How to Mount Mitutoyo?

mawyatt · Post by **mawyatt** » Fri Aug 21, 2015 6:55 am

ChrisR wrote:Geoff/Mike - that's good to know.
I do have 52mm tubes, and yes I have used those, without realising the benefit.
But the cheap "Chinese" ones are often some odd large size which would do, I expect.

Having spent a lot of years with the old M42 Pentax type film cameras with bellows and tubes, I'm a bit surprised they vignette on a 43.26mm diagonal. Depends how big the exit pupil looks from the sensor, I guess. Needs more thought. Probably in the forum already though!

Chris,

I used the cheap Ebay 52mm tube sections, got a few extra just in case. The threads are the weak link, they don't mesh well. I basically screwed the sections together over and over to help the threads mesh, then cleaned the residue off before installing the Protostar flocking material.

Mike

boomblurt · Post by **boomblurt** » Fri Aug 21, 2015 9:52 am

I use M42s as I have adjustable helicoid tubes (very useful) and iris diaphragm in that size. Yes the assemblage of assorted tubes can get a little rickety so I brace them using an arca-swiss bracket for telephoto lens (eg http://www.hejnarphotostore.com/category-s/103.htm) and rubber bands. They are then quite stable whether my arca-swiss/breadboard rig is horizontal or vertical.

ChrisS's tube setup is a masterpiece and I almost copied it but, in the end, decided I was happy with the flexibility (!) of the Raynox tube lenses (150/250) + M42 hodgepodge.

ChrisR · Post by **ChrisR** » Fri Aug 21, 2015 1:27 pm

I didn't realise cheap 52mm rings were made now, I think they may be relatively recent. My other Chinese tubes are odd sizes.
Mine are Nikon K rings, and they mesh beautifully

mawyatt · Post by **mawyatt** » Fri Aug 21, 2015 4:13 pm

ChrisR wrote:I didn't realise cheap 52mm rings were made now, I think they may be relatively recent. My other Chinese tubes are odd sizes.
Mine are Nikon K rings, and they mesh beautifully

Chris,

Do a search on ebay for the 52mm tubes and they'll show up. I can't recommend a particular one, and I just went with the cheapest I could find. They come in a 3 pack at 28, 14 and 7mm lengths I believe, for about $7-8. Just work the threads real good as mentioned because they can bind up and don't over tighten.

The black coating isn'y very good, so be sure to flock them. I posted a method that works well with the Protostar flocking material. I did each tube separately so I could disassemble and reassemble things.

Cheers,

Mike

ChrisR · Post by **ChrisR** » Fri Aug 21, 2015 4:20 pm

Yes I'd just looked - they weren't around a couple of years back.
There seems to be new bits/adapters/gizmos, good & otherwise, all the time.

I believe I remember someone saying that one of the sets of Chinese extension tubes ( < $10) were 52mm, but mine are something like 53mm and 54mm, so I was sceptical!

mawyatt · Post by **mawyatt** » Fri Aug 21, 2015 5:07 pm

ChrisR wrote:Yes I'd just looked - they weren't around a couple of years back.
There seems to be new bits/adapters/gizmos, good & otherwise, all the time.

I believe I remember someone saying that one of the sets of Chinese extension tubes ( < $10) were 52mm, but mine are something like 53mm and 54mm, so I was sceptical!

Chris,

Another nice feature of the 52mm tubes is that Nikon has a reverse lens adapter (BR-2 I think) that has 52mm threads. This adapter is very sturdy and nicely machined F mount. Don't know if Canon has a similar adapter though.

ChrisR · Post by **ChrisR** » Fri Aug 21, 2015 5:21 pm

BR-2A is the one you want. I think it was modified to clear the autofocus contacts.

If you get an old manual "K-ring set", you get the slimmest possible Nikon extension tube, 2 or 3 52mm tubes, and the "ends" go from 52mm to Nikon male/female. The thread is the other way round than the BR-2A, so you could join to two bodies or two lenses, if you felt so inclined.

BR-3 and BR-6 are worth looking up too.

(I do have a BR-2 too, it clears some and not other contacts)

mawyatt · Post by **mawyatt** » Fri Aug 21, 2015 5:33 pm

Chris,

Yes it's the BR-2A I just checked this is what I have.

leekekhuan · Post by **leekekhuan** » Fri Aug 21, 2015 6:13 pm

Do anyone have picture of their Raynox setup with Mitutoyo?
I have one spare Raynox and i was thinking to check it first before diving into investment

.

Charles Krebs · Post by **Charles Krebs** » Fri Aug 21, 2015 6:32 pm

see...

http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... hp?t=27828

http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... p?p=143195

also see Riks tube lens test:
http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... hp?t=23898

mawyatt · Post by **mawyatt** » Fri Aug 21, 2015 6:37 pm

Here are a couple with the Raynox reversed. One has a 52mm extension tubes, the other 42mm. The 42mm shows the cone shaped adapter for the objective, the 52mm has the disc flat adapter. Note the 52mm is the correct length, however the 42mm is longer with an extra extension when I took this image.

Anyway, you can get an idea of what the Raynox based tube lens system with microscope objective looks like.

Mike

leekekhuan · Post by **leekekhuan** » Fri Aug 21, 2015 7:19 pm

Thank you very much.

Chris S, which Hejar plate you chooses, 8inches or 6 inches thick plate from link Hejar Plate ?

Also if it not to much to ask can you please take a picture of custom holes drilled in Plate so i know what to ask if someone doing it here.
Thanks in advance.

And here is Basket list from Edmund, would you mind looking and letting me know if i missed anything or if i need to add anything?

rjlittlefield · Post by **rjlittlefield** » Fri Aug 21, 2015 7:55 pm

leekekhuan wrote:I have one spare Raynox and i was thinking to check it first before diving into investment .

I think that's a very good idea.

As far as I know, I'm the only person who has actually done a head-to-head test of Mitutoyo MT-1, Thorlabs ITL200, Nikon MXA20696, and Raynox DCR-150. Those results, on full frame Nikon D800E, are documented at http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... hp?t=23898.

My tests are not complete and comprehensive. They could not ever be. One or another of my lens samples might be out of whack, or extraordinarily good, or in some other way not representative of its model. The results might come out differently with a different objective, or with a different camera, or with different processing of the images. The list of objections that can be raised is essentially unlimited, and because the results I reported are surprising, they attract dissent like ants to a picnic.

Nonetheless, I have found the results compelling enough that when I personally need a converging lens, I haul out my Raynox DCR-150 and leave my MT-1, ITL200, and MXA20696 in their boxes.

But that's my own decision, for what I do.

When other people ask me what they should do, I pause before answering, so that I have time to ask one question: "Are you putting together a system to use for yourself, or are you designing a system to sell to other people?"

If the answer is that they're putting together a system for themselves, then I point to my results and tell them what I do.

If the answer is that they're putting together a system to be sold to other people, then I recommend that they skip the Raynox and instead use either an MT-1 or an ITL200.

The reason for that latter recommendation is based almost entirely on psychology, not optics. Because the MT-1 and ITL200 are designed and manufactured for this use by highly respected optical companies, going with one of those is a highly attractive and palatable choice, unable to be attacked or questioned except on the basis of economics. In contrast, using a Raynox DCR-150 looks cheap and sleazy, despite the fact that it works astonishingly well. Using the Raynox is a really hard choice to defend, and to be honest, I'm getting tired of defending it.

Ultimately it's your money and your choice. Please let us know what you do and how it works out.

--Rik

leekekhuan · Post by **leekekhuan** » Fri Aug 21, 2015 8:15 pm

Rik i am very glad to hear your side of story also.
Yah i am going to experiment with Raynox for a while before i take any drastic action of buying expensive material

.
Only thing is i have Raynox DCR-250, i hope it is not that big issue.

Also getting from ebay is getting pain lately, deliveries coming late and i am waiting for 1 ring from last 1 and half month and it haven't turned up. I have already sent message to seller to check what is wrong but i think he also cannot help much. as ring only cost 1USD and free shipping

.

for reverse Raynox i think ring configuration don't change, i hope so.

rjlittlefield · Post by **rjlittlefield** » Fri Aug 21, 2015 9:39 pm

leekekhuan wrote:Only thing is i have Raynox DCR-250, i hope it is not that big issue.

Sorry, but yes, that's a big issue.

The Raynox DCR-250 is only 125 mm focal length, versus 208 mm for the DCR-150.

The effect of that difference is that, at infinity focus for the Raynox, the DCR-150 will give 104% of rated magnification for the objective, while the DCR-250 will give only 62.5% of rated magnification. The field of view using the DCR-250 will be about 1.6 times larger, which stresses both the objective and the converging lens, and at the same time the DCR-250 has to work at a wider aperture, around f/11 while the DCR-150 would be working around f/18. They are completely different optical systems, despite having the same name and external appearance.

Other people have reported good results with the DCR-250, on APS-C sized sensors. See for example http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... hp?t=18145. I personally have not run any controlled tests with the DCR-250, so I really can't say how well it would work.

--Rik