| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ChrisR
Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Posts: 3044
Location: Near London, UK
|
 Posted: Wed Jan 26, 2011 4:53 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Someone asked about a 135mm f3.5 Nikkor. Well, I hadn't bought a lens all week, so....
It does not vignette with a Nikon CFI 60 10x NA0.25 objective, on a 24 x 36mm sensor. In fact the corners don't darken until about f/8.
A 100mm f/2.8 Series E does vignette, though.
The 135mm looks "ok" through the viewfinder but I haven't had time to do any tests.
My test subject was something I hadn't thought to try before - the LCD display on the back of a compact camera. I feel an i-phone app coming on.  They are self-illuminating and have sharp details... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Craig Gerard
Joined: 01 May 2010
Posts: 2598
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 26, 2011 6:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Chris,
Looking forward to additional observations.
A 135mm used as a tube lense for a CFI60 10X on a FF DSLR.  What's the FOV?
Using a 135mm prime in combination with a CFI60 10X on an APS-C provides a respectable and acceptable outcome.
At one stage, I did take an image of an IPS panel. The result was rather odd, I need to revisit the image to refresh my memory. Instead of nice neat rectangles, it looked more like rectangles containing melted R, G and B blobs (though consistent across frame).
Craig
_________________
To use a classic quote from 'Antz' - "I almost know exactly what I'm doing!" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChrisLilley
Joined: 01 May 2010
Posts: 680
Location: Nice, France (I'm British)
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 26, 2011 7:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ChrisR wrote: |
It does not vignette with a Nikon CFI 60 10x NA0.25 objective, on a 24 x 36mm sensor. In fact the corners don't darken until about f/8.
A 100mm f/2.8 Series E does vignette, though.
|
Was that the AI/AIS version or the older Nikkor-Q??
I see you reported a similar result with the Nikkor 135/2.8 - Ai/AIS, I guess, rather than the Nikkor-Q?
In both cases there was a lens design change between the older and the later models, which is why I ask.
Nikon 135mm lens specifications. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChrisR
Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Posts: 3044
Location: Near London, UK
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 27, 2011 12:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yes both ai/ais. And I'm not going to buy an old one to compare  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Blame
Joined: 14 May 2010
Posts: 212
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 27, 2011 4:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
morfa's last test with his "cheap tube lens" showed good corners down to 160mm with a FF camera and the mitutoyo.
Given other results, I am begining to believe that the right 135mm tube lens is a valid choice for FF and 90mm for cropped - as long as you don't insist on sharp corners.
Now for the difficult question. What is the right choice for a 135mm tube lens?
I must say that I am scanning the surplus sites in the hope of a reasonably thin apochromatic 120-150mm lens. It could have a diameter down to not much more than 11mm, and work with most objectives, athough the infinite version of the nikon 4/0.2 would need over 20mm. A projector lens perhaps?
After all the huge beasts tried, it would be nice to find a small solution. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChrisR
Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Posts: 3044
Location: Near London, UK
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 27, 2011 12:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | it would be nice to find a small solution |
Well, off the top of my head, how about something like this - it's a Rodagon Apo-Ronar 150mm f/9? Should fit inside a set of tubes or bellows. The film box is for scale, and to appeal to Harold...
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Blame
Joined: 14 May 2010
Posts: 212
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 27, 2011 4:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
lol.
Just hold that position while I take a stack.
But seriously, that lens is optomised for 1:1. I need one optomised for infinity on one side and roughly 135mm on the other. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dmillard
Joined: 24 Oct 2006
Posts: 456
Location: Austin, Texas
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 27, 2011 4:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Blame wrote: | lol.
But seriously, that lens is optomised for 1:1. I need one optomised for infinity on one side and roughly 135mm on the other. |
Why?  I've gotten very good results with a longer Apo-Ronar and a Fujinon A, and I believe Charles Krebs has had the same experience with a Nikon process lens - none of these lenses are optimised for infinity, although they will perform very well over a range of magnifications.
David |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Oskar O
Joined: 13 Dec 2010
Posts: 242
Location: Finland
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 28, 2011 2:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| dmillard wrote: | | Blame wrote: | lol.
But seriously, that lens is optomised for 1:1. I need one optomised for infinity on one side and roughly 135mm on the other. |
Why? I've gotten very good results with a longer Apo-Ronar and a Fujinon A, and I believe Charles Krebs has had the same experience with a Nikon process lens - none of these lenses are optimised for infinity, although they will perform very well over a range of magnifications.
David |
I agree with David; a lot of large format photographers have happily used 4-element process lenses for larger distances too.
Of course there are 180 and 210 large format lenses designed for infinity, they are slightly larger, but by no means huge. Only thing is that they tend to be shutter mounted, which may not be what you want... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Blame
Joined: 14 May 2010
Posts: 212
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 28, 2011 5:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hm. I am going to have to think about this.
Ok. Lets look at the problem. I have a 24 megapixel full frame camera, and a pair of mitutoyo objectives that can give the equivalent of f/12 when used with a 135mm tube lens.
In theory those 2 components can give stunning detail with some question as to which is the weakest link. Admittedly the corners should suffer but up to the side it should be about as good a resolution as can be had outside medium format cameras.
The kit represents a lot of money for very slight improvements. Admittedly not the sort of money I actually paid, but it has to be said that a canon 550D and a budget Nikon 10x would do almost as well.
Bottom line is that if the tube lens has to be the best possible. The mitutoyo should get to the image quality of a decent camera lens. If I use a tube lens that, as used, offers the same image quality I have doubled the image degradation.
Very good is not good enough. I want perfection. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Charles Krebs
Joined: 01 Aug 2006
Posts: 4072
Location: Issaquah, WA USA
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 28, 2011 12:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Blame, | Quote: | | Now for the difficult question. What is the right choice for a 135mm tube lens? |
| Quote: |
But seriously, that lens is optomised for 1:1. I need one optomised for infinity on one side and roughly 135mm on the other. |
The optimization for "infinity" makes sense, but I'm not so sure that in reality it makes that much difference. I've had very good results with a 210mm Apo Nikkor, 150mm Rodenstock Apo Gerogon, and a 240mm Apo Gerogon. Hard to distinguish from mounting on the front of a SLR lens (and in some cases better).
But if you are determined to use a 135mm lens, a 24x36mm sensor, and want "infinity" optimization in the tube lens then you should probably look to large format lenses. There are "modestly" priced ones (like this 135mm Xenar... ebay 200469921273) up to premium ones...(Apo Symmar, Apo Sironar-S) and a large number in between...(Nikkor W, Fujinon-W, Symmar-S and many more). These are usually in #0 or #1 shutters, but there are plain barrels that can also fit the front and rear components.
These lenses are pretty small. I think a key attribute of these would be the ability to get the "tube lens" diaphragm very close to the objective; something that is not easy to do with SLR lenses. This seems to provide the largest "coverage", at least as far as illumination is concerned. (And, if you are lucky, there might be a nice side benefit. With one arrangement I tried with a 150mm Apo process lens I could actually close down the aperture and instead of vignetting, it effectively "stopped down" the objective. So it would be possible to get a more natural DOF fall-off by closing it down for the last few images of a deep stack. Diffraction made the resolution poor, but used in that way it doesn't matter).
_________________
http://www.krebsmicro.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pludder
Joined: 01 Dec 2008
Posts: 23
Location: Uppsala, Sweden
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 28, 2011 3:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi,
Did anyone else buy a "Nikon CFI M25 microscope objective to M52 52mm adapter" from ebay?
I got one for my 10x 0.25 CFI, and I can't attach the lens to the adapter. It feels like the hole is the correct size but the thread pitch is wrong or something. The inner diameter is just over 24mm so ok I would think. Perhaps the thread is just bad in the adapter allthough I can't tell with my eye  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chris S.
Joined: 05 Apr 2009
Posts: 1087
Location: Ohio, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 28, 2011 3:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pludder wrote: | Hi,
Did anyone else buy a "Nikon CFI M25 microscope objective to M52 52mm adapter" from ebay?
I got one for my 10x 0.25 CFI, and I can't attach the lens to the adapter. It feels like the hole is the correct size but the thread pitch is wrong or something. The inner diameter is just over 24mm so ok I would think. Perhaps the thread is just bad in the adapter allthough I can't tell with my eye |
Pludder, if the vendor is Jinfinance, just email him, and he'll take good care of you. I've made several purchases from him, and each has been an excellent product--until one adapter I received a couple weeks ago. That adapter was an M26-52mm, so not the same one as yours, but my problem was just as you describe. The diameter measured properly, but the adapter would not thread.
I emailed R.J. (Jinfinance), and he replied immediately and quickly sent me a replacement at no charge. It works great. I'm sure he'll fix you up. Also, he'll probably find the communication useful, as it might help him track down a production glitch.
Cheers,
--Chris |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pludder
Joined: 01 Dec 2008
Posts: 23
Location: Uppsala, Sweden
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 28, 2011 4:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks for the info Chris, yes that's the seller I bought it from.
He didn't ask for a return of the bad one right? I thought I would just file off the threads to be able to use it while I wait for a replacement and add some hot glue to lock the lens in place.
/Per |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chris S.
Joined: 05 Apr 2009
Posts: 1087
Location: Ohio, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 28, 2011 4:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Per, he told me not to bother returning the bad one. Good luck! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
