pen tip

[lothman]

stack with combine out of 54 pics taken with a Tominon 4/35mm @f=4

IMO the lens does a great job considering what you have to pay on ebay (20-70$). Would I see a difference using a Luminar?

Regards
Lothman




same lens used on a burnt match.

[rjlittlefield]

Excellent pictures!

Would I see a difference using a Luminar?

Probably not, at least not any that would be worth the price. My kit includes Olympus bellows macro lenses at 38 mm f/2.8, and 20 mm f/2, plus Luminar 16 mm f/2.5, and an assortment of microscope objectives. The Luminar is definitely sharper than either of the Olympus lenses, but it's not nearly as sharp as even pretty cheap microscope objectives. Certainly it's nowhere near as sharp at same magnification as the Nikon CF N Plan Achro 10X NA 0.30 that several of us are so fond of using.

Compared against the Tominon, the Luminar would perhaps give you a detectable improvement at the magnifications shown here. I doubt that it would be a "noticeable" improvement, meaning a difference that most viewers would spontaneously notice. In the crop you show of the second image, it appears the Tominon is capturing detail at the level of individual pixels. No lens can capture more detail than that. A sharper lens might give higher contrast at the same level of detail, but most of that difference can be made up by software sharpening.

At higher magnifications, the Luminar might give a noticeable improvement over the Tominon. But that improvement would fall far short of what you could get with a microscope objective and a stack with more frames to compensate for the reduced depth of field per frame.

--Rik

Edit: to correct aperture of the 16 mmm Luminar.

[Cyclops]

Very nice pics there. Now what's a Luminar?

[rjlittlefield]

Now what's a Luminar?

Brand name for a line of macro lenses manufactured by Zeiss. They are famous for their quality. However, most people don't realize that the Luminar lenses were optimized for conditions other than sticking them on bellows in front of a DSLR sensor. When used in that way, they're still very good, but not as good as their reputation would suggest.

--Rik

[DaveW]

Cyclops,

This group of lenses are somewhere in between normal camera lenses and microscope lenses and usually originally designed to go on a macro photography rig like the Nikon Multiphot. They are now usually used on bellows for macro work, even if you can still find them at a reasonable price. See:-

http://www.microscopyu.com/museum/multiphot.html

http://goto.glocalnet.net/savazzi.net/p ... rsions.htm

Macro Nikkor's are similar (note: not the conventional Micro Nikkor infinity to 1:1 camera lens)

http://homepage2.nifty.com/akiyanroom/r ... amily.html

Also see for a list of similar lenses:-

http://www.macrolenses.de/objektive.php ... 21deec0a8f

DaveW

[Cyclops]

Good stuff Dave. i like the look of that Multiphot! Could have fun with that!

Thanks for the explantation too Rik!

[DaveW]

If you have ever wondered why Nikon's camera "macro" lenses are called Micro Nikkor's instead of Macro like other makers, it is because the name Macro Nikkor was already in use for the Multiphot lenses which predated them.

DaveW

[lothman]

Thanks Rik and Dave for your explanations, I think I'll have to try a microscope lens.

Lothman

[Cyclops]

If you have ever wondered why Nikon's camera "macro" lenses are called Micro Nikkor's instead of Macro like other makers, it is because the name Macro Nikkor was already in use for the Multiphot lenses which predated them.

DaveW

So Multiphot had a licence from Nikon to use the name Nikkor? Or was Multiphot actually made by nikon?

[DaveW]

It was the Nikon Multiphot and made by them. I believe Leica's similar device was the Aristophot. There is a picture of one along with many other macro items in this link:-

http://www.glennview.com/copy.htm

I don't know whether Zeiss made similar devices but Wild did:-

http://www.microscopy-uk.org.uk/mag/ind ... a-m420.htm

Watson was making similar laboratory devices in 1910 (see bottom of link):-

http://www.micrographia.com/articlz/art ... pc0500.htm

I only knew about most of these old systems from reading "Photomacrography, An Introduction" by William White, 1987, Butterworth Publishers USA, ISBN 0-240-51189-1.

Most seem to have gradually disappeared with the introduction of the 35mm SLR and DSLR, to be generally replaced by the copy stand with a SLR/DSLR using bellows.

The optical bench method of coupling both subject and camera together on rails, like a headstock and tailstock on a lathe bed, does not seem to have been taken up as much as it could in recent years in order to ensure both subject and camera vibrate in sympathy. In fact an old lathe bed would make a very good base for a macro system.

However Oxford Scientific Films in the past used this method and claimed they could do macrophotography on the moving deck of a ship at sea since both camera and subject were held steady in relation to each other so they moved in unison.

DaveW