Lomo 3,7 Objective vs Canon MP-E 65MM Macro Photo at 3.7X

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

Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau

RobertOToole
Posts: 2627
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:34 pm
Location: United States
Contact:

Lomo 3,7 Objective vs Canon MP-E 65MM Macro Photo at 3.7X

Post by RobertOToole »

After seeing how well a loaner Lomo 3,7 performed in the 4X I recently ran, (thanks to zzffnn) I ordered a Lomo for myself, and I got it right before the weekend. Images from the new lens are great, CA free and sharp corner to corner on an APS-C sensor.

I had some free time and I couldn't resist comparing the Lomo to my MP-E 65 via a Sigma MC-11.

MPE at f/2.8.
Identical settings.
2 X Godox TT350 flash.
All manual settings on a Sony A6300.
MPE single frame, Lomo image is stacked.

Image

Image

Center:
Image

Far left corner:
Image

Left edge:
Image

To my eyes the MP-E has a small lead in resolution but also has CAs. The Lomo is free of CAs and looks sharper in some areas thanks to the APO correction.

For larger images and more info follow this link to the Lomo 3.7x page on my site.

FYI, next week I am working on adding code to my site that will open the thumbnails at 100% view, not to fit the browser window was it does not.

https://www.closeuphotography.com/lomo-3-7x-objective

Questions and comments welcome.

Lou Jost
Posts: 5942
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2015 7:03 am
Location: Ecuador
Contact:

Post by Lou Jost »

That is very impressive for the Lomo. On the basis of your results I got one of these as well. There is also a Lomo 3.5x that (unlike the 3.7x) has flat-field correction. This might induce CA, but who knows? It was even cheaper than the 3.7x. I should get it in late February and will report on it then.

Does anyone know if there are higher NA objectives (by any maker) in this range of 3-3.5x, that do not require corrective eyepieces?

RobertOToole
Posts: 2627
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:34 pm
Location: United States
Contact:

Post by RobertOToole »

Lou Jost wrote:That is very impressive for the Lomo. On the basis of your results I got one of these as well. There is also a Lomo 3.5x that (unlike the 3.7x) has flat-field correction. This might induce CA, but who knows? It was even cheaper than the 3.7x. I should get it in late February and will report on it then.

Does anyone know if there are higher NA objectives (by any maker) in this range of 3-3.5x, that do not require corrective eyepieces?
Hi Lou,

I do know of a lens thats faster than NA 0.11 at 3x, thats the Mejiro 3x f/2.5 called the FLH-300. (I have two of their lenses, and they are very high image quality, up there with the best.)

http://cgi3.genossen.co.jp/en/products/ ... t/flh-300/

Image

They also make a float lens version 1-3X but its slower.

Emailed them twice for a price but they would not give me a quote.

All the best,

Robert

Lou Jost
Posts: 5942
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2015 7:03 am
Location: Ecuador
Contact:

Post by Lou Jost »

That looks very interesting but pricey!!! Thanks for pointing me to it. I had never heard of the company before.

ray_parkhurst
Posts: 3412
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 10:40 am
Location: Santa Clara, CA, USA
Contact:

Post by ray_parkhurst »

I was having trouble seeing that the 65MPE was higher resolution vs the Lomo due to the high CA levels, so edited the corner comparison photos:
- cropped to an area that shows fine detail
- removed the R and B channels
- equalized the brightness
- output as monochrome and 200% size
- animated the two for pixel peeping

Indeed the 65MPE is showing a higher MTF on G channel. I guess this is mostly due to the f/13 effective vs f/17.

Would the 65MPE CA improve at f/3.3, or f/4?

Image

RobertOToole
Posts: 2627
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:34 pm
Location: United States
Contact:

Post by RobertOToole »

ray_parkhurst wrote:I was having trouble seeing that the 65MPE was higher resolution vs the Lomo due to the high CA levels, so edited the corner comparison photos:
- cropped to an area that shows fine detail
- removed the R and B channels
- equalized the brightness
- output as monochrome and 200% size
- animated the two for pixel peeping

Indeed the 65MPE is showing a higher MTF on G channel. I guess this is mostly due to the f/13 effective vs f/17.

Would the 65MPE CA improve at f/3.3, or f/4?

Image
The does make it easy to see a difference.

Thanks Ray.


With a bayer sensor, don't forget, there are 2X of the green photo-sites, compared to red and blue, that should have something to due with the increased contrast.

Yes, the MP-E CAs do improve at f/3.5 or 4 at this magnification, but the sharpness drops. Next time I run the MPE I will include the stopped down apertures.


All the best,

Robert

RobertOToole
Posts: 2627
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:34 pm
Location: United States
Contact:

Post by RobertOToole »

Lou Jost wrote:That looks very interesting but pricey!!! Thanks for pointing me to it. I had never heard of the company before.
I was lucky to snag two Mejiro lenses over the years, a 1X and a 0.75x and they are up with the best in terms of IQ, and I wouldn't hesitate to grab another one if I hade the chance.

All the best,

Robert

Lou Jost
Posts: 5942
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2015 7:03 am
Location: Ecuador
Contact:

Post by Lou Jost »

But I think you prefer your Scanner Nikkor, right?

RobertOToole
Posts: 2627
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:34 pm
Location: United States
Contact:

Post by RobertOToole »

Lou Jost wrote:But I think you prefer your Scanner Nikkor, right?
Yes. The scanner Nikkor is on my favorites.

Mejiro makes a fast 1-3X floating lens, the FLH-VAR, with great looking specs, 1.3x, f/2.5-4, v-mount:

http://cgi3.genossen.co.jp/en/products/ ... t/flh-var/

ray_parkhurst
Posts: 3412
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 10:40 am
Location: Santa Clara, CA, USA
Contact:

Post by ray_parkhurst »

RobertOToole wrote: With a bayer sensor, don't forget, there are 2X of the green photo-sites, compared to red and blue, that should have something to due with the increased contrast.

Yes, the MP-E CAs do improve at f/3.5 or 4 at this magnification, but the sharpness drops. Next time I run the MPE I will include the stopped down apertures.
Looking at just G channel is good for assessing resolution, since each pixel site is more fully covered and the G wavelength is in the middle of the visible spectrum. I did the same color processing to images from both lenses so this should be a good comparison.
Last edited by ray_parkhurst on Wed Dec 27, 2017 8:05 am, edited 1 time in total.

Lou Jost
Posts: 5942
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2015 7:03 am
Location: Ecuador
Contact:

Post by Lou Jost »

Ray, what did you mean when you said that with green light, each pixel is fully covered? Only half the pixel sites in the original image are fully covered. Are you reducing the image's pixel dimensions by a factor of two by actually removing the R and B pixels from the image? Perhaps that's what you meant when you said you removed the R and B channels?

ray_parkhurst
Posts: 3412
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 10:40 am
Location: Santa Clara, CA, USA
Contact:

Post by ray_parkhurst »

Lou Jost wrote:Ray, what did you mean when you said that with green light, each pixel is fully covered? Only half the pixel sites in the original image are fully covered. Are you reducing the image's pixel dimensions by a factor of two by actually removing the R and B pixels from the image? Perhaps that's what you meant when you said you removed the R and B channels?
Sorry, typo. Meant to say "more fully" covered. Corrected.

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic