www.photomacrography.net :: View topic - Cheap tube lens
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 
Cheap tube lens
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    www.photomacrography.net Forum Index -> Equipment Discussions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Joaquim F.



Joined: 28 Apr 2010
Posts: 172
Location: Tarragona, Spain

PostPosted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 1:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Another great find, very interesting John.

Regards
_________________
http://www.flickr.com/photos/45863071@N03/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
morfa



Joined: 12 Oct 2009
Posts: 551
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

PostPosted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 3:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Update: I might have been too quick to doubt the validity of the tube length stated by the seller – after some quick comparisons it seems as if the focal length of this tube lens very well could be closer to 172mm than 200mm. Haven't yet had time to do a proper measurement but just looking through the viewfinder and comparing the FOV from the tube lens and a regular 200mm (without objectives in place and focused to ≈5m) the tube lens is clearly wider!

To me this is a good thing since it could mean that the usable magnification range begin somewhere below what is specified on the objective. In any case I think it will be interesting to investigate how much flexibility in terms of magnification we can get away with just by varying the tube lens extension.
_________________
John Hallmén
http://johnhallmen.se
http://flickr.com/johnhallmen
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
g4lab



Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 1424

PostPosted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 3:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

John, Have you ever managed to track down who made the One Adapter to Rule Them ALL and where mere mortals might be able to sell their souls for one. Laughing Laughing

Gene
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
morfa



Joined: 12 Oct 2009
Posts: 551
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

PostPosted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 3:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Gene,
The only thing I know is that it said "Nikon M28-M52 Digital Adapter Ring" in the listing (#330458563486). It doesn't say "Nikon" anywhere on the adapter though and there was no box or any other info that came with it so I haven't been able to verify this.
_________________
John Hallmén
http://johnhallmen.se
http://flickr.com/johnhallmen
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
g4lab



Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 1424

PostPosted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 4:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://www.cncsupplyinc.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Blame



Joined: 14 May 2010
Posts: 342

PostPosted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 4:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wow. 3.7mm diameter.

As soon as I get the bits I need from china, I am going to try with a cropped sensor and a tamron 90mm macro. That should give 5.3mm diameter, and 4.5x magnification, and a chance to challenge the nikon 4x 0.2NA.

Worth a try.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
morfa



Joined: 12 Oct 2009
Posts: 551
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 4:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tonight I tried pushing the magnification down by decreasing the extension of the tube lens (so that it became focused "far beyond infinity").

Here is the 50X 0.55 pushed down to just below 30X (uncropped FF sensor):



21MP version: http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5209/5365194408_6caee65c7f_o.jpg

Overall appearance is degraded and the corner definition is not very good. But it's not as terrible as you might expect: center resolution is excellent and aberrations are not out of control. The general contrast was pretty low so I've adjusted curves and applied some unsharp mask.

FOV check with the 50x on a FF sensor (1/10mm tick marks)

_________________
John Hallmén
http://johnhallmen.se
http://flickr.com/johnhallmen
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
lothman



Joined: 14 Feb 2009
Posts: 264
Location: Stuttgart/Germany

PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 4:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

morfa wrote:
Overall appearance is degraded and the corner definition is not very good. But it's not as terrible as you might expect: center resolution is excellent and aberrations are not out of control. The general contrast was pretty low so I've adjusted curves and applied some unsharp mask.


Thanks John for your pioneer work Laughing So after all do you think this lens works better as a tube than the 200mm-Telelens-Solution?

Can we use a f=200mm achromat (+5 CU-lens) as a tube lens, and which diameter do we use for APS-C and FF.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oskar O



Joined: 13 Dec 2010
Posts: 243
Location: Finland

PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

lothman wrote:

Can we use a f=200mm achromat (+5 CU-lens) as a tube lens, and which diameter do we use for APS-C and FF.


That thought started to nag me too... if this lens works so well, then wouldn't an achromatic diopter around +5 of similar dimensions work just as well? Or is there more to it? very fascinating...

30X looks sort of ok, but would probably be pretty good when there is no real detail on the edges of the frame. Really interesting thread!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Craig Gerard



Joined: 01 May 2010
Posts: 2877
Location: Australia

PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 5:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

g4lab wrote:
http://www.cncsupplyinc.com/

Gene,

Can you be more specific. The Astro photographers have many useful attachments.

Craig
_________________
To use a classic quote from 'Antz' - "I almost know exactly what I'm doing!"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ChrisR
Site Admin


Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Posts: 6937
Location: Near London, UK

PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 5:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Nikon 3T and 4T lenses are 52mm, and +1.5 and +2.9 diopters respectively. 5T and 6T lenses are 62mm, and +1.5 and +2.9 diopters.
They would provide a range of magnifications used in pairs - and keep the step-ring manufacturers happy. I believe they work better reversed on some telephotos, so there's a project for a wet afternoon.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
realjax



Joined: 19 May 2010
Posts: 136
Location: Netherlands

PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 6:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

morfa wrote:
Gene,
The only thing I know is that it said "Nikon M28-M52 Digital Adapter Ring" in the listing (#330458563486). It doesn't say "Nikon" anywhere on the adapter though and there was no box or any other info that came with it so I haven't been able to verify this.


It looks a lot like a thread based digiscope adapter, like this one for instance. Expensive though.
_________________
Jacco
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Blame



Joined: 14 May 2010
Posts: 342

PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 6:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Morfa

You have dropped your tube length to about 120mm.

An infinite focus objective + tube lens = finite objective.

Previous threads suggest that finite lenses loose quality quickly when trimmed below recommended tube length.

120mm might just be too short for your 172mm tube lens. by rights, it should be. Any chance of you trying 170mm next?

This is frustrating. If the corners are good, it is proof that the objective can cope. If not, you are left wondering if it the tube lens's fault or the objective.

Still, I am very impressed with your tests.

Oh, is there some decentering? The left side looks better than the right. Objective and tube lens might be just slightly misaligned.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
morfa



Joined: 12 Oct 2009
Posts: 551
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 7:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ok, so Nikon 4T (52mm) has a focal length of 344mm so with a 50X objective designed for a 200mm tube lens it should give 344/200*50=86X magnification. That would mean a horizontal FOV of 36/86=0.42 mm.

FOV with Nikon 4T+Nikon 50x/0.55 (FF)

It's probably a tiny bit more than 0.42mm so I ideally I should have added some more extension but I figured it's close enough.

Stacked result with this combo:

6MP version: http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5121/5369490663_430ba6b5b2_o.jpg

I think I see some focus banding so I should probably have chosen a smaller step size than 0.002mm. Also, the top left looks much sharper than the bottom right so results could probably be improved with some careful realignment. The dark corners are not caused by the objective or tube lens – one of the extension tubes used has a mask which is obstructing some light rays (I know this because the effect disappear at shorter extension or if the ET is removed).

Other than this, diffraction is probably the big detail killer here. Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure that NA 0.55 means a lot of empty magnification when used above 80X with this sensor/resolution.
_________________
John Hallmén
http://johnhallmen.se
http://flickr.com/johnhallmen
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
morfa



Joined: 12 Oct 2009
Posts: 551
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 8:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Another one with Nikon 4T as a tube lens. This time "pushed back down" to approximately 50x by shortening the tube lens extension.


12MP version: http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5170/5369641281_c0acd1f1d6_o.jpg

Like before the lower right is worse than the upper left, most likely due to some misalignment somewhere.
_________________
John Hallmén
http://johnhallmen.se
http://flickr.com/johnhallmen
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
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, 3, 4  Next
Page 2 of 4

 
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