Mitu QV 2.5x - any experience?
Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau
-
- Posts: 306
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 11:47 am
- Location: Groningen, Netherlands
Mitu QV 2.5x - any experience?
Any experience with the Mitutoyo QV-HR2.5X?
http://www.mitutoyo.co.uk/vision-measur ... 3/02akt300
An NA of 0.21 at this magnification is a lot and I wonder how it compares to the well-known Mitu 2x NA 0.055. The FoV for "PRO machine" (whatever that may be) suggests very small sensors. Would it cover APS-C and if so, how would corner sharpness be?
http://www.mitutoyo.co.uk/vision-measur ... 3/02akt300
An NA of 0.21 at this magnification is a lot and I wonder how it compares to the well-known Mitu 2x NA 0.055. The FoV for "PRO machine" (whatever that may be) suggests very small sensors. Would it cover APS-C and if so, how would corner sharpness be?
- rjlittlefield
- Site Admin
- Posts: 23605
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
- Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
- Contact:
Notice the "f=100" engraved on the objective. That's the tube lens length that gives 2.5X. When used with a 200 mm tube lens, like standard for the Mitutoyo M Plan Apo's, this objective would be 5X NA 0.21 instead of NA 0.14 for the M Plan Apo 5X. The larger NA suggests that the QV objective would be sharper at image center. I have no idea how the corners would compare.
If you search Google with the query site:photomacrography.net Mitutoyo QV, you can find some postings about various QV objectives. They will probably add some info, but I don't think that any of them will exactly answer your question.
--Rik
If you search Google with the query site:photomacrography.net Mitutoyo QV, you can find some postings about various QV objectives. They will probably add some info, but I don't think that any of them will exactly answer your question.
--Rik
-
- Posts: 306
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 11:47 am
- Location: Groningen, Netherlands
I've seen the f=100 It's not difficult to use a 100mm tube lens instead of a 200mm. Do you think designing it for 100mm instead of 200mm would make it easier to obtain a high NA? Even then, 0.055 vs. 0.21 is a massive difference.rjlittlefield wrote:Notice the "f=100" engraved on the objective. That's the tube lens length that gives 2.5X. When used with a 200 mm tube lens, like standard for the Mitutoyo M Plan Apo's, this objective would be 5X NA 0.21 instead of NA 0.14 for the M Plan Apo 5X. The larger NA suggests that the QV objective would be sharper at image center. I have no idea how the corners would compare.
If you search Google with the query site:photomacrography.net Mitutoyo QV, you can find some postings about various QV objectives. They will probably add some info, but I don't think that any of them will exactly answer your question.
--Rik
- rjlittlefield
- Site Admin
- Posts: 23605
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
- Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
- Contact:
True, and that's my point. If you stick a Mitutoyo M Plan Apo 5X NA 0.14 on 100 mm tube lens, you get 2.5X NA 0.14. So a pretty fair comparison is NA 0.14 for the M Plan Apo versus 0.21 for the QV, not so massive.nielsgeode wrote:It's not difficult to use a 100mm tube lens instead of a 200mm.
Comparing the QV on 100 mm tube lens at 2.5X, against the M Plan Apo on 200 mm tube lens at 2X, I'm quite sure you'll find that the M Plan Apo has a much wider field. It's the narrow field of the QV that makes it easier to obtain high NA.
--Rik
The FoV values given on mitutoyo.co.uk are a bit weird, perhaps cause for concern?
View field: 2.5 x 1.88mm, 1.25 x 0.94mm, 0.41 x 0.31mm (0.62 x 0.47mm)
Remarks:The monitor magnification and field of view values are for the PRO machine.
The FoV of a 5x mitty on 135mm tube lens (3.375x) is 10mm on full frame and 7mm on APS-C. If it were put on a 100mm tube lens it would cover 14.4mm and 9.6mm respectively - but the corners and edges would be vignetted, with poor quality inside that.
The largest FoV quoted above is 2.5mm - so I suspect the FoV is miniscule and can't be pushed like it can with the M Plan APOs.
This all just theorising "out loud" on my part though...
edit: oops, Rik beat me to it
View field: 2.5 x 1.88mm, 1.25 x 0.94mm, 0.41 x 0.31mm (0.62 x 0.47mm)
Remarks:The monitor magnification and field of view values are for the PRO machine.
The FoV of a 5x mitty on 135mm tube lens (3.375x) is 10mm on full frame and 7mm on APS-C. If it were put on a 100mm tube lens it would cover 14.4mm and 9.6mm respectively - but the corners and edges would be vignetted, with poor quality inside that.
The largest FoV quoted above is 2.5mm - so I suspect the FoV is miniscule and can't be pushed like it can with the M Plan APOs.
This all just theorising "out loud" on my part though...
edit: oops, Rik beat me to it
-
- Posts: 306
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 11:47 am
- Location: Groningen, Netherlands
Peter Lin posted on facebook on his timeline a photo made with the Mitutoyo QV 2.5x NA 0.14. I'm not sure what sensor he used, but it looks like the QV 0.14 does cover at least something like APS-C / M4/3 / ...
Of course it doesn't say anything about the 0.21, however, I would be surprised if there's a massive difference in coverage between the 0.14 and 0.21.
Of course it doesn't say anything about the 0.21, however, I would be surprised if there's a massive difference in coverage between the 0.14 and 0.21.
I'll revive this old thread to add that the new version of the QV, with NA=0.21, also has a much longer working distance than the old one that has an NA of 0.14. That is a bit unexpected.
I now have the old version waiting for me in Wisconsin. I think it must be telecentric since it is a measuring objective like the Nikon MM series.
I now have the old version waiting for me in Wisconsin. I think it must be telecentric since it is a measuring objective like the Nikon MM series.
I have the QV, but I am not sure if it is the HR version.
Yes, it requires 100mm tube (vs 200mm) and yes, it has relatively large NA of 0.14 (compared to others 2.5X). I believe it is an APO lens. Here is a comparison with a Chinese "APO", a regular achromatic 4x. The comparison was done with QV 2.5 on a 135mm f/2.8 lens.
Yes, it requires 100mm tube (vs 200mm) and yes, it has relatively large NA of 0.14 (compared to others 2.5X). I believe it is an APO lens. Here is a comparison with a Chinese "APO", a regular achromatic 4x. The comparison was done with QV 2.5 on a 135mm f/2.8 lens.
Since you own this objective will you please let us know if the mitotuyo qv 2.5x can cover a m4/3 or even a aps-c sensor?mjkzz wrote:I have the QV, but I am not sure if it is the HR version.
Yes, it requires 100mm tube (vs 200mm) and yes, it has relatively large NA of 0.14 (compared to others 2.5X). I believe it is an APO lens. Here is a comparison with a Chinese "APO", a regular achromatic 4x. The comparison was done with QV 2.5 on a 135mm f/2.8 lens.
Sure, but it will be several months before I can retrieve it from Wisconsin where it was shipped. I will give a full report after my next trip to the US. I have a bunch of other very cool lenses waiting for me too, including some unique ones that appear not to be known to our community. Lots to report!
Thank you for the warning.Lou Jost wrote:The QV objectives are fully marked with NA, etc. If yours doesn't have marks, that's suspicious. On mine (NA=0.14) the part # is 02ALA410
I wonder what the part number is for the NA 0.21?
Just like to mention two others for sale with the D60XXX serial/part number.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Used-Original-M ... SwoudW4WtR
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Mitutoyo-QV-o ... Sw91NTtkws
So perhaps there are three QV 2.5X legit versions out there.
BR
John