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 Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    www.photomacrography.net Forum Index -> Equipment Discussions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Lou Jost



Joined: 04 Sep 2015
Posts: 2368
Location: Ecuador

PostPosted: Sat Nov 25, 2017 6:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes, there is always a cost vs benefit tradeoff. I still recommend the cheap Vivitar/Komine unless you need the very utmost in quality. I should add that my tests were on an MFT sensor so the difference might not even show up on a FF sensor with big pixels. And my tests were done with a reversed macro lens in front, not a microscope objective.

See here:
http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=34607&sid=01494728317c2b0b3b9a03521de17c3a
_________________
Lou Jost
www.ecomingafoundation.wordpress.com
www.loujost.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Yawns



Joined: 20 Dec 2015
Posts: 131
Location: Portugal

PostPosted: Sat Nov 25, 2017 8:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank you for this thread ... based on your opinions and info I just got a

Vivitar 135mm by Komine (M42) for 65 euros Smile (like 70USD maybe) and the lens is in very good condition ...

If no ther it's far more simple to use than the Raynox 250 (125mm) .. no more that bucket of adapters and tubes. ...

I was really after a "tube" lens able to do less than 170mm without vignette .. (all my other zooms do)

Thank you
_________________
YAWNS _ (Y)et (A)nother (W)onderful (N)ewbie (S)hooting
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
microman



Joined: 14 Jan 2017
Posts: 122

PostPosted: Sun Nov 26, 2017 9:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lou Jost wrote:
Yes, there is always a cost vs benefit tradeoff. I still recommend the cheap Vivitar/Komine unless you need the very utmost in quality. I should add that my tests were on an MFT sensor so the difference might not even show up on a FF sensor with big pixels. And my tests were done with a reversed macro lens in front, not a microscope objective.

See here:
http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=34607&sid=01494728317c2b0b3b9a03521de17c3a


Good stuff, thanks Smile
Really appriciate all the testing you guys in this forum do so the rest of us does
dont have to shell out $ hehe.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
svalley



Joined: 03 Dec 2006
Posts: 288
Location: Albany, Oregon

PostPosted: Sat Feb 24, 2018 9:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

enricosavazzi wrote:
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).


I was looking for info on tube lenses and ran across this thread and thought I would comment about the Micro-Nikkor 200mm. It has been my primary tube lens for the last year.

At first I could not get it to work with my Mitutoyo M Plans with the adapter rings in the usual configuration, with the 62>>52 mounted on the filter threads and then the CN-S adpter screwed into that and then the objective mounted on that.

That made the rear of the objective too far from the front element of the 200mm. The solution is to screw the CN_S adapter into the back of the 62>>52, screw the objective into the CN-S and then screw the whole thing into the filter threads on the 200mm.....whew.

That puts the objective and the 200 close enough to work very well together and so far I have been immensely pleased with the quality of my images. I needed to put a little glue on the threads between the two adapters so they didn't unscrew when you screw in the objective.

I have used quite a few lens setups over the years for stacking and I have to say that the pairing of these optics, the super sharp 200mm Micro-Nikkor and the Mitutoyo objectives 5x, 10x and 20x which are mindblowingly sharp, creates the most wonderful optical system I have ever worked with.

I am looking for either a 135mm or a 150mm to use in those situations when the subject will not fit in the frame with my 5x.

Steve
_________________
"You can't build a time machine without weird optics"
Steve Valley - Albany, Oregon
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Lou Jost



Joined: 04 Sep 2015
Posts: 2368
Location: Ecuador

PostPosted: Sun Feb 25, 2018 4:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Steve, I've been curious about that lens. Have you ever compared it directly to the other 200mm lenses commonly used by us here? Or the 180 ED?

THe 135mm mentioned in comments above is a good choice. The Sigma 135 ART lens is better, but much more expensive and much larger and heavier (and it lacks a tripod collar, which a lens of that size really needs).
_________________
Lou Jost
www.ecomingafoundation.wordpress.com
www.loujost.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
dickb



Joined: 05 Jul 2010
Posts: 122

PostPosted: Sun Feb 25, 2018 6:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

When talking about 200mm f/4 Micro-Nikkor lenses it is useful to specify whether you mean the older Ai version or the newer AF-D one. AFAIK they are different optically. The old one is relatively small and cheap, and has a very nice tripod collar. The AF lens is larger and more expensive and is supposed to be better optically when used in the way it was intended. I used to have the Ai version, I have never used the AF version so I can't compare them properly.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mawyatt



Joined: 22 Aug 2013
Posts: 1438
Location: Clearwater

PostPosted: Sun Feb 25, 2018 6:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Steve,

I'm curious that you found the distance between the Mitutoyo and 200mm front critical. I had thought this wasn't critical at all, and some had placed the Mitutoyo 25~50mm in front without image degradation.

Please elaborate on your findings?

Best,
_________________
Research is like a treasure hunt, you don't know where to look or what you'll find!
~Mike
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lou Jost



Joined: 04 Sep 2015
Posts: 2368
Location: Ecuador

PostPosted: Sun Feb 25, 2018 7:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I recall that nathanm in his quantitative tests of tube lenses for medium format, found best results with the objective closer to the tube lens; in fact he machined an adapter that put the objective closer than a flat adapter would have done.

Myself, I haven't noticed an important difference, but I've seen that some kinds of aberrations increase with distance, and other kinds decrease with distance, so I don't think there is a general rule. It depends on the objective and maybe on the tube lens too.
_________________
Lou Jost
www.ecomingafoundation.wordpress.com
www.loujost.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Lou Jost



Joined: 04 Sep 2015
Posts: 2368
Location: Ecuador

PostPosted: Sun Feb 25, 2018 7:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I bought some new tube lenses and will try to test them against my old lenses today, using a Mitutoyo 7.5x which is known to have a very wide image circle, so that any vignetting or corner problems should be due to the tube lens:
80-200 ED Nikon zoom
80-200 ED Olympus 4/3
180 2.8 ED Nikkor manual focus
210mm Rodenstock large-format lens
200 f4 AI non-ED Nikkor
200 f4 Nikkor-Q late version (Wide focus ring, f/32 min aperture, 2m closest focus distance, good blue coating)
Raynox DCR-150
Raynox DCR-5320
_________________
Lou Jost
www.ecomingafoundation.wordpress.com
www.loujost.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
mawyatt



Joined: 22 Aug 2013
Posts: 1438
Location: Clearwater

PostPosted: Sun Feb 25, 2018 8:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lou Jost wrote:
I bought some new tube lenses and will try to test them against my old lenses today, using a Mitutoyo 7.5x which is known to have a very wide image circle, so that any vignetting or corner problems should be due to the tube lens:
80-200 ED Nikon zoom
80-200 ED Olympus 4/3
180 2.8 ED Nikkor manual focus
210mm Rodenstock large-format lens
200 f4 AI non-ED Nikkor
200 f4 Nikkor-Q late version (Wide focus ring, f/32 min aperture, 2m closest focus distance, good blue coating)
Raynox DCR-150
Raynox DCR-5320


Lou,

Sigma LSA maybe?

Best,
_________________
Research is like a treasure hunt, you don't know where to look or what you'll find!
~Mike
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lou Jost



Joined: 04 Sep 2015
Posts: 2368
Location: Ecuador

PostPosted: Sun Feb 25, 2018 8:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sadly I do not have it...
_________________
Lou Jost
www.ecomingafoundation.wordpress.com
www.loujost.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
mawyatt



Joined: 22 Aug 2013
Posts: 1438
Location: Clearwater

PostPosted: Sun Feb 25, 2018 8:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lou,

I have the old Nikon 200 f4 "Q" in both f22 and f32 minimum aperture. Is there a difference for tube use?

Best,
_________________
Research is like a treasure hunt, you don't know where to look or what you'll find!
~Mike
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lou Jost



Joined: 04 Sep 2015
Posts: 2368
Location: Ecuador

PostPosted: Sun Feb 25, 2018 8:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The f32 version with the fat focusing ring and closer focus is supposed to have more modern coatings, which might matter, though I would not expect it to make much of a difference in this simple 4-element lens.
_________________
Lou Jost
www.ecomingafoundation.wordpress.com
www.loujost.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
svalley



Joined: 03 Dec 2006
Posts: 288
Location: Albany, Oregon

PostPosted: Sun Feb 25, 2018 9:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

dickb wrote:
When talking about 200mm f/4 Micro-Nikkor lenses it is useful to specify whether you mean the older Ai version or the newer AF-D one. AFAIK they are different optically. The old one is relatively small and cheap, and has a very nice tripod collar. The AF lens is larger and more expensive and is supposed to be better optically when used in the way it was intended. I used to have the Ai version, I have never used the AF version so I can't compare them properly.


I am using the AF-D 200mm Micro-Nikkor.

mawyatt wrote:
I'm curious that you found the distance between the Mitutoyo and 200mm front critical. I had thought this wasn't critical at all, and some had placed the Mitutoyo 25~50mm in front without image degradation.

Please elaborate on your findings?


I could not get it to focus. I don't remember if there was vignetting. I didn't mess with it very long before I hit on my solution to move the objective closer and never tried the original configuration again. My adapter rings are glued together now so I can't retest.

I used a 70-180 Micro-Nikkor, but found a lot of vignetting at anything less than 180mm. Highlights were smeared into crosses at the edges of the image so I didn't continue with it.

I also tried 2 105mm Micro-Nikkors, an AI and an AF-D, and both vignetted too severely to be useful.

At work, my camera was a Canon 7D and I used a Sigma 150mm macro with the Mitutoyos and it was pretty good, but not as sharp as my Nikon personal setup. I am using a Nikon D810 at home.

Steve
_________________
"You can't build a time machine without weird optics"
Steve Valley - Albany, Oregon
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
mawyatt



Joined: 22 Aug 2013
Posts: 1438
Location: Clearwater

PostPosted: Sun Feb 25, 2018 10:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

svalley wrote:
dickb wrote:
When talking about 200mm f/4 Micro-Nikkor lenses it is useful to specify whether you mean the older Ai version or the newer AF-D one. AFAIK they are different optically. The old one is relatively small and cheap, and has a very nice tripod collar. The AF lens is larger and more expensive and is supposed to be better optically when used in the way it was intended. I used to have the Ai version, I have never used the AF version so I can't compare them properly.


I am using the AF-D 200mm Micro-Nikkor.

mawyatt wrote:
I'm curious that you found the distance between the Mitutoyo and 200mm front critical. I had thought this wasn't critical at all, and some had placed the Mitutoyo 25~50mm in front without image degradation.

Please elaborate on your findings?


I could not get it to focus. I don't remember if there was vignetting. I didn't mess with it very long before I hit on my solution to move the objective closer and never tried the original configuration again. My adapter rings are glued together now so I can't retest.

I used a 70-180 Micro-Nikkor, but found a lot of vignetting at anything less than 180mm. Highlights were smeared into crosses at the edges of the image so I didn't continue with it.

I also tried 2 105mm Micro-Nikkors, an AI and an AF-D, and both vignetted too severely to be useful.

At work, my camera was a Canon 7D and I used a Sigma 150mm macro with the Mitutoyos and it was pretty good, but not as sharp as my Nikon personal setup. I am using a Nikon D810 at home.

Steve


Steve,

Thanks. I found the same with the Micro Nikon 105 f2.8 VR, and the 70-200 F2.8 VR1 away from 200mm. Someone mentioned that with zooms the optical center gets very far back into the physical lens as you go away from max FL. Also don't think any ~100mm lens will work well and produce decent image size, even at APC (DX), maybe some of the really small sensors it may work. Like you I tend to work at FX but also use DX sometimes for the slightly finer pixel pitch, the D850 solves that nicely though Very Happy

Will be interesting to see what Lou comes up with, he's got a bunch of candidate tubes lenses around 200mm. Was hoping he had a Sigma LFA that he could compare, others (Robert I think) prefer this over other 200mm tube lenses.

Sometimes a great normal use lens, makes a lousy tube lens, the stunningly sharp Rokinon 135mm F2 is and example. However the old Nikon 200mm F4 "Q" lenses are not that good compared to modern 200mm lenses, but work very well as tube lenses....go figure Rolling Eyes

Best,
_________________
Research is like a treasure hunt, you don't know where to look or what you'll find!
~Mike
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 Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3

 
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