The lenses we use
Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau
Just... wow. Will this ever end (popcorn)?
Lenses i found using most are not best of the best, but most practical (im producing lots of images daily):
Epi / Dia
- 00 -1:1 Sony/Minolta Macro 100mm F2.8
- 1:1-5:1 Mp-E65 F2.8
Epi
- 10x / 20x / 50x TU Plans on Nikon LV150
Dia
- Various CFN Nikon lenses on Microphots in various configs.
Everything mounted to largest camera sensor that lens can cover (Aps-C / FF)
Lenses i found using most are not best of the best, but most practical (im producing lots of images daily):
Epi / Dia
- 00 -1:1 Sony/Minolta Macro 100mm F2.8
- 1:1-5:1 Mp-E65 F2.8
Epi
- 10x / 20x / 50x TU Plans on Nikon LV150
Dia
- Various CFN Nikon lenses on Microphots in various configs.
Everything mounted to largest camera sensor that lens can cover (Aps-C / FF)
Last edited by JohnyM on Mon Aug 13, 2018 5:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- rjlittlefield
- Site Admin
- Posts: 23561
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
- Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
- Contact:
Nice try, but M and c scale together, both in proportion to the sensor size.Justwalking wrote:Well, you have still M as inverse proportional to the Dof. So instead previous F' now you need to change the lens NA to the sensor size.rjlittlefield wrote:I believe you wrote this?Justwalking wrote:Rik, where is your NA in Formula of DoF?I guess you don't know that F' = M/(2*NA). It is a fundamental property of lens systems, due to Lagrange invariant.I hope ppl working with macro well known this formula for Dof (simplified but pretty accurate)
DOF ~ 2F'c/M^2, where F' - working number, c - circle of confusion, M - magnfication.
Then just do the algebra:
2F'c/M^2 = c/(M*NA)
--Rik
If your think that it is easy to take NA greater at 5.5X for the same FoV
let it be.
So the c/M part is constant. In physical terms, it is just the CoC, projected to the subject plane.
You know, if you're going to argue this stuff you really ought to actually understand it.
--Rik
-
- Posts: 137
- Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2018 3:54 pm
- Location: Russia
Scale together but in inverse proportion.rjlittlefield wrote:Nice try, but M and c scale together, both in proportion to the sensor size.Justwalking wrote:Well, you have still M as inverse proportional to the Dof. So instead previous F' now you need to change the lens NA to the sensor size.rjlittlefield wrote:I believe you wrote this?Justwalking wrote:Rik, where is your NA in Formula of DoF?I guess you don't know that F' = M/(2*NA). It is a fundamental property of lens systems, due to Lagrange invariant.I hope ppl working with macro well known this formula for Dof (simplified but pretty accurate)
DOF ~ 2F'c/M^2, where F' - working number, c - circle of confusion, M - magnfication.
Then just do the algebra:
2F'c/M^2 = c/(M*NA)
--Rik
If your think that it is easy to take NA greater at 5.5X for the same FoV
let it be.
So the c/M part is constant. In physical terms, it is just the CoC, projected to the subject plane.
--Rik
It is important to remember that f/# and NA are inversely related.
as 1/2f#.
But f# will be different for different size sensor for same FoV and nothing
changed.
If the DOF is to be the same for both formats the required f-number is in direct proportion to the format size.
- rjlittlefield
- Site Admin
- Posts: 23561
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
- Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
- Contact:
Sorry, but no. When you make the sensor larger, M gets larger and so does c, both in proportion to the sensor size. At same FOV on two different sensors, c/M is constant.Justwalking wrote:Scale together but in inverse proportion.rjlittlefield wrote:Nice try, but M and c scale together, both in proportion to the sensor size.
So the c/M part is constant. In physical terms, it is just the CoC, projected to the subject plane.
The formula is correct, but only when f/# and NA are measured in the same focus plane.It is important to remember that f/# and NA are inversely related.
as 1/2f#.
When the focus planes are different, then you also have to take the magnification into account.
Then the relevant formulas are:
Feff at sensor = magnification / (2*NA at subject)
NA at subject = magnification / (2*Feff at sensor)
I agree, assuming that "required f-number" means Feff at sensor.If the DOF is to be the same for both formats the required f-number is in direct proportion to the format size.
And this is exactly what happens when you cover the same FOV with the same NA on the subject side.
I am pleased to see that we appear to be reaching agreement.
--Rik
-
- Posts: 137
- Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2018 3:54 pm
- Location: Russia
Please what is Feff at sensor and Feff of the objective lens?rjlittlefield wrote:I agree, assuming that "required f-number" means Feff at sensor.If the DOF is to be the same for both formats the required f-number is in direct proportion to the format size.
What happens?And this is exactly what happens when you cover the same FOV with the same NA on the subject side.
Rik, I'm still don't understand why you trying to use NA of subject side. How it can help to rise DoF on the FF compared to crop,
if you have considered already that Dof ratio is in inverse proportion to the format size?
Last edited by Justwalking on Mon Aug 13, 2018 8:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
It is better if you don't try to make fun of things/people you don't understand. You got it wrong. If the pixels are big the CofC is big and so is the DoF you end up with. It's not sharp, but that's different. The objective DOES have a DoF at peak resolution. Again you miss the point completely, and bring in an irrelevant article which proves you missed the point.Justwalking wrote:I'm not missing with it.ChrisR wrote:. No they are not. This is a point you appear to be missing.diffraction is a greater issue in close-up photography, and the tradeoff between DOF and overall sharpness can become quite noticeable (Gibson 1975, 53; Lefkowitz 1979, 84).I did not understand this kind of joke, sorry.If you want more DOF, use a sensor with huge pixels.
With huge pixels you need huge magnification for the same resolution on the same FoV.
And calculation is also have said that Dof will be less.
http://resourcemagonline.com/2014/02/ef ... eld/36402/
It appears you're more interested in arguing in knots without understanding, than learning or staying on point.
Chris R
-
- Posts: 137
- Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2018 3:54 pm
- Location: Russia
Is article on wiki about DoF is irrelevant of formuls for macro there is irrelevant?ChrisR wrote:
If the pixels are big the CofC is big and so is the DoF you end up with. It's not sharp, but that's different. The objective DOES have a DoF at peak resolution. Again you miss the point completely, and bring in an irrelevant article which proves you missed the point.
It appears you're more interested in arguing in knots without understanding, than learning or staying on point.
What is wrong i have there during calculation? C (that is big) in numerator,
but M^2 is denominator.
Thankfully i have many authors on the web who can teach in less rude way.
Regards and bye to community.
Last edited by Justwalking on Mon Aug 13, 2018 8:39 pm, edited 2 times in total.
It's irrelevant to the point being discussed at the time.
Yes we are all pretty familiar with the classic DOF calcs.
In essence - it depends what you hold still, if you want to consider changing something in the setup. The easiest mistake, is to hold the f/number still when you shouldn't.
Yes we are all pretty familiar with the classic DOF calcs.
In essence - it depends what you hold still, if you want to consider changing something in the setup. The easiest mistake, is to hold the f/number still when you shouldn't.
Last edited by ChrisR on Mon Aug 13, 2018 8:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Chris R
- rjlittlefield
- Site Admin
- Posts: 23561
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
- Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
- Contact:
What happens is that the "f-number [at sensor] is in direct proportion to the format size" -- exactly the criterion that you gave for the DOF to be the same.Justwalking wrote:What happens?rjlittlefield wrote:I agree, assuming that "required f-number" means Feff at sensor.Justwalking wrote:If the DOF is to be the same for both formats the required f-number is in direct proportion to the format size.
And this is exactly what happens when you cover the same FOV with the same NA on the subject side.
I have updated my earlier diagram to include some additional information.Please what is Feff at sensor and Feff of the objective lens?
Please study the numbers. Notice that for Feff, I have listed several different way to compute the number. They all give the same result, of course.
Constant NA at the subject side automatically makes Feff at the sensor be in direct proportion to sensor size -- exactly what is needed to have same DOF.
I will say it one more time: when you image the same FOV at the same NA, on different size sensors, you get the same DOF and the same amount of diffraction blur. The Airy disk on the larger sensor is larger, but in exact proportion to sensor size. Everything scales together. If both sensors have the same MP, then you cannot tell the images apart.
--Rik
Back on topic, the macro lens I use most is nowhere the best, Canon MP-E.
Heck it's not bad!
Next is either a Canon or Nikon 100/105mm macro. They have a quite different "look" from one to the other, but you only really see it if you pixel-peep.
I', probably old-fashioned for liking the 70-180 zoom micro Nikkor.
For years it was a 55mm 2.8 micro Nikkor. I read that the old hill-and-dale f/3.5 was sharper, so bought one. It's not. So I bought a different age one. Neither is that. Then I came across a late 55 f/2.8 AIS too cheap. It's exactly as good as the first one !
Heck it's not bad!
Next is either a Canon or Nikon 100/105mm macro. They have a quite different "look" from one to the other, but you only really see it if you pixel-peep.
I', probably old-fashioned for liking the 70-180 zoom micro Nikkor.
For years it was a 55mm 2.8 micro Nikkor. I read that the old hill-and-dale f/3.5 was sharper, so bought one. It's not. So I bought a different age one. Neither is that. Then I came across a late 55 f/2.8 AIS too cheap. It's exactly as good as the first one !
Chris R
-
- Posts: 3415
- Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 10:40 am
- Location: Santa Clara, CA, USA
- Contact:
I too often heard the 55/3.5 was sharpest, but indeed I find the 55/2.8 to be superior. I think the reviewer got a bum sample of the 2.8, and that review was very well-read.ChrisR wrote:Back on topic, the macro lens I use most is nowhere the best, Canon MP-E.
Heck it's not bad!
Next is either a Canon or Nikon 100/105mm macro. They have a quite different "look" from one to the other, but you only really see it if you pixel-peep.
I', probably old-fashioned for liking the 70-180 zoom micro Nikkor.
For years it was a 55mm 2.8 micro Nikkor. I read that the old hill-and-dale f/3.5 was sharper, so bought one. It's not. So I bought a different age one. Neither is that. Then I came across a late 55 f/2.8 AIS too cheap. It's exactly as good as the first one !
Curious about your experience with the 70-180 Micro. I have rarely used mine, but it seems like such a perfect lens for many types of work. I have often thought about putting together a coin photography setup using it, since its mag range matches the needs well. Maybe I will eventually do that, but would love to hear impressions from a fellow zoom macro owner.
I did not see any bellows or exotics or objectives, only dedicated macro lenses. Do you only shoot up to 1:1?
-
- Posts: 3415
- Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 10:40 am
- Location: Santa Clara, CA, USA
- Contact:
I'm with you on practical, and add in a dose of flexible. I'd guess the MPE65 fills that role very effectively.JohnyM wrote:Just... wow. Will this ever end (popcorn)?
Lenses i found using most are not best of the best, but most practical (im producing lots of images daily):
Epi / Dia
- 00 -1:1 Sony/Minolta Macro 100mm F2.8
- 1:1-5:1 Mp-E65 F2.8
Epi
- 10x / 20x / 50x TU Plans on Nikon LV150
Dia
- Various CFN Nikon lenses on Microphots in various configs.
Everything mounted to largest camera sensor that lens can cover (Aps-C / FF)
That last diagram is so simple and clear that even a middle school student could understand it. It is basic geometry.
I would say that the only person who was rude here was the one who quite arrogantly persisted in accusing those with much more knowledge of optics of being incompetent, and then when confronted with evidence of their misconceptions, decided to leave the forum in a tantrum. Learning takes two components: a willingness to question, and a willingness to listen to the answer. The former takes insight, and the latter takes humility.
I would say that the only person who was rude here was the one who quite arrogantly persisted in accusing those with much more knowledge of optics of being incompetent, and then when confronted with evidence of their misconceptions, decided to leave the forum in a tantrum. Learning takes two components: a willingness to question, and a willingness to listen to the answer. The former takes insight, and the latter takes humility.
Well said Hero.
I have a few less common lenses - PN, MV, but they're all a bit of a faff to use. The Mitutoyos (2-100) I've mostly used on a Nikon 200mm or 135mm. They're easier than the higher NA Nikon Apos I have from 2-20x. One lens from a clutch of German optics which I find appealing for its size is a Luminar 63mm, and it's a nice FL when compared with the optically superior Canon MP35 or Minolta 5400.
I have more ideas for wall-sized prints that I've ever made - maybe one day...
You're another one to add to the pro f/2.8 list, then. One pro f/3.5 reviewer was Bjørn Rørslett, there was another "expert" but I forget who..I too often heard the 55/3.5 was sharpest, but indeed I find the 55/2.8 to be superior. I think the reviewer got a bum sample of the 2.8, and that review was very well-read.
Well most of the time the old pre-stacking rules apply - use a f/11 for dof. Then it's a pretty competent general purpose lens. A sigma 150 would put it to shame now if you looked close, though, for sure. When I was able to go walking I used it with the Nikon diopters in my pocket and life was OK!Curious about your experience with the 70-180 Micro. I have rarely used mine, but it seems like such a perfect lens for many types of work. I have often thought about putting together a coin photography setup using it, since its mag range matches the needs well. Maybe I will eventually do that, but would love to hear impressions from a fellow zoom macro owner.
As I say, MP-E, for convenience, several times more often than the other hundred odd. I don't have much of a permanent setup due to space, (organisation thereof).I did not see any bellows or exotics or objectives, only dedicated macro lenses. Do you only shoot up to 1:1?
I have a few less common lenses - PN, MV, but they're all a bit of a faff to use. The Mitutoyos (2-100) I've mostly used on a Nikon 200mm or 135mm. They're easier than the higher NA Nikon Apos I have from 2-20x. One lens from a clutch of German optics which I find appealing for its size is a Luminar 63mm, and it's a nice FL when compared with the optically superior Canon MP35 or Minolta 5400.
I have more ideas for wall-sized prints that I've ever made - maybe one day...
Chris R
-
- Posts: 3415
- Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 10:40 am
- Location: Santa Clara, CA, USA
- Contact:
This is all great info, and at the heart of my OP. I have a lot of lenses, and only really use a few for the reasons stated, but I think it's useful to examine the reasons that lenses don't get used as well. My poor 35MP, and Minolta 5400, just sit there an the shelf, along with the other very capable but difficult to use lenses.ChrisR wrote: I have a few less common lenses - PN, MV, but they're all a bit of a faff to use. The Mitutoyos (2-100) I've mostly used on a Nikon 200mm or 135mm. They're easier than the higher NA Nikon Apos I have from 2-20x. One lens from a clutch of German optics which I find appealing for its size is a Luminar 63mm, and it's a nice FL when compared with the optically superior Canon MP35 or Minolta 5400.
I have more ideas for wall-sized prints that I've ever made - maybe one day...
I have a feeling that might change if I ever shift over to a camera with shorter register.