Nikon CFI60 10x 0.25 on 24 x 36mm sensor

[ChrisR]

I have almost the same old telephoto that Rik used here . I think mine might be slightly older. It has some visible dust and traces of fungus.

I don't have the right mount for it (it's a T4 M42) for Nikon, so it'll only focus to about 40 metres, not infinity, with the lens held against the body. It does clip (all four corners!) but I obviously didn't get it quite centred, which has the slight advantage of showing past the edge of the frame on one side (the left).

So I'm using about the same telephoto, and the same 10x objective.
Different Sensor, it's a D700, 12Mp on 24 x 36mm instead of 15.1 Mp on a 22.3 x 14.9mm.
So the pixels are about 8.4 micrometres instead of 4.7 across.
This moth is hilly, so it's an incomplete stack.
I've shown the whole frame (Pmax), and sections at actual pixels.

We use the terms "5x" and 10x" as though they mean the same universally - they don't of course, where different sized sensors are used.
This particular lens/objective combination shows I think reasonable qualilty to about a remarkable 38mm image circle. If the area outside that is cropped off, it still leaves a lot of usable image, something like 1.4x (linear) the Canon's APS-C. So for comparison purposes, the coverage is what Rik would get at about 7x rather than 10x.
It would be really nice to find a 200mm lens which causes no vignetting on 24 x 26!

[ChrisR]

And a couple of others:
I get a little less clipping the corners with a 105mm f/2.8 Micro Nikkor, but NONE on a 135mm f/2/8 Nikkor. The 135mm can be stopped down to about f/4.5 before clipping shows.

I also tried a CFI60 4x NA0.1 (Pol) and in terms of clipping, on the same telephotos ( and 80-200mm f/4.5 and 70-210mm f/4) and, as near as makes no difference, got the same results.

Is it useful to put the 10x on the 135mm, to give me 6.75x? Yes, I think better than using a cropped image from a 200mm.

[Charles Krebs]

Chris,

It would be really nice to find a 200mm lens which causes no vignetting on 24 x 26!

Here is a "full-frame" (24x36mm) test shot taken with a Mitutoyo 10X and a Nikon 200mm tube lens:
http://krebsmicro.com/PMax%202921-2953.jpg

The objective was placed right up against the tube lens (no 100-200mm separation as per Nikon recommendation for their set-ups). When it was set up some distance from the tube lens there was vignetting.

No vignetting here, but the lower right corner is softer than the other three. This test shot is actually what caused me to post the question about alignment affecting image quality at corners/edges. I have not played around with this any more, or tried to carefully check my "apparatus" for misalignment, so as yet I do not know the reason for the lower right.

Charlie

[Craig Gerard]

Here is a "full-frame" (24x36mm) test shot taken with a Mitutoyo 10X and a Nikon 200mm tube lens:
http://krebsmicro.com/PMax%202921-2953.jpg

Charlie,

There is also something happening in the upper-left of that image, but not as pronounced as the lower-right.



Craig

[Charles Krebs]

Craig,

None of the very corners are as good as I would like to see, which is not really that much of a surprise with a 43mm diagonal sensor. It would be nice if they appeared about the same however, and the lower right is off more than the others. This was a quick shot just to see if I could even "cover" the full frame with an image. One reason I have not tried to troubleshoot this more is because I'm content using a camera with an APS sized sensor with microscope objectives (and with this objective that would be a different configuration than I used here). If someone here stumbles upon a objective or combination that works great on 24x36mm... well...I'm paying attention!

[ChrisR]

For those of us without the choice, it would be good to find a reliable. reasonable way to get a good 30mm image circle within a 24x36 frame.


I don't mind the corners and extreme edges being less good, - they're often lost anyway - but missing altogether is a nuisance. (Especially if the stacking allignment takes unwelcome notice of what looks like a significant image feature.)

A map of sharpness across that image of yours would indeed be whacky, Charles. It doesn't look progressive. Some of the sharpest looks upper left, but then it falls off fast ?) ??

[Chris S.]

For those of us without the choice, it would be good to find a reliable, reasonable way to get a good 30mm image circle within a 24x36 frame.

Chris, I'm wondering why "no choice"? A nice used D200 (16x24mm sensor), goes for around $400 US on the Bay of e--less than many lens alternatives. It would of course use the same lenses and adapters, memory cards, batteries, 10-pin adapter, and software as your D700, though if you use a (Nikon brand) right-angle finder, AC adapter, or L-bracket, those of course are different. I have a D700 and D200, and nearly always use the D200 for macro.

Cheers,

--Chris

edited to correct formatting

[Craig Gerard]

What about using a low power (1.4X) teleconverter/relay lense on a FF sensor in addition to the tube lense , hopefully without significant (or minor) impact on image quality (IQ)?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleconverter

Craig

[AndrewC]

For those of us without the choice, it would be good to find a reliable, reasonable way to get a good 30mm image circle within a 24x36 frame.

Chris, I'm wondering why "no choice"? A nice used D200 (16x24mm sensor), goes for around $400 US on the Bay of e--less than many lens alternatives. It would of course use the same lenses and adapters, memory cards, batteries, 10-pin adapter, and software as your D700, though if you use a (Nikon brand) right-angle finder, AC adapter, or L-bracket, those of course are different. I have a D700 and D200, and nearly always use the D200 for macro.

Cheers,

--Chris

... and depending on what you plan to do with your images you can always just put the D700 into DX crop mode, you still get 2700x1800 (or thereabouts) pictures ad think of all the time you will save processing them !

[ChrisLilley]

... and depending on what you plan to do with your images you can always just put the D700 into DX crop mode, you still get 2700x1800 (or thereabouts) pictures ad think of all the time you will save processing them !

Yes, but if 4.8 MPx DX images are sufficient, wouldn't a 6MPx DX camera like the Nikon D40 be easier and cheaper?

[ChrisLilley]

What about using a low power (1.4X) teleconverter/relay lense on a FF sensor in addition to the tube lense , hopefully without significant (or minor) impact on image quality (IQ)?

Nikon make a good 1.4x TC for AF-S lenses (and other lenses with some minor surgery). However, a 200mm f/2.8 lens with 1.4x TC is a 280mm f/4 lens. It would seem easier for this application to use a 300mm lens, then, such as a +3.3 diopter 'close up lens'.

[Chris S.]

Yes, but if 4.8 MPx DX images are sufficient, wouldn't a 6MPx DX camera like the Nikon D40 be easier and cheaper?

The D40 might be cheaper, and so might a D40x, which has the same sensor as the D200. But neither camera permits mirror-up shooting or accepts a wired remote (only a wireless infra-red remote that has to be positioned in front of the camera). That might work for some workflows, others not.
To get mirror-up and the use of a wired, ten-pin remote, one needs to stick with the pro/prosumer Nikons--D2x, D100, D200, D300, D300s, D700, D3, D3x, D3s, etc. (Perhaps, from what I read, also the new D7000.) I named the D200 as the cheapest in the list that I personally like. I should have noted that it lacks liveview, which is also important to some workflows. If that is needed along with mirror up, a D300 is the minimum camera to supply both.

A tip of the hat to Canon--as I understand, they include mirror up in even modest consumer SLRs.

[elf]

(only a wireless infra-red remote that has to be positioned in front of the camera)

Infra-red reflects quite well, so a simple piece of plastic will allow you to use the remote from behind the camera. My remote came with one that was held on with rubber bands around the lens. It also reflects off the cloth bellows on my setup, so I don't use the plastic reflector.

[ChrisR]

I do have a nikon 1.6 converter which I haven't tried yet. Meanwhile I think a 300mm lens, though a bit of a lump, is a better solution if it proves to "work" in that it simply spreads the good part of the image over the whole sensor.
As reported, it does "work" with a 28 - 300 zoom I have, though the picushon is quite high with that, and for normal use it needs stopping down a few stops. A fixed oldish 300mm f/5.6 should be available to try soon.

[ChrisLilley]

Yes, but if 4.8 MPx DX images are sufficient, wouldn't a 6MPx DX camera like the Nikon D40 be easier and cheaper?

The D40 might be cheaper, and so might a D40x, which has the same sensor as the D200.

My point was really that 'DX crop mode' gives you worse resolution than the now discontinued D40, which was Nikon's lowest-end Nikon DSLR. In other words, not to recommend it, but to un-recommend the suggestion to use DX crop mode.

To get mirror-up and the use of a wired, ten-pin remote, one needs to stick with the pro/prosumer Nikons--D2x, D100, D200, D300, D300s, D700, D3, D3x, D3s, etc. (Perhaps, from what I read, also the new D7000.)

Yes, the D7000 has mirror up. I am thinking of getting one to replace my D90, mirror-up being one major reason. It doesn't use the circular 10-pin connector though, it uses the small rectangular 8-pin connector also used by D5000 and D90.