Is the MP E worth over the raynox?

anvancy · Post by **anvancy** » Tue Aug 14, 2012 2:10 am

Thanks Conkar. the stuff has been discussed before.

As of now the update is this:

Javier had helped in locating an affordable focus rail and a micrometer.though due to work issues, I could not buy it and bid properly.

My cart currently holds.
1. the MPE Lens.
2. the Manfrotto 454.
3. A ball head for the rail.
4. wimberely plamp replicas.

Should I purchase a third party tripod collar? the manfrotto is on hold mode as of now. Should I go for it before I step into the bigger products like the RSS?

Anvancy

anvancy · Post by **anvancy** » Thu Aug 16, 2012 2:28 am

Guys,

Does Lens coat or similar offer covers for the MPE 65mm?

Anvancy

crayfish74 · Post by **crayfish74** » Mon Apr 29, 2013 6:25 pm

So its clear than MP E 65 is a lot better versus 100 macro 2.8 + Raynox 250,

But what about MPE 65 Versus Canon 100 macro 2.8 + 10 x nikon micro lens or 4x micro lens ?

Best

rjlittlefield · Post by **rjlittlefield** » Mon Apr 29, 2013 6:54 pm

crayfish74 wrote:But what about MPE 65 Versus Canon 100 macro 2.8 + 10 x nikon micro lens or 4x micro lens ?

That's covered at Lenses for use at 4-5X on an APS-sized sensor.

At 5X, the Canon 100 macro 2.8 + 10 x nikon micro lens is much sharper than the MP-E 65 (test images linked in the first posting of the thread).

At 2X, I haven't run a direct comparison. Based on the effective apertures, I would expect the MP-E to be a little better at center. The MP-E should have much more uniform coverage, center to corner.

--Rik

crayfish74 · Post by **crayfish74** » Mon Apr 29, 2013 7:15 pm

rjlittlefield wrote:
crayfish74 wrote:But what about MPE 65 Versus Canon 100 macro 2.8 + 10 x nikon micro lens or 4x micro lens ?
That's covered at Lenses for use at 4-5X on an APS-sized sensor.

At 5X, the Canon 100 macro 2.8 + 10 x nikon micro lens is much sharper than the MP-E 65 (test images linked in the first posting of the thread).

At 2X, I haven't run a direct comparison. Based on the effective apertures, I would expect the MP-E to be a little better at center. The MP-E should have much more uniform coverage, center to corner.

--Rik

Thanks Rik

And for a full frame as 5d mark ii what will be the best combo? The MP E -65?

Best

rjlittlefield · Post by **rjlittlefield** » Mon Apr 29, 2013 9:38 pm

crayfish74 wrote:And for a full frame as 5d mark ii what will be the best combo? The MP E -65?

The 100 mm + 10X combo will not cover full frame, so that's out.

This leaves the MP-E 65 giving best performance, among the objectives tested in that thread. The Mitutoyo M Plan Apo 5X NA 0.14 on 200 mm tube lens (not tested there) will have less CA than the MP-E 65. Resolution should be about the same as the MP-E 65 but I haven't run the experiment.

--Rik

crayfish74 · Post by **crayfish74** » Wed May 01, 2013 7:44 pm

RIK.,

Finally, what will be the effective aperture for the macro Canon EF 100 mm L IS+ nikon infinite BE plan 4X and 10X?

Best,

rjlittlefield · Post by **rjlittlefield** » Wed May 01, 2013 8:03 pm

what will be the effective aperture for the macro Canon EF 100 mm L IS+ nikon infinite BE plan 4X and 10X?

f/10

The formulas are that
a) camera-side NA for an infinite objective is subject-side NA divided by actual magnification
b) camera-side effective f-number is 1/(2*camerasideNA)

Put them together to get that effective f-number = actualMagnification/(2*NA)

Actual magnification = rated magnification * tubelensFL/200.

So, the 4X NA 0.10 on 100 mm is actual magnification = 2, with effective f-number = 2/(2*0.1) = 10.

The 10X NA 0.25 on 100 mm is actual magnification = 5, with effective f-number = 5/(2*0.25) = 10.

--Rik