Which system should I pursue?

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

Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau

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

Post by Pau »

Although not at the level of correction of the Mitutoyo Plan Apos, the UIS2 plan fluorites are good, at least for most mortals...Charles Krebs uses them, take look at:
http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... 389#144389
Pau

enricosavazzi
Posts: 1474
Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2009 2:41 pm
Location: Västerås, Sweden
Contact:

Post by enricosavazzi »

Pau wrote:Although not at the level of correction of the Mitutoyo Plan Apos, the UIS2 plan fluorites are good, at least for most mortals...Charles Krebs uses them, take look at:
http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... 389#144389
Maybe a little OOT, but I find the field of view of the Olympus UIS 10x eyepieces with 22 mm field aperture already very wide. Even without glasses I have a little trouble getting close enough to the eyepieces to see the whole field of view from edge to edge without the periphery being clipped by the element of the eyepieces closest to the eye on one side or another when I turn my eyes around to look at different parts of the field. I know I can move my head slightly to accompany the turning of the eyes, but it is a little distracting to be constantly reminded of the need of doing so.

How is it with the 26.5 mm field aperture of the UltraWide eyepieces? Do they have sufficiently wide optical elements to avoid vignetting at the eye end, or is the problem still there? I should assume that with a SuperWide FoV it is even more necessary to turn one's eyes around.

(BTW, I am unable to use multifocal glasses for a similar reason - apparently I like to swing my eyes around a lot without moving my head much, but these glasses force me instead to swing my head around to keep the eyes looking through the same part of the lenses.)
--ES

Macrero
Posts: 1166
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 8:17 am
Location: Valladolid , Spain

Post by Macrero »

Pau wrote:Although not at the level of correction of the Mitutoyo Plan Apos, the UIS2 plan fluorites are good, at least for most mortals...Charles Krebs uses them, take look at:
http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... 389#144389
Sure, they are good, I'd say excellent. Much better corrected than Nikon CF and CFI Achro's and at least as good as Nikon Fluor.

Here is a test stack with a UPlanFl 10/0.30 + Apo-Gerogon 210 at 11.6X on APS-C sensor:

https://images2.imgbox.com/8d/36/0TMXXyhU_o.jpg

Perfect coverage , excellent resolution and minimal to no aberrations. I'd have hard time picking out between the Oly and a Mitu 10 at this magnification.

Despite the same FN, the 4 and 5X shows worse coverage on camera in my experience, but are still good for up to APS-C sensors.

- Macrero
https://500px.com/macrero - Amateurs worry about equipment, Pros worry about money, Masters worry about Light

JohnyM
Posts: 463
Joined: Tue Dec 24, 2013 7:02 am

Post by JohnyM »

enricosavazzi wrote: How is it with the 26.5 mm field aperture of the UltraWide eyepieces? Do they have sufficiently wide optical elements to avoid vignetting at the eye end, or is the problem still there? I should assume that with a SuperWide FoV it is even more necessary to turn one's eyes around.
I had that problem in all UW eyepieces i've used:
-Olympus UIS 26,5
-Nikon CFIUW 25
-Nikon CFWN 26,5
-Nikon CFWN 25
-Even with Zeiss ICS 23

But personally, I didnt noticed this problem on UIS 22.

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

Post by Pau »

JohnyM wrote:
enricosavazzi wrote: How is it with the 26.5 mm field aperture of the UltraWide eyepieces? Do they have sufficiently wide optical elements to avoid vignetting at the eye end, or is the problem still there? I should assume that with a SuperWide FoV it is even more necessary to turn one's eyes around.
I had that problem in all UW eyepieces i've used:
-Olympus UIS 26,5
-Nikon CFIUW 25
-Nikon CFWN 26,5
-Nikon CFWN 25
-Even with Zeiss ICS 23

But personally, I didnt noticed this problem on UIS 22.
I suppose that the goal with super wide eyepieces is to have a more natural vision without the image limiting borders more than having the eyes rolling all the time around them. Likely it's because my short experience with high end equipment but I found them uncomfortable. I'm much more relaxed with my old Periplan 10X 18 or 10X 20 high eyepoint, even better than with my Zeiss Kpl 10X 18 with higher eyepoint and no rubber shade.

But...this thread has already deviated too much, the original thread was about objectives for macro setup.
Pau

IntusCaliga
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2018 8:32 am

Post by IntusCaliga »

Thanks everyone on the input! You all have given quite a bit to think about. I think the general gist of where I landed in my reasoning is as follows:

1-2x=Current DSLR marco setup with macro lens and extension tubes
2x+ (Finite Setup) = Lomo 3.7x objective OR Nikon 5X-A attached to Canon to RMS adapter, attached to extension tubes
2x+ (Infinity Setup) = ASPC SETUP: Lenses attached to 70-200mm with adapter, FF SETUP: Lens attached to Raynox DCR-150 with an empty tube with flocking, OBJECTIVES: Mitutoyou M Plan Apo Series because of longest working distances

Thanks again for everything! I'll be sure to post some photos when I get all my gear sorted out!
-Tony

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic