Lomo 3.7 image quality equivalent with larger FOV

Phil973 · Post by **Phil973** » Wed Sep 25, 2019 7:54 pm

Hi, i'm looking for a lens with a rendition quality equivalent to the Lomo 3.7 - 0.11 with which i obtain far better results compared to previous Macro Nikkor 35mm 1:4.5 workhorse but with like double FOV
I shoot mostly amber fossil inclusions with all the problems related to (Distorsion....color aberations.....etc)
Any advice or compared experience welcome
Philip

Macro_Cosmos · Post by **Macro_Cosmos** » Thu Sep 26, 2019 1:19 am

You mean twice smaller FOV or larger?

In order of quality (and approximate price)

More narrow: (higher mag)
Mitutoyo M Plan 7.5x Apo
Mitutoyo M Plan 5x Apo
Laowa 25mm F/2.8 Ultra-Macro

Wider: (lower mag)
Printing-Nikkor 95mm F/2.8 Retro
Laowa 100mm F/2.8 1-2x Macro
Minolta 5400 Scanner lens
Laowa 25mm F/2.8 Ultra-Macro
Scanner-Nikkor 7 element

viktor j nilsson · Post by **viktor j nilsson** » Thu Sep 26, 2019 3:11 am

Are the Laowa's really that good? I would have guessed that both the Minolta 5400 and the Scanner-Nikkor 7 element would beat them both.

Agree that it's not very clear if the original poster wants higher or lower magnification.

chris_ma · Post by **chris_ma** » Thu Sep 26, 2019 4:18 am

FOV can also be confusing because in normal photography this term is used for the picture angle, or focal length.
probably best to talk about magnification and working distance to avoid confusion.

and it would also be helpful to know what camera/sensor size this is intended to use on.

mawyatt · Post by **mawyatt** » Thu Sep 26, 2019 5:47 am

Viktor,

I also thought the Di5400 would outperform the Laowa 100mm. Would be nice if we could see an actual scientific test like Miljenko has kindly done, or Robert's side by side evaluations.

Best,

Phil973 · Post by **Phil973** » Thu Sep 26, 2019 7:25 am

Sorry to all for the misunderstanding, English is not my native language.
Yes what i mean is i'm looking for a lens with lower magnification and output at least as what the Lomo 3.7 - 0.11 offers.
By experience, the Lomo 3.7 offer +/- the same FOV (magnification) as the Macro Nikkor F35 - 1:4.5 i use for a very long time. Results are far.....far better for just a tiny fraction of the price of the Nikkor.
For info, i already have the Laowa 25mm, on my configuration, images are very very soft, it doesn't fit my needs.
I use a Luminar Zeiss 63mm 1:4.5 for lower magnification (larger FOV), images as the Laowa are quite soft, this is the one actually i need to update.
Thanks btw to all for the interest on the matter

chris_ma · Post by **chris_ma** » Thu Sep 26, 2019 9:44 am

I see. well, we still don't know what camera you use it on and under which magnification you're using the Lomo and the Nikkor (that depends on your extension), but let's assume it's about 3x or 4x and so you're looking at something with 2x:

these comparisons from Robert should give you a nice overview:
https://www.closeuphotography.com/2x-lens-test-2018
https://www.closeuphotography.com/2x-lens-test

the printing nikkor (or rayfact) 95mm 2x would also be among the top lenses, but rather pricy.

edit: the Canon Macrophoto Lens 35mm f/2.8 would probably be a good budget choice around 2x

Phil973 · Post by **Phil973** » Thu Sep 26, 2019 10:52 am

Thanks for the links i'll check that on a close way
Setup is
Fuji XT2 on PB6 through Metabones adapter (the empty one not the Speedbooster)
I use the PB6 on the full range from totally closed to fully extended getting the frame filled with details i want to focus on.
Camera system is vertical fixed on a post between the cealing and a 350Kg concrete table
Stackshot is mounted via a 90º angle on a X-Y micrometric stage itself fixed on a microscope base. This allow large moves through the microscope base and fine tunning with the X-Y stage.
Camera system is fixe, Stackshot move the subjects
I use a external monitor on the XT2 with the "in camera" peaking reflecting on it.
that's basically it

Phil973 · Post by **Phil973** » Thu Sep 26, 2019 10:54 am

Some results on my youtube channel
https://www.youtube.com/c/DominicanAmberFossils

Macro_Cosmos · Post by **Macro_Cosmos** » Thu Sep 26, 2019 11:41 am

mawyatt wrote:Viktor,

I also thought the Di5400 would outperform the Laowa 100mm.

viktor j nilsson wrote:Are the Laowa's really that good? I would have guessed that both the Minolta 5400 and the Scanner-Nikkor 7 element would beat them both.

The MN5400 at 2x comes close, at 1x it wins. If it's 3.7/2=1.85x (I just rounded it to 4), it's close too. Since the SN-7ele < MN5400, that's my list. The MN5400 does lose some of its resolution when pushed to 2x, it's excellent at 1.

This is entirely based on what I've seen online, I don't have the lens with me to verify.

For CA, the scanner lenses win. The Laowa claims to be apo but can't stand pixel peeping. These scanner lenses have some of the best (lack of) CA performances out there, it's gonna be hard to beat.

I might get that lens to try it out for my planned big 1x comparison then sell it.

Macro_Cosmos · Post by **Macro_Cosmos** » Thu Sep 26, 2019 11:50 am

Phil973 wrote:Sorry to all for the misunderstanding, English is not my native language.
Yes what i mean is i'm looking for a lens with lower magnification and output at least as what the Lomo 3.7 - 0.11 offers.
By experience, the Lomo 3.7 offer +/- the same FOV (magnification) as the Macro Nikkor F35 - 1:4.5 i use for a very long time. Results are far.....far better for just a tiny fraction of the price of the Nikkor.
For info, i already have the Laowa 25mm, on my configuration, images are very very soft, it doesn't fit my needs.
I use a Luminar Zeiss 63mm 1:4.5 for lower magnification (larger FOV), images as the Laowa are quite soft, this is the one actually i need to update.
Thanks btw to all for the interest on the matter

Can you define very very soft? The Laowa 25mm isn't the best but it's by no means soft, let alone very very soft. Maybe you have a bad copy that you should send back? The XT2 has 24MP, very dense pixels, maybe the Laowa 25mm does not have the resolution to sufficiently resolve all the denser sensor? For something half of 3.7, that 25mm won't do anyway.

Since we just learned about your fuji system, you might even want to look into their 80mm macro lens, it's very good at 1:1, but it's also very expensive. I'd say the Scanner-Nikkor 7 element is the best choice here, there's an ebay seller that sells them for $60 or so, if he still has any in stock. (ID: 163874687991)

I heard this lens is best used at 1.42x. The MN5400 outperforms it easily at 2x, but the MN5400 is also at least 5 times the price.

viktor j nilsson · Post by **viktor j nilsson** » Thu Sep 26, 2019 12:16 pm

Macro_Cosmos wrote:
The MN5400 at 2x comes close, at 1x it wins. If it's 3.7/2=1.85x (I just rounded it to 4), it's close too. Since the SN-7ele < MN5400, that's my list. The MN5400 does lose some of its resolution when pushed to 2x, it's excellent at 1.

This is entirely based on what I've seen online, I don't have the lens with me to verify.

For CA, the scanner lenses win. The Laowa claims to be apo but can't stand pixel peeping. These scanner lenses have some of the best (lack of) CA performances out there, it's gonna be hard to beat.

I might get that lens to try it out for my planned big 1x comparison then sell it.

Well, in Robert's test at https://www.closeuphotography.com/2x-lens-test-2018
the Minolta 5400 beat some rather extraordinary line scanner lenses at 2x, so I don't think it loses much resolution at 2x at all. I do think that it starts to fall off at 3x, though.

I just managed to snag a Minolta Dimage 5400 scanner for $100 on a local (Sweden) site, which is waiting for me at the post office. I already have a Scanner-Nikkor 7 element, so I'm very excited to see what kind of improvement I can get from the Minolta.

But I do agree that the Scanner-Nikkor 7 element is perhaps the best choice - it's an excellent lens, and a fantastic buy for $55!

Phil973 · Post by **Phil973** » Thu Sep 26, 2019 12:18 pm

For the laowa i mean images lake of sharpness & contrast "straight out of box"
but as you mention, this is not my target here
So far for my low magnification needs i get the best results with a Olympus bellow lens 80mm 4:0 at F8
I'm self educated on the matter and don't have any experience with scanner lenses, because of the interest most of you guys seems to share on it may be something i should consider.
Thanks all for participating