How to Mount Mitutoyo?

leekekhuan · Post by **leekekhuan** » Thu Aug 20, 2015 9:25 am

Hi,

Is it possible to mount Mitutoyo M Plan Apo 10x / 0.28, infinity / 0, f = 200 on bellows with help of Ebay link to item 140433879014. ?

Or do i need to buy tube lens?

Thanks in advance.

--AdminCS edited eBay URL to display without scrolling.

bobfriedman · Post by **bobfriedman** » Thu Aug 20, 2015 9:44 am

You need a 200mm focal length tube lens

ChrisR · Post by **ChrisR** » Thu Aug 20, 2015 1:39 pm

.... and depending whether you use a camera lens or a close-up dioptre or a "proper" tube lens, you may not want the extension the cone gives you. And the cones all have to be lined to stop reflections. So I'd suggest a FLAT adapter, which gives you the option of using a cheap set of M42 tubes.

Check Rik's FAQ thread "How do I hook up a microscope objective..." for more details on lenses.

mawyatt · Post by **mawyatt** » Thu Aug 20, 2015 6:53 pm

ChrisR wrote:.... and depending whether you use a camera lens or a close-up dioptre or a "proper" tube lens, you may not want the extension the cone gives you. And the cones all have to be lined to stop reflections. So I'd suggest a FLAT adapter, which gives you the option of using a cheap set of M42 tubes.

Check Rik's FAQ thread "How do I hook up a microscope objective..." for more details on lenses.

Chris,

The OP might consider a 52mm set of tubes instead of the 42mm types if a full frame camera is utilized.

Mike

ChrisR · Post by **ChrisR** » Thu Aug 20, 2015 7:00 pm

Have you found M42 too tight, Mike? Can't think that I have.

leekekhuan · Post by **leekekhuan** » Thu Aug 20, 2015 7:12 pm

ok just spoke to edmundoptics technical chat and what they suggest

MT-4 Accessory Tube Lens (Stock No. #54-428)

and
Mitutoyo to C-mount Camera 152.5mm Extension Tube (Stock No. #56-992)

Now my question is why i need Extension tube? Why can't i mount Tube lens over my bellows and extend it to 152.5mm length?

I thought i could just invest in glass and that will be end but seems like i need to spend more to mount.
Even i buy those 2 items how i suppose to mount it on camera, i need some support for tube to hold itself rather breaking my camera

.

I like the Chris S. thread but it seems more expensive than Edmund suggested.
http://photomacrography.net/forum/viewt ... sc&start=0

Trying to find Rik's Thread though to see some alternative.
Anyway i don't want to save cost and end up getting something which don't fully utilize objective.

ChrisR · Post by **ChrisR** » Thu Aug 20, 2015 7:31 pm

Why can't i mount Tube lens over my bellows

You can!
I have a spare Mitutoyo Tube lens the same as Chris S uses (not in that mount), and so I believe does he. "Other tube lenses are available"

.

leekekhuan · Post by **leekekhuan** » Thu Aug 20, 2015 8:30 pm

ChrisR wrote:
Why can't i mount Tube lens over my bellows
You can!
I have a spare Mitutoyo Tube lens the same as Chris S uses (not in that mount), and so I believe does he. "Other tube lenses are available" .

Are you selling

?
And if you don't mind you know how to mound that tube lens over bellows?

leekekhuan · Post by **leekekhuan** » Thu Aug 20, 2015 9:35 pm

I see there are two ways to go from here

Either i assemble entire 200mm tube following Chris S setup

http://photomacrography.net/forum/viewt ... sc&start=0

or

i go along with Conny setup

http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... 21559b436a

For Conny i here is pricing (that what i think)

http://www.edmundoptics.com/optomechani ... ube/54628/ ~ (31.68SGD) 22.5USD
http://www.edmundoptics.com.sg/microsco ... ves/58329/ (261.95) ~ 185.91 USD
http://www.edmundoptics.com.sg/microsco ... ses/54774/ (1,123.75)~ 797.55 USD
http://www.thorlabs.us/thorproduct.cfm?partnumber=SM1A9 (26.42 SGD) ~ 18.75 USD
https://www.thorlabs.com/thorproduct.cf ... mber=SM1A2 (33.82 SGD) ~ 24USD
https://www.thorlabs.com/thorproduct.cf ... ber=SM2D25 (127.8 SGD) ~ 90.70 USD
https://www.thorlabs.com/thorproduct.cf ... ber=SM1A27 (27.12 SGD) ~ 19.25 USD

Any thoughts?

LEE.

Chris S. · Post by **Chris S.** » Thu Aug 20, 2015 9:52 pm

Leekekhuan,

Other Chris here (Chris S.) I would raise a strong note of caution regarding the parts Edmund Optics suggested during your chat session. When I chose the parts for my rig, which you referenced, I chose the MT-1 tube lens, rather than the MT-4, because the MT-4 looked almost certain to vignette on an APS-C DSLR. The MT-4 lens, as well as the small-diameter lens tube recommended to you, seem more suited to a C-mount camera (much smaller sensor) used in many industrial machine-vision applications.

Edmund Optics seems to have changed its specifications for the MT-4 lens since I last looked. They now claim a 30mm “Image Field of View”; my recollection is that they used to claim only a 24mm image field of view for the MT-4, which accords well with Mitutoyo’s own literature. So I’d question whether EO’s revision represents an epiphany or a mistake. Note that the MT-4 has a much smaller entrance pupil than the MT-1 (11.2mm vs. 24mm), and a smaller diameter (34mm vs. 40mm). Until someone demonstrates that an MT-4 tube lens works well, I’ll continue to recommend the MT-1, which I use, for DSLR work.

leekekhuan wrote:Now my question is why i need Extension tube? Why can't i mount Tube lens over my bellows and extend it to 152.5mm length?

As ChrisR said, of course you can mount a tube lens on your bellows, rather than a tube. Bellows and tubes simply provide spaces full of air. Edmund Optics’ air and your bellows manufacture’s air have the same index of refraction.

leekekhuan wrote:I thought i could just invest in glass and that will be end but seems like i need to spend more to mount.
Even i buy those 2 items how i suppose to mount it on camera, i need some support for tube to hold itself rather breaking my camera .

I like the Chris S. thread but it seems more expensive than Edmund suggested.
http://photomacrography.net/forum/viewt ... sc&start=0

For glass, you actually have lots of options. You can use a Mitutoyo MT-1 tube lens as I do, and as ChrisR suggested. And indeed, each of us has a spare MT-1 or two that we acquired at discount; I daresay either of us might share one with another forum member at our cost, if a bit grudgingly.

As you say, mounting and supporting the tube lens assembly is an issue--for me a very important issue, and a prime reason I built the expensive, but very robust, tube lens assembly you referenced. For me, high optical quality was the first concern. Robust mechanical integration was the second—but still very important—concern. The MT-1 centered parts list I shared is one recipe for a solid mechanical integration. This said, other very solid mechanical integrations could surely be devised, using other materials. But I have not yet seen a complete mechanical recipe, at this forum, that would seem to come close.

Thorlabs ITL-200 tube lens is also very good. A similar integration to mine could be assembled with Thorlabs parts, which are somewhat cheaper than EO parts. Somewhere, I have a mostly complete, hypothetical list of the needed parts. (Here too, ChrisR and I both have, at last count, a spare Thorlabs tube lens or two, acquired at discount; you might be able to talk one of us into sharing one with you at our cost.)

Rik Littlefield has demonstrated that inexpensive Raynox diopters can perform well as converging lenses (aka tube lenses—when discussing optics not officially intended to be mounted inside the lens tube of a microscope, the use of a broader term seems more clear--and all such lenses are intended to converge the parallel light rays exiting an infinite objective to points on the sensor). A number of other forum members have followed Rik’s lead, with success. I don’t recall yet seeing a highly-mechanically-robust integration of such a lens, but think it could be done. This said, in the Raynox tests I’ve seen, chromatic aberration looks more pronounced, to my eye, than it does with some other lenses, including the Mitutoyo MT-1, the Thorlabs ITL-200, and Nikkor 200mm camera lenses.

As implied above, any prime lens of around 200mm, that mounts on your camera, will probably make a good converging lens. Some lenses of this type can be had at reasonable cost. Infinite objectives do not seem persnickety about the lens used to converge their rays.

Lastly, a few forum members have integrated Nikon or Olympus tube lenses, with good results.

Cheers,

--Chris S.

leekekhuan · Post by **leekekhuan** » Thu Aug 20, 2015 10:33 pm

Chris S,
You been very helpful in answering everything in very detail (and i am not forgetting all others who been very helpful).
I only hope i could have been able to digest all of that what you mentioned (My background is computers so pardon my ignorance on so much light refraction stuff

).

I have some bad experience in past where i bought cheaper lens for wildlife photography and endup sold in lose and bought expensive 600mm lens (which really delivered what i was looking for).
And for now i also want to just walk in the direction which give me better and consistent result (btw this is my hobby and don't make any dime out of it).

I am thinking to make similar tube like

or would you suggest i made the following way?

I hope there is not much custom drilling required in this, we don't have many machine shops here who serve small clients like me (or maybe there are but i am not aware

).

boomblurt · Post by **boomblurt** » Fri Aug 21, 2015 2:51 am

Just wanted to add that I have found M42 tubes + Raynox can vignette on FF sensors if used all the way to the camera mount, so I use a few cm of full-width tubes before I add M42s with Raynox/diaphragm etc.

mawyatt · Post by **mawyatt** » Fri Aug 21, 2015 6:32 am

ChrisR wrote:Have you found M42 too tight, Mike? Can't think that I have.

Chris,

Yes I did. I am using a Nikon D800 full frame. The Nikon BR-2 (I think that's the right #, at work now so can't check) reversing lens adapter is very sturdy and well made, and has 52mm threads..so mates with the 52mm tube nicely. This was a much better attachment to the camera body than the 42mm F adapters, which were thin and flexible..at least the ones I had were.

I flocked the 52mm tubes with Protostar and use the Raynox 150 reversed as a "tube" lens. I tried an manual iris aperture section before and after the reversed Raynox but found it didn't improve the image contrast, especially with the 52mm and flocked sections.

Mike

ChrisR · Post by **ChrisR** » Fri Aug 21, 2015 6:45 am

Geoff/Mike - that's good to know.
I do have 52mm tubes, and yes I have used those, without realising the benefit.
But the cheap "Chinese" ones are often some odd large size which would do, I expect.

Having spent a lot of years with the old M42 Pentax type film cameras with bellows and tubes, I'm a bit surprised they vignette on a 43.26mm diagonal. Depends how big the exit pupil looks from the sensor, I guess. Needs more thought.

Probably in the forum already though!

mawyatt · Post by **mawyatt** » Fri Aug 21, 2015 6:49 am

boomblurt wrote:Just wanted to add that I have found M42 tubes + Raynox can vignette on FF sensors if used all the way to the camera mount, so I use a few cm of full-width tubes before I add M42s with Raynox/diaphragm etc.

Geoff,

I have had the same experience, see above note to Chris. I just use the 52mm everywhere until I have to drop down to the reversed Raynox thread size. Here I just use a couple of adapters right at the Raynox bringing it up to 52mm. Same goes for objective. I use a flat disc from objective threads to a short 52mm section then a couple adapters down to Raynox threads.

This isn't the most sturdy setup but seems to work OK. Someday I'll try and get a support bracket for the lens.

Mike