Infinity objective on low-end zoom telephoto works fine
Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau
-
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2013 1:52 am
- Location: London
- rjlittlefield
- Site Admin
- Posts: 23621
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
- Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
- Contact:
Sorry, that's not going to work very well. Those cameras have short lenses with a wide field of view. When you pair them directly with a microscope objective, what you get is a small circle of image in the middle of a black field, and the image that you do get is not much higher magnification than the camera alone will do.nmz787 wrote:How would I best use an infinity-corrected lens with a webcam or cell phone type camera, with a small lens fixed in place (which can be a pinhole or mechanical or autofocus with a voice coil)?
It is certainly possible to add yet more optics between the objective and the webcam or cell phone that will make everything play nicely together. But then you end up with what is essentially an entire microscope, with the small camera looking into the microscope's eyepiece.
--Rik
- Yousef Alhabshi
- Posts: 172
- Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2011 3:06 am
- Location: United Arab Emirates
- Contact:
- rjlittlefield
- Site Admin
- Posts: 23621
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
- Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
- Contact:
I haven't seen much data on this. There is some discussion at http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... 333#138333. Any further information you can provide will be much appreciated.Yousef Alhabshi wrote:I tried using an objective on my Nikon 70-200 F4 but got a strong huge vignette.. is this normal?
I'm using a FF cam.. but even though with a crop sensor body I'm getting almost the same results!
--Rik
This must very dependant of the lens desing (in particular of the diaphragm position). I do fine with the Canon EF 70-200 f4 L USM and a Nikon 10X objective with APSC from 200 to 140mm without vignette on APSC. Not yet tried with FF but I think it would work OK at 200mm.Yousef Alhabshi wrote:I tried using an objective on my Nikon 70-200 F4 but got a strong huge vignette.. is this normal?
I'm using a FF cam.. but even though with a crop sensor body I'm getting almost the same results!
Pau
- rjlittlefield
- Site Admin
- Posts: 23621
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
- Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
- Contact:
Yes. A related issue is how much the corners darken at wide open even when the lens is used by itself, with no objective added.Pau wrote:This must very dependant of the lens desing (in particular of the diaphragm position).
Let me step through a calculation to show why.
A 200 mm f/4 lens must accept a bundle of input rays that is 50 mm in diameter (because 200/4=50). Clearly this bundle of rays has to fit through the filter thread. According to the equipment review I see, the Nikon 70-200 f/4 has a front filter thread that is only 67mm. If a full 50mm bundle were to enter the front element, it would include no less than a circle of diameter 33 mm centered on the front element (because 50-(67/2)=16.5 and 2*16.5=33). That is far larger than the roughly 12 mm hole in the rear of a microscope objective.
So, if the lens is truly f/4 even in the corners, then it's not going to vignette when an objective is added close to its front element. (Sure, stick the objective on an extension and it can vignette like crazy.)
Instead, you'll see vignetting with the objective when the lens is not really f/4 in the corners of its field. That would be the case, for example, with the lens I diagrammed at http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... 667#131667. The lens diagrammed there has a large front element, so the corner vignetting is not very bad until the microscope objective is added. But with a small front element, the corner vignetting without added objective must be much worse. Assuming hard vignetting with a 10 mm hole at the rear of the objective, the clear aperture of the 67mm diameter lens could extend no more than 28.5 mm from the filter ring toward the center of the lens (67/2-5=28.5). That would imply a loss of around 1 f-stop in the corners, courtesy roughly half the aperture being blocked by the edge of the lens.
Interestingly, when I went looking for information about the Nikon 70-200mm f/4, one of the things I found was an illustration of corner darkening, HERE, in the section labeled "Falloff". Copying here a snippet of the whole illustration:
I'm not sure that this is the same lens that's being discussed, but in any case it seems to illustrate the problem. This amount of corner darkening at wide open by itself is not encouraging that the lens will work well in combo with a microscope objective.
--Rik
- Yousef Alhabshi
- Posts: 172
- Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2011 3:06 am
- Location: United Arab Emirates
- Contact:
Somehow I didn't get any notifications on my email with the new replies.. so apology for my late reply.
It does has VRiii technology.. I tried to shoot some pictures @1/25sec @200mm handheld & it was razor sharp (although I found a strange glow in the mid of the picture once the VR is activated.. but I won't confirm anything at this stage).
One of the reason I purchase it for.. was to use it as a medium for my infinity objectives & to be compared against the bellows+Morfanon combination.
I'll post some smaples today using the Nikon 70-200 F4 with different aperture setting just to see if there are any differences. does it matter which objective i'm using here?Rik wrote:I haven't seen much data on this. There is some discussion at http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... 333#138333. Any further information you can provide will be much appreciated.
I really like the performance of this lens.. it overperforms even its older sister the Nikon 70-200 VRII F2.8!ChrisR wrote:I didn't even realise they made a 70-200 f/4, until I just looked!
It does has VRiii technology.. I tried to shoot some pictures @1/25sec @200mm handheld & it was razor sharp (although I found a strange glow in the mid of the picture once the VR is activated.. but I won't confirm anything at this stage).
One of the reason I purchase it for.. was to use it as a medium for my infinity objectives & to be compared against the bellows+Morfanon combination.
I believe it's the same lens since they do have only one version of 70-200 F4. So in theory, will it matter if I use the lens at smaller aperture? I mean as affecting the sharpness? (I'll try to pixelpeep the results today)Rik wrote:I'm not sure that this is the same lens that's being discussed, but in any case it seems to illustrate the problem. This amount of corner darkening at wide open by itself is not encouraging that the lens will work well in combo with a microscope objective.
I start to doubt that the results with this lens might be somehow different than with what Canon lens can produce!Pau wrote:This must very dependant of the lens desing (in particular of the diaphragm position). I do fine with the Canon EF 70-200 f4 L USM and a Nikon 10X objective with APSC from 200 to 140mm without vignette on APSC. Not yet tried with FF but I think it would work OK at 200mm.
- rjlittlefield
- Site Admin
- Posts: 23621
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
- Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
- Contact:
The rear lens (the 200 mm in this case) should always be set to its widest possible aperture to minimize vignetting.
The microscope objective will stop down the entire system to around effective f/20. The formula is effective f-number = magnification/(2*NA), so for example at 10X NA 0.25 it is 10/(2*0.25) = 20.
There may be slight differences depending on which objective you use, but since all objectives have about the same diameter hole at about the same place, I would not expect major differences.
--Rik
The microscope objective will stop down the entire system to around effective f/20. The formula is effective f-number = magnification/(2*NA), so for example at 10X NA 0.25 it is 10/(2*0.25) = 20.
There may be slight differences depending on which objective you use, but since all objectives have about the same diameter hole at about the same place, I would not expect major differences.
--Rik
rjlittlefield has the right of it.
If a camera lens vignettes seriously wide open then it MUST kill the corners used as a tube lens.
If the front lens element is seriously wider than (focal length)/(maximum aperture) then even total lack of vignetting is not proof of suitability as a tube lens.
Assuming best case of (set aperture) = (focal length)/(front lens diameter) then the the objective MUST vignette by about a stop where wide open vignetting reaches roughly about a stop and a half. After that vignetting becomes total rapidly.
That also makes the assumption that there is zero distance between the optical center of the objective and the surface of the camera lens. Not a reasonable assumption from what I have seen. I wouldn't have much faith over 1 stop vignetting wide open.
The point being that from published data alone one could dismiss a fair number of camera lenses as viable tube lenses.
If a camera lens vignettes seriously wide open then it MUST kill the corners used as a tube lens.
If the front lens element is seriously wider than (focal length)/(maximum aperture) then even total lack of vignetting is not proof of suitability as a tube lens.
Assuming best case of (set aperture) = (focal length)/(front lens diameter) then the the objective MUST vignette by about a stop where wide open vignetting reaches roughly about a stop and a half. After that vignetting becomes total rapidly.
That also makes the assumption that there is zero distance between the optical center of the objective and the surface of the camera lens. Not a reasonable assumption from what I have seen. I wouldn't have much faith over 1 stop vignetting wide open.
The point being that from published data alone one could dismiss a fair number of camera lenses as viable tube lenses.
- rjlittlefield
- Site Admin
- Posts: 23621
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
- Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
- Contact:
At 400 mm I expect it would, but that's only guessing from experiences reported with other Canon lenses. At 200 mm, I would expect vignetting, again only from extrapolation.Do you think this would work with the Canon EF 100-400mm tele zoom?
If you have such a lens, then you can test it without an objective by sticking a mask in where the objective would go. If you don't have such a lens, then I would strongly recommend not getting one in anticipation that it would work OK at much less than full length.
--Rik
Edit: fix misleading typo, "full aperture" --> "full length".
Last edited by rjlittlefield on Wed Jul 23, 2014 6:21 am, edited 1 time in total.