Extreme Macro Help

Have questions about the equipment used for macro- or micro- photography? Post those questions in this forum.

Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau

rjlittlefield
Site Admin
Posts: 23561
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
Contact:

Post by rjlittlefield »

crayfish74 wrote:The 4x seems to be sharper than the CFI BE 10X is also sharper and clearer image, also The 10 x has a softer focus in my opinion and more blurred image.
Post examples, please. Actual pixel crops, no resize, no sharpening.

The CFI BE 4X and 10X should be very similar. Both of them run at effective f/20 at 4X and 10X.

I'm wondering if you're having some trouble with vibration, more visible at the higher magnification.
the lens that you has recomend above is good but expensive... :shock:

http://www.edmundoptics.com/imaging/ima ... ives/46144
I don't understand how you got to the Mitutoyo. The link I provided in my last post takes you to http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... php?t=9664, which discusses a Nikon lens that looks entirely different. The Nikon CFI Plan Achromat 10x NA 0.25 WD 10.5mm (part number MRL00102) has to be purchased direct from Nikon or from a Nikon authorized reseller, unless you can find one used. The price new is around $250 USD.

--Rik

crayfish74
Posts: 148
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 6:11 pm

Post by crayfish74 »

No,

More above and in the same post, you have mentioned about Mitutoyo lens,

-------------------

by RIK

Thu Sep 06, 2012 5:08 pm


The CFI BE 10X is not nearly as good that way as the Mitutoyo 10X NA 0.28, which is 33.5 mm working distance with only 32.2 mm diameter. On the other hand the last Mitutoyo 10X auctioned for $294, and the one before that went for $389, where the CFI BE 10X sells new for $85.

------------------

rjlittlefield
Site Admin
Posts: 23561
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
Contact:

Post by rjlittlefield »

I see. I had forgotten writing that 6 months ago.

So, to review from the beginning:

1. The Nikon CFI BE (MRN70100) is cheap, sharp, and has good coverage, but it does not have much working distance and it has some longitudinal CA (especially purple halos in OOF regions).

2. The Nikon CFI Plan Achromat (MRL00102) is not as cheap as the CFI BE, but it has better coverage and working distance, and about the same sharpness and CA.

3. The Mitutoyo Plan Apo is the most expensive. Compared to the Nikon MRL00102 it is not quite as sharp and it does not have as much coverage, but it has much greater working distance and almost no CA.

If you said that the CFI BE had too much CA, then Mitutoyo would be the obvious step up.

But you're saying "has a softer focus", and in my experience that aspect would not be improved by the Mitutoyo.

It's possible that you have a bad sample of the CFI BE, but I think it's more likely that you have a problem with vibration or illumination or stacking (due to the wider aperture). That's why I'm asking to see examples.

--Rik

crayfish74
Posts: 148
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 6:11 pm

Post by crayfish74 »

what are the things to consider and are different to take photos to 4x and 10x?

This are taken with 10 x Nikon BE plan



Image


Image




Cheers Chris.

rjlittlefield
Site Admin
Posts: 23561
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
Contact:

Post by rjlittlefield »

what are the things to consider and are different to take photos to 4x and 10x?
The 10X objective accepts a much wider cone of light, about 28 degrees wide for NA 0.25, versus 11 degrees for NA 0.10.

This means that:

1. The NA 0.25 is much more likely to show "transparent foreground" artifact, like we see in your second image where the legs show through that foreground surface.

2. The NA 0.25 will give lower contrast for surfaces that are aligned close to the optical axis, such as the sides of the left side of the weevil face.

3. The NA 0.25 will give much larger blur circles for out of focus elements. Depending on stacking methods, this may give worse halos and worse problems with "glowing" antennae.

Also the 10X is much more vulnerable to motion blur.

I agree that these images look soft. The first one especially seems to have lost contrast from stray light, especially away from image center. This looks like stray light bouncing around someplace in the system.

What are you using for a tube lens (converging lens)? Have you tried increasing the separation between objective and tube lens?

Also, the images you posted appear to be the entire frame. Please show actual pixel crops.

--Rik

crayfish74
Posts: 148
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 6:11 pm

Post by crayfish74 »

seems that the 10x is very dificult to obtein a good photos as 4 or 5x.

so the questions is how to take a good photos with a 10x 0.25?

:D

Chris S.
Site Admin
Posts: 4042
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 9:55 pm
Location: Ohio, USA

Post by Chris S. »

Chris Crayfish74,
crayfish74 wrote:seems that the 10x is very difficult to obtain good photos as 4 or 5x.
While adding magnification does add difficulty, a lot of us here don't consider 10x to be "very difficult." I'll bet that many of us who routinely work at 10x or higher, and who are watching your thread, are silently waiting for answers to the questions that Rik has asked you. They are the right questions! If you answer them, you will be a step closer to getting helpful advice.
So the question is how to take good photos with a 10x 0.25? :D
Answering that question could fill a book! It is much easier if you tell us exactly how you made these images, and get feedback on what to do to make them better.

What lens are you using to converge your 10x/0.25? As of last fall, you had several choices.

How is your 10x objective mounted on the front of your converging lens? About how much distance is there between the front of the converging lens and the back of the objective? Whatever adapters you are using to hold the obective--are they completely black on the side facing the converging lens?

I agree with Rik that it looks as if you have some issues with "flare"--light bouncing around in places where you don't want it. This can happen if some of the light from your flashes (or whatever you are using to illuminate your bugs) is hitting the front of the objective. (You may need to make a "hood" out of black paper, or something similar, to keep stray light from hitting your objective.) Flare can also be caused by light bouncing around somewhere within your optical system.

Your original equipment list included flash equipment. Is that what you're using for subject illumination? If so, have you confirmed that no other light is contributing to the image? (You can do this by turning your flash off for a shot, but using the same shutter speed as you would use with the flash; if the resulting image is anything other than pure black, you have some stray continuous light contributing to your image, which can be a problem.)

Cheers,

--Chris S.

crayfish74
Posts: 148
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 6:11 pm

Post by crayfish74 »

Hi guys,

For the 10x and 4x I use The simplest setup. An RMS-to-52mm plus a step ring for 180 macro mm 1:1 lens and 100 mm macro 1:1 lens

RMS-to-M52 flat plate + 67 or 72 to 52 mm step-down ring


Image


Also without any lens, replacing these for 3 set of tube lens to increase o reach 200 mm.


In resume

Image



Could be the light, because i can not be sure about it. Sometimes I only use flash + great diffuser of 25 cm, sometimes only the natural light, and sometimes flash + difusor + lateral Led light.


Best,

Chris
Last edited by crayfish74 on Thu Apr 11, 2013 1:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

ChrisR
Site Admin
Posts: 8668
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 3:58 am
Location: Near London, UK

Post by ChrisR »

Also without any lens, replacing these for 3 set of tube lens to increase o reach 200 mm.
Eeek.
It's an "infinite" lens, so isn't designed to be used that way. It's designed to be used with a "tube" lens in a microscope. You DO get a deterioration.

Your adapter is very close to the camera lens you're showing above which you're using to do the same function as a microscope Tube lens. That's usually OK, but does mean that any reflections in there can have several bounces between the glass and surround beforte winding up at your sensor. (But if you increase the distance, you'll eventually get vignetting.)

The inside of the adapter should be dull black, and any bright rings on the back of the objective, covered. I used a dull material something like the "Protostar" you'll see quoted on the forum, to cover the adapter, plus about 4mm extra, which is enough to cover shiny objective back-ends.

Look into the back of the camera lens, with the objective pointed towards a bright light. You may see light coming from other than directly from the objective. On one 200mm camera "tube" lens. I see a bright ring which is masked by closing the lens aperture half a stop.

Put a tube of black paper around your objective, taped to itself so you can slide it, like a lens hood. You don't want any light coming from your light source directly into the lens. That gets tricky because it'll be in the way of lighting the subject as well.
The "E" and "BE" series of objectives are the cheap ones, it has to be said. It seems reasonable to assume that the manufacturer would put more effort into lens coatings, and potential shiny internal structures, on the more expensive ones with the same specifications.

* Some of these objectives are remarkably low cost these days. If you look back at prices of a few years ago, when Nikon were charging $3 for a 50 sheet pack of lens tissue, their Mplan 10x was $692.
One wonders where the savings were made.


(One of us is gonna have to change his name!)

crayfish74
Posts: 148
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 6:11 pm

Post by crayfish74 »

lol no problem with the name i will change the mine

the problem is that this lens has a low working distance, 6,7 mm so the black paper as a hood could bump the insect, or not?

do you have some photos how to do it, mean showing how to cover the adapter and cover the lens?

Best regard.

clm

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic