Back in 2010 Chris S. posted the following list of "A-Team" objectives for photography:
---------------------------------
"We've had useful discussions about which lenses deliver best results at various levels of magnification, and my take-away has been that this is the A-team lens group (which I have):
4X: Nikon N Plan CF Apochromat 4/.20
10x: Nikon N Plan CF 10/0.30
20x: Nikon M Plan CF 20/0.40 ELWD
40x: Nikon M Plan CF 40/0.50 ELWD
60x: Nikon M Plan CF 60/0.70 ELWD
Of course, at somewhat less cost, careful photographers can get close to this quality with other lenses, but this list represents--to my mind--a "best practices" approach. (Corrections warmly invited.) "
---------------------------------
I am wondering if people would still agree with this? What about infinity objectives? Any thoughts?
A-Team Objectives For Photography
Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau
Alligator, please note that I dashed off that "A-team list" as preamble to a question on a quite different topic. Who knows whether others agreed with me, or simply concentrated on the topic in question?
That said, if I were proposing an A-team list today, it would differ from the 2010 list. As before, alternate viewpoints are welcomed.
That list from 2010 still represents an excellent group of optics, and they are still the best lenses I know for working on a bellows at those magnifications. But today, as you point out, an A-team list includes infinite objectives, too. So I’d present it this way:
For working on a bellows or extension tubes:
4X: Nikon N Plan CF Apochromat 4/.20 (finite)
10x: Nikon N Plan CF 10/0.30 (finite)
20x: Nikon M Plan CF 20/0.40 ELWD (finite)
40x: Nikon M Plan CF 40/0.50 ELWD (finite)
60x: Nikon M Plan CF 60/0.70 ELWD (finite)
For working on a converging lens (aka “tube lens”):
5x: Mitutoyo M Plan Apo 5/0.14 (infinite)
10x: Mitutoyo M Plan Apo 10/0.28 (infinite)
20x: Mitutoyo M Plan Apo 20/0.42 (infinite)
50x: Mitutoyo M Plan Apo 50/0.55 (infinite)
100x: Mitutoyo M Plan Apo 100/0.70 (infinite)
Plus maybe:
7.5x: Mitutoyo M Plan Apo 7.5/0.21 (infinite)—So far not tested by anyone in this community, but judging by the other lenses in this series, likely excellent.
4x: Nikon N Plan CF Apochromat f/0.20 (infinite)—Similar in specification and appearance to the finite version of this lens. Quite good according to the limited reports that exist. I’d personally like to try this lens.
Comparisons and caveats:
Between the Nikon 4/0.20 finite and the Mitutoyo 5x/0.14 infinite, the former is reportedly a bit better in the center, the latter a bit better in the corners. Though I have both, I’ve never bothered to test them head to head. Both are excellent lenses, and I reach for one or the other depending on whether I’m working on the bellows or the tube lens. I quite like them both. Both seem very free of chromatic aberration, as befits their "apo" designations. Working distance is 15mm for the Nikon and 34mm for the Mitutoyo—a seemingly big advantage for the Mitty, but in my experience so far, not all that big a deal, since 15mm is already very workable for most subjects.
Between the Nikon 10/0.30 finite and the Mitutoyo 10/0.28 infinite, my sense is that they render very similarly, and are both excellent lenses. Again, I have not tested them head to head. As in the case of the 4x and 5x objectives, I tend to reach for one or the other depending on whether I’m working on the bellows or the tube lens. Even though the Nikon is not labeled apochromatic, I have found it remarkably free of chromatic aberration. Working distance is 9.2mm for the Nikon and 33.5mm for the Mitty; here the added working distance of the Mitty begins to matter more than at 4-5x, but 9.2mm is still very workable for most subjects I’ve dealt with.
At 20x and above, the Mitutoyo objectives offer bigger advantages against the Nikon ELWD finites, as they remain largely free of chromatic aberration, while the 20x-60x Nikon ELWD finites will display purple fringing in some situations. This apparently bothers some photographers more than others, and I seem comparatively picky about it. Also, working distances generally decrease as rated magnification increases—so the greater working distances of the Mitutoyo objectives become more important in this range. It’s at 20x and above that I preferentially reach for Mitty objectives, even though I have a perfectly good set of Nikon finites.
The Mitutoyo 100/0.70 is on my list, but I’ll add a caveat. Given its substantial cost and modest increase in NA above the Mitutoyo 50/0.55, it is likely a sensible choice for only a certain group of photomacrographers. This optic certainly does render some details that the 50/0.55 will not, and some of us need or want those additional details. But the difference between these optics, as manifested in one’s images, is not nearly as substantial as the difference between a 5x and 10x, a 10x and 20x, or a 20x and 50x.
I’m curious about whether some modern Olympus lenses deserve to be on such a list. I know very little about them.
And I should add that my view of an A-team list has, as its central criterion, "practicable image quality for three-dimensional subjects in studio macro, shooting through air." If one prefers low price, off-the-shelf availability of new stock ("yes" with the Mitutoyo infinites, "no" with the Nikon finites), ability to shoot a single lens at varying magnifications, or still-longer working distance at the cost of some resolution and chromatic aberration, the lists may differ. Similarly, if you can tolerate very small working distances or oil immersion, the lists differ markedly.
Cheers,
--Chris
That said, if I were proposing an A-team list today, it would differ from the 2010 list. As before, alternate viewpoints are welcomed.
That list from 2010 still represents an excellent group of optics, and they are still the best lenses I know for working on a bellows at those magnifications. But today, as you point out, an A-team list includes infinite objectives, too. So I’d present it this way:
For working on a bellows or extension tubes:
4X: Nikon N Plan CF Apochromat 4/.20 (finite)
10x: Nikon N Plan CF 10/0.30 (finite)
20x: Nikon M Plan CF 20/0.40 ELWD (finite)
40x: Nikon M Plan CF 40/0.50 ELWD (finite)
60x: Nikon M Plan CF 60/0.70 ELWD (finite)
For working on a converging lens (aka “tube lens”):
5x: Mitutoyo M Plan Apo 5/0.14 (infinite)
10x: Mitutoyo M Plan Apo 10/0.28 (infinite)
20x: Mitutoyo M Plan Apo 20/0.42 (infinite)
50x: Mitutoyo M Plan Apo 50/0.55 (infinite)
100x: Mitutoyo M Plan Apo 100/0.70 (infinite)
Plus maybe:
7.5x: Mitutoyo M Plan Apo 7.5/0.21 (infinite)—So far not tested by anyone in this community, but judging by the other lenses in this series, likely excellent.
4x: Nikon N Plan CF Apochromat f/0.20 (infinite)—Similar in specification and appearance to the finite version of this lens. Quite good according to the limited reports that exist. I’d personally like to try this lens.
Comparisons and caveats:
Between the Nikon 4/0.20 finite and the Mitutoyo 5x/0.14 infinite, the former is reportedly a bit better in the center, the latter a bit better in the corners. Though I have both, I’ve never bothered to test them head to head. Both are excellent lenses, and I reach for one or the other depending on whether I’m working on the bellows or the tube lens. I quite like them both. Both seem very free of chromatic aberration, as befits their "apo" designations. Working distance is 15mm for the Nikon and 34mm for the Mitutoyo—a seemingly big advantage for the Mitty, but in my experience so far, not all that big a deal, since 15mm is already very workable for most subjects.
Between the Nikon 10/0.30 finite and the Mitutoyo 10/0.28 infinite, my sense is that they render very similarly, and are both excellent lenses. Again, I have not tested them head to head. As in the case of the 4x and 5x objectives, I tend to reach for one or the other depending on whether I’m working on the bellows or the tube lens. Even though the Nikon is not labeled apochromatic, I have found it remarkably free of chromatic aberration. Working distance is 9.2mm for the Nikon and 33.5mm for the Mitty; here the added working distance of the Mitty begins to matter more than at 4-5x, but 9.2mm is still very workable for most subjects I’ve dealt with.
At 20x and above, the Mitutoyo objectives offer bigger advantages against the Nikon ELWD finites, as they remain largely free of chromatic aberration, while the 20x-60x Nikon ELWD finites will display purple fringing in some situations. This apparently bothers some photographers more than others, and I seem comparatively picky about it. Also, working distances generally decrease as rated magnification increases—so the greater working distances of the Mitutoyo objectives become more important in this range. It’s at 20x and above that I preferentially reach for Mitty objectives, even though I have a perfectly good set of Nikon finites.
The Mitutoyo 100/0.70 is on my list, but I’ll add a caveat. Given its substantial cost and modest increase in NA above the Mitutoyo 50/0.55, it is likely a sensible choice for only a certain group of photomacrographers. This optic certainly does render some details that the 50/0.55 will not, and some of us need or want those additional details. But the difference between these optics, as manifested in one’s images, is not nearly as substantial as the difference between a 5x and 10x, a 10x and 20x, or a 20x and 50x.
I’m curious about whether some modern Olympus lenses deserve to be on such a list. I know very little about them.
And I should add that my view of an A-team list has, as its central criterion, "practicable image quality for three-dimensional subjects in studio macro, shooting through air." If one prefers low price, off-the-shelf availability of new stock ("yes" with the Mitutoyo infinites, "no" with the Nikon finites), ability to shoot a single lens at varying magnifications, or still-longer working distance at the cost of some resolution and chromatic aberration, the lists may differ. Similarly, if you can tolerate very small working distances or oil immersion, the lists differ markedly.
Cheers,
--Chris
After my many tests, I now look forward to a different lens like the 10x: Mitutoyo M Plan Apo 10/0.28 (infinite). With my reversing lenses I already have a range between 2 and 7 by the use of either the AF105 or AF200 mm macro lens as tube lens. On a DX sensor both give no problem, the image circle is large enough. The range of 10x would be welcome and also the better quality.
My question now is whether that Mitutoyo M Plan Apo 10/0.28 (infinite) lens would still work on my AF105 mm macro lens by use of a DX sensor. And if so be that quality than better from my reverse lens tests? You should take into account that my tests show ( http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... hp?t=22767 ) were without editing contrast or sharping.
if vignetting occurs when a 105mm tube lens is used then it makes no sense and I have the use the 5x: Mitutoyo M Plan Apo 5/0.14 (infinite) on my af200 mm macro tube lens for 5x magnification. I have no money to instantly buy both lenses!
Frans.
My question now is whether that Mitutoyo M Plan Apo 10/0.28 (infinite) lens would still work on my AF105 mm macro lens by use of a DX sensor. And if so be that quality than better from my reverse lens tests? You should take into account that my tests show ( http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... hp?t=22767 ) were without editing contrast or sharping.
if vignetting occurs when a 105mm tube lens is used then it makes no sense and I have the use the 5x: Mitutoyo M Plan Apo 5/0.14 (infinite) on my af200 mm macro tube lens for 5x magnification. I have no money to instantly buy both lenses!
Frans.
Yes Geoff!
That Nikon also has a surprisingly large image circle, which means you can use it with shorter "tube" lenses with the corners holding up somewhat better than the Mitutoyo 10x.
On APS, that Nikon 10x on a 100mm as a "tube" lens is sensor-beating at 5x.
Rik posted a head-to head at one time at 10x and the Nikon came out sharper, but I'm not sure if that was before his Mitty was found to be substandard.
The Nikon 4x NA 0.1 BE (and similar, though not the CFI) also has a very wide image circle. Wider than the Mitty's though a lower NA. Very cheap.
Otherwise Chris_S's answer is pretty comprehensive.
If you can live with very short WDs, another couple for consideration are
- the finite (or infinite) 10x NA 0.45 APO. Finite is noticeably sharper in the middle than the 0.3 but 4mm WD and faster falloff outside the specified coverage. I have the infinite but haven't stretched it. (Be careful there's more than one finite 10 APO, some even shorter WD)
- 20x Nikon infinite NA0.5. Even though it's designed for a coverslip, it does well,
- 20x NA 0.4 Nikon BD with the outer parts removed for better access. Shorter WD but freer of the purple fringes.
- 40x NA 0.65(?) Nikon BD with the outer parts removed for better access.
Very short WDs but a tiny front end, so it's manageable, with perspiration, and a higher NA.
If you want to really struggle there's a number of APO Nikon objectives with very short WD but high NA - like BD 40x NA0.8. Also check some of the LU series. Expect WDs about 0.8mm, which is possible, just.
There's another couple of contenders, but those should keep you busy!
That Nikon also has a surprisingly large image circle, which means you can use it with shorter "tube" lenses with the corners holding up somewhat better than the Mitutoyo 10x.
On APS, that Nikon 10x on a 100mm as a "tube" lens is sensor-beating at 5x.
Rik posted a head-to head at one time at 10x and the Nikon came out sharper, but I'm not sure if that was before his Mitty was found to be substandard.
The Nikon 4x NA 0.1 BE (and similar, though not the CFI) also has a very wide image circle. Wider than the Mitty's though a lower NA. Very cheap.
Otherwise Chris_S's answer is pretty comprehensive.
If you can live with very short WDs, another couple for consideration are
- the finite (or infinite) 10x NA 0.45 APO. Finite is noticeably sharper in the middle than the 0.3 but 4mm WD and faster falloff outside the specified coverage. I have the infinite but haven't stretched it. (Be careful there's more than one finite 10 APO, some even shorter WD)
- 20x Nikon infinite NA0.5. Even though it's designed for a coverslip, it does well,
- 20x NA 0.4 Nikon BD with the outer parts removed for better access. Shorter WD but freer of the purple fringes.
- 40x NA 0.65(?) Nikon BD with the outer parts removed for better access.
Very short WDs but a tiny front end, so it's manageable, with perspiration, and a higher NA.
If you want to really struggle there's a number of APO Nikon objectives with very short WD but high NA - like BD 40x NA0.8. Also check some of the LU series. Expect WDs about 0.8mm, which is possible, just.
There's another couple of contenders, but those should keep you busy!
-
rjlittlefield
- Site Admin
- Posts: 23626
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
- Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
- Contact:
You're probably remembering my initial report at http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... 939#100939.ChrisR wrote:Rik posted a head-to head at one time at 10x and the Nikon came out sharper, but I'm not sure if that was before his Mitty was found to be substandard.
Yes, that was before I realized the problem with the Mitty. A few months ago I edited that posting so that it now says:
--Rik[Edit/Warning: It turned out in much later testing that this particular Mitutoyo objective was defective, probably damaged by dropping or disassembly by a prior owner. A brand new Mitutoyo 10X NA 0.28 is much better and noticeably outperforms the Nikon for sharpness at center field. See http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... hp?t=20594 and in particular http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... 282#136282. End Edit]
Thanks!Frans, my Mitutoyo 10/0.28, when mounted on my Micro-Nikkor 105 f/2.8 AF-D lens, definitely does not vignette on an APS-C Nikon sensor. However, I don't know if corner quality would pass critical evaluation. At some point in the next few days, I’ll try to put up a stacked comparison of this approach vs. the Mitutoyo 5x/0.14 on my Mitutoyo MT-1 tube lens. A couple of years ago, I did such a comparison, and came away with a vaguely negative recollection of the results. Then, sometime later, I looked again at what was labeled as the resulting stack and source images, and thought they were pretty good. This made me wonder whether I had misremembered, or mislabeled a folder containing images shot with something else at 5x. Your raising this question gives me a nudge to clear up this small mystery.fotoopa wrote:My question now is whether that Mitutoyo M Plan Apo 10/0.28 (infinite) lens would still work on my AF105 mm macro lens by use of a DX sensor. And if so be that quality than better from my reverse lens tests? You should take into account that my tests show ( http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... hp?t=22767 ) were without editing contrast or sharping.
Geoff, as Rik posted, this Nikon CFI is out-resolved by the Mitutoyo. Also, from what I can see in his tests (I have not had this lens in hand), this Nikon objective exhibits quite a bit of the dreaded purple fringing (chromatic aberration). For these reasons, I would not put it on my A-team list. When I wrote my personal criteria for this list (last paragraph in my post, above), I happened to have this lens, among a few others, in mind. Permit me to repeat a bit of that, bold-facing some elements that apply to this Nikon CFI: "If one prefers low price, off-the-shelf availability of new stock. . ., ability to shoot a single lens at varying magnifications, or still-longer working distance at the cost of some resolution and chromatic aberration, the lists may differ." So even though I would not A-list this lens, it's an excellent choice for many photographers, and lots of fine images are made with it.boomblurt wrote:Am I correct in thinking that the Nikon cfi60 10/0.25 (MRL00102) while not Apo is almost as good as the Mitu 10/0.28 at a fraction of the price? So while not making the A-team, perhaps the Nikon should be at least a reserve?
A "recommended list" would be quite a bit longer than an "A-list," and would definitely include this Nikon CFI objective.
Cheers,
--Chris
Thanks Chris for the extra effort, time and also for the receiving PM.Chris S. wrote:Frans, my Mitutoyo 10/0.28, when mounted on my Micro-Nikkor 105 f/2.8 AF-D lens, definitely does not vignette on an APS-C Nikon sensor, I don't know if corner quality would pass critical evaluation. ....... Your raising this question gives me a nudge to clear up this small mystery. --Chris
Frans.
If the 105mm macro isn't up to it don't panic. I had very good results with a componon-s 135mm f/5.6 enlarger lens. I used a full frame camera so the corners were mushy but very little vignetting. With that combination I reckoned I was getting top resolution to about the width of an APS-c sensor so a good choice of focal length. I would expect other quality enlarger lenses to be just as good.
The Carl Zeiss Jenna 135/3.5 also gave good sharpness and contrast. A little vignetting on my camera but should be no problem on APS-c. It's difficult to find one with a working aperture but they usually jam to wide open so no problem.
So there you have it. Plenty of options that won't break the bank.
There are lenses that might belong in a "super A team" like the mitutoyo 10x 0.42NA but as yet nobody can afford to find out. Now if I could just figure out how to rob a bank I could tell you.
The Carl Zeiss Jenna 135/3.5 also gave good sharpness and contrast. A little vignetting on my camera but should be no problem on APS-c. It's difficult to find one with a working aperture but they usually jam to wide open so no problem.
So there you have it. Plenty of options that won't break the bank.
There are lenses that might belong in a "super A team" like the mitutoyo 10x 0.42NA but as yet nobody can afford to find out. Now if I could just figure out how to rob a bank I could tell you.