LOMO Objective 10x 0 30

A forum to ask questions, post setups, and generally discuss anything having to do with photomacrography and photomicroscopy.

Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau

8 A S M
Posts: 29
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2018 12:11 am

LOMO Objective 10x 0 30

Post by 8 A S M »

Hello
Most macro photographers know this lens Objective Lomo 3.7

My question is what do you think of the lens quality LOMO Objective 10x 0 30
It is a rare presence in the market ebay


Image

Lou Jost
Posts: 5945
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2015 7:03 am
Location: Ecuador
Contact:

Post by Lou Jost »

I love the Lomo 3.7 on FF, but I have had other Lomos that were garbage. In addition, one of my Lomo 3.7 objectives was considerably better than the other. If the price is right, take a shot. If it is very expensive, better to go with known-good objectives with the same parameters.

8 A S M
Posts: 29
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2018 12:11 am

Re: LOMO Objective 10x 0 30

Post by 8 A S M »

8 A S M wrote:Hello
Most macro photographers know this lens Objective Lomo 3.7
030
My question is what do you think of the lens quality LOMO Objective 10x 0. 30
It is a rare presence in the market ebay

LOMO Objective 10x 0. 30

rafcamera

Sold for $ 99 new

https://www.rafcamera.com/lomo-microsco ... 0-30-phase

--------------------------------------------------------------
ebay

Used $39.99

https://www.ebay.com/p/LOMO-Objective-1 ... 2180702301

Online
viktor j nilsson
Posts: 423
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2013 1:43 am
Location: Lund, Sweden

Re: LOMO Objective 10x 0 30

Post by viktor j nilsson »

8 A S M wrote:
LOMO Objective 10x 0. 30

rafcamera

Sold for $ 99 new

https://www.rafcamera.com/lomo-microsco ... 0-30-phase

--------------------------------------------------------------
ebay

Used $39.99

https://www.ebay.com/p/LOMO-Objective-1 ... 2180702301
That objective is for phase contrast and has a dark ring at its back focal plane. It will have poor image quality if used for brightfield microscopy or macro.

Also note that these at short barrel objectives. Most microscope stands can't focus close enough to reach focus. (not a problem for macro).

8 A S M
Posts: 29
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2018 12:11 am

Post by 8 A S M »

Lou Jost wrote:I love the Lomo 3.7 on FF, but I have had other Lomos that were garbage. In addition, one of my Lomo 3.7 objectives was considerably better than the other. If the price is right, take a shot. If it is very expensive, better to go with known-good objectives with the same parameters.

I bought it from the site and when I arrive I will experience the experience and tell you the result, God willing thank you

8 A S M
Posts: 29
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2018 12:11 am

Re: LOMO Objective 10x 0 30

Post by 8 A S M »

viktor j nilsson
wrote:
Also note that these at short barrel objectives. Most microscope stands can't focus close enough to reach focus. (not a problem for macro).


Thank you very much for the information

ray_parkhurst
Posts: 3416
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 10:40 am
Location: Santa Clara, CA, USA
Contact:

Post by ray_parkhurst »

I have not tested the Lomo 10/0.3, but do have the 10/0.4. It is quite good in the center, but coverage is poor. I have the Unitron 10/0.3 and it's a decent performer on APS-C, getting a little soft in the corners but OK for some purposes. Hopefully the Lomo 10/0.3 is better than these in the corners. So far I think I've tested >10 Lomo objectives and none have been near the spectacular quality of the 3.7x.

Edited to add:

In my search, I ran across a Lomo 11X/0.4 that I had not seen before. It has an adjustable aperture. Generally the lenses I've seen with adjustable aperture are geared toward photography, so I picked it up. Just had a good feeling about it.

Is there an available reference for the different series of Lomo objectives? Would be nice to know if there are others in the same series as the 3.7X that might be worth looking into.

Edit2: I see there is a 8x/0.2 objective that appears to be from the same series as the 3.7x. Has anyone tested the 8x? There is one online ref from someone using both 3.7x and 8x, with 8x performing miserably, but at the end of the thread it miraculously performs beautifully, with no explanation. Anyway, the 8x seem very cheap on ebay, either because they are not good, or not yet "discovered".

jurkovicovic
Posts: 81
Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2017 11:16 am

lomo 8 0.20

Post by jurkovicovic »

Here is sample from Lomo 8 0.20 160/-
https://www.ebay.com/itm/LOMO-Microscop ... SwPJxbgGPQ
It is only achromatic lens and apparently it needs eyepiece correction.
WD is more than 10mm if I remeber it good.
Sample:
Image
Center:
Image
Corner:
Image
canon EOS *

jurkovicovic
Posts: 81
Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2017 11:16 am

Lomo 9 0.20

Post by jurkovicovic »

Here is Lomo 9 0.20 160/- plan.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/LOMO-lens-plan ... SwhpZaNxc7
WD is around 10mm.
Sample:
Image
Center:
Image
Corner:
Image

Used EQ: APSC camera, bellow, objective.

BR Filip
canon EOS *

zzffnn
Posts: 1896
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 1:25 pm
Location: Houston, Texas, USA
Contact:

Post by zzffnn »

Ray,

Robert has my LOMO 9/0.20 160 plan. I sent it to him, as I heard it is good. LOMO also made an iris version of the same optical design.

LOMO's 8/0.2 160 non plan is a different design. I have not heard people praise it, so I did not send it to Robert.

LOMO also made a plan 3.5/0.1 160. Not sure show good it is.

The 11/0.4 is probably for Fedorov's universal stage and usually used with glass dome. NA 0.4 is not that low to be pushed around beyond design limits, but it may work. Try it and report back , please. :twisted:

ray_parkhurst
Posts: 3416
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 10:40 am
Location: Santa Clara, CA, USA
Contact:

Post by ray_parkhurst »

zzffnn wrote:Ray,

Robert has my LOMO 9/0.20 160 plan. I sent it to him, as I heard it is good. LOMO also made an iris version of the same optical design.

LOMO's 8/0.2 160 non plan is a different design. I have not heard people praise it, so I did not send it to Robert.

LOMO also made a plan 3.5/0.1 160. Not sure show good it is.

The 11/0.4 is probably for Fedorov's universal stage and usually used with glass dome. NA 0.4 is not that low to be pushed around beyond design limits, but it may work. Try it and report back , please. :twisted:
For sure I will post results when it arrives. I'll also do something with my 10/0.4, and pull out the 9/0.2 as well.

I'm not familiar with the Federov stage or glass dome. Can you elaborate, or point me to a good ref?

zzffnn
Posts: 1896
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 1:25 pm
Location: Houston, Texas, USA
Contact:

Post by zzffnn »

Ray,

Regarding that 10/0.4 for universal stage:

https://m.ebay.com/itm/LOMO-Polarizing- ... 3438591163

https://www.rafcamera.com/lomo-microsco ... -polarized

I don't have a good reference for universal stage. I would have to google it myself, so your searching should be as good as mine.

Edit: here is an article, though I don't like how long it is:
https://www.geochemsoc.org/publications ... ersalstage

zzffnn
Posts: 1896
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 1:25 pm
Location: Houston, Texas, USA
Contact:

Post by zzffnn »

zzffnn wrote:Ray,

Regarding that 10/0.4 for universal stage:

https://m.ebay.com/itm/LOMO-Polarizing- ... 3438591163

https://www.rafcamera.com/lomo-microsco ... -polarized

I don't have a good reference for universal stage. I would have to google it myself, so your searching should be as good as mine.

Edit: here is an article, though I don't like how long it is:
https://www.geochemsoc.org/publications ... ersalstage
I did not like my LOMO 10/0.4 achromat as much as my LOMO apo 10/0.3, under transmitted oblique and darkfield illumination. The 10/0.4 produces visibly more CA and haziness. Oblique and darkfield microscopy are quite demanding on objective quality, but they are very different application than macrophotography through direct projection. So YMMV.

8 A S M
Posts: 29
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2018 12:11 am

Post by 8 A S M »

zzffnn wrote:
zzffnn wrote:Ray,

Regarding that 10/0.4 for universal stage:

https://m.ebay.com/itm/LOMO-Polarizing- ... 3438591163

https://www.rafcamera.com/lomo-microsco ... -polarized

I don't have a good reference for universal stage. I would have to google it myself, so your searching should be as good as mine.

Edit: here is an article, though I don't like how long it is:
https://www.geochemsoc.org/publications ... ersalstage
I did not like my LOMO 10/0.4 achromat as much as my LOMO apo 10/0.3, under transmitted oblique and darkfield illumination. The 10/0.4 produces visibly more CA and haziness. Oblique and darkfield microscopy are quite demanding on objective quality, but they are very different application than macrophotography through direct projection. So YMMV.




However, the LOMO Phase Lumin Fluor objective FL 10x 0.30 is close to Olympus UPlanFL N 10X / 0.30na Objective
--------------------------------
Specifications LOMO 10x 0.30

Achromat lens to microscope for bacteriologic,biologic or other investigations method the phase contrast into light of luminescence ( fluorescence )

10x, n.a. 0,30 FL
Magnification: 10x
Numeric aperture: 0,30

Tube: 160mm
Focal length: 15,15 mm
Work distance: 7,2 mm
Parfocal height: 33 mm
Correction : Achromat
Works in transmitted light.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/LOMO-Phase-Lum ... 1471992417

ray_parkhurst
Posts: 3416
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 10:40 am
Location: Santa Clara, CA, USA
Contact:

Post by ray_parkhurst »

I received the Lomo 11/0.4 objective today. Unfortunately, it is very disappointing. Seems my "gut feeling" was way off. Wide open, the contrast is horrendous. I think this is due to flare, but I can't seem to control it. The contrast problem improves stopped down 3-4 stops, but by then the resolution is poor. Plus, it has a lot of field curvature, and does not cover APS-C. What a boondoggle!

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic