Tube Lens Shootout Any Advice or Assistance?

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

Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau

RobertOToole
Posts: 2627
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:34 pm
Location: United States
Contact:

Post by RobertOToole »

Saul wrote:Robert, would you like to test Reichert tube lens ( for me it showed very close results comparing with Sigma LSA) ?
Hi Saul,

Yes, that would be great. I will PM my email address.

Thanks

RobertOToole
Posts: 2627
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:34 pm
Location: United States
Contact:

Post by RobertOToole »

sweedlepipe wrote:Why not test the Micro-Nikkor 200mm f/4 AF-D? It's the more modern of the Nikon options and likely to be the best performer, at least from what I've heard.
I have never tried a 200/4 AF-D as a tube lens but a couple of things that would make me think twice.

It was chromatic aberration king at 1X stopped down
Its a macro lens optimized for close-ups not long distance
Its very expensive.
Someone here tried one as a tube lens and didn't see good results, I forgot who that was!

Not sure but I would guess a normal prime would be more suitable but I could be wrong!

Robert

RobertOToole
Posts: 2627
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:34 pm
Location: United States
Contact:

Post by RobertOToole »

Lou Jost wrote:That's a good suggestion, many use the 200 Micro-Nikkor as a tube lens and prefer it, though I haven't used one.
Well, if someone can send me one I would gladly run it in the test. I had to return the loaner I had for the 1X test, back to Nikon.

Robert

Chris S.
Site Admin
Posts: 4042
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 9:55 pm
Location: Ohio, USA

Post by Chris S. »

RobertOToole wrote:
sweedlepipe wrote:Why not test the Micro-Nikkor 200mm f/4 AF-D? It's the more modern of the Nikon options and likely to be the best performer, at least from what I've heard.
I have never tried a 200/4 AF-D as a tube lens but a couple of things that would make me think twice.

It was chromatic aberration king at 1X stopped down
Its a macro lens optimized for close-ups not long distance
Its very expensive.
Someone here tried one as a tube lens and didn't see good results, I forgot who that was!

Not sure but I would guess a normal prime would be more suitable but I could be wrong!

Robert
I have a micro-Nikkor 200mm f/4 AF-D, and when I first purchased Mitutoyo objectives, happily used this lens to converge them. I noticed no fault with it in this role. I agree, though, that it is an expensive lens. So I wanted to return it to my field kit, ready for outdoor use and travel. I also wanted a macro rig permanently set up in the studio, and built that around a Mitutoyo MT-1 tube lens. I've never compared these setups directly, but did not notice any sea change migrating from the one to the other (in terms of picture quality, that is--in terms of operating convenience, there are differences).

So other than cost, I can't think of any categorical reason to exclude a 200mm micro-Nikkor from your test.

This said, I'm hesitant to put forward my particular specimen of this Nikkor for your test, because I don't think mine is quite up to the standards normal for this lens. (I've been meaning to replace it.) While it worked fine as a converging lens, it seems not to be as good as others of its model for other tasks. If you're going to take the time for a painstaking comparison, I think you should use a specimen that is at more representative. (Nikon does say mine is in spec, but it has not compared favorably with another copy at infinity, nor against my micro-Nikkor 105mm AF-D at macro ranges. Meanwhile, this is a near-legendary lens that typically produces top-quality results in macro work.)

BTW, it's interesting that lenses that do other tasks poorly sometimes work very well for converging microscope objectives. I've wondered why.

--Chris S.

Chris S.
Site Admin
Posts: 4042
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 9:55 pm
Location: Ohio, USA

Post by Chris S. »

RobertOToole wrote:
Chris S. wrote: Wondering--is the Mitutoyo 5x objective the most illuminating choice for this test? I have no idea, but suspect whichever Mitty objective has the largest exit cone might be the most demanding. If so, which one would that be?

--Chris S.
I thought of Mitutoyo since it seems to be is the most popular here I think, and its one of my favorites :-)
I completely agree with your choice of Mitutoyo. What I wonder is: Which magnification Mitutoyo objective would tell use most?

--Chris

typestar
Posts: 199
Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2009 1:45 am
Location: Austria

Tube-lenses for shoot-out tests

Post by typestar »

Dear Robert,

great to see a further extension of the tests
For the "classic" 200mm test with (old or newer) primes (to fit the specifications for infinity lenses) I believe a "normal" 200 mm "old" Nikkor (Q, etc.) would be a "normal" standard .

As you list the 135mm and 105 mm Nikkor lenses:
How far do you plan to "pull down" the specification of your tubelenses in direction to receive a 5x magnification with a 10x lens?
135 mm and down to 105 mm (and have both high NA and acceptable image circles --if acceptable then), would be very interesting to see for many here (I think), so a proposal:

1) the Konica Hexanon AR 135mm / 1:3.2 (come on ebay for very little money and are said to be very sharp and with low CA;
http://www.artaphot.ch/konica-ar/objekt ... -135mm-f32
or:
http://www.artaphot.ch/konica-ar/objekt ... -135mm-f25

Ebay-sources for the Hexanons, as for today: https://tinyurl.com/hexanon-3-2-ebay

test: http://www.artaphot.ch/konica-ar/lens-t ... 25-f32-f35 (other nice testings there...)

Hexanon lenses are a little exotic but well made full metal lenses - and according to the Swiss testings some of them are very good in their CA behaviour... Hexanon-to-Sony-E-Adapters are easy to get.

2) the tiny Olympus OM Zuiko Auto-T 100mm 1:2,8
(I believe the smallest 105 mm lens produced in the 80's (?), also a sharp lens) as the complete length of the setup for the Mitutoyos -- this would be a very "sexy" setup... ;-)

3) the Nikkor 105 mm /2.5 or 2.8

4) (As you have it, i think:) -- the Apo-Macro-Lanthar 125 mm /f 2.5 (but the very most expensive in the list)

Of course, the received image circle (with shorter than "specified" tube lenses) will be the central problem for this...

But, if you really plan to do a "special" shoot-out only for shorter tubelenth on (Sony) APS-C sensors - and if you consider this shorter lenses too, this would be a new extended database then ....

Best wishes for the project:

Christian
Last edited by typestar on Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Lou Jost
Posts: 5943
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2015 7:03 am
Location: Ecuador
Contact:

Post by Lou Jost »

I've done a "short set" test a while back on this forum, though not as systematically as Robert is doing. My best value and most convenient to use was the Vivitar-Komine (serial # starting with 28) 135. Best quality was the giant and expensive Sigma 135 f/1.8 Art lens. 105mm shows a lot of astigmatism in the corners with the objectives I work with; this may or may not be a problem, depending on your subject.

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

Post by ChrisR »

If we're getting exotic there's the CONTAX Carl Zeiss Tele-Tessar 200mm F/3.5 T* which, though perhaps not common, could be good. The 135mm Zeiss certainly gets top marks (Beatsy & others) version.

Near 200mm, wasn't there a less-common but rather expensive Raynox which was found to be a leader??

Another obvious lens would be a long enlarger lens, 180 or 210mm?

I tried a long, top quality in its day, projector lens. It was terrible!
Chris R

Lou Jost
Posts: 5943
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2015 7:03 am
Location: Ecuador
Contact:

Post by Lou Jost »

Near 200mm, wasn't there a less-common but rather expensive Raynox which was found to be a leader??
Yes, that was the Raynox 5320 with a focal length near 170mm. nathanm here tested it and found it to be the best tube lens, tested on a medium format sensor I think.

RobertOToole
Posts: 2627
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:34 pm
Location: United States
Contact:

Post by RobertOToole »

Lou Jost wrote:
Near 200mm, wasn't there a less-common but rather expensive Raynox which was found to be a leader??
Yes, that was the Raynox 5320 with a focal length near 170mm. nathanm here tested it and found it to be the best tube lens, tested on a medium format sensor I think.
Thats right Lou, I looked that one up once

http://www.raynox.co.jp/english/dcr/dcr ... /index.htm

it is two diopters, +2 and +3 screwed together.

These are close to $300 and have 72mm threads!

RobertOToole
Posts: 2627
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:34 pm
Location: United States
Contact:

Post by RobertOToole »

ChrisR wrote:If we're getting exotic there's the CONTAX Carl Zeiss Tele-Tessar 200mm F/3.5 T* which, though perhaps not common, could be good. The 135mm Zeiss certainly gets top marks (Beatsy & others) version.
Have that one Chris. I will throw it on the setup to test but I already tried it, and It was a waste of time and money spent on the the CY>E-mount adapter.

The Contax 200/3.5 was sharp in the center but there was too much CA in the corners.

Robert
Last edited by RobertOToole on Thu Dec 21, 2017 11:07 am, edited 1 time in total.

Lou Jost
Posts: 5943
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2015 7:03 am
Location: Ecuador
Contact:

Post by Lou Jost »

Robert, I have the 5320 and really like it because of its freedom from vignetting when used as a tube lens for reversed fast primes. But with some lenses and inter-lens distances it adds lots of aberrations.....I haven't quite got it figured out yet. In my tests using it as a tube lens on a Mitu 10x( http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... hp?t=32745 ) I found it to be less good in the center than some other options, but perhaps better in the corners.
Last edited by Lou Jost on Thu Dec 21, 2017 11:16 am, edited 2 times in total.

RobertOToole
Posts: 2627
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:34 pm
Location: United States
Contact:

Post by RobertOToole »

Lou Jost wrote:Robert, I have the 5320 and really like it because of its freedom from vignetting when used as a tube lens for reversed fast primes.
Thanks for the info.

Now I need to find a used one!

Robert

Lou Jost
Posts: 5943
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2015 7:03 am
Location: Ecuador
Contact:

Post by Lou Jost »

Robert, note my edits with caveats above....

RobertOToole
Posts: 2627
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:34 pm
Location: United States
Contact:

Post by RobertOToole »

Lou Jost wrote:Robert, note my edits with caveats above....
Thanks for the added notes Lou!

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic