Not All that Glitters is Gold

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

Moderators: ChrisR, Chris S., Pau, rjlittlefield

rjlittlefield
Site Admin
Posts: 20853
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
Contact:

Post by rjlittlefield »

canonian wrote:If you mount the JML on a tubelens, isn't it an infinite than?
If you mount it on a tubelens, then you're using it as an infinite. The question of what it is can be answered by whether it gives a better image that way or on empty extension. Shooting the same target both ways would tell the story.

From this last test we can see that on tubelens the image looks good at image center but develops some astigmatism part way out. See for example the cross-shaped catchlights produced by PMax slightly above image center, near the right side of the image in the full-sized version at http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7203/6969 ... 4213_o.jpg.

--Rik

conkar
Posts: 200
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2010 2:22 am
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Post by conkar »

canonian wrote:I do not know what I'm actually looking at, it gives no visual reference and it's hard to see the quality and resolution on the sample of the worn stamp.
If you mount the JML on a tubelens, isn't it an infinite than? (I'm a bit confused :smt102 )
Fred, I think you have to look at the high res picture and you will see a little bit more.

I apologize if I was unclear in my last post. I meant that my first impression was that the objective seems to perform better without a tubelens and I like the results better when the objective is put on bellows. Therefore, I called it a finite.

What I learned with that last test and the objective mounted on my 200mm prime lens was that the image circle did not have enough quality to cover the whole frame of the 5DmkII (FF).

I started to run some more tests today with the JML 20X and I have alot of pictures to processing. I hope I can have them ready for upload by tomorrow evening, I'll be back on that.
Craig Gerard wrote:Conny,

It may be worthwhile using a 'flat' sample (providing your stage is level), basically something that can be photographed with a single exposure (black on white would be good).
Craig
I have changed the test subject today to a € 5 note.

I wish we had some common generic test samples/charts when testing lenses and objectives.

I think it would be good if a test sample/chart contains some circles, vertical and horizontal lines and also has elements of RGB colors.

Regards,

Conny

conkar
Posts: 200
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2010 2:22 am
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Post by conkar »

Image
JML 20X 5DmkII single frame

High res image:
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7176/6825 ... 57c8_o.jpg


Image
JML 20X 5DmkII stacked image (Pmax)

High res image:
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7041/6971 ... 6bb0_o.jpg

JML 20X on bellows. Bellows draw around the limit when vignetting on the FF DSLR starts approx 160mm to the sensor.

Image
JML 20X 7D single frame 200mm

High res image:
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7193/6973 ... 72ea_o.jpg

Image
JML 20X 7D stacked image 200mm

High res image:
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7189/6973 ... aff8_o.jpg


JML 20X on prime tubelens Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM and DSLR Canon EOS 7D used.

Image
JML 20X 7D single image 160mm bellows

High res image:
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7196/6973 ... 2a41_o.jpg

Image
JML 20X 7D stacked image 160mm bellows

High res image:
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7057/6827 ... db06_o.jpg

JML 20X put on bellows with approx 160mm to the sensor, DSLR used Canon EOS 7D.

Image
JML 20X 7D single image 200mm bellows

High res image:
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7204/6973 ... 4412_o.jpg

Image
JML 20X 7D stacked image 200mm bellows

High res image:
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7202/6827 ... c1ea_o.jpg


JML 20X put on bellows with approx 200mm to the sensor, DSLR used Canon EOS 7D.

Image
JML 20X 7D single frame "extreme"

High res image:
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7060/6826 ... e489_o.jpg


Image
JML 20X 7D stacked image "extreme"

High res image:
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7191/6972 ... 363e_o.jpg

JML 20X on bellows and Canon EOS 7D. Here I used as much Bellows draw that I have, it would be something around 260mm to the sensor. Therefore, the word extreme in images title.




- The test subject is a part of a € 5 note.

- Illumination used for the images are four IKEA Jansjö LED-lights

- Stacking software - Zerene Stacker method Pmax.

- As for PP and some time rush I used auto contrast - auto levels and smart sharpen.

- The pictures was shoot in a horizontal setup.

Next time then I like to shoot a "real" picture at 20X magnification I will use the JML 20X. (I put some ugly insect that I found today in the freezer)

The working distance is pleasant (I think it's 11mm), it has a pretty good image quality but it's results does not compete with the best microscope objectives.

With a "real" shoot I will try to put some black paper or protostar around the tip of the objective (4-5mm) out to avoid stray light in to the lens, I will then use plain office/printer paper around the objective for diffusion, I found that material to be good with the Jansjö's. That is the next test of the JML 20X for me.

I did a test with a "real subject" and I did not like that result at all, if I then compare it with results from other quality microscope objectives it's a big difference.

My own verdict for the JML 20X - it's not Gold but it could be a keeper.


Regards,

Conny
Last edited by conkar on Tue Mar 13, 2012 8:32 am, edited 6 times in total.

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

Post by ChrisR »

Ah that's interesting! Is this about 20x? (It gets harder to tell at 20x, doesn't it!?)

I found myself seeing some smearing of detail so dropped the image into PS and put red marks on top, while peering at high magnification. One gets lost in the detail so is not aware of where in the field one is looking, which helps with objectivity.
The fall-off seems fairly gradual once it's visible. My circle of just-about-visibleness is about 13mm, here .
I hope you don't mind me molesting your image - happy to delete it. Perhaps it would appear better with more bellows extension - if the circle grew to cover a 1.6x crop sensor and retain good performance? I can't see any obvious bad things in the circle


I share your lust(!) for a perfect test target made with easily found materials. That's a "work in progress"! Fine particles of brittle material have good edges:- Pencil lead is OK but black, crayons are colourful but too soft, I can't buy carborundum grit, glass has been disappointing. Rubbing 600 grit SiC paper together makes a lot of ugly dust from the adhesive. The marked side of a microscope scale is useful, but often not as sharply marked as would be nice.

soldevilla
Posts: 571
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 2:49 pm
Location: Barcelona, more or less

Post by soldevilla »

I do not know where is the idea of ​​importing a lot to Europe. I see that the auction is ended and I do not know if there are more lots. But if someone is going to import a lot to Europe I continue interested in an objective.
I'll be on a trip the last two weeks of this month, but when I come home I check this thread with great interest.

naturephoto1
Posts: 509
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 5:37 pm
Location: Breinigsville, PA
Contact:

Post by naturephoto1 »

soldevilla wrote:I do not know where is the idea of ​​importing a lot to Europe. I see that the auction is ended and I do not know if there are more lots. But if someone is going to import a lot to Europe I continue interested in an objective.
I'll be on a trip the last two weeks of this month, but when I come home I check this thread with great interest.
I would presume that if a lot is purchased, it would be one of us in the US and we would then ship lenses to Europe and abroad. It would save all concerned a considerable amount of money.

Rich

conkar
Posts: 200
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2010 2:22 am
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Post by conkar »

ChrisR wrote:Ah that's interesting! Is this about 20x? (It gets harder to tell at 20x, doesn't it!?)
I think the magnification is around 20X. Yes, I think it gets harder to determine the exact magnification at higher magn's. You need to have some reference points or rulers to do that. I don't have that, so I have to put that on my "to do/to find list".
ChrisR wrote: I found myself seeing some smearing of detail so dropped the image into PS and put red marks on top, while peering at high magnification. One gets lost in the detail so is not aware of where in the field one is looking, which helps with objectivity.
The fall-off seems fairly gradual once it's visible. My circle of just-about-visibleness is about 13mm, here .
I hope you don't mind me molesting your image - happy to delete it. Perhaps it would appear better with more bellows extension - if the circle grew to cover a 1.6x crop sensor and retain good performance? I can't see any obvious bad things in the circle
It's OK, I'm glad to hear your input and I think others are too.
That image you are referring to, I wanted to use bellows extension near the limit when I saw vignetting started to occur on the FF. I have done some more tests with the 7D and I will upload them as they are finished. (I have old and slow computers).
ChrisR wrote: I share your lust(!) for a perfect test target made with easily found materials. That's a "work in progress"! Fine particles of brittle material have good edges:- Pencil lead is OK but black, crayons are colourful but too soft, I can't buy carborundum grit, glass has been disappointing. Rubbing 600 grit SiC paper together makes a lot of ugly dust from the adhesive. The marked side of a microscope scale is useful, but often not as sharply marked as would be nice.
Yes, it would be nice to have perfect test targets to have as references for testing. I think they need to be different given the magnification, one that's fine at 1X probably don't fits for 20X.

"Sometimes you see more than what you want" :lol:

Chris: I edit my post here while I done some thinking......

Maybe the nature gives us the best test subjects?

I think we seen good test shoots when butterflies and moths wings are used as test subjects. They may also be good for different magnifications.


Regards,

Conny

conkar
Posts: 200
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2010 2:22 am
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Post by conkar »

Image
Moth wing @ 20X Mitutoyo Plan Apo SL 20X Infinity-Corrected Objective na 0,28


Image
Moth wing @ 20X with Mitutoyo M plan apo 20X na 0,42


Image
Moth wing @ 20X with JML 20X with 200mm tube lens

Image
Moth Wing @ 20X with JML 20X on bellows 200mm extension

I found a dead moth up in the attic and it's wing suits well for a lens test.

Equipment used:

Image no1: Canon EOS 5DmkII and Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM as tube lens with a 20X Mitutoyo Plan Apo SL Infinity-Corrected Objective na 0,28 WD 30,5mm.microscope objective.

Image no2: Canon EOS 7D and Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM as tube lens with a Mitutoyo M plan apo 20X na 0.42. Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM was used as a tube lens set to intinity and the images was photographed with Canon EOS 7D (APS-C 1,6crop).

Image no3: Canon EOS 7D and Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM as tube lens with the JML 20X microscope objective.

In the fourth image JML 20X is put on bellows and and the distance to the sensor is approximately 200mm and Canon EOS 7D used here.


Edit: the post has been updated with new images.


Regards,

Conny
Last edited by conkar on Sat Apr 21, 2012 6:13 am, edited 5 times in total.

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

Post by ChrisR »

Umm... a slip somewhere in all those files you must have produced, Connie - the only difference between those images is the position of your signature!

conkar
Posts: 200
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2010 2:22 am
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Post by conkar »

ChrisR wrote:Umm... a slip somewhere in all those files you must have produced, Connie - the only difference between those images is the position of your signature!
The pictures are different, one is shot with JML 20X and the other with Mitu 20X, I have not messed up my files.

Maybe the JML 20X is quite good after all.......... :shock:


Dang, that I missed the placement of my signature. :lol:


Regards,

Conny

naturephoto1
Posts: 509
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 5:37 pm
Location: Breinigsville, PA
Contact:

Post by naturephoto1 »

conkar wrote:
ChrisR wrote:Umm... a slip somewhere in all those files you must have produced, Connie - the only difference between those images is the position of your signature!
The pictures are different, one is shot with JML 20X and the other with Mitu 20X, I have not messed up my files.

Maybe the JML 20X is quite good after all.......... :shock:


Dang, that I missed the placement of my signature. :lol:


Regards,

Conny
Hi Conny,

Is the first image the JML 20X lens and did you shoot both lenses as infinity with the Canon lens used as the tube lens or did you shoot the JML lens as a finite lens alone for this comparison?

Rich

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

Post by ChrisR »

Sorry, my mistake, then , there's something else going on??

I took them both into photoshop, and put one on a layer above the other.
Setting the upper blending mode to "difference" and the entire picture looks black.

They are different on closer inspection, but the RGB values are all under about 10.

Have you used some software to align the images and match the colours, or something?
I always find it hard to compare images because of minor lighting, dimensional or colour diffrences, so I'm intrigued to know how you did it!

conkar
Posts: 200
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2010 2:22 am
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Post by conkar »

naturephoto1 wrote: Hi Conny,

Is the first image the JML 20X lens and did you shoot both lenses as infinity with the Canon lens used as the tube lens or did you shoot the JML lens as a finite lens alone for this comparison?

Rich
Hi Rich,

Both microscope objectives was connected to the Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM which was used as a tube lens set to intinity and the images was photographed with Canon EOS 7D @ F5.6 and 1/6 sec. The same setup was used and the images was also processed equivalent.

I will to another test with the JML 20X without a tube lens attached and see how the result would be when it is put on bellows.

I have some other shoots to do before I will do that test, as I cleaned the sensor of the 7D I will wait to use it on bellows until I finnished with the other shoots.

This should be a blind test so I think it's proper to wait a little while to reveal which objektive is associated with each image.

,but there are always ways to cheat. :roll:

Regards,

Conny

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

Post by ChrisR »

Just to be clear, I'm not accusing you of cheating!

naturephoto1
Posts: 509
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 5:37 pm
Location: Breinigsville, PA
Contact:

Post by naturephoto1 »

ChrisR wrote:Just to be clear, I'm not accusing you of cheating!
Hi Chris,

I do not think that was what Conny was suggesting that at all. I think what he meant was that this was supposed to provide blind test results, but that there are ways to "cheat" to figure out which lens was which.

Rich
Last edited by naturephoto1 on Sun Mar 18, 2012 5:32 am, edited 2 times in total.

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic