Hi all,
I am in the market for a macro lens. I am currently shooting a 55 2.8 micro AIS nikkor. It is terrific but I need more distance from my subject (mostly mineral inclusions) and I want something that will maximize sharpness/contrast (don't we all!). The reason for distance as a priority is I recently came upon a specimen where the inclusion was too deep for focus even though the lens (55mm Nikon reversed) was in contact with the specimen. I want to eliminate (to the extent possible) working distance being a limiting factor in my work.
My Environment:
I shoot with a D800e normally with bellows (PB-6) and/or extension tubes in a table top studio on a tripod. I almost always use a focus rail.
I have narrowed down my search to the lenses listed below.
Nikkor 105 2.8 AIS
Nikkor 105 AF 2.8 D
Carl Zeiss 100 2.0 Macro Planner
Nikkor 200 4.0 micro
I cannot use Nikon G lenses (newest iteration) because I need an aperture ring due to the bellows/extension tubes (mine do not have connectivity to the camera). Auto focus is not needed or desired as I always focus manually.
I've read most of the online reviews and researched the forums here. I know I'm splitting hairs and all of these lenses are excellent, however, I have stretched the limits the 55 and need every bit of sharpness/contrast the lens has to offer.
My priorities:
1a. Working distance
1b. Excellent sharpness/contrast
2. Price Price is way lower priority as I prefer to invest once and keep the lens for the long haul (e.g. my 55 2.8 is over 30 years old and I am the original owner)
Full disclosure, I have also posted this to a photography forum to get their perspective but I want the advice of experts that also specialize in macro/micro.
Since this forum also includes intro to micro, I am not opposed to moving to microscope objects if that will help solve my issues as I will likely end up there someday anyway as I grow and learn.
I apologize for the long post but I wanted to give you as much info as possible to provide the most targeted advice.
Thanks in advance,
Nick
Need advice on macro lens choice
Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau
Hi Nick,
To better understand the problem please give us some more info:
- At what magnification range do you plan to shot?
- The issue with insufficient working distance is about air gap (for example a crystal hidden inside a geode) or about the transparent mineral thickness whose inclusion you want to picture?. In the second case the refraction index could play an important role.
- What working distance do you need?
Maybe a lower magnification image of that kind of subject could also help.
To better understand the problem please give us some more info:
- At what magnification range do you plan to shot?
- The issue with insufficient working distance is about air gap (for example a crystal hidden inside a geode) or about the transparent mineral thickness whose inclusion you want to picture?. In the second case the refraction index could play an important role.
- What working distance do you need?
Maybe a lower magnification image of that kind of subject could also help.
Pau
-
Macro Photog
- Posts: 92
- Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2014 11:45 am
Hi Pau,
Thanks for he quick response. Answers below.
- At what magnification range do you plan to shot?
It will vary by project but I usually shoot 2-3 and as much as 5. I do not target a specific magnification.
- The issue with insufficient working distance is about air gap (for example a crystal hidden inside a geode) or about the transparent mineral thickness whose inclusion you want to picture?. In the second case the refraction index could play an important role.
I know what refraction index means but could you clarify the information you want?
- What working distance do you need? In most cases I can shoot with the lens touching the specimen though having some distance would be desirable. The specimen that prompted the search for a new lens is about 60mm from the front of the specimen to the inclusion. I want this next lens to give me as much flexibility as possible so I can shoot even deeper if necessary.
As my research continues I would like to add the Rodenstock APO - Sironar - N 150mm f5.6 Lens to my list.
Best,
Nick
Thanks for he quick response. Answers below.
- At what magnification range do you plan to shot?
It will vary by project but I usually shoot 2-3 and as much as 5. I do not target a specific magnification.
- The issue with insufficient working distance is about air gap (for example a crystal hidden inside a geode) or about the transparent mineral thickness whose inclusion you want to picture?. In the second case the refraction index could play an important role.
I know what refraction index means but could you clarify the information you want?
- What working distance do you need? In most cases I can shoot with the lens touching the specimen though having some distance would be desirable. The specimen that prompted the search for a new lens is about 60mm from the front of the specimen to the inclusion. I want this next lens to give me as much flexibility as possible so I can shoot even deeper if necessary.
As my research continues I would like to add the Rodenstock APO - Sironar - N 150mm f5.6 Lens to my list.
Best,
Nick
As a former Hasselblad film camera owner/user, I'm quite partial to Zeiss for the pristine detail they tend to impart. I'll let others comment on the macro capabilities of your short list...
If I'm not mistaken, I think the question about refractive index has to do with the index of the mineral you are looking through. Overall distance from lens to the inclusion would be affected by this index, and could be a factor in your choice for working distance. I'll let Pau answer definitively, but I'm just putting it out there
If I'm not mistaken, I think the question about refractive index has to do with the index of the mineral you are looking through. Overall distance from lens to the inclusion would be affected by this index, and could be a factor in your choice for working distance. I'll let Pau answer definitively, but I'm just putting it out there
2-3x and up to 5x, means you'd have to reverse any of the macro lenses you list.
Unless you use them with the subject at the same distance from the rear flange as the sensor would have been, they'll be away from their designed distance ratio. Even then you'd be using a tiny part of their designed coverage. Not sure how well that would work.
You could try a reversed 50mm enlarger lens such as a Schneider Componon S f/2.8 or Nikkor 2.8, because the body of the lens isn't in the way, which it is with the 55 micro.
They are nice and cheap and available..
At 5x, microscope objectives are best for resolution though working distance is short. It gets difficult to cover 24 x 36, too.
60mm WD is tough as the magnification goes up. There are some good 80-90mm enlarger lenses but reports indicate they aren't as sharp as shorter versions. They're designed for such a large field.
A lens like a Canon MP35mm f/2.8 or Olympus 38mm f/2.8 would be good, but doesn't give a lot of working distance either. Schneider's 40mm f/2.8 apo Componon would be OK too, if a bit "short". here's also an apo 45mm f/4, and the shorter 35 and 28mm non apos.
"If only" Nikon made a version of the Canon MPE65!
Be mindful that you don't really want your effective aperture smaller than about f/20. With eg M = 3, that means a lens setting of f/5.
((3+1)*5 = 20)
Unless you use them with the subject at the same distance from the rear flange as the sensor would have been, they'll be away from their designed distance ratio. Even then you'd be using a tiny part of their designed coverage. Not sure how well that would work.
You could try a reversed 50mm enlarger lens such as a Schneider Componon S f/2.8 or Nikkor 2.8, because the body of the lens isn't in the way, which it is with the 55 micro.
They are nice and cheap and available..
At 5x, microscope objectives are best for resolution though working distance is short. It gets difficult to cover 24 x 36, too.
60mm WD is tough as the magnification goes up. There are some good 80-90mm enlarger lenses but reports indicate they aren't as sharp as shorter versions. They're designed for such a large field.
A lens like a Canon MP35mm f/2.8 or Olympus 38mm f/2.8 would be good, but doesn't give a lot of working distance either. Schneider's 40mm f/2.8 apo Componon would be OK too, if a bit "short". here's also an apo 45mm f/4, and the shorter 35 and 28mm non apos.
"If only" Nikon made a version of the Canon MPE65!
Be mindful that you don't really want your effective aperture smaller than about f/20. With eg M = 3, that means a lens setting of f/5.
((3+1)*5 = 20)
Shotting through a high refractive index medium (the transparent crystal in your case) is not the same than doing it thorugh air. It will induce both spherical and chromatic aberrationsPau wrote: - The issue with insufficient working distance is about air gap (for example a crystal hidden inside a geode) or about the transparent mineral thickness whose inclusion you want to picture?. In the second case the refraction index could play an important role.
The effect increases with the angle of the light.
With microscope objectives at high magnification this is a critical factor that must be corrected in the objective desing.
Underwater wide angle cameras also suffer these issues and it's why usualy they have dome shapped glass covers
To diminish the optical issues you want to mantain the light angle as small as posible in a practical way, so you want a long focal lens, but a long focal lens at the high magnification you want needs a very long bellows extension, the effective NA will be modest and the setup more or less cumbersome.
As others pointed for high magnification macro the best lenses are often of short focal lenght.
I can't make a good lens recommendation but reversed 80-100mm enlarger or medium format lenses seems a good and not expensive option
Pau
-
rjlittlefield
- Site Admin
- Posts: 23626
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
- Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
- Contact:
See http://photomacrography.net/forum/viewt ... 7804#77804 regarding the Nikon MM objectives.
These objectives are specifically designed for the combination of
A) long working distance
B) covering a relatively small field
C) at the highest possible resolution consistent with A and B.
Note that in general it's very difficult to achieve the combination of large working distance and high resolution. This is because high resolution requires a wide aperture, and wide aperture lenses are disproportionally difficult to make with long focal lengths. Even with perfect manufacture, wavefront errors scale in proportion to the overall size of the lens. A lens design that would yield very good lambda/4 performance with 25 mm focal length would give mediocre lambda/2 performance if simply scaled to 50 mm focal length, and bad lambda/1 performance if simply scaled to 100 mm focal length. As a result, lenses that are simultaneously long and high resolution require both design and manufacture to be unusually good. Combine those aspects with the relatively small market for such lenses, and you can see why they will be expensive and hard to find.
I understand your desire to have lenses that will "do it all" -- combining high resolution and long working distance with some price that can be afforded. Unfortunately some tradeoffs may be required. The MM objectives may be a good compromise for you.
--Rik
These objectives are specifically designed for the combination of
A) long working distance
B) covering a relatively small field
C) at the highest possible resolution consistent with A and B.
Note that in general it's very difficult to achieve the combination of large working distance and high resolution. This is because high resolution requires a wide aperture, and wide aperture lenses are disproportionally difficult to make with long focal lengths. Even with perfect manufacture, wavefront errors scale in proportion to the overall size of the lens. A lens design that would yield very good lambda/4 performance with 25 mm focal length would give mediocre lambda/2 performance if simply scaled to 50 mm focal length, and bad lambda/1 performance if simply scaled to 100 mm focal length. As a result, lenses that are simultaneously long and high resolution require both design and manufacture to be unusually good. Combine those aspects with the relatively small market for such lenses, and you can see why they will be expensive and hard to find.
I understand your desire to have lenses that will "do it all" -- combining high resolution and long working distance with some price that can be afforded. Unfortunately some tradeoffs may be required. The MM objectives may be a good compromise for you.
--Rik
I thought about those but didn't mention them because they don't cover a 24 x 36 sensor.
Something I bought the things for though, then forgot to consider here (:oops: !) is that as they're telecentric, stack and stitch is easier.
(Nick that means making a 2 dimensional panorama, say 9 frames in a 3x3, if you weren't familiar with the term.)
I should be trying a 10x on a D700 soon, expecting a best image circle only around 12mm diameter.
Even specialist lenses like Printing Nikkors "go off" outside their 1:1 range.
Something I bought the things for though, then forgot to consider here (:oops: !) is that as they're telecentric, stack and stitch is easier.
(Nick that means making a 2 dimensional panorama, say 9 frames in a 3x3, if you weren't familiar with the term.)
I should be trying a 10x on a D700 soon, expecting a best image circle only around 12mm diameter.
At any price, even?Rik wrote:combining high resolution and long working distance with some price that can be afforded
Even specialist lenses like Printing Nikkors "go off" outside their 1:1 range.
-
Macro Photog
- Posts: 92
- Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2014 11:45 am
To all,
This is incredibly educational and great information. Thank you for taking the time and effort. Believe me, I am not at all "starry eyed" in my request. I realize that everything is a compromise and I am seeking a solution(s?) that best fit the parameters I've set. At some point, due in part to the situation and laws of physics, the decision is to get the shot at the best level of quality my equipment affords or not take it at all. With my 55mm I've run into a wall and have lost the opportunity/option to take those shots. To that end, your advice and education is important in my decision process to understand what tradeoffs and options are available so I can make an informed choice.
Asha,
Thanks for the recommendation. Every CZ owner I've met is so passionate about their glass. I am very tempted to buy the CZ to replace my 55mm and "up my game" in that area.
Chris,
I don't mind if the whole sensor is not covered if the area it does cover delivers the best result. I've heard of stack and stitch but will need to educate myself on the methods and techniques if I go in that direction.
Pau,
Thank you for the further explanation and recommendation. My work right now is almost exclusively shooting internal objects/phenomena. Your advice on RI is greatly appreciated.
Rik,
The Nikon MM objectives look promising. Moving into the micro world is both exciting and to be frank, intimidating, though I've known for awhile this is where I will end up. I guess I need to review the primer on how to setup my equipment for microscope objectives. Do you know if these objectives are still being sold or if I have to wait for a used one to come on the market?
Several of you alluded to budget and in your posts. While I am not budget insensitive or want to waste money are there better, higher quality (albeit more expensive) options? If I'm going to "leave something on the table" I would like to know what that is so I have no/fewer regrets in the future.
Again thank you so much for your advise and patience with my questions.
Best,
Nick
This is incredibly educational and great information. Thank you for taking the time and effort. Believe me, I am not at all "starry eyed" in my request. I realize that everything is a compromise and I am seeking a solution(s?) that best fit the parameters I've set. At some point, due in part to the situation and laws of physics, the decision is to get the shot at the best level of quality my equipment affords or not take it at all. With my 55mm I've run into a wall and have lost the opportunity/option to take those shots. To that end, your advice and education is important in my decision process to understand what tradeoffs and options are available so I can make an informed choice.
Asha,
Thanks for the recommendation. Every CZ owner I've met is so passionate about their glass. I am very tempted to buy the CZ to replace my 55mm and "up my game" in that area.
Chris,
I don't mind if the whole sensor is not covered if the area it does cover delivers the best result. I've heard of stack and stitch but will need to educate myself on the methods and techniques if I go in that direction.
Pau,
Thank you for the further explanation and recommendation. My work right now is almost exclusively shooting internal objects/phenomena. Your advice on RI is greatly appreciated.
Rik,
The Nikon MM objectives look promising. Moving into the micro world is both exciting and to be frank, intimidating, though I've known for awhile this is where I will end up. I guess I need to review the primer on how to setup my equipment for microscope objectives. Do you know if these objectives are still being sold or if I have to wait for a used one to come on the market?
Several of you alluded to budget and in your posts. While I am not budget insensitive or want to waste money are there better, higher quality (albeit more expensive) options? If I'm going to "leave something on the table" I would like to know what that is so I have no/fewer regrets in the future.
Again thank you so much for your advise and patience with my questions.
Best,
Nick
-
rjlittlefield
- Site Admin
- Posts: 23626
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
- Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
- Contact:
Nick, everything I know about the MM objectives is second or third hand. I've never laid hands on one, and I've only seen one first-hand for a few minutes on one occasion. With that caveat...
As far as I know, the classic "finite" style MM objectives that work by themselves to project an image at the eyepiece are no longer being made. They do come up used from time to time; I see a couple of them on eBay right now.
Those objectives met a common industrial need, so modern design equivalents should be available as new manufacture. For example when I download the brochure HERE titled "Nikon Measuring Microscopes MM-400/800 Series", I find on page 25 a set of objectives with specifications as follows:
One wrinkle is that, reasoning from what I know about other types of microscopes, I suspect that these will be of the modern "infinite" design, which just means that they require an additional "tube lens" to complete the image formation. That would not be a problem for your use; it just means that your optical chain would be a little longer.
Where and how to buy those objectives, at this moment I don't know. Searching the rest of that brochure for "3x", I find on page 28 a table of objectives containing part numbers EDF20010, EDF20030, EDF20050, EDF20100, EDF20500 and EDF21000, various magnifications of "TM Objective Lens". That name matches what I heard in one recent conversation. Searching Google for Nikon EDF20030 I find a lot of hits. The one at Spectra Services says
Putting all this together, I'm now wondering if the modern objectives might possibly still be finite to work with the older bodies, with an adapter lens used to make them compatible with newer infinite optics such as the CFI60 objectives mentioned on page 16 of the brochure. This is speculation! If anybody knows for sure the story here, I would greatly appreciate hearing it.
Switching subjects...
Reference materials that you should read are our FAQ: How can I hook a microscope objective to my camera? and What is "stack-and-stitch", and how can I do it?.
Regarding inadequate coverage for the sensor at hand, one useful trick is to add a 1.4-1.5X teleconverter on the camera, in back of all the other optics. This will expand the optical image created by the objective, essentially the same as crop-and-resize in postprocessing, but taking advantage of more of the sensor area.
Alternatively, given that price is not a huge factor for you, I suggest to consider getting a different camera body that is better matched to the rest of your needs. Almost any one of the recent Canon APS-C bodies comes to mind, notably because their EFSC capability (electronic first shutter curtain) eliminates shutter vibration and allows them to be used efficiently with continuous illumination. I've been told that they also have much better Live View capability than corresponding Nikon bodies. Certainly that's true for my Canon T1i versus my Nikon D800E and D5000.
I hope this helps. Bit of like taking a drink from a firehose, I imagine.
--Rik
Adding a couple more references...
I found an apparently updated brochure for the MM-400/800 at nikonmetrology.com. On page 28, it shows slightly different part numbers for the objectives: EDF20010 (1x, unchanged), EDF20031, EDF20052, EDF20102, EDF20201, EDF20501, and EDF21001. Those might be handy when searching for sources or when talking with Nikon directly.
Edit: to include additional references
As far as I know, the classic "finite" style MM objectives that work by themselves to project an image at the eyepiece are no longer being made. They do come up used from time to time; I see a couple of them on eBay right now.
Those objectives met a common industrial need, so modern design equivalents should be available as new manufacture. For example when I download the brochure HERE titled "Nikon Measuring Microscopes MM-400/800 Series", I find on page 25 a set of objectives with specifications as follows:
Code: Select all
Magnification 1x 3x 5x 10x 20x 50x 100x
W.D. (mm) 79 75 64 49 20 15 4 Where and how to buy those objectives, at this moment I don't know. Searching the rest of that brochure for "3x", I find on page 28 a table of objectives containing part numbers EDF20010, EDF20030, EDF20050, EDF20100, EDF20500 and EDF21000, various magnifications of "TM Objective Lens". That name matches what I heard in one recent conversation. Searching Google for Nikon EDF20030 I find a lot of hits. The one at Spectra Services says
Back at the brochure, I see that in the diagram next to the objectives there is something called "EDF50001 Measuring Microscope Objective Adapter".NIKON 3X TOOLMAKERS OBJECTIVE
Price: $400.00
EDF20030 TM OBJECTIVE LENS 3X
For models MM40, MM60, MM400, MM800.
Adapte required for MM400/800.
Putting all this together, I'm now wondering if the modern objectives might possibly still be finite to work with the older bodies, with an adapter lens used to make them compatible with newer infinite optics such as the CFI60 objectives mentioned on page 16 of the brochure. This is speculation! If anybody knows for sure the story here, I would greatly appreciate hearing it.
Switching subjects...
Reference materials that you should read are our FAQ: How can I hook a microscope objective to my camera? and What is "stack-and-stitch", and how can I do it?.
Regarding inadequate coverage for the sensor at hand, one useful trick is to add a 1.4-1.5X teleconverter on the camera, in back of all the other optics. This will expand the optical image created by the objective, essentially the same as crop-and-resize in postprocessing, but taking advantage of more of the sensor area.
Alternatively, given that price is not a huge factor for you, I suggest to consider getting a different camera body that is better matched to the rest of your needs. Almost any one of the recent Canon APS-C bodies comes to mind, notably because their EFSC capability (electronic first shutter curtain) eliminates shutter vibration and allows them to be used efficiently with continuous illumination. I've been told that they also have much better Live View capability than corresponding Nikon bodies. Certainly that's true for my Canon T1i versus my Nikon D800E and D5000.
I hope this helps. Bit of like taking a drink from a firehose, I imagine.
--Rik
Adding a couple more references...
I found an apparently updated brochure for the MM-400/800 at nikonmetrology.com. On page 28, it shows slightly different part numbers for the objectives: EDF20010 (1x, unchanged), EDF20031, EDF20052, EDF20102, EDF20201, EDF20501, and EDF21001. Those might be handy when searching for sources or when talking with Nikon directly.
Edit: to include additional references
Last edited by rjlittlefield on Sun Apr 19, 2015 11:13 am, edited 4 times in total.
Nick,
So far as I'm aware, the MM objectives must be purchased on the second-hand market. I've PM'd you a source that has at least one specimen each of the 1x, 3x, and 5x MM objectives. All of these do come up on eBay from time to time, but not very often.
I've tested the 1x, 3x, 5x, and 10x MM objectives, though I haven't published the results. If you have any questions about them, feel free to contact me. My general conclusion is that they all perform well, given that one accepts the compromises Rik described. Their numerical apertures are modest (the lower the NA, the lower the resolution), but the working distances are wonderful. Nicely, on the couple of specimens I've tried at a range of bellows draws, image quality has held up far outside the design magnification. They are not the very best lenses available at their magnifications, but they may well be the best known lenses for certain situations.
Cheers,
--Chris S.
The primer you are looking for is FAQ: How can I hook a microscope objective to my camera?. It's an excellent resource.Macro Photog wrote:The Nikon MM objectives look promising. Moving into the micro world is both exciting and to be frank, intimidating, though I've known for awhile this is where I will end up. I guess I need to review the primer on how to setup my equipment for microscope objectives. Do you know if these objectives are still being sold or if I have to wait for a used one to come on the market?
So far as I'm aware, the MM objectives must be purchased on the second-hand market. I've PM'd you a source that has at least one specimen each of the 1x, 3x, and 5x MM objectives. All of these do come up on eBay from time to time, but not very often.
I've tested the 1x, 3x, 5x, and 10x MM objectives, though I haven't published the results. If you have any questions about them, feel free to contact me. My general conclusion is that they all perform well, given that one accepts the compromises Rik described. Their numerical apertures are modest (the lower the NA, the lower the resolution), but the working distances are wonderful. Nicely, on the couple of specimens I've tried at a range of bellows draws, image quality has held up far outside the design magnification. They are not the very best lenses available at their magnifications, but they may well be the best known lenses for certain situations.
Cheers,
--Chris S.
-
Macro Photog
- Posts: 92
- Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2014 11:45 am
Rik, Chris,
Thanks so much for all of the leg work and references. I am always in awe of the knowledge base on this site.
Rik,
Incredible legwork. Thank you for all of the links and sources. Yes, I have a lot of homework to do just to begin to understand enough to make informed decisions in this new world.
About the teleconverter. I have a TC-201 (Nikon 2x) teleconverter and am using it as a temporary workaround with my 55mm. It works ok but it is not giving me the overall quality that I get with the 55 alone. I know some degradation is expected and I may need to work with it more to refine my technique to maximize quality.
As far as the body is concerned, you make a good point. I've already encountered shutter shake as an issue at higher mags. Fortunately for me my lovely (and generous) wife is giving me a D810 for our anniversary. The whole reason for the upgrade is its electronic first shutter, otherwise I enjoy and have a smile on my face every time I have the pleasure of working with my 800e.
Firehose yes! But like on a hot summer day, challenging, fun, and refreshing all at once.
Chris,
Thanks for the reference. I may take you up on the kind offer for additional impressions and advice on the MM objectives after I wade into the pool a little and understand even some beginner's questions to ask. Also thanks for the referral on a MM source.
Best to all,
Nick
Thanks so much for all of the leg work and references. I am always in awe of the knowledge base on this site.
Rik,
Incredible legwork. Thank you for all of the links and sources. Yes, I have a lot of homework to do just to begin to understand enough to make informed decisions in this new world.
About the teleconverter. I have a TC-201 (Nikon 2x) teleconverter and am using it as a temporary workaround with my 55mm. It works ok but it is not giving me the overall quality that I get with the 55 alone. I know some degradation is expected and I may need to work with it more to refine my technique to maximize quality.
As far as the body is concerned, you make a good point. I've already encountered shutter shake as an issue at higher mags. Fortunately for me my lovely (and generous) wife is giving me a D810 for our anniversary. The whole reason for the upgrade is its electronic first shutter, otherwise I enjoy and have a smile on my face every time I have the pleasure of working with my 800e.
Firehose yes! But like on a hot summer day, challenging, fun, and refreshing all at once.
Chris,
Thanks for the reference. I may take you up on the kind offer for additional impressions and advice on the MM objectives after I wade into the pool a little and understand even some beginner's questions to ask. Also thanks for the referral on a MM source.
Best to all,
Nick
-
rjlittlefield
- Site Admin
- Posts: 23626
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
- Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
- Contact:
I've been watching these MM critters for a while, and not noticed evidence of there being both finite and infinite versions.
Two 3x lenses, EDF20030 and EDF20031 have appeared but the latter is rare.
I suspect the adapter Rik mentions is probably just a threaded bush.
Non Canon users can use a couple of relatively low priced lenses like the ones mentioned (add the El Nikkor 63mm f/2.8 ) and get similar working distances and (I believe, but expect to confirm) a larger useful image circle.
Canon users have that choice too, or of course simply spend money, and with an MPE-65 get quite good working distances and very good quality, with an auto diapragm and other benefits. They are "fat" though.
The extreme lens, in terms of the numbers being hard to achieve with anything else, is I think the 10x.
But I fear that when I have something a couple of millimeters wide to photograph which is a couple of inches down a hole, I won't be able to light it!
Two 3x lenses, EDF20030 and EDF20031 have appeared but the latter is rare.
I suspect the adapter Rik mentions is probably just a threaded bush.
Non Canon users can use a couple of relatively low priced lenses like the ones mentioned (add the El Nikkor 63mm f/2.8 ) and get similar working distances and (I believe, but expect to confirm) a larger useful image circle.
Canon users have that choice too, or of course simply spend money, and with an MPE-65 get quite good working distances and very good quality, with an auto diapragm and other benefits. They are "fat" though.
The extreme lens, in terms of the numbers being hard to achieve with anything else, is I think the 10x.
But I fear that when I have something a couple of millimeters wide to photograph which is a couple of inches down a hole, I won't be able to light it!
-
Macro Photog
- Posts: 92
- Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2014 11:45 am
ChrisR
I looked the EDFs up and cannot find the specifications but it looks like the WD would be less than the Nikon MM series. Let me know if I am incorrect. Also, I'm sure I'm already getting 3x at very good quality from my setup and am looking for at 5x as a starting point for microscope objectives. The MPE-65 is very interesting but from the reviews I read it does not have a very long WD although the reviews were short on specific information. It does get great reviews though.
Best,
Nick
I looked the EDFs up and cannot find the specifications but it looks like the WD would be less than the Nikon MM series. Let me know if I am incorrect. Also, I'm sure I'm already getting 3x at very good quality from my setup and am looking for at 5x as a starting point for microscope objectives. The MPE-65 is very interesting but from the reviews I read it does not have a very long WD although the reviews were short on specific information. It does get great reviews though.
Best,
Nick