$17 Plan Achromat Surprise Objective

Have questions about the equipment used for macro- or micro- photography? Post those questions in this forum.

Moderators: ChrisR, Chris S., Pau, rjlittlefield

RobertOToole
Posts: 1617
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:34 pm
Location: United States
Contact:

Post by RobertOToole »

Searust wrote:Just got my $17 lens in the mail this AM ... I have to find all of the parts to use an objective again, very eager to test.
Hi Searust,

One of the nice things about the objective is that is a finite design so no tube lens is needed, just some extension tubes and adapters, thats it.

Make sure to share your results if you get a chance.

Robert

mawyatt
Posts: 2479
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 6:54 pm
Location: Clearwater

Post by mawyatt »

Just got mine in the mail today, looks very nice. Agree about the finite design which allows one to get different magnifications around the design point of 160mm without a tube lens by just changing the lens to sensor distance.

Thanks for informing us about this Robert. When I get some time I'll try and see how this lens works, and report back. Yours and Somkedaddy's images certainly look great, so I'm very optimistic!!

Best,

Mike

lonepal
Posts: 320
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2017 12:26 pm
Location: Turkey

Post by lonepal »

Hi;

I got my copy today and it looks fine.
But I want to remove the front cover or how do you say ''nose cone?''.
That will provide me an extra 12-13 mm more working distance.

Is there an easy way to remove or we need to cut the body?

Please inform me if anyone tried and successfully removed.

Thanks.
Regards.
Omer

Macrero
Posts: 862
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 8:17 am
Location: Valladolid , Spain

Post by Macrero »

This one is certainly a great value for money, I tried it and it is about as good as you can expect from a 4X/0.1 objective, but comparing it to the Nikon PlanApo 4/0.20 either finite or infinity is pretty much a blasphemy :?

I agree though that the strong point of the Amscope is a good (not great) resolution + surprisingly good coverage. But again, this is a 4/0.1 (f/4) Achromat, you can't compare it with a PlanApo 4/0.20 when it comes to resolution and correction, apples and oranges...
https://500px.com/macrero - Amateurs worry about equipment, Pros worry about money, Masters worry about Light

ChrisR
Site Admin
Posts: 8557
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 3:58 am
Location: Near London, UK

Post by ChrisR »

lonepal wrote:But I want to remove the front cover or how do you say ''nose cone?''.
That will provide me an extra 12-13 mm more working distance.

Is there an easy way to remove or we need to cut the body?
I'm sure mine just unscrewed.


Yes the planapos are better, but if you only want an image for the web at 1200 wide, you may not notice the difference :-k
Chris R

RobertOToole
Posts: 1617
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:34 pm
Location: United States
Contact:

Post by RobertOToole »

Macrero wrote:This one is certainly a great value for money, I tried it and it is about as good as you can expect from a 4X/0.1 objective, but comparing it to the Nikon PlanApo 4/0.20 either finite or infinity is pretty much a blasphemy :?

I agree though that the strong point of the Amscope is a good (not great) resolution + surprisingly good coverage. But again, this is a 4/0.1 (f/4) Achromat, you can't compare it with a PlanApo 4/0.20 when it comes to resolution and correction, apples and oranges...
Agree on comparing the AmScope vs PlanAPO, they are very different tools for different jobs.

After shooting with the AmScope a few times I decided to pop on a finite PlanAPO 4X that I had not used in a long, long time, and it was a shock. I forgot how bad the coverage is. Even with a DX sensor crop, the corners were much softer and there was a lot of color fringing!

For use on a full frame camera, I think the AmScope is better tool for 90% of people.

Robert

lonepal
Posts: 320
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2017 12:26 pm
Location: Turkey

Post by lonepal »

I'm sure mine just unscrewed.
I can not see the conenction line between the cover and the body.
It seems like a single body, no parts screwed together :)

Could you share a sample photo for me to understand the connection between the cover and the body?

Thanks.
Regards.
Omer

Macrero
Posts: 862
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 8:17 am
Location: Valladolid , Spain

Post by Macrero »

RobertOToole wrote:Agree on comparing the AmScope vs PlanAPO, they are very different tools for different jobs.

After shooting with the AmScope a few times I decided to pop on a finite PlanAPO 4X that I had not used in a long, long time, and it was a shock. I forgot how bad the coverage is. Even with a DX sensor crop, the corners were much softer and there was a lot of color fringing!

For use on a full frame camera, I think the AmScope is better tool for 90% of people.

Robert
ChrisR wrote:Yes the planapos are better, but if you only want an image for the web at 1200 wide, you may not notice the difference :-k
Fair enough, but I meant actual comparison. I compared the Amscope with 3-4 objectives/lenses I have and resolution wise all of them outperormed it, not surprising since those have higher NA. In some cases I had to look closely to see the differences though, but that's how you compare lenses, isn't it? The strenght of the Amscope is not the resolution, which is not bad at all, but just not that great, it is the excellent coverage, a huge factor when it comes to microscope objectives. At web size the difference is much smaller (non-perceptible), logically.

It's a pity that the Nikon PlanApo 4/0.20 has such small image circle, but that's typical for a high-NA PlanApo objective.

- Macrero
https://500px.com/macrero - Amateurs worry about equipment, Pros worry about money, Masters worry about Light

RobertOToole
Posts: 1617
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:34 pm
Location: United States
Contact:

Post by RobertOToole »

Macrero wrote: Fair enough, but I meant actual comparison. I compared the Amscope with 3-4 objectives/lenses I have and resolution wise all of them outperormed it, not surprising since those have higher NA. In some cases I had to look closely to see the differences though, but that's how you compare lenses, isn't it? The strenght of the Amscope is not the resolution, which is not bad at all, but just not that great, it is the excellent coverage, a huge factor when it comes to microscope objectives. At web size the difference is much smaller (non-perceptible), logically.

It's a pity that the Nikon PlanApo 4/0.20 has such small image circle, but that's typical for a high-NA PlanApo objective.

- Macrero
Hi Macrero,

Everything you say makes perfect sense to me.

Thanks for the idea about testing, I really should compare my 4X objectives as you did. I must have 6 or more, and I don't remember how they perform.

I am also curious to see how the PlanAPO 4X versions compare. I have old and new finite and infinity types. The newer finite version of the 4X PlanAPO seems to have an even smaller image circle than the newest infinity version!

Robert

Macrero
Posts: 862
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 8:17 am
Location: Valladolid , Spain

Post by Macrero »

RobertOToole wrote:
Hi Macrero,

Everything you say makes perfect sense to me.

Thanks for the idea about testing, I really should compare my 4X objectives as you did. I must have 6 or more, and I don't remember how they perform.

I am also curious to see how the PlanAPO 4X versions compare. I have old and new finite and infinity types. The newer finite version of the 4X PlanAPO seems to have an even smaller image circle than the newest infinity version!

Robert
Hi Robert,

testing and comparing lenses/objectives is one of my favorite hobbies :) Truth be told the Amscope does not come off badly at all in my comparison, as far as I remember, center resoluton-wise it was outperformed by Nikon CF N 4/0.13, Nikon CF N PlanApo 4/0.20, Mitu 5/0.14 and "tied" with some good bellows/enlarging lenses. Again, not surprising given the higher NA of some of its rivals. Coverage-wise it clearly outperformed the Nikons (no surprise here either given the poor image circle of the CF Ns). Just for the record, at 5X it was slightly outperformed by my old and beloved Nikon U10/0.22 stopped down at around f/3.5, coverage was a tad worse though.

Yep, the newer finite PlanApo 4/0.20 (160/0.17) has the same (or worse) poor coverage as the CF N version :cry: Some years ago I used a Nikon CF N PlanApo 4 with a diaphragm I attached to it, the result was not bad at all, you obviously lose some resolution, but coverage improves. I have to repeat that experiment :-k

Best,

- Macrero
https://500px.com/macrero - Amateurs worry about equipment, Pros worry about money, Masters worry about Light

ChrisR
Site Admin
Posts: 8557
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 3:58 am
Location: Near London, UK

Post by ChrisR »

I can't help thinking of a comparison between a 3 litre Ferrari and a 3 litre Ford pick-up.
Which is better? By the way the Ford is $17 :)
Chris R

Macrero
Posts: 862
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 8:17 am
Location: Valladolid , Spain

Post by Macrero »

ChrisR wrote:I can't help thinking of a comparison between a 3 litre Ferrari and a 3 litre Ford pick-up.
Which is better? By the way the Ford is $17 :)
Hmm, hard to pick one without a head-to-head comparison... :-k Well, no one's arguing that it is a great value for money. Talking about money, I've just remembered that (at the time) $10 JML 21/3.5 was also better, resolving a tad more fine detail and showing the same excellent coverage, not sure if that's a Ferrari or Ford though... :-k
https://500px.com/macrero - Amateurs worry about equipment, Pros worry about money, Masters worry about Light

ChrisR
Site Admin
Posts: 8557
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 3:58 am
Location: Near London, UK

Post by ChrisR »

The point I'm making is that the pick-up is far more useful, doing a lot more things than the Ferrari. Especially a 2 seat one.

$17 isn't a seller's error for a used thing, it's normal.
Currently I can find two used 4x apos, both over $900.
I have each of the types, and I expect I may use one occasionally if I ever get a sensor small enough for them to be useful. One has to enlarge the middle to lose the poor corners even at 4x. For almost all purposes, I'd pick more appealing options. Much the same applies to the 10x 0.45s, finite and infinite.

They're great on a microscope, which is what they're designed for. "Interesting" and "Nice to have", maybe, but mine live in the garage.
Chris R

Macrero
Posts: 862
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 8:17 am
Location: Valladolid , Spain

Post by Macrero »

ChrisR wrote:The point I'm making is that the pick-up is far more useful, doing a lot more things than the Ferrari. Especially a 2 seat one.

$17 isn't a seller's error for a used thing, it's normal.
Currently I can find two used 4x apos, both over $900.
I have each of the types, and I expect I may use one occasionally if I ever get a sensor small enough for them to be useful. One has to enlarge the middle to lose the poor corners even at 4x. For almost all purposes, I'd pick more appealing options. Much the same applies to the 10x 0.45s, finite and infinite.

They're great on a microscope, which is what they're designed for. "Interesting" and "Nice to have", maybe, but mine live in the garage.
Yeah, I get your point and I can agree with good resolution + excellent coverage being > outstanding center resolution + poor coverage in most cases. I tried a lot of objectives with great center performance and horrible corners. It's a pity, but that's something you can expect when you use an optics for something what it's not intended for.
https://500px.com/macrero - Amateurs worry about equipment, Pros worry about money, Masters worry about Light

RobertOToole
Posts: 1617
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:34 pm
Location: United States
Contact:

Post by RobertOToole »

ChrisR wrote:I can't help thinking of a comparison between a 3 litre Ferrari and a 3 litre Ford pick-up.
Which is better? By the way the Ford is $17 :)
True.

If you need to haul 10 bags of concrete in one trip the $17 Ford wins every time. :D

Robert

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic