The lenses we use

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

Moderators: ChrisR, Chris S., Pau, rjlittlefield

JohnyM
Posts: 463
Joined: Tue Dec 24, 2013 7:02 am

Post by JohnyM »

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 :D (Aps-C / FF)
Last edited by JohnyM on Mon Aug 13, 2018 5:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

rjlittlefield
Site Admin
Posts: 20872
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
Contact:

Post by rjlittlefield »

Justwalking wrote:
rjlittlefield wrote:
Justwalking wrote:Rik, where is your NA in Formula of DoF?
I believe you wrote this?
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.
I guess you don't know that F' = M/(2*NA). It is a fundamental property of lens systems, due to Lagrange invariant.

Then just do the algebra:
2F'c/M^2 = c/(M*NA)

--Rik
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.
If your think that it is easy to take NA greater at 5.5X for the same FoV
let it be.
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.

You know, if you're going to argue this stuff you really ought to actually understand it.

--Rik

Justwalking
Posts: 137
Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2018 3:54 pm
Location: Russia

Post by Justwalking »

rjlittlefield wrote:
Justwalking wrote:
rjlittlefield wrote:
Justwalking wrote:Rik, where is your NA in Formula of DoF?
I believe you wrote this?
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.
I guess you don't know that F' = M/(2*NA). It is a fundamental property of lens systems, due to Lagrange invariant.

Then just do the algebra:
2F'c/M^2 = c/(M*NA)

--Rik
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.
If your think that it is easy to take NA greater at 5.5X for the same FoV
let it be.
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.

--Rik
Scale together but in inverse proportion.
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: 20872
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
Contact:

Post by rjlittlefield »

Justwalking wrote:
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.
Scale together but in inverse proportion.
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.
It is important to remember that f/# and NA are inversely related.
as 1/2f#.
The formula is correct, but only when f/# and NA are measured in the same focus plane.

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)
If the DOF is to be the same for both formats the required f-number is in direct proportion to the format size.
I agree, assuming that "required f-number" means Feff at sensor.

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

Justwalking
Posts: 137
Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2018 3:54 pm
Location: Russia

Post by Justwalking »

rjlittlefield wrote:
If the DOF is to be the same for both formats the required f-number is in direct proportion to the format size.
I agree, assuming that "required f-number" means Feff at sensor.
Please what is Feff at sensor and Feff of the objective lens?
And this is exactly what happens when you cover the same FOV with the same NA on the subject side.
What happens?
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.

ChrisR
Site Admin
Posts: 8546
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 3:58 am
Location: Near London, UK

Post by ChrisR »

Justwalking wrote:
ChrisR wrote:. No they are not. This is a point you appear to be missing.
I'm not missing with it.
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).
If you want more DOF, use a sensor with huge pixels.
I did not understand this kind of joke, sorry.
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 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.
It appears you're more interested in arguing in knots without understanding, than learning or staying on point.
Chris R

Justwalking
Posts: 137
Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2018 3:54 pm
Location: Russia

Post by Justwalking »

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.
Is article on wiki about DoF is irrelevant of formuls for macro there is irrelevant?
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.

ChrisR
Site Admin
Posts: 8546
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 3:58 am
Location: Near London, UK

Post by ChrisR »

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.
Last edited by ChrisR on Mon Aug 13, 2018 8:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Chris R

rjlittlefield
Site Admin
Posts: 20872
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
Contact:

Post by rjlittlefield »

Justwalking wrote:
rjlittlefield wrote:
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.
I agree, assuming that "required f-number" means Feff at sensor.

And this is exactly what happens when you cover the same FOV with the same NA on the subject side.
What happens?
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.
Please what is Feff at sensor and Feff of the objective lens?
I have updated my earlier diagram to include some additional information.

Image

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

ChrisR
Site Admin
Posts: 8546
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 3:58 am
Location: Near London, UK

Post by ChrisR »

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 !
Chris R

Online
ray_parkhurst
Posts: 2656
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 10:40 am
Location: Santa Clara, CA, USA
Contact:

Post by ray_parkhurst »

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 !
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.

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?

Online
ray_parkhurst
Posts: 2656
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 10:40 am
Location: Santa Clara, CA, USA
Contact:

Post by ray_parkhurst »

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 :D (Aps-C / FF)
I'm with you on practical, and add in a dose of flexible. I'd guess the MPE65 fills that role very effectively.

hero
Posts: 72
Joined: Mon Jul 17, 2017 12:38 pm
Location: California

Post by hero »

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.

ChrisR
Site Admin
Posts: 8546
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 3:58 am
Location: Near London, UK

Post by ChrisR »

Well said Hero.
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.
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..
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.
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!
I did not see any bellows or exotics or objectives, only dedicated macro lenses. Do you only shoot up to 1:1?
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 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

Online
ray_parkhurst
Posts: 2656
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 10:40 am
Location: Santa Clara, CA, USA
Contact:

Post by ray_parkhurst »

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...
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.

I have a feeling that might change if I ever shift over to a camera with shorter register.

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic