www.photomacrography.net :: View topic - Tube lenses spinning my head !
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 
Tube lenses spinning my head !
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    www.photomacrography.net Forum Index -> Equipment Discussions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
microman



Joined: 14 Jan 2017
Posts: 97

PostPosted: Mon Nov 20, 2017 5:05 am    Post subject: Tube lenses spinning my head ! Reply with quote

Having read just about every thread about tube lenses on the forum i find almost always it seems to be someone who has a different experience/opinion on them.

I am waiting for BF or Christmas sales to hopefully get a good discount on a Sony A7R2 FF camera. Meanwhile i am trying to figure out the best tubelens.. I got the Raynox 150 and 250 but thought i would want something better. Almost bought the Raynox 5320 but then read mayby the Nikkor 200mm F4 was better, then again i read mayby it was not that good. Searched flickr for pictures and people use all kind of tubelenses, often old enlarging lenses ?

Arghh. mayby i should stick to the Raynox:es and let it be.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
enricosavazzi



Joined: 21 Nov 2009
Posts: 854
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

PostPosted: Mon Nov 20, 2017 5:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, this is not a simple subject, but there are a few considerations that can help to make it more tractable.

First of all, you already have decided on the camera. Now you need to get the rest of the equipment. It needs to work well with full frame sensor, and must be good enough to get all, or at least most, of the quality of which a 42 Mpixel sensor is capable. This already restricts the choice of tube lens(es) and objectives.

First the objectives. You don't mention your planned choices, nor the magnification range. It is possible, but would not make much sense, to use a tube lens and infinity corrected objectives at 1x-2x, so I assume you plan to start around 4x-5x. You cannot go wrong with Mitutoyo M Plan Apo objectives in proven good conditions, so I would suggest you start with 5x and 10x, or 10x and 20x depending on which end of the magnification range you are interested in. Starting from the 5x end is easier, but you could jump in directly at 10x. 20x and higher is best approached after making hands-on experience at lower magnifications. Read on this site what many users have written about these lenses, and how to minimize the risks inherent in purchasing second-hand Mitutoyo M Plan Apos online.

Then the tube lenses. You already have the Raynox 150 and 250, so I would suggest you extensively test them and learn to use them. You will likely find that some objectives do not cover FF with the Raynox 250. This is a limitation of the objectives, not of the tube lens. Other possible tube lenses range from dedicated tube lenses from Thorlabs to vintage telephoto lenses. It is likely that in your case the most suitable FL for a tube lens will be between 150 mm and 200 mm, but test what you already have first.

I never tried the Micro Nikkor 200 mm, but if I recall correctly it might not be one of the best for use as tube lens (it is very good in macro photography). In any case, second-hand specimens will always be available, so there is no hurry. You should probably gain experience with the two Raynoxes before you try something else, especially expensive ones. However, some users have stayed with the Raynoxes and are satisfied with them. 42 MPixels make high demands on any tube lenses and objectives, so I am not certain that other tube lenses would be better in practice. On the other hand, Micro 4/3 users encounter the same linear resolution demands already at 10 Mpixels (Micro 4/3 is 1/4 the area of FF), not to speak of the current 20 Mpixel Micro 4/3 sensors.

You don't mention the rest of the equipment. You are going to need extension tubes of some sort (multiple alternatives exist) and a shoe-box full of rings and adapters. You are likely going into focus stacking, which is mostly a studio activity as opposed to field. Stacking setups can, and usually do, end up on the heavy and permanent table-top side, and need vibration dampening etc. They are typically built around an industrial or dedicated motorized rail (and I do mean "around" in a literal sense, with the setup gradually growing out in all directions from the rail). In most cases, this is a gradual process as the user of the setup learns from experience.
_________________
--ES
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
microman



Joined: 14 Jan 2017
Posts: 97

PostPosted: Mon Nov 20, 2017 6:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks for the thorough answer. I realise i should have written more about the setup and what i will use it for.

I already got everything except the camera and objectives. I am planning on buying the 10x Mitu as its in a range i think will be most usfull for me.

What i want is good quality high res output with minimal CA. Thinking i need a high quality tubelens for the Mitu.
As you wrote its probably best to start with the Raynox:es and then if there is quality problems i could start looking for other alternetives.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mawyatt



Joined: 22 Aug 2013
Posts: 983

PostPosted: Mon Nov 20, 2017 6:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

microman,

That's an excellent general synopsis by ES. This should be referenced for anyone getting into the more serious end of stacking with objectives.

On a more specific note, I've used both the Raynox 150 & 250 and the Nikon 200mm F4 "Q" & Vivitar (Komine) 135mm F3.5 & Zeiss 135mm F3.5 as tube lenses. Optically I didn't see much difference between the Raynox and old telephoto manual lenses, except of course the Raynox 250 is 125mm and the Vivitar-Zeiss are 135mm. These were used with a Nikon D500 & D800E, so DX and FX coverage.

That said, i've grown to prefer the telephoto lenses over the Raynox simply because the overall composite lens (objective & tube) is shorter, less adapters and requires less flocking (usually just the objective to lens filter thread adapter), plus they are easier to set to infinite focus. If you use a vertical stage make sure you secure the telephoto focus ring, gravity will slowly pull it away from infinity. I had a situation where I was doing very long stacks 500~600 with ~10 second intervals, after processing with Zerene I noticed some areas that looking like focus banding. However, my step size was small enough to allow the DoF to overlap by 40% (Rt2-1), so I shouldn't have any focus banding. At first I thought it was the focus rail acting up, so I changed to another focus rail (THK KR20) after making an adapter cable. Same result over and over again. Eventually the Nikon 200mm moved so far off infinity focus I noticed the lens markings had shifted, which pointed me to the problem source....lens focus creep. Graffer's tape did not solve the problem alone, it took some taunt rubber bands and tape to secure the focus at infinity.

If you decide on using extension tubes for your tube lens, make sure you flock the tube's interior, the one's I have are highly reflective...and don't forget the objective adapter with either the extension tubes or telephoto use.

The Raynox 150 and 250 are very inexpensive ($70) as are the Nikon 200 ($30) & Vivitar/Ziess 135 ($60), so you can't go wrong either way or just get them all as I did!

Best,

Mike
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Saul



Joined: 31 Jan 2011
Posts: 911
Location: Naperville, IL USA

PostPosted: Mon Nov 20, 2017 8:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=23947&highlight=sigma+lifesize
_________________
Saul
Studio, horizontal and field setups
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
microman



Joined: 14 Jan 2017
Posts: 97

PostPosted: Tue Nov 21, 2017 3:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mawyatt wrote:
microman,

That's an excellent general synopsis by ES. This should be referenced for anyone getting into the more serious end of stacking with objectives.

On a more specific note, I've used both the Raynox 150 & 250 and the Nikon 200mm F4 "Q" & Vivitar (Komine) 135mm F3.5 & Zeiss 135mm F3.5 as tube lenses. Optically I didn't see much difference between the Raynox and old telephoto manual lenses, except of course the Raynox 250 is 125mm and the Vivitar-Zeiss are 135mm. These were used with a Nikon D500 & D800E, so DX and FX coverage.

That said, i've grown to prefer the telephoto lenses over the Raynox simply because the overall composite lens (objective & tube) is shorter, less adapters and requires less flocking (usually just the objective to lens filter thread adapter), plus they are easier to set to infinite focus. If you use a vertical stage make sure you secure the telephoto focus ring, gravity will slowly pull it away from infinity. I had a situation where I was doing very long stacks 500~600 with ~10 second intervals, after processing with Zerene I noticed some areas that looking like focus banding. However, my step size was small enough to allow the DoF to overlap by 40% (Rt2-1), so I shouldn't have any focus banding. At first I thought it was the focus rail acting up, so I changed to another focus rail (THK KR20) after making an adapter cable. Same result over and over again. Eventually the Nikon 200mm moved so far off infinity focus I noticed the lens markings had shifted, which pointed me to the problem source....lens focus creep. Graffer's tape did not solve the problem alone, it took some taunt rubber bands and tape to secure the focus at infinity.

If you decide on using extension tubes for your tube lens, make sure you flock the tube's interior, the one's I have are highly reflective...and don't forget the objective adapter with either the extension tubes or telephoto use.

The Raynox 150 and 250 are very inexpensive ($70) as are the Nikon 200 ($30) & Vivitar/Ziess 135 ($60), so you can't go wrong either way or just get them all as I did!

Best,

Mike


Great advice and pointers. I will remember that focusring hehe. Thanks !

Will continue to research tubelenses a bit more. Its quite interesting how many different lenses people use. I read that the Schneider 135mm Componon-S could be good for FF as the lensgroup is close togheter giving less vignett ? There is also the 150mm that might be better match.. They aint cheap but i will keep watch if i can snatch a bargin.
Could always resell if it does not work out.


Last edited by microman on Tue Nov 21, 2017 3:46 am; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
microman



Joined: 14 Jan 2017
Posts: 97

PostPosted: Tue Nov 21, 2017 3:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Saul wrote:
http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=23947&highlight=sigma+lifesize


Yeah i might test that one later also. Thanks !
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
JH



Joined: 09 Mar 2013
Posts: 945
Location: Vallentuna, Stockholm, Sweden

PostPosted: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sometimes you might want to use a tube lens ”longer” than 200mm.
•If the good image circle does not cover enough of your sensor.
•If you want to utilize the resolving power of your objective but the objective outresolves your sensor.

Best regards
Jörgen Hellberg
_________________
Jörgen Hellberg, my webbsite www.hphoto.se
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Beatsy



Joined: 05 Jul 2013
Posts: 911
Location: Malvern, UK

PostPosted: Wed Nov 22, 2017 11:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm with mawyatt - although I tried Raynox as tube lenses, I find the older M42 primes are far more convenient for use with Mitutoyo objectives. The 135mm Vivitar/Komine and 135mm Zeiss Jena "MC" Sonnar are two that work well (Lou Jost recommended the Vivitar to me).

I only use 135mm tube lenses these days as none of my Mitties outresolves the A7rii sensor. You get a lower magnification, "extended" FoV by using a 135mm tube lens on full frame (e.g. the 10x Mitty will project at 6.75x on the sensor with a 135mm tube lens). Dropping the A7rii into APS-C mode gives the same FoV as if you were using a 200mm tube lens on a lower megapixel FF camera (18 mpix for A7rii APS-C mode). This covers all the bases for me.

Worth noting that the Canon MP-E 65mm works amazingly well adapted to the A7rii too - up to 3.5x anyway, but a 5x Mitty outresolves it beyond that. You will need the more expensive Metabones IV adapter for proper aperture control while framing though - which rather adds to the cost if you don't need that adapter for other lenses anyway (as I do).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
JH



Joined: 09 Mar 2013
Posts: 945
Location: Vallentuna, Stockholm, Sweden

PostPosted: Fri Nov 24, 2017 6:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Beatsy, Thanks for the info about the 135mm lenses. Do you prefer the Zeiss or the Vivitar? Do you use them for FF and APS-C or only for APS-C?

My Canon 6D:s pixels is 6.54µm. If the info about the Mitutoyo 10x is correct it resolves 1. If my set up, light etc is in order and I use a 200 mm tube lens the smalest resolved dot is 1*10=10 This is larger than one pixel so it seems like the lens is not outresolving my sensor. But if there are more than one dot that I have to separate I need more than one pixel for every dot. From my understanding I need close to 3 pixels per dot not to be outresolved. So my sensor would need to have something like 10/3 = 3,3 pixels not to be outresolved. Or I can use a tube lens that enlarges the 1 dot to 3* 6.54µm = 19,6. (200*1,96= 392 mm) Usually I care more about other things like composition and therfore uses a shorter tubelens.

Best regards
Jörgen Hellberg
_________________
Jörgen Hellberg, my webbsite www.hphoto.se
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Beatsy



Joined: 05 Jul 2013
Posts: 911
Location: Malvern, UK

PostPosted: Fri Nov 24, 2017 7:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

JH wrote:
Beatsy, Thanks for the info about the 135mm lenses. Do you prefer the Zeiss or the Vivitar? Do you use them for FF and APS-C or only for APS-C?

They are very close in performance, but I think the Sonnar has a slight edge with image sharpness away from the centre (when pixel peeping) so I'd say that's my preference. I use them for both FF and APS-C. Both lenses show a tiny "clip" of vignetting in extreme corners on full frame, but none at all on APS-C. Bear in mind, when using 135mm tube lens on FF, you are pushing any Mitty well beyond it's design limits (FoV) and corner rendering gets a bit mushy - but still surprisingly good, considering.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
JH



Joined: 09 Mar 2013
Posts: 945
Location: Vallentuna, Stockholm, Sweden

PostPosted: Fri Nov 24, 2017 8:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks Beatsy!
Best regards
Jörgen Hellberg
_________________
Jörgen Hellberg, my webbsite www.hphoto.se
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
microman



Joined: 14 Jan 2017
Posts: 97

PostPosted: Sat Nov 25, 2017 3:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks for all the good info guys. I might hold on off getting the camera awhile . Need to think about what i really want to do becouse meanwhile i want to do microphoto i also enjoy macrovideo..

Would be nice if Sony released a 4K60fps APC camera under 2K$ but i dont think that will happen for a year atleast.

Probably needs a new kind of sensor. Seems hard to push them that sony got now. Panasonic G9 has the highresmode and 4K60.. But i dont know..
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lou Jost



Joined: 04 Sep 2015
Posts: 1798
Location: Ecuador

PostPosted: Sat Nov 25, 2017 5:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I also prefer the rigidity of the old telephotos over the Raynox+adapters.

If money is no object, the new superfast Sigma 135mm is better than the older (and still very good) 135mm lenses. However, the price is an order of magnitude greater, and it weighs a ton and has no tripod mounting collar, so it makes for a very unstable platform. There must be a tripod collar out there that fits it, but I haven't found one.
_________________
Lou Jost
www.ecomingafoundation.wordpress.com
www.loujost.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
microman



Joined: 14 Jan 2017
Posts: 97

PostPosted: Sat Nov 25, 2017 6:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lou Jost wrote:
I also prefer the rigidity of the old telephotos over the Raynox+adapters.

If money is no object, the new superfast Sigma 135mm is better than the older (and still very good) 135mm lenses. However, the price is an order of magnitude greater, and it weighs a ton and has no tripod mounting collar, so it makes for a very unstable platform. There must be a tripod collar out there that fits it, but I haven't found one.


Its a very nice lens for sure but as you said its really expensive, especially for using with an objective thats several hundred $ less new hehe.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
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 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
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