Four at 5X: A pixel peep show!

[seta666]

Very nice comparison, I miss the JML 21mm 3.5 in the test
Regards
Javier

[ChrisLilley]

I have only just ordered a surplus shed lens... and now you show it being beaten. Sigh.

The fujinon clearly has better contrast. Do you think that is the sole cause of the improvement, or is it sharper too?

I understand that the "A" in the name of the Fujinon lens stands for "apochromatic" which may also help explain the better result.

I also suspect it costs a little more than 9 USD

[Blame]

Bu,but that was a whole 9$. You don't really mean I was supposed to spend more?

[Oskar O]

Thanks for the nice test. I have to admire how the magnification and lighting seems very well controlled across frames.

The Fujinon 180 A is available from Robert White for a cool grand (dollars or euros), so it would actually be much cheaper just to buy the Mitutoyo tube lens... Of course I'm a bit envious of you having such nice glassware

It does make things a bit complicated since there are so many possible tube lens combinations and besides quality also practicality and price need to be considered. In this test, it seems that a better corrected tube lens does indeed have a distinct advantage.

[ChrisR]

This seems to beg the question - what would happen with a "normal" telephoto, by comparison? I imagine that they might be better corrected than the morfanon.

[dmillard]

Hi David.

I have only just ordered a surplus shed lens... and now you show it being beaten. Sigh.

I think "beaten" is a little premature: I'm sure there may be considerable sample variation in the morfanons, and I've just ordered another one to compare results.

You mention making a baffle. I suppose I should wait till it is made, but I am curious as to what the plan is. I suppose to the initiated that one word explains it all, but alas I am baffled.

Nothing ambitious in this case - just a short cylinder of matte black card stock to drop in the adapter.

The Fujinon 180 A is available from Robert White for a cool grand (dollars or euros), so it would actually be much cheaper just to buy the Mitutoyo tube lens... Of course I'm a bit envious of you having such nice glassware Smile

I hope I don't induce too much envy! I only used that lens because I had it on hand - I bought it used for a small fraction of the Robert White price about 15 years ago, and it's seen a lot of use since then. I wouldn't suggest that anyone buy one to use as a tube lens, although I can't deny that I was delighted with the performance it gave when pressed into service!

David

[morfa]

This seems to beg the question - what would happen with a "normal" telephoto, by comparison? I imagine that they might be better corrected than the morfanon.

From an image quality stand point I wouldn't really recommend the morfanon to anyone not using a FF sensor.

I tried at least 10-15 different primes and prime+telephoto combinations before I got tired of it. With the Mitutoyo 10x/0.28 I could never get good edge/corner definition on FF. I imagine many of these solutions would have been great on an APS-C sensor though since contrast, center sharpness etc often impressed me and the "good" field often extended at least beyond the height of the frame (24mm). What I liked with the morfanon was that with some objectives (Mitutoyo M Plan Apo 10/0.28, Nikon CF Plan 50/0.55 EPI ELWD) it gave a very consistent performance across the frame on FF – even at lower magnifications.

Also, I think it showed to some degree in my initial test but it's perhaps worth pointing out that the performance with the CFI 10x 0.25 was not as uplifting as with the Mitutoyo 10x. Just from using live view, the CFI looked better to me when mounted on a Apo-Componon 150/4.5 HM – or a regular 180/200mm prime.

[Blame]

Hi David.

I have only just ordered a surplus shed lens... and now you show it being beaten. Sigh.

I think "beaten" is a little premature: I'm sure there may be considerable sample variation in the morfanons, and I've just ordered another one to compare results.

You mention making a baffle. I suppose I should wait till it is made, but I am curious as to what the plan is. I suppose to the initiated that one word explains it all, but alas I am baffled.

Nothing ambitious in this case - just a short cylinder of matte black card stock to drop in the adapter.


David

My thanks.

I did give those pictures a good look over because I had difficulty believing that a simple lens like a morfanon could blur on axis and heavily stopped down. I think there is an excellent chance that the problem is entirely flair. If it is convenient why not try making a short hood from that black card too? The front lens of the mitutoyo is entirely too exposed.

I am a little doubtful that there is going to be much product variation. It is a much simpler design than a camera lens and has the advantage of no moving parts.

[Chris S.]

David, let me add my thanks to the chorus. Another well done and very useful test and post. Thanks, thanks, thanks!

And at least this post of yours didn't open a hole in my wallet, as your 20x comparison did. After that post, I purchased a Mitutoyo apo 20x, 10x, and 50x. Can I please send you a bill?

From this comparison, my sense is that the Nikon 4x apo (which I have) substantially exceeds the Mitutoyo 5x in center resolution (as might be predicted from the relative NA's), and is comparable in edge resolution. Though if one is willing to accept reduced center resolution, the additional working distance of the Mitutoyo 5x is attractive.

Also, your images showing that the quality of the tube lens stand-in notably influences image quality do not surprise me, but are the first documented evidence I am aware of in this regard. As I begin to work with my newly acquired Mitutoyo apo objectives, and make decisions on how to decollimate them, this gives me a lot of food for thought.

This kind of test takes a ton of time. Thanks again for doing it--and doing it so well--and sharing your results.

Cheers,

--Chris

[Blame]

Chris S.

Don't miss morfa's "cheap tube lens" thread. The mitutoyos are not limited to rated magnification on a cropped camera. They can go at least 80% wider with the right tube lens.

[dmillard]

Very nice comparison, I miss the JML 21mm 3.5 in the test
Regards
Javier

Thanks Javier,

That would have been a nice inclusion.

And at least this post of yours didn't open a hole in my wallet, as your 20x comparison did. After that post, I purchased a Mitutoyo apo 20x, 10x, and 50x. Can I please send you a bill?

Well Chris . . . I'm going to be testing my newly acquired Mitutoyo 10X/0.42 M Plan Apo HR objective this coming weekend. Just joking!

[Craig Gerard]

David,

Have you tried the various objectives using a telephoto lense as the 'tube lense'? I expect you have considered and applied that approach; but the question creates a platform to pop-in a quote from another thread for the benefit of all readers.

On the Canon 50D, I am able to use the EF 70-200 f4L from 160mm to 200mm without any mechanical vignetting (that was with the CFI60 10X). I could go lower than 160 if the corners of the subject did not contain any relevant details.

The prime lenses appear to be a more straight-forward approach; but I feel somewhat restrained by their FL given the capabilities of the objectives in question.

The approach you have outlined in this post and the previous comparison may well be an attempt to 'break-free' from the restraints of designated FL?

Whilst indicating the possibilty of sample variations with regard to tube lenses, but not drawing any definite conclusions, it seems valid to introduce a concern that Charlie hinted at in another thread.

These details are contained in the 'Alignment and Image Quality' thread.
http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... c&start=30

My set-up with Nikon tube lens, bellows, Mitutoyo objective is what got me thinking about the "alignment" issue... (if there really is one!). It is a long apparatus, with plenty of opportunities to be slightly "off" in alignment. The tube lens needs to be extended 150mm from the sensor (It is a 200mm tube lens, but it is slightly telephoto). Then the objective is positioned 110mm in front of the tube lens. So from back to front I have... Canon body, Canon=> Exakta adapter, Exakta bellows, Exakta extension tube with tube lens mounted inside, additional Exakta extension tubes to get objective out 110mm in front of tube lens, Mitutoyo objective. My point here is that with the objective mounted to the front of a 200mm lens (especially one like the Nikon AF 200 micro, which is built like a tank) there sure seems to be a lot fewer connections to worry about.

Craig

[dmillard]

David,

Have you tried the various objectives using a telephoto lense as the 'tube lense'? I expect you have considered and applied that approach; but the question creates a platform to pop-in a quote from another thread for the benefit of all readers.

Hello Craig,

Unfortunately, I don't currently have any lenses between 90mm and 300mm to mount on my D300, so the answer is no. A comparison would be very interesting.

Whilst indicating the possibilty of sample variations with regard to tube lenses, but not drawing any definite conclusions, it seems valid to introduce a concern that Charlie hinted at in another thread.

These details are contained in the 'Alignment and Image Quality' thread.
http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... c&start=30

Craig

Thanks for mentioning potential misalignment. It is always a valid concern, since both lateral displacement and angular deviation from normal (shift and swing) of any of the optical components of the system could affect image quality, especially, but not exclusively, in the corners.
That sentence is not very elegant, but its early in the morning here.

David

[Oskar O]

I hope I don't induce too much envy! I only used that lens because I had it on hand - I bought it used for a small fraction of the Robert White price about 15 years ago, and it's seen a lot of use since then. I wouldn't suggest that anyone buy one to use as a tube lens, although I can't deny that I was delighted with the performance it gave when pressed into service!

It's OK, I have more lenses than my better half approves anyway
The Fujinon 180/9 just looked like a neat lens when I googled it. Your test is indicating that a better corrected lens would be a better choice than a simple achromat as a tube lens. Or maybe that's a too bold conclusion? It would make sense anyway, unfortuante that no one seems to have the official tube lenses to compare with.

It may be that the dedicated 200 mm lenses for 35mm do not perform any better in this role, the effective aperture being so small.

[Chris S.]

Well Chris . . . I'm going to be testing my newly acquired Mitutoyo 10X/0.42 M Plan Apo HR objective this coming weekend. Just joking!

I wish you weren’t joking, David. That would be a really interesting test—though I shudder at the possible financial consequences.

In addition to wanting to see it tested against other 10x objectives, I'd like to see it against the 20x/0.42 Mitutoyo M Plan Apo (non-HR, the model you tested before), with the 20x used out of its range on a 100mm tube lens. Since these two objectives have identical NAs and similar claimed resolving power, I wonder if they might be comparable at 10x. Likely not, since the 20x would be way out of its designed range—but it would be interesting to see. I briefly checked my copy of the 20x/0.42 on my Nikkor 105mm f/2.8 AF-D micro lens, and on casual glance, it looked good and didn't vignette. The working distance shortened to something that I didn’t think to measure, but guesstimating from memory looked around the 15mm listed for the 10x HR. Makes me wonder how different these two lenses really are. If I had your dedication, I should put it up against the Mitutoyo 10x/0.28 M Plan Apo mounted on the Nikkor 200mm f/4 IF-ED—but I cringe at all the hours needed to test and publish at the level you have done.

Chris S.

Don't miss morfa's "cheap tube lens" thread. The mitutoyos are not limited to rated magnification on a cropped camera. They can go at least 80% wider with the right tube lens.

I’ve indeed been following Morfa’s interesting thread. As discussed above, I’m aware that the Mitutoyos can be used at lower than nominal magnifications with good results. But below 4x, I have other optics, such as the Apo-Rodagons.

[. . .unfortunate that no one seems to have the official tube lenses to compare with. . .

I was seriously considering it, but one not only needs the over-$600 tube lens—there are also the mounts, connectors, tubes, etc. needed to make this tube lens a useful functioning device. I put together a shopping cart at Edmund optics with most of the necessary items, and it came to over $1100 (including the tube lens). Ouch! I did not hit the “buy” button, and will stick to Nikon camera lenses for now. If anyone would like a pdf file of the shopping cart, PM me.