www.photomacrography.net :: View topic - Comparing macro lenses using MTF - part II
www.photomacrography.net Forum Index
An online community dedicated to the practices of photomacrography, close-up and macro photography, and photomicrography.
Photomacrography Front Page Amateurmicrography Front Page
Old Forums/Galleries
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Comparing macro lenses using MTF - part II
Goto page Previous  1, 2
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    www.photomacrography.net Forum Index -> Equipment Discussions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
ray_parkhurst



Joined: 20 Nov 2010
Posts: 1708
Location: Santa Clara, CA, USA

PostPosted: Sat Sep 15, 2018 7:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

elimoss wrote:
ray_parkhurst wrote:
In general how well do short tube lenses (75-80mm) work in this stacked arrangement? Would I see significant vignetting?



I tried the SK 50 f2.8 reversed on the Rokinon 135 f2 without vignetting on APS-C. I tried same on an old 50mm lens and there was too much vignetting.
Didn't try anything between.

I also wonder whether we should try focus distances on the 'tube' lens other than infinity. We are using the SK 50 (or your favorite enlarger) as a diopter or close up filter; I don't think we should necessarily expect infinity focus to have the best IQ. But clearly it works alright.


I would expect somewhat off infinity focus to be best since for sure enlarger lenses were not designed for operating at infinity.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
rjlittlefield
Site Admin


Joined: 01 Aug 2006
Posts: 19335
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA

PostPosted: Sat Sep 15, 2018 8:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

elimoss wrote:
I also wonder whether we should try focus distances on the 'tube' lens other than infinity. We are using the SK 50 (or your favorite enlarger) as a diopter or close up filter; I don't think we should necessarily expect infinity focus to have the best IQ. But clearly it works alright.

ray_parkhurst wrote:
I would expect somewhat off infinity focus to be best since for sure enlarger lenses were not designed for operating at infinity.

"Thinking out loud" here...

If, say, the enlarger lens is 50 mm and optimized for 10:1, then its ideal situation would be to produce output rays that are converging around 0.5 meter behind the lens.

To get that part exactly right would require a tube lens that is focused about 2 diopter "beyond infinity", and I'm guessing that's not near the design point for any tube lens either.

So, finding the absolute best sweet spot seems to be a matter of balancing empirical tradeoffs. Having the region between the lenses be infinity space might be viewed as a first shot at doing that, by making both lenses be "equally unhappy" with their share of the work.

--Rik
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
elimoss



Joined: 12 Sep 2018
Posts: 26

PostPosted: Sun Sep 16, 2018 8:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

rjlittlefield wrote:


To get that part exactly right would require a tube lens that is focused about 2 diopter "beyond infinity", and I'm guessing that's not near the design point for any tube lens either.



Good thoughts. I think that is a good rationale for infinity being a reasonable starting point, particularly if the tube lens performs well at infinity.

It does make sense to me that if the tube lens would be focused to rays at the design point of the reversed enlarger then those rays would be converging beyond infinity. However, I am not sure how to intuitively understand 1/2 meter -> 1/(1/2) diopters -> 2 diopters beyond infinity nor how to actually focus a tube lens to that. Kind of like when a kid says, "infinity + 1" as a superlative, but in this case, infinity + 2 diopters. Laughing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rjlittlefield
Site Admin


Joined: 01 Aug 2006
Posts: 19335
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA

PostPosted: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

elimoss wrote:
However, I am not sure how to intuitively understand 1/2 meter -> 1/(1/2) diopters -> 2 diopters beyond infinity

"Beyond infinity" just means that the incoming rays from each point on the subject are already converging toward the lens. This contrasts with focusing "at infinity" which means that the incoming rays from each point on the subject are parallel, or focusing on a subject "closer than infinity" where the incoming rays from each point are diverging toward the lens.

"2 diopters beyond infinity" means that the incoming rays are converging to a point 1/2 meter behind the lens, if the lens were not there.

Quote:
nor how to actually focus a tube lens to that.

If you happen to have a +2 diopter closeup lens handy, then just stick that close in front of the tube lens and adjust the combo to focus at infinity.

More generally, you could focus at infinity, then reduce the extension by a distance equal to FL-(1000/(1000/FL+2)) , where FL is the focal length in mm of the tube lens.

For example using a 100 mm tube lens, the reduction would be 100-(1000/(1000/100+2)) = 16.67 mm.

You can confirm this calculation by observing that the combo of a 500 mm lens plus a 100 mm lens is equivalent to a lens of FL = 1/(1/500+1/100) = 83.33 mm = 100 - 16.67 mm.

Unfortunately, these (relatively) simple calculations assume "thin lenses" with no separation. With real thick lenses in barrels, they're only approximations, and not necessarily very good ones.

As a matter of practice, I'm afraid that results will end up having the form "This is what I did, and these images show how well the combo worked". I don't expect theory to provide much insight for this problem, beyond what's already been discussed.

--Rik
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
mjkzz



Joined: 01 Jul 2015
Posts: 967
Location: California/Shenzhen

PostPosted: Mon Sep 17, 2018 12:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks for the explanation, Rik, I got the 0.5m (or is it 0.55m, not to nitpicking) part, but stumbled upon "+2 diopters "beyond infinity"", too.
_________________
https://www.facebook.com/groups/mjkzzfs/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
mjkzz



Joined: 01 Jul 2015
Posts: 967
Location: California/Shenzhen

PostPosted: Mon Sep 17, 2018 12:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rik wrote:

You can confirm this calculation by observing that the combo of a 500 mm lens plus a 100 mm lens is equivalent to a lens of FL = 1/(1/500+1/100) = 83.33 mm = 100 - 16.67 mm.

Unfortunately, these (relatively) simple calculations assume "thin lenses" with no separation. With real thick lenses in barrels, they're only approximations, and not necessarily very good ones.


With thick lens, if we know the structure of it or finding an equivalent thin lens, we can still model it even though the tube lens is not close enough to this equivalent lens, we can think of them as cascaded lens.

Of course, the formula 1/f = 1/f1 + 1/f2 will be invalid because of separation (between tube lens and equivalent thin lens), but if we know the separation distance, which can be measured, then we can calculate it stage by stage in cascading manner.

Edit: by finding equivalent thin lens, lets take one example, say a Canon EF 100mm lens, if after some experiments or calculation based on its structure, the equivalent thin lens is a 100mm lens located some where in the middle of the barrel. In this case, the tube lens and this equivalent lens will have a gap that will make 1/f = 1/f1 + 1/f2 invalid. Thus we need to model the assembly as two lenses cascaded together.
_________________
https://www.facebook.com/groups/mjkzzfs/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
rjlittlefield
Site Admin


Joined: 01 Aug 2006
Posts: 19335
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA

PostPosted: Mon Sep 17, 2018 7:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mjkzz wrote:
With thick lens, ... we can still model it

Yes, of course. In that case the relevant equations come from "thick lens" theory. "Thick lens" is a technical term, which you can use to search for many articles.

To do the analysis, you will need to know the locations of the principal planes for both lenses, so that you can determine the effective separation between them.

If you're very lucky, those locations might be listed in technical literature for the lenses. In that case, the only challenge is to be sure that you've identified the correct principal plane, because they're often reversed from what you might expect.

If the locations of the principal planes are not listed in the literature, then you would have to measure them.

I've done that task a couple of times, mainly in search of insight that I did eventually find. ("Oh, that's why adding extension didn't give me as much additional magnification as I expected!".

But despite the eventual satisfaction in those cases, I also found the measurements and calculations to be tedious and easy to mess up.

For the task of optimizing a lens combo, I personally would skip detailed calculations and go straight to empirical testing.

Quote:
is it 0.55m

Yes, 0.55 would be the exact calculated number. That's measured behind the appropriate principal plane of the reversed enlarging lens, and assuming that the focal length really is exactly 50 mm. Given those complications, and considering that the peak of the optimum is probably broad, I decided that "around 0.5m" would be a helpful simplification. Maybe I should have gone with the exact number to avoid unnecessary confusion.

--Rik
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
mjkzz



Joined: 01 Jul 2015
Posts: 967
Location: California/Shenzhen

PostPosted: Mon Sep 17, 2018 6:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks Rik, now, because of my mis-use of the term "thick lens", now I think I know how to model a thick lens Very Happy

I was thinking about a lens with multiple groups and elements, like Nikkor EL-50 and I thought that can be thought of as "thick lens". I thought that each element in a lens could be thought as thin lens, and knowing its parameters, we can model the whole lens easily. Now I know how to model a real thick lens, it is even better, probably more accurate if we treat each element in a composite lens, ie, like Nikkor EL-50, as thick lens instead.

Adding tube lens or relay lens to an existing lens can also be modeled -- simply add that additional lens to the model with its parameters and separation between them.

Rik wrote:

But despite the eventual satisfaction in those cases, I also found the measurements and calculations to be tedious and easy to mess up.


So true, I messed up a few times with a simple two lenses setup!!! And that is only 2 lenses. It is the sign of parameters I keep messing up. But for proficient optical engineer, it is probably piece of cake.
_________________
https://www.facebook.com/groups/mjkzzfs/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Miljenko



Joined: 01 Jun 2013
Posts: 87
Location: Zagreb, Croatia

PostPosted: Tue Sep 18, 2018 9:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank you guys for this inspiring discussion which coincides with my intuitive contemplation. Every time I was adjusting tube lens for infinite focus, I was thinking about the lens on test that was actually NOT designed to project at infinity. I was tempted to try other focusing plane distances but the whole project was already so time consuming that I've left this experiment for some other ocassion. I might pick those magnification group winners in a near future and retest while adjusting tube lens.
Miljenko
_________________
If your pictures are not good enough you are not close enough. - Robert Capa
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    www.photomacrography.net Forum Index -> Equipment Discussions All times are GMT - 7 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group