Here is a Nikon Multiphot auction that just closed at $3,550.
Wow.
Lens Resolution (was 'Nikon Multiphot brings $3,550')
Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau
Wow!
In these troubling financial times I can now take some consolation that my photomacrography/photomicrography hobby has increased my net capital worth! 
Hokan
Hokan
SOM, (Son Of Multiphot), a DIY macro/micro rig.w/120, 65, 35, 19mm Macro-Nikkors, Nikon AZ100 1X and 4X objectives. Nikon Plan Fluor W objectives, 10X, 20X, 40X.
With Zeiss infinity objectives, LD, Epi, APO, Plan types.
With Zeiss infinity objectives, LD, Epi, APO, Plan types.
-
Harold Gough
- Posts: 5786
- Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 2:17 am
- Location: Reading, Berkshire, England
To me "minty" means there is a hole in the middle.ChrisR wrote:No, but those 4 lenses would all be over $1000 from the guy who likes to put "minty" in his descriptions. Maybe he bought it and we'll see him with them Buy-It-Now at $2000 each.
Harold
My images are a medium for sharing some of my experiences: they are not me.
The short answer!
Taking into consideration that I am presently progressing from the lower quadrant of my learning curve. I am finding that every lens and every outfit, (Multiphot, Axiomat, field macro unit) has their "sweet spot". No one lens triumphs over the others across all illumination techniques, all inherent magnifications, all specimens. Obvious answer I know but I'm notChrisR wrote:An interesting list of optics, Hokan.
How do things like Nikon enlarger lenses stack up against the more exotic specimens in your inventory?
interested in the weaknesses of my lenses and outfits but rather the observation techniques they are best at.
I am about 25% into my winter project of testing my lenses and outfits in a standardized way to determine the strengths of each combination. Not really looking to show which is best or which is better but rather I want to know where best to use each lens/outfit. I have reflected, transmitted, combined reflected/transmitted illumination. BF, Darkfield (especially Rheinberg), stacking, Phase, (both reflected and transmitted), Pol, DIC. and oblique. I am following the path of using all of the lenses/outfits, (where appropriate) with a standardized set of specimens, i.e. slides, petri dishes, dissections, and opaque samples of animal, vegetable and mineral.
I'm narrowed my initial slide collection down to 18. Trying to reduce the number further. Not being immortal I am forced to incorporate an estimation date of my death as a limiting variable!
A grand project but I am more than little overwhelmed trying to work out the combinations and accounting for the always present variables. Murphy is always looking over my shoulder!
Within my stated goals and experimentation to date. I have been able to use the El Nikkors in specific illumination techniques and specific specimens where they are the equal if not better then some of my exotics.
The standard I am using is to take a photo, using my D300,and D700, then process, (standardized), on my computer, then printing 8x10 on my inkjet. I then compare the photos.
I apologize for the long "short answer" but I am so occupied, entranced, and excited about my project I say to much rather then to little. My wife has learned to carry on conversation with me for weeks on end without asking how my hobby is going.
Hokan
SOM, (Son Of Multiphot), a DIY macro/micro rig.w/120, 65, 35, 19mm Macro-Nikkors, Nikon AZ100 1X and 4X objectives. Nikon Plan Fluor W objectives, 10X, 20X, 40X.
With Zeiss infinity objectives, LD, Epi, APO, Plan types.
With Zeiss infinity objectives, LD, Epi, APO, Plan types.
Fair enough.
But suppose I wanted to just photograph a small (dead) fly such as this Lauxaniid, body length about 4mm, at about 4x.
If I had all the lenses (which I haven't) I believe I could capture the image with the 120 and 65mm Macro-Nikkors, perhaps the 100 and 63mm Luminars, the 50mm El Nikkor, and the 55mm CRT Nikkor.
With your experience, do you believe I would see differences between 8x10 prints? And if so, what differences?
NU09216
But suppose I wanted to just photograph a small (dead) fly such as this Lauxaniid, body length about 4mm, at about 4x.
If I had all the lenses (which I haven't) I believe I could capture the image with the 120 and 65mm Macro-Nikkors, perhaps the 100 and 63mm Luminars, the 50mm El Nikkor, and the 55mm CRT Nikkor.
With your experience, do you believe I would see differences between 8x10 prints? And if so, what differences?
NU09216
NU.
student of entomology
Quote – Holmes on ‘Entomology’
” I suppose you are an entomologist ? “
” Not quite so ambitious as that, sir. I should like to put my eyes on the individual entitled to that name.
No man can be truly called an entomologist,
sir; the subject is too vast for any single human intelligence to grasp.”
Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr
The Poet at the Breakfast Table.
Nikon camera, lenses and objectives
Olympus microscope and objectives
student of entomology
Quote – Holmes on ‘Entomology’
” I suppose you are an entomologist ? “
” Not quite so ambitious as that, sir. I should like to put my eyes on the individual entitled to that name.
No man can be truly called an entomologist,
sir; the subject is too vast for any single human intelligence to grasp.”
Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr
The Poet at the Breakfast Table.
Nikon camera, lenses and objectives
Olympus microscope and objectives
I don't yet have the answer I hope to have.
I'm not there yet. Tentatively, very, very tentatively. Assuming all lenses are used at their widest aperture. All illumination is reflected, fiberoptic 150W halogen. Same specimen, dead fly. Using each lenses I would use the 63mm Luminar at it widest aperture on my field macro unit. For 4x the 120mm and 65mm macro-nikkors need about 600mm and 300mm bellows length respectively. I only have about 200mm draw on my field bellows. 4x is closer to the 63mm Luminar's sweet spot than the approx. 1X of the 120mm macro nikkor. The 65mm macro nikkor seems to work best at around 5X.NikonUser wrote:Fair enough.
But suppose I wanted to just photograph a small (dead) fly such as this Lauxaniid, body length about 4mm, at about 4x.
If I had all the lenses (which I haven't) I believe I could capture the image with the 120 and 65mm Macro-Nikkors, perhaps the 100 and 63mm Luminars, the 50mm El Nikkor, and the 55mm CRT Nikkor.
With your experience, do you believe I would see differences between 8x10 prints? And if so, what differences?
NU09216
The 50mm f/2.8N (reversed) is better at higher magnifications than 4X.
I haven't yet figured out the best illumination for the 55mm CRT Nikkor. I keep tripping over flair.
On the Multiphot the 65mm Macro Nikkor would be my choice for 4X followed by the El Nikkor 50mm, (reversed). The 63mm Luminar, mounted on the Multiphot, gives me a better 8x10 print with the D300 than the D700.
When a third party, my wife, examines the 8x10 prints with a 10x loupe she can see more dotting patterns on the 65mm Macro prints. She can't see any differences between the 120mm macro nikkor and the El Nikkor 50mm. No prints fom the 55mm CRT Nikkor as of yet.
The confounding part is that she likes the prints form the El Nikkor 50mm better than the prints from the other 3 lenses. "It looks prettier the colors fit together better." She doesn't prefer pictures with super details throughout the print. AS I always know what lens matches with each print I can't really trust my judgement being the photographer, file modifier, and printer. I do like the 12mm macro nikkor prints more than the others. Just my subjective preference.
The variable that has the most impact on my photographs is my illumination techniques. I'm still in the "sometimes how I try to illuminate
works but not all the time" stage. So many options there also.
I believe you could tell the difference between all 5 lenses if you judged the five individual prints by only one criteria. DOF, Bokeh, etc. If all other factors are more or less equal and your only criteria is 4x magnification that most definitely you could see some differences between all five prints. But the difference would probably more reflect each lenses ability to resolve an image at 4X. I guess that is why we have different focal lengths lens.
Not sure I provided you with any helpful information.
regards,
Hokan
SOM, (Son Of Multiphot), a DIY macro/micro rig.w/120, 65, 35, 19mm Macro-Nikkors, Nikon AZ100 1X and 4X objectives. Nikon Plan Fluor W objectives, 10X, 20X, 40X.
With Zeiss infinity objectives, LD, Epi, APO, Plan types.
With Zeiss infinity objectives, LD, Epi, APO, Plan types.
Interesting data.
Recently I tested a 12cm Macro-Nikkor, 63mm Luminar, 50mm and 63mm El-nikkors (N-series) and a Tominon 105mm.
Camera was Canon 450D (now replaced). Bellows draw available up to 600mm. Illumination was fibre optics through transparent paper.
Did not print the images - my opinion is based on viewing at 100% at computer screen.
I found that, at all magnifiations, the Macro-Nikkor and Luminar were superior to the EL-nikkors and Tominon. No doubt. As to be expected, from litterature.
Sharpness is at least slightly better, colour and contrast certainly better.
The apertures I found best were at both macro lenses ap=1.5 (1 is a little bit soft), the EL-nikkors 5.6. For up to 2x I now use the Macro-Nikkor, for 2x-4x the Luminar.
BUT, another view may be:
The EL-nikkors and Tominon were bought for €25,-- (US $35), which is a big contrast compared with the macro lenses.
And in which cases are the difference in quality (post-processing included) really noticeable?
Cheers,
Barry
Recently I tested a 12cm Macro-Nikkor, 63mm Luminar, 50mm and 63mm El-nikkors (N-series) and a Tominon 105mm.
Camera was Canon 450D (now replaced). Bellows draw available up to 600mm. Illumination was fibre optics through transparent paper.
Did not print the images - my opinion is based on viewing at 100% at computer screen.
I found that, at all magnifiations, the Macro-Nikkor and Luminar were superior to the EL-nikkors and Tominon. No doubt. As to be expected, from litterature.
Sharpness is at least slightly better, colour and contrast certainly better.
The apertures I found best were at both macro lenses ap=1.5 (1 is a little bit soft), the EL-nikkors 5.6. For up to 2x I now use the Macro-Nikkor, for 2x-4x the Luminar.
BUT, another view may be:
The EL-nikkors and Tominon were bought for €25,-- (US $35), which is a big contrast compared with the macro lenses.
And in which cases are the difference in quality (post-processing included) really noticeable?
Cheers,
Barry
Hokan:
Many thanks for your detailed reply. I too find that illumination can 'make or break' an image.
I have a few lenses that together can give me very good images in the range from 1x-10x so I will not seek out other lenses for this range of magnifications; unless I find some Macro Nikkors that are selling for considerably less than the $1,000.00 I have seen them sell for.
Barry:
Sounds as though the 12cm Macro-Nikkor is a great lens, and I do have a long bellows - so perhaps it's worth a consideration. But, and a BIG but, the current prices are a non-incentive.
The 4 Macro Nikkors (+ a few accessories) that just sold on ebay for $3,550 works out to about $900.00 per lens!
Many thanks for your detailed reply. I too find that illumination can 'make or break' an image.
I have a few lenses that together can give me very good images in the range from 1x-10x so I will not seek out other lenses for this range of magnifications; unless I find some Macro Nikkors that are selling for considerably less than the $1,000.00 I have seen them sell for.
Barry:
Sounds as though the 12cm Macro-Nikkor is a great lens, and I do have a long bellows - so perhaps it's worth a consideration. But, and a BIG but, the current prices are a non-incentive.
The 4 Macro Nikkors (+ a few accessories) that just sold on ebay for $3,550 works out to about $900.00 per lens!
NU.
student of entomology
Quote – Holmes on ‘Entomology’
” I suppose you are an entomologist ? “
” Not quite so ambitious as that, sir. I should like to put my eyes on the individual entitled to that name.
No man can be truly called an entomologist,
sir; the subject is too vast for any single human intelligence to grasp.”
Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr
The Poet at the Breakfast Table.
Nikon camera, lenses and objectives
Olympus microscope and objectives
student of entomology
Quote – Holmes on ‘Entomology’
” I suppose you are an entomologist ? “
” Not quite so ambitious as that, sir. I should like to put my eyes on the individual entitled to that name.
No man can be truly called an entomologist,
sir; the subject is too vast for any single human intelligence to grasp.”
Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr
The Poet at the Breakfast Table.
Nikon camera, lenses and objectives
Olympus microscope and objectives
NU:
The MN 12cm is a nice lens, I use it with pleasure, for me it was worth the money. I saw them go for less than the price you mention. But still expensive, compared with other solutions.
Some Luminar 100mm can go for a reasonable price sometimes. But I dont know the difference in quality between the Macro-Nikkor and the Luminar - hope that Hokan can tell. I have heard the Lumi 100mm may be sensitive for flare, though.
Cheers,
Barry
The MN 12cm is a nice lens, I use it with pleasure, for me it was worth the money. I saw them go for less than the price you mention. But still expensive, compared with other solutions.
Some Luminar 100mm can go for a reasonable price sometimes. But I dont know the difference in quality between the Macro-Nikkor and the Luminar - hope that Hokan can tell. I have heard the Lumi 100mm may be sensitive for flare, though.
Cheers,
Barry
More reasonable alternative!
NU:NikonUser wrote:Hokan:
Many thanks for your detailed reply. I too find that illumination can 'make or break' an image.
I have a few lenses that together can give me very good images in the range from 1x-10x so I will not seek out other lenses for this range of magnifications; unless I find some Macro Nikkors that are selling for considerably less than the $1,000.00 I have seen them sell for.
Barry:
Sounds as though the 12cm Macro-Nikkor is a great lens, and I do have a long bellows - so perhaps it's worth a consideration. But, and a BIG but, the current prices are a non-incentive.
The 4 Macro Nikkors (+ a few accessories) that just sold on ebay for $3,550 works out to about $900.00 per lens!
I agree with you the prices on the Nikon Macro Nikkor are excessive from my perspective. I was fortunate enough to trade some of my long gone Nikon F3 collection for my Multiphot many years ago. At that time the Nikon F3 was a very popular collectors items and the Multiphot relatively unknown in collector circles. Through no foresight of my own a good friend recommended I make the trade. Best advice he ever gave me. The Macro Nikkor's reputation appears to have a certain amount of collector" mania" built into their prices.
The folks at Zeiss, Leitz, Nikon, etc. designed and manufactured their Macro lenses in sets. Each strong in specific magnification. All manufacturers deisgned their macro lenses a little bit differently, with slightly different goals in mind.
If I wanted a complete set of Macro lenses to use in the field and in a studio setting, at this time, considering current prices I would choose the Zeiss Luminar set. About half the price of the Nikkor Macro's. Some good documentation on them. When used as a set at their "sweet spots" a competent photomacrographer will consistently be able to produce outstanding prints from a 13"X19" Epson, or HP inkjet printer. I would find it hard to believe that anyone looking at the prints within their recommended viewing distance would be able to tell the difference between Zeiss Luminars and Nikkor Macros.
The Zeiss Luminars would be a better choice it you intend to use your macro lenses in the field as well as the studio due to their shorter bellow length requirements.
Lumiinars with a blue dot marking on them were the last Luminar series to be sold. (Blue dot supposedly identified Luminars that had the latest "treated" optics. Flare, reflectiions, color, etc.) The geometry and glass were the same as earlier Luminars. I have a mixture of both haven't noticed any significant difference. Maybe a half of a stop.
All that said I agree with Barry given a choice I would use the Nikkor Macro 120cm lens over the Zeiss Lumminar 100mm lens. I consider the Zeiss 100mm Luminar the lens with fewest strengths in th Luminar set. Taking into consideration each lenses "sweet spot".
The two most important variables that consistently trump the lens used are illumination and the photomacrographer. IMHO
regards,
Hokan
SOM, (Son Of Multiphot), a DIY macro/micro rig.w/120, 65, 35, 19mm Macro-Nikkors, Nikon AZ100 1X and 4X objectives. Nikon Plan Fluor W objectives, 10X, 20X, 40X.
With Zeiss infinity objectives, LD, Epi, APO, Plan types.
With Zeiss infinity objectives, LD, Epi, APO, Plan types.
An interesting discussion -- talking about using incredible glass with incredible price tags! I would especially love to try small Macro-Nikkors or Luminars (also Photars) in the 19mm to 25mm size range. This would be for magnification of 5x to about 15x. I have 1x - 5x wonderfully covered by my Canon MP-E + Twin Lite flash; very easy to use (on a stand) and superb resolution (definitely superior to an older 63mm Luminar I have). I recently acquired a Minolta 12.5 which I like very much (fantastic resolution) -- though the shallow working distance (6-8mm) is a problem. So, a slightly longer focal length would be ideal for my needs. I'm attracted to these small lenses because they have some slight depth-of-focus (compared to 4x & 10x objectives), so much thicker slices can be used in stacking. A small fly could be photographed in a stack of 40 shots, rather than the 250 needed with an objective.
Eric
Eric
Hello Eric of El Dorado Hills (If I remember correctly!)Eric F wrote:An interesting discussion -- talking about using incredible glass with incredible price tags! I would especially love to try small Macro-Nikkors or Luminars (also Photars) in the 19mm to 25mm size range. This would be for magnification of 5x to about 15x. I have 1x - 5x wonderfully covered by my Canon MP-E + Twin Lite flash; very easy to use (on a stand) and superb resolution (definitely superior to an older 63mm Luminar I have). I recently acquired a Minolta 12.5 which I like very much (fantastic resolution) -- though the shallow working distance (6-8mm) is a problem. So, a slightly longer focal length would be ideal for my needs. I'm attracted to these small lenses because they have some slight depth-of-focus (compared to 4x & 10x objectives), so much thicker slices can be used in stacking. A small fly could be photographed in a stack of 40 shots, rather than the 250 needed with an objective.
Eric
Looking at some Nikon Multiphot literature they mention there are two types of Depth of Field, (DOF). Physio-0ptical and geometric-optical. (I"m really not sure what they mean by two types of DOF. Possibly the perceived DOF of the human eye/mind and the DOF determined by Light physics and lens composition.) They go on to say they use geometric-optical calculations to determine their lenses DOF. Their reasoning being the magnifications are relatively low in photomacrography.
They use 0.1mm as the circle of least confusion calculating their DOF graphs. Adding the human eye at defined distance, and 20/20 vision is set at 0.1mm but "generally tolerable" up to 0.3mm, enlargement of around 3x is possible" Quoted from Nikon Technical Bulletin, "Theory and practice of photomacrography by Multiphot", Nippon Kogaku K.K., publication date unknown.
The formula (where t = DOF, & = circle of confusion (0.1mm), F = f-number, m = magnification. Formula: t = 2x& x F (m+1) divided by m squared) they used indicates a DOF being a function of Magnification and Lens f-number. i.e. 5X at f2 is .096mm, or 10X at f2 is .044mm
Assuming my reasoning and calculations are correct, (always a shaky assumption
) the critical variables for a photomacrographer are the magnification the lens was best designed for relative to the circle of confusion and the lens's working distance for that magnification. Other then the quality of manufacturing said lens. Other more knowledgeable folks please feel welcome to correct any faulty logic or incorrect math I un-intentionally wrote.
The sweet spot for the 19mm Nikkor-Macro appears to be 20X assuming a 35mm sized sensor. The 25mm Zeiss Luminar appears to be 16X again assuming 35mm sized sensor.
I intentionally left out both lenses bellows length and working distances for their sweet spots so as not to confuse others, and self in this disscussion.
regards,
Hokan
SOM, (Son Of Multiphot), a DIY macro/micro rig.w/120, 65, 35, 19mm Macro-Nikkors, Nikon AZ100 1X and 4X objectives. Nikon Plan Fluor W objectives, 10X, 20X, 40X.
With Zeiss infinity objectives, LD, Epi, APO, Plan types.
With Zeiss infinity objectives, LD, Epi, APO, Plan types.