4X Objective Test Part Two - High End Objectives

Have questions about the equipment used for macro- or micro- photography? Post those questions in this forum.

Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau

RobertOToole
Posts: 2627
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:34 pm
Location: United States
Contact:

Re: 4x Test, part 2

Post by RobertOToole »

typestar wrote:Dear Robert,

again a GREAT Work with this second part of your huge tests and how you let us benefit from your results. Thankyou!
Thanks for the interest.

typestar wrote: Encouraging results for the "lower" Nikon CFI Plan Fluor lens (and the tiny Lomo 3,7x). Interesting to see the final 5x lenses pushed down a little...
(Like the Nikon LU Plan 5x...)
The LU Plan Fluor didn't make this test but I have it ready when I start the 5X comparison. This lens has a large 32mm mount so I had to order a new adapter.

typestar wrote: This work must be very exhausting,
so much power for the rest of your testing. :)

All the best,

christian
Thanks :D

RobertOToole
Posts: 2627
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:34 pm
Location: United States
Contact:

Post by RobertOToole »

Pau wrote:Thanks for your answers-
RobertOToole wrote:The server sends out an image based on the device type res, it has 5 sizes, up to 1500px. I can upload larger but it will slow the site down. If this is the case, you are already at 1500px. If you are on a small screen, hitting the new image it will go full size or 1500px.

Does that makes sense?
Yes, it does. I have a 24" monitor and the images directly open at 1500px wide, although with the phone even at portrait position clicking on them does nothing.
Ok.

My phone does the same, but the resolution is 2560 x 1440 so it makes sense.

If you would like you can always save any of the images and compare them later, or you can always PM me and I upload and send a link to a full size file.

All the best,

Robert

Pau
Site Admin
Posts: 6051
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 8:57 am
Location: Valencia, Spain

Post by Pau »

RobertOToole wrote: ...
My phone does the same, but the resolution is 2560 x 1440 so it makes sense.

If you would like you can always save any of the images and compare them later, or you can always PM me and I upload and send a link to a full size file.

All the best,

Robert
Mine is 1080 x 1920, so it also makes sense

Thanks!, I'll request you few ones to compare
Pau

typestar
Posts: 199
Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2009 1:45 am
Location: Austria

Nikon TU Plan specs

Post by typestar »

RobertOToole wrote: Also I plan to run a 5X test soon,... TU plan Fluor 5X (fresnel lens!) ....
Robert, This will be very interesting, too.
Please correct me, I read about them before. So I am not sure, of course... but according to this product-sheet, the technique is described as "Fly's eye lens" ---

http://www.optoteam.at/fileadmin/optote ... Lenses.pdf (this seems to be from year 2014)

only the higher Nikon TU Plan Fluor BD 20x, 50x and 100x lens seem to be equipped with this "Fly's eye lens" ---

This: https://www.nikonmetrology.com/images/b ... v-n-de.pdf (German, late september 2017) shows the same specs for these lenses...

The phase-fresnel lenses also seem to be built in the higher enlarging TU lenses only (?)
Nikon does not list their LU Plan Fluor lenses anymore, so the TU lenses seem to be their successors (?).

Christian
Last edited by typestar on Sun Dec 17, 2017 1:28 pm, edited 2 times in total.

RobertOToole
Posts: 2627
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:34 pm
Location: United States
Contact:

Re: Nikon TU Plan specs

Post by RobertOToole »

typestar wrote:
Nikon does not list their LU Plan Fluor lenses anymore, so the TU lenses seem to be their successors (?).

Christian
Yes, I noticed that in a Japanese catalog, the TU lenses seem to have taken over. I am looking forward to getting one!

I thought all the TU lenses had fresnel elements, I could be wrong.

Robert

Online
Adalbert
Posts: 2425
Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2015 1:09 pm

Post by Adalbert »

Hello Robert,
Very interesting test!
Would you please describe the Sigma 200mm tube lens, you have used for the infinity lenses?
BTW, I like NIKON BE 4x too (but mostly use the LU Plan 5x).
Thank you in advance.
BR, ADi

ChrisR
Site Admin
Posts: 8668
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 3:58 am
Location: Near London, UK

Post by ChrisR »

I can answer that one Adi -
It's a Life Size Adapter which was designed to go with a Sigma 90mm Macro lens. There are about 3 on ebay (withe 90mm) at the moment.
A couple of forum members use them now. (Saul I think).

It's rumoured to have ED glass. Meaning low dispersion, which means the red and blue ends of the spectrum are less widely separated, so less CA.
They're 52mm both ends so very convenient.
The usual ebay price is around $10 - $30. That may rise now :roll: !
Chris R

mawyatt
Posts: 2497
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 6:54 pm
Location: Clearwater, Florida

Post by mawyatt »

I picked one on eBay awhile back for about $20. They are about as good as the Raynox 150 with maybe slightly less CA as Chris mentioned. Also as Chris mentioned the 52mm threads are very nice too!

I'm using one with a Mitutoyo 10X now, results seem good.

Happy Holidays,

Mike

Saul
Posts: 1781
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 11:59 am
Location: Naperville, IL USA
Contact:

Post by Saul »

Agree with Mike and Chris. And better edges (compared with Nikon MXA 20969 )
I got mine at KEH.
Saul
μ-stuff

RobertOToole
Posts: 2627
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:34 pm
Location: United States
Contact:

Post by RobertOToole »

ChrisR wrote:I can answer that one Adi -
It's a Life Size Adapter which was designed to go with a Sigma 90mm Macro lens. There are about 3 on ebay (withe 90mm) at the moment.
A couple of forum members use them now. (Saul I think).

It's rumoured to have ED glass. Meaning low dispersion, which means the red and blue ends of the spectrum are less widely separated, so less CA.
They're 52mm both ends so very convenient.
The usual ebay price is around $10 - $30. That may rise now :roll: !
Chris is correct. That is the one.

These Sigma Life Size Adapter haven't been made is a long time so if you buy one make sure you check it for haze as you would all lenses that old.

Robert

Online
Adalbert
Posts: 2425
Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2015 1:09 pm

Post by Adalbert »

Hello Robert,
Do you mean the SIGMA LIFE-SIZE ATTACHEMENT Ø52, that should be used at F8 ~ F22 ?
May I assume that you have used this lens (and only this one) as a tube-lens in your test for all microscope-objectives corrected to the infinity?
BR, ADi

RobertOToole
Posts: 2627
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:34 pm
Location: United States
Contact:

Post by RobertOToole »

Adalbert wrote:Hello Robert,
Do you mean the SIGMA LIFE-SIZE ATTACHEMENT Ø52, that should be used at F8 ~ F22 ?
May I assume that you have used this lens (and only this one) as a tube-lens in your test for all microscope-objectives corrected to the infinity?
BR, ADi
Hello Adi,

No. You can use it as a normal tube lens.

(That recommendation is for use on a Sigma 90mm macro lens)

The Sigma diopter is my standard tube lens. I see better results and less chromatic aberration with the Sigma than using the Raynox DCR-150.

All the best,

Robert

Online
Adalbert
Posts: 2425
Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2015 1:09 pm

Post by Adalbert »

Hello Robert,
Many thanks!
Actually I have asked for the tube lens, because I have been looking for the best one for my LU Plans 5x / 10x / 20x.
BR, ADi

Daniel_Han
Posts: 25
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2015 11:05 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by Daniel_Han »

Really like the sturdy setup for the M42 tubes using the thorlabs sm2rc!
The world of Macro is a world that most people are missing.

RobertOToole
Posts: 2627
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:34 pm
Location: United States
Contact:

Post by RobertOToole »

Daniel_Han wrote:Really like the sturdy setup for the M42 tubes using the thorlabs sm2rc!
Hi Daniel,

Yeah they work great. I got lucky when I purchased a lens set-up that came with the thick-walled no-name M42 tubes that fit the thorlabs clamps. Trouble is I have no clue who made 'em.

FYI, I asked RAF camera to make similar dimension tubes. If you are interested, they should be ready and up on his site in a couple of weeks. These should be a lot easier and less expensive than having some made on your own.

All the best,

Robert

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic