP21 photomultiplier tube. The 1P21 has a S-4 spectral response, with a peak response at 380 nm. Cesium-antimony photocathode and dynode emitting surfaces, lime glass window.. The device supposedly runs on 1000 to 2000 volts and I was also given a power pack but I am not sure how it would connect to this device. I was told it was used to evaluate surveillance lenses at that point in time. The engineer would contract the manufacture of 100 units, run them on this device and keep only the best three.RobertOToole wrote: On the LensRentals blog a few years ago, the guys from the optical testing company dropped a bombshell when he said that when they test a lens, sometimes 50 or 60 samples of one lens, they find that only about 15% of a certain lens will meet the nominal performance level. 70% have small aberrations mostly due to element misalignment. 15% have huge levels of aberrations compared to the best lens.
https://secure2.pbase.com/smokedaddy/photomultiplier
-JW:
-
- Posts: 2627
- Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:34 pm
- Location: United States
- Contact:
Interesting JW. Thanks for sharing the info.Smokedaddy wrote:Just curious do you know HOW they tested the group of lenses? I have a device that was made by an optical engineer during the cold war. There is a belt inside that drives a lucite drum and the drum encases a RCA IP21 photomultiplier tube. The 1P21 has a S-4 spectral response, with a peak response at 380 nm. Cesium-antimony photocathode and dynode emitting surfaces, lime glass window.. The device supposedly runs on 1000 to 2000 volts and I was also given a power pack but I am not sure how it would connect to this device. I was told it was used to evaluate surveillance lenses at that point in time. The engineer would contract the manufacture of 100 units, run them on this device and keep only the best three.RobertOToole wrote: On the LensRentals blog a few years ago, the guys from the optical testing company dropped a bombshell when he said that when they test a lens, sometimes 50 or 60 samples of one lens, they find that only about 15% of a certain lens will meet the nominal performance level. 70% have small aberrations mostly due to element misalignment. 15% have huge levels of aberrations compared to the best lens.
https://secure2.pbase.com/smokedaddy/photomultiplier
-JW:
This is a good link all about LensRentals, and other websites testing methods, its a good read: https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/1 ... st-either/
Robert
Robert,
"On the LensRentals blog a few years ago, the guys from the optical testing company dropped a bombshell when he said that when they test a lens, sometimes 50 or 60 samples of one lens, they find that only about 15% of a certain lens will meet the nominal performance level. 70% have small aberrations mostly due to element misalignment. 15% have huge levels of aberrations compared to the best lens."
Well that's discouraging as heck Why even have specs if only 15% of the lenses meet them!! Guess we public (me included) allow for this, since most of time you can tell if the image was from a slightly misaligned or normal perfect lens!
Maybe this is the reason for the better perceived lenses such as Zeiss and Voigtlander, the QC is better and they have less variation.
Best,
Mike
"On the LensRentals blog a few years ago, the guys from the optical testing company dropped a bombshell when he said that when they test a lens, sometimes 50 or 60 samples of one lens, they find that only about 15% of a certain lens will meet the nominal performance level. 70% have small aberrations mostly due to element misalignment. 15% have huge levels of aberrations compared to the best lens."
Well that's discouraging as heck Why even have specs if only 15% of the lenses meet them!! Guess we public (me included) allow for this, since most of time you can tell if the image was from a slightly misaligned or normal perfect lens!
Maybe this is the reason for the better perceived lenses such as Zeiss and Voigtlander, the QC is better and they have less variation.
Best,
Mike
-
- Posts: 2627
- Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:34 pm
- Location: United States
- Contact:
There was a quote someplace that said that when they test a certain focal length for sharpness, say 50mm f/1.4, from multiple manufacturers. There is greater variation between samples from the same company, then there are from the different manufacturers lenses!mawyatt wrote:Robert,
"On the LensRentals blog a few years ago, the guys from the optical testing company dropped a bombshell when he said that when they test a lens, sometimes 50 or 60 samples of one lens, they find that only about 15% of a certain lens will meet the nominal performance level. 70% have small aberrations mostly due to element misalignment. 15% have huge levels of aberrations compared to the best lens."
Well that's discouraging as heck Why even have specs if only 15% of the lenses meet them!! Guess we public (me included) allow for this, since most of time you can tell if the image was from a slightly misaligned or normal perfect lens!
They get around this by testing a whole batch from a the single manufacturer. Throw out the rejects that have obvious issues (these are not rentable) and then the average the results.
Once they have averages from all the different manufacturers then they compare the average results.
Good point Mike.mawyatt wrote: Maybe this is the reason for the better perceived lenses such as Zeiss and Voigtlander, the QC is better and they have less variation.
BTW they did say Zeiss was very good, as were new Canon designs, and the head test technician felt it was more about but a more relaxed design that allows variation with minimal impact on IQ, rather than just QC.
Personally I think the biggest source of issues is the extra complexity of image stabilization, which I tend to turn off for macro anyway!
Robert