www.photomacrography.net :: View topic - High-Resolution Line Scan Lenses - Comparison of results
www.photomacrography.net Forum Index
An online community dedicated to the practices of photomacrography, close-up and macro photography, and photomicrography.
Photomacrography Front Page Amateurmicrography Front Page
Old Forums/Galleries
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
High-Resolution Line Scan Lenses - Comparison of results
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    www.photomacrography.net Forum Index -> Equipment Discussions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Sager



Joined: 09 Jan 2015
Posts: 38

PostPosted: Wed Aug 23, 2017 2:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hey Lou, very good point... bad idea to put anything in front of the lens Embarassed ... Not to mention the 155 UMN has a 72mm front element so a high quality bandpass filter would cost a small fortune and be in custom territory. The UMN doesn't really enter into macro territory (more of a close-focus lens) so I'll need a pretty big light source.

So perhaps any green LED would work for me and if I wanted to be really exact adding a band pass filter from Edmunds in front of the light source.
_________________
http://jonathansager.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
nathanm



Joined: 02 Jun 2016
Posts: 222
Location: Bellevue, WA

PostPosted: Thu Aug 24, 2017 4:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Green LED lights would seem ideal for this
_________________
nathanm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Lou Jost



Joined: 04 Sep 2015
Posts: 1798
Location: Ecuador

PostPosted: Tue Oct 17, 2017 3:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I am now in the US and at last I have the Myutron in my hands. Beautiful lens. It came with a nice adapter made from a 72mm-62mm step-down ring, followed by a 72mm extension tube, and then 52mm-72mm step-up ring. I'll test it in a week when I get back to Ecuador.
_________________
Lou Jost
www.ecomingafoundation.wordpress.com
www.loujost.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
kds315*



Joined: 02 Feb 2009
Posts: 174

PostPosted: Mon Nov 20, 2017 9:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lou Jost wrote:
I'm excited to hear that someone with a big sensor is experimenting with these! That's what these lenses really deserve. They are basically 10x or 5x microscope objectives with high NA (up to 0.30) and perfect sharp image circles 125mm + in diameter! That's exciting.

I think since this is macro work, we'll be putting the light source quite close to the subject, so maybe we can make do with lower intensity monochromatic LEDs. I'd be reluctant to put any filter between the lens and the subject; these lenses aren't expecting any glass in their pathway. But a filter put on the light might be ok.

But these triumphs of optical engineering cost almost nothing. I bought some S-planars and a 248nm 5x lens from Tamarack Scientific. The latter weighs 20 pounds!!!!! Most people seem to end up using these as door-stops, but at least this will make a GOOD door-stop.

I'll be using mine on an MFT camera, and I am looking to convert one to monochrome. I'd stack and stitch by just moving the camera, keeping lens and subject fixed, photographing the virtual image piece by piece. The S-planar lenses (and probably the others too) are telecentric, which facilitates this.

I should add that I am also looking for good monochromatic light sources. My lenses are 248nm and 436nm.


436nm is easy using a Mecury lamp and narrowband filters to isolate the 436nm band (there are not so costly stabilized lamps for that on ebay)

248nm is not only tricky, but being UV-C, also rather dangerous. Such light sources are Excimer lamps, costly and tricky, I would not want those around. Besides, you won't see anything as you would need a highly specialized monochrom sensor to be able to record that UV-C, assuming you don't want to work with high resolution film. BTw. even converted cameras reach barely 300nm (read about such UV photography on my Blog http://uvir.eu if you're interested )
_________________
Klaus

http://www.macrolenses.de for macro and special lens info
http://www.pbase.com/kds315/uv_photos for UV Images and lens/filter info
http://photographyoftheinvisibleworld.blogspot.com/ my UV diary
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Lou Jost



Joined: 04 Sep 2015
Posts: 1798
Location: Ecuador

PostPosted: Mon Nov 20, 2017 9:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Klaus,
I remember seeing your blog, as well as your frequent posts on UV forums.

I was thinking that with a cooled monochrome astrophotography sensor, with no filter stack, it might be possible to see something of that UV-C light using very long exposures and no filters, since the transmission coefficients of very thin sensors are probably not exactly zero, and astrophotography cameras are designed to work with very very low light levels. But yes, I will probably just stick with the 436nm lenses. The extra effort to produce and detect UV-C may not be worth it, though resolution through a diffraction-limited lens would be almost doubled compared to 436nm.
_________________
Lou Jost
www.ecomingafoundation.wordpress.com
www.loujost.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
kds315*



Joined: 02 Feb 2009
Posts: 174

PostPosted: Mon Nov 20, 2017 9:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lou Jost wrote:
Hi Klaus,
I remember seeing your blog, as well as your frequent posts on UV forums.

I was thinking that with a cooled monochrome astrophotography sensor, with no filter stack, it might be possible to see something of that UV-C light using very long exposures and no filters, since the transmission coefficients of very thin sensors are probably not exactly zero, and astrophotography cameras are designed to work with very very low light levels. But yes, I will probably just stick with the 436nm lenses. The extra effort to produce and detect UV-C may not be worth it, though resolution through a diffraction-limited lens would be almost doubled compared to 436nm.


Lou, 365nm is quite doable, if you like the extended resolution at this shorter wavelength. AND there are great high power NICHIA UV-LEDs available for that, now at much lower cost then when I started using them. THIS is what I would recommend...(you need eye protection nevertheless!!!)
_________________
Klaus

http://www.macrolenses.de for macro and special lens info
http://www.pbase.com/kds315/uv_photos for UV Images and lens/filter info
http://photographyoftheinvisibleworld.blogspot.com/ my UV diary
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Lou Jost



Joined: 04 Sep 2015
Posts: 1798
Location: Ecuador

PostPosted: Mon Nov 20, 2017 9:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't have a 365nm lens, but will keep an eye out for a cheap one.
_________________
Lou Jost
www.ecomingafoundation.wordpress.com
www.loujost.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
kds315*



Joined: 02 Feb 2009
Posts: 174

PostPosted: Tue Nov 21, 2017 4:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lou Jost wrote:
I don't have a 365nm lens, but will keep an eye out for a cheap one.


Quite a few high resolution lenses are able to be used at this wavelength, or at least at 370-380nm as optical glass often transmits down to about 350nm. More at my site...
_________________
Klaus

http://www.macrolenses.de for macro and special lens info
http://www.pbase.com/kds315/uv_photos for UV Images and lens/filter info
http://photographyoftheinvisibleworld.blogspot.com/ my UV diary
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Lou Jost



Joined: 04 Sep 2015
Posts: 1798
Location: Ecuador

PostPosted: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Since invisible 370nm is not so different from visible 436nm, and since I have a 436nm set-up, I'll probably just stick with that. But you make an important point-- ANY lens, not just one optimized for a particular wavelength, would be improved when used with monochromatic short-wavelength light. There would be no chromatic aberration and you'd get extra resolution due to the short wavelength. There are some examples in the forum of people doing this by using blue filters, or using just the blue channel. Best would be to use a blue laser (435nm cheap and easily available, but can't use most paper diffusers because of fluorescence) + despeckler, and use a cooled monochrome astrophotography camera.

Diatoms would be interesting subjects for this technique!
_________________
Lou Jost
www.ecomingafoundation.wordpress.com
www.loujost.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
kds315*



Joined: 02 Feb 2009
Posts: 174

PostPosted: Tue Nov 21, 2017 6:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lou Jost wrote:
Since invisible 370nm is not so different from visible 436nm, and since I have a 436nm set-up, I'll probably just stick with that. But you make an important point-- ANY lens, not just one optimized for a particular wavelength, would be improved when used with monochromatic short-wavelength light. There would be no chromatic aberration and you'd get extra resolution due to the short wavelength. There are some examples in the forum of people doing this by using blue filters, or using just the blue channel. Best would be to use a blue laser (435nm cheap and easily available, but can't use most paper diffusers because of fluorescence) + despeckler, and use a cooled monochrome astrophotography camera.

Diatoms would be interesting subjects for this technique!


In my experience UV LEDs are just enough, their emitted bandwith is narrow enough to not cause CA effects, additional a filter would eliminate unwanted parts.

Don't forget that 436nm --> 370nm is 66nm difference, that has quite an impact on resolution!

If you wanted a laser, I would use those cheap 405nm ones from Bluerays!
_________________
Klaus

http://www.macrolenses.de for macro and special lens info
http://www.pbase.com/kds315/uv_photos for UV Images and lens/filter info
http://photographyoftheinvisibleworld.blogspot.com/ my UV diary
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Lou Jost



Joined: 04 Sep 2015
Posts: 1798
Location: Ecuador

PostPosted: Tue Nov 21, 2017 7:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have some of those Blue-ray lasers, but the 435nm lasers are also very cheap and they match the optimum wavelength for most of the commonly-available eBay stepper lenses.

An exception is the Nikon Engineering 5x lens currently available on eBay. I think that one is optimized for 405nm based on information about Nikon's more recent range of stepper devices.
_________________
Lou Jost
www.ecomingafoundation.wordpress.com
www.loujost.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
kds315*



Joined: 02 Feb 2009
Posts: 174

PostPosted: Tue Nov 21, 2017 9:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lou Jost wrote:
I have some of those Blue-ray lasers, but the 435nm lasers are also very cheap and they match the optimum wavelength for most of the commonly-available eBay stepper lenses.

An exception is the Nikon Engineering 5x lens currently available on eBay. I think that one is optimized for 405nm based on information about Nikon's more recent range of stepper devices.


What makes you believe that about the Nikon Engineering 5x lens??
Today much shorter UV wavelengths are being used...
_________________
Klaus

http://www.macrolenses.de for macro and special lens info
http://www.pbase.com/kds315/uv_photos for UV Images and lens/filter info
http://photographyoftheinvisibleworld.blogspot.com/ my UV diary
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Lou Jost



Joined: 04 Sep 2015
Posts: 1798
Location: Ecuador

PostPosted: Tue Nov 21, 2017 9:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Did you see it on eBay?

https://www.ebay.com/itm/1pc-NIKON-ENGINEERING-1-5X-Lens-M42-mount/172824979542?hash=item283d2be856:g:oRkAAOSwrYRZlk5E

It is even shorter than the smallest Ultra-Micro-Nikkors, and its diameter is also small. Its image circle, while large, is far smaller than the Zeiss stepper lenses I have. I am just guessing but I suspect, on the basis of its low NA and relatively small image circle and short working distance, that it was made for Nikon's NES1-h02 "mini-stepper" which is a 405nm device that is designed for smaller jobs. (Their other recent mini-steppers are 2.5x or 1.8x devices, not 5x devices).

http://www.nikon.com/products/customized/pdf/nikon_mini_steppers.pdf

I'll make precise measurements of NA, image circle, and FOV one of these days when I have more time. Then we can see if the lens parameters match those of this mini-stepper.
_________________
Lou Jost
www.ecomingafoundation.wordpress.com
www.loujost.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
kds315*



Joined: 02 Feb 2009
Posts: 174

PostPosted: Tue Nov 21, 2017 11:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lou Jost wrote:
Did you see it on eBay?

https://www.ebay.com/itm/1pc-NIKON-ENGINEERING-1-5X-Lens-M42-mount/172824979542?hash=item283d2be856:g:oRkAAOSwrYRZlk5E

It is even shorter than the smallest Ultra-Micro-Nikkors, and its diameter is also small. Its image circle, while large, is far smaller than the Zeiss stepper lenses I have. I am just guessing but I suspect, on the basis of its low NA and relatively small image circle and short working distance, that it was made for Nikon's NES1-h02 "mini-stepper" which is a 405nm device that is designed for smaller jobs. (Their other recent mini-steppers are 2.5x or 1.8x devices, not 5x devices).

http://www.nikon.com/products/customized/pdf/nikon_mini_steppers.pdf

I'll make precise measurements of NA, image circle, and FOV one of these days when I have more time. Then we can see if the lens parameters match those of this mini-stepper.


Yes, one was sold, another still for sale. You bought it? Looks like a cute little lens, well made. But nothing I would find useful for my work. Thanks for the doc.
_________________
Klaus

http://www.macrolenses.de for macro and special lens info
http://www.pbase.com/kds315/uv_photos for UV Images and lens/filter info
http://photographyoftheinvisibleworld.blogspot.com/ my UV diary
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Lou Jost



Joined: 04 Sep 2015
Posts: 1798
Location: Ecuador

PostPosted: Tue Nov 21, 2017 11:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes, I bought it, since I couldn't figure out what it was and it seemed like it might have similar quality as an Ultra-Micro-Nikkor at half the price.
_________________
Lou Jost
www.ecomingafoundation.wordpress.com
www.loujost.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    www.photomacrography.net Forum Index -> Equipment Discussions All times are GMT - 7 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 3 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group