Microscope Objective Clarification

Have questions about the equipment used for macro- or micro- photography? Post those questions in this forum.

Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau

Deanimator
Posts: 870
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2012 7:01 pm
Location: North Olmsted, Ohio, U.S.A.

Post by Deanimator »

Pau wrote:Don't buy the 4 objectives set: they are inferior, see the difference with the Plan objective, and you only could profit for macro the 4X and 10X and both likely not very adequate for the task, they are entry level optics to work in cheap school grade microscopes
I'll stick with the single 4x finite.

I had read the review before it was reposted here, and was impressed. It seems like a very good value for them money.

mawyatt
Posts: 2497
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 6:54 pm
Location: Clearwater, Florida

Post by mawyatt »

The AmScope 4X finite is like a "Jewel in the rough" someone said!! The WeMacro 4X Infinite is also pretty good considering the cost. Saw a Nikon 200mm F4 Q in good shape go for $24 + $6 shipping yesterday, so if you can find a Canon equivalent, or as Chris mentioned the Raynox 150, you should be go to go either way, finite or infinite!!

Best,

Mike

Deanimator
Posts: 870
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2012 7:01 pm
Location: North Olmsted, Ohio, U.S.A.

Post by Deanimator »

mawyatt wrote:The AmScope 4X finite is like a "Jewel in the rough" someone said!! The WeMacro 4X Infinite is also pretty good considering the cost. Saw a Nikon 200mm F4 Q in good shape go for $24 + $6 shipping yesterday, so if you can find a Canon equivalent, or as Chris mentioned the Raynox 150, you should be go to go either way, finite or infinite!!

Best,

Mike
I'll probably work up an infinite rig eventually.

I'm going to start with finite because it's easier and cheaper to start.

I just got shifted to the 9:00pm to 5:30am shift at work, so reading and indoor macro are about all I'll be doing for the foreseeable future.

Deanimator
Posts: 870
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2012 7:01 pm
Location: North Olmsted, Ohio, U.S.A.

Post by Deanimator »

I just ordered all of the finite gear (and a Foreman grill for my mother).

I got,

from Amazon:
  1. 4x Amscope objective
  2. two sets of M42 tubes
  3. EOS to M42 adapter
from eBay:
  1. M42 to RMS adapter
  2. M42 bellows
Working from 9:00pm to 5:30am for a 24/7 business doesn't afford me much opportunity for amusement. This stuff should occupy the leisure time I have.

Deanimator
Posts: 870
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2012 7:01 pm
Location: North Olmsted, Ohio, U.S.A.

Post by Deanimator »

ChrisR wrote:Your zoom will be far from ideal, probably only working without vignetting at the 300mm end.
I've got an old Minolta 100-200 push-pull manual zoom lying around.

Would that work?

ChrisR
Site Admin
Posts: 8668
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 3:58 am
Location: Near London, UK

Post by ChrisR »

That stands a better chance,( if you can adapt a Minolta to your camera :| ) because it's more to do with the construction of the lens when you pull away from the longes end, than the actual FL, which matters.

I have an old 80-200 Nikkor which only just vignettes on full frame.

If you have tubes already, you could look for that Sigma close-up diopter. It's 52mm both sides so relatively easy to adapt to. They're often pretty cheap. Our member Saul found them to be very good.
Chris R

Pau
Site Admin
Posts: 6053
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 8:57 am
Location: Valencia, Spain

Post by Pau »

For a Canon EOS Minolta SR-mount is a bad idea because its Flange focal distance of 43.50 mm vs 44mm of Canon EF mount so if you find the adapter it will not focus to infinite or it will be bundled with a bad quality lens to do so, bad option in both cases
Pau

Deanimator
Posts: 870
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2012 7:01 pm
Location: North Olmsted, Ohio, U.S.A.

Post by Deanimator »

Pau wrote:For a Canon EOS Minolta SR-mount is a bad idea because its Flange focal distance of 43.50 mm vs 44mm of Canon EF mount so if you find the adapter it will not focus to infinite or it will be bundled with a bad quality lens to do so, bad option in both cases
It's an MD mount. It dates back to 1981 when I used it to take pictures of North Korean guardposts.

Pau
Site Admin
Posts: 6053
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 8:57 am
Location: Valencia, Spain

Post by Pau »

SR and MD are different versions of the same mount, what I said still applies

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minolta_SR-mount
Pau

Deanimator
Posts: 870
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2012 7:01 pm
Location: North Olmsted, Ohio, U.S.A.

Post by Deanimator »

Pau wrote:SR and MD are different versions of the same mount, what I said still applies

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minolta_SR-mount
Thanks.

Deanimator
Posts: 870
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2012 7:01 pm
Location: North Olmsted, Ohio, U.S.A.

Post by Deanimator »

The following have arrived:
  • M42 bellows
  • EOS to M42 adapter
  • Amscope 4x objective.
I'm still waiting on the RMS to M42 adapter and the M42 extension tubes.

Deanimator
Posts: 870
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2012 7:01 pm
Location: North Olmsted, Ohio, U.S.A.

Post by Deanimator »

I got the two M42 extension tube sets and the M42 to RMS adapter today.

Just for giggles, I did a live view test with objective on the end of the two sets of M42 extension tubes.

For a subject I used a 148gr. .38 Special wadcutter round stood on its nose. The rim looked like the edge on view of a manhole cover.

I think I'm going to have a lot of fun with this.

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic