Upcoming: Leica Elpro 2 vs DCR5320Pro vs DCR150

[CrispyBee]

Using a Mitutoyo 5x M PLAN APO I'm planning to compare the Leica Elpro2 , DCR5320Pro and DCR150.

For the Elpro2 and DCR150 I'll test them in regular and reversed orientation but the DCR5320Pro offers a lot more options as is consists of two achromatic dioptres: +3 and +2 (combined +5).

So potentially it could be made to work for:

1. A + B both regular orientation
2. A+ B both reversed
3. B + A both regular orientation
4. B + A both reversed
5. A reversed + B regular orientation
6. A regular + B reversed orientation
7. B reversed + A regular orientation
8. B regular + A reversed orientation.

And on top of that.... it would also allow for all these options with increased space between the dioptres. That's one the most interesting possibilities I've thought about, that might allow a sort of "fine-tuning" not unlike a float element adjustment. Some people havein creased the spacing between front and rear cells on large/medium format lenses to account for sensor stack thickness, wouldn't it (in theory) be possible to do similar adjustment on a tube lens to account for sensor stack thickness and/or even cover-glass thickness?

Has anyone ever tried to play with the spacing of tube lens elements?
Would that even work or should I just forget about it?
I've wanted to do that on a Componon 210mm but the threads don't allow for that because it quickly becomes de-centred. But with common 72mm threads like on the DCR 5320 pro it should be very easy to increase the space in finer or larger increments.

[heartprairie]

Any chance you could acquire an Olympus A-Life Size Macro converter for comparison? It has a distinctive marking of "f=13cm" on its side, suggesting it is similar in focal length to Raynox's 250.

[CrispyBee]

Any chance you could acquire an Olympus A-Life Size Macro converter for comparison? It has a distinctive marking of "f=13cm" on its side, suggesting it is similar in focal length to Raynox's 250.

I don't think so, I mean it could very interesting but with 130mm it'd fall outside the scope of this comparison.

Does the Olympus A-Life-Size converter even have a thread on the front?

[Alan Wood]

Does the Olympus A-Life-Size converter even have a thread on the front?

I have just checked my Olympus A-Life Size Macro H.Q. converter f=13cm, and it does not have a front filter thread.

Alan Wood

[Lou Jost]

I look forward to your experiments!

[lothman]

as a loaner I could offer:
- Sigma life size lens (52x0.75mm threads on both sides) see also https://www.closeuphotography.com/sigma ... 2rzfuyix5e

- old Leitz Elpro VIb (4.9 diopters, 44x0.75mm threads, Raf Adapter available)

P.S.: the Leitz Elmaron 3.6/200mm slide projector lens will need at first a date with a lathe in order to be adaptable

[CrispyBee]

I look forward to your experiments!

I'm still debating whether it makes sense to do these experiments on the GFX50S (currently I only have the 50S and a Sony A6000 which is not really suitable for that stuff) or to get a Sony A7RV within the next week or so and make the comparisons on that camera.
I actually wanted to get the A1 II but the list of preorders is longer than my patience ;-)

Does the Olympus A-Life-Size converter even have a thread on the front?

I have just checked my Olympus A-Life Size Macro H.Q. converter f=13cm, and it does not have a front filter thread.

Alan Wood

Thanks for checking - I thought so when looking at the images I've seen but it's good to get confirmation before spending any money.

as a loaner I could offer:
- Sigma life size lens (52x0.75mm threads on both sides) see also https://www.closeuphotography.com/sigma ... 2rzfuyix5e

- old Leitz Elpro VIb (4.9 diopters, 44x0.75mm threads, Raf Adapter available)

CU_lenses.jpg


P.S.: the Leitz Elmaron 3.6/200mm slide projector lens will need at first a date with a lathe in order to be adaptable

I think the Elpro VIb is the same as the Elpro 2, the only difference is the thread (44x0,75 which is a bit unusual wheras the Elpro2 has a "dual-thread" with 55x0,75 and 52x0,75)
But the Sigma LSA might be interesting, thank you for offering!
I think I'll check the local craigslist and other sources first as shipping back and forth may be more expensive than getting the LSA and reselling it later

[Lou Jost]

Robert O'Toole really liked the Sigma LSA for a while.

[CrispyBee]

Robert O'Toole really liked the Sigma LSA for a while.

Though it seems in the tube lens test it didn't do too well compared to the DCR 150 - maybe it's not necessary to test this lens after all

This is mostly because back in the day nathanm (Nathan Myhrvold) made some medium format tube lens tests where the Leica Elpro2 and DCR 5320Pro did better than the DCR150, I'm trying to find it whether that's also true for fullframe.

[Lou Jost]

Robert O'Toole really liked the Sigma LSA for a while.

Though it seems in the tube lens test it didn't do too well compared to the DCR 150 - maybe it's not necessary to test this lens after all

This is mostly because back in the day nathanm (Nathan Myhrvold) made some medium format tube lens tests where the Leica Elpro2 and DCR 5320Pro did better than the DCR150, I'm trying to find it whether that's also true for fullframe.

I've probably said this before, but you might want to check out a good medium format lens. The best I have tried are: 200mm Mamiya Apo 645, 250mm Apo Sekor 6x7, 300mm Pentax M* (green markings) both 645 and 6x7. These are my standard tube lenses now. I had tested an Elpro and a Raynox 5320 some years ago but can't remember the results.

[CrispyBee]

Robert O'Toole really liked the Sigma LSA for a while.

Though it seems in the tube lens test it didn't do too well compared to the DCR 150 - maybe it's not necessary to test this lens after all

This is mostly because back in the day nathanm (Nathan Myhrvold) made some medium format tube lens tests where the Leica Elpro2 and DCR 5320Pro did better than the DCR150, I'm trying to find it whether that's also true for fullframe.

I've probably said this before, but you might want to check out a good medium format lens. The best I have tried are: 200mm Mamiya Apo 645, 250mm Apo Sekor 6x7, 300mm Pentax M* (green markings) both 645 and 6x7. These are my standard tube lenses now. I had tested an Elpro and a Raynox 5320 some years ago but can't remember the results.

I know but it's just a question of feasibility, ease of use and $. These lenses are closer to 700-1000$ right now, add the adapters and it's a pretty hefty proposition - and then you can't rotate them in most cases. I think only the 300mm Pentax M* has a tripod collar so that's not really ideal...

[lothman]

this is how the Elmaron looks like, with a custom adapter this will be very rigid. The Elmaron is a 4 element lens design, compared to 3-element Raynox and 2-element design of Elpro, Kenco...

[Lou Jost]

I know but it's just a question of feasibility, ease of use and $. These lenses are closer to 700-1000$ right now, add the adapters and it's a pretty hefty proposition - and then you can't rotate them in most cases. I think only the 300mm Pentax M* has a tripod collar so that's not really ideal...

Yes, that's the only one with a tripod mount. My system is vertical so I don't notice that, but others might.

[CrispyBee]

Alright so, I think I can make this fairly short as it really wouldn't make sense to post all the images as most of them simply didn't work out.

So let's start with the test conditions:

GFX50S
objective Mitutoyo M PLAN APO 5x / NA 0.14
Pentax 6x7 bellows

Although the sensor is 44x33mm I intentionally cropped the final images to fullframe and moved the crop so all four corners would be even. This is in order to avoid any possible misalignment that could distort the results.
The DCR5320Pro was tested in all possible combinations but if the results were clearly bad (which was the case most of the time) I didn't do further experiments with spacing and that wouldn't really help with the final image.
All photos are stacked in HeliconFocus (MethodB, Rad8, Smooth2) and edited in CaptureOne.
Contrast was heavily reduced to highlight possible issues like spherical aberrations, glow, haze etc.
No other adjustments were made.
The lighting remained consistent and unchanged between the shots.

Here's the target:



It's not a "pretty" target but pretty ruthless when it comes to chromatic aberrations, spherical aberrations, distortions etc. and any potential issues are heavily exaggerated and enhanced. This makes a comparison way easier.

And here are the results with the approximate spacing between the tube lens and objective:











Best to worst:
DCR-5320Pro reversed
DCR-150 reversed
DCR-5320Pro / Leitz Elpro2
Leitz Elpro2 reversed

Some notes:
It was very interesting experimenting with the DCR5320 Pro but it was very evident when certain combinations didn't work, the chromatic and spherical aberrations made the image unusable. The only combinations that worked were regular (camera => +2 => +3 => objective) and reversed (camera => +3 reversed => +2 reversed => objective) but it's clear to see that regular orientation resulted in heavy chromatic aberrations and distortions, though the contrast was very good.
Increasing the spacing between the +2 and +3 increased spherical aberrations regardless of the combination, as did increasing the distance between the tube lens and objective - I'm fairly certain that reducing the space even further will continue to improve the results but that would require a special adapter to be made.
NathanM used the regular orientation (A+B / +2 => +3) for his medium format build and reduced the spacing to only a few mm, for me that made very little difference and instead increased spherical aberrations. Reversing the orientation improved the image very noticeably, though the center is no quite as good (win some, lose some).

The biggest problem with the comparison was keeping the same magnification due to the vastly different distortions of the tube lenses - especially in the corners vs centre. Measuring the distance between the tube lens and sensor was extremely unreliable, but I think the result is close enough. It looks like the DCR-5320Pro was shot at a slightly higher magnification but the FOV is pretty much the same as on the reversed DCR-150 - the distortions are what skewed the result. Might be worth to try and equalise the centre but then the overall FOV would change... difficult to say what would be best.

To me the reversed DCR 5320 Pro delivered the best result in any case but it has to be said that it's really big and heavy and mounting the 72mm diameter beast to a bellows is not an easy task. But the difference between the 5320Pro and the 150 on APSC is very small, on APSC I'd definitely use the 150, on fullframe probbaly the 5320Pro if you can get a great deal on it.

Perhaps I'll give it another go but for now my curiosity regarding the 5320Pro as a tube lens for the Mitty is satisfied. I do have another quick test for it though. More on that later.

[lothman]

Thanks Christoph,
for all the effort and let us participate

Just one question:

Although the sensor is 44x33mm I intentionally cropped the final images to fullframe and moved the crop so all four corners would be even. This is in order to avoid any possible misalignment that could distort the results.

Full frame means 24x36mm?

regards
Lothar