Trying Raynox DCR-250, DCR-150 and 6X as tube lens on NEX-5N

seta666 · Post by **seta666** » Tue Sep 18, 2012 5:22 am

Hello;
I keep doing test with tube lenses; today I tested the Raynox DCR-250 8 diopters 125mm FL

First I have taken pictures with the Raynox focused to infinity, in normal and reversed position

In normal position quallity at infinity is rubbish but even across the frame, in reversed position it is good (ish) in the center and has strong spherical aberration in the corners with more CAs

Normal
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8450/7999 ... de17_o.jpg

Reversed
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8447/7999 ... e5be_o.jpg

Crops

Full size crops
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8172/7999 ... d780_o.jpg

By looking at this pictures we would say that the raynox is not going to work well on normal position because of the very bad quality in the center of the frame

Then I took a couple of pictures with Nikon CFI 10/0.25 to see it, magnification at infinity around 6.2X. They have no sharpening

Normal position
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8177/7999 ... a750_o.jpg

Reversed position
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8441/7999 ... 26f1_o.jpg

Crops

Full size crops
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8030/7999 ... dfbf_o.jpg

You can get better looking details with some sharpening

Full size crops with some sharpening
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8041/7999 ... d722_o.jpg

It is clear to me than the Raynox works better in normal position, with very good corners at 6.2X on APS-C with the Nikon CFI 10/0.25

EDIT This is how the Raynox looks adapted to normal and reversed position, description few posts bellow

Also with Raynox DCR-150; 208mm FL

Normal
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8304/8006 ... 25f0_k.jpg

Reversed
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8303/8006 ... 0ac8_k.jpg

Crops

Full size crops
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8031/8006 ... 8bb1_o.jpg

DCR-150 and mitutoyo 5/0.14 on NEX-5N

Normal position
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8459/8006 ... b89d_o.jpg

Reversed position
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8176/8006 ... 9e42_o.jpg

Crops

Full size crops
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8040/8006 ... e7a6_o.jpg

And with Raynox 6X from CM-3500 kit; 170mm FL

Normal
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8176/8006 ... beb3_k.jpg

Reversed
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8448/8006 ... d91_k.jpgg

Crops

Full size crops
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8306/8006 ... 732f_o.jpg

Raynox 6X and mitutoyo 5/0.14 on NEX-5N

Normal position
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8035/8006 ... 3117_o.jpg

Reversed position
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8176/8006 ... 78c7_o.jpg

Crops

Full size crops
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8305/8006 ... f113_o.jpg

Regards
Javier

rjlittlefield · Post by **rjlittlefield** » Tue Sep 18, 2012 12:02 pm

Thank you for the testing.

This illustrates the importance of testing a lens as it will actually be used.

By itself, the Raynox DCR-250 is about f/3.6. But when used with the CFI 10/0.25, the objective stops down the Raynox to about f/12.5. The wavefront error due to spherical aberration goes as the fourth power of the aperture size, so there is a whopping 150X difference between these two cases.

This is the reason that the junk result wide open does not correctly predict a junk result when stopped down.

I am intrigued that the Raynox works better normal than reversed. Standard wisdom says it should be the other way around, because that's the focus arrangement that it's designed to use: short conjugate on the front, infinity on the rear. Obviously standard wisdom does not take into account the tradeoffs of what happens in the corners!

--Rik

rjlittlefield · Post by **rjlittlefield** » Tue Sep 18, 2012 12:58 pm

Quick question: how are you mounting the Raynox?

On the front end, I can see it's just a step-up ring from 49 to 52 mm.

But how about on the back side? What are you using to mate the Raynox to a bellows or tubes?

--Rik

seta666 · Post by **seta666** » Tue Sep 18, 2012 1:31 pm

After I saw your thread on the MT-1 http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... hlight=mt1

I thought to myself " eveness is more important than central performance"; the Raynox shown very crappy results but the good thing is that image was very even and there was no CAs so I thought it was worth a try.

To mount the Raynox in mormal position was easy; I used from bellows to lens the following:
M42 male to 52 female> 52 male to 43 female> Raynox> 49 male to 52 female> 52 male to M42 female>M42 Iris> Nikon objective

The tricky part was to mount it reversed; I neded a female to female at some point but at the end I got it ;-)

Again from bellows to lens:

M42 male to 52 male>52 female to 49 male>Raynox reversed>43 female to 52 male>52 female to M42 male> M42 female to M42 female>M42 Iris>Nikon objective

I got the M42 female-female from one T2 to M42 adapter like this one on ebay (150666501698)

Regards
Javier

rjlittlefield · Post by **rjlittlefield** » Tue Sep 18, 2012 1:39 pm

seta666 wrote:M42 male to 52 female

I'm having trouble finding this part. Can you give me a link?

--Rik

seta666 · Post by **seta666** » Tue Sep 18, 2012 1:41 pm

rjlittlefield wrote:
seta666 wrote:M42 male to 52 female
I'm having trouble finding this part. Can you give me a link?

--Rik

Sure ;-) 360331162800 Also forgot to mention the 52 male to M42 female on the normal position set up (before the iris) 290504273956

rjlittlefield · Post by **rjlittlefield** » Tue Sep 18, 2012 1:48 pm

Thanks!

That's exactly what I was looking for: "42mm to 52mm 42/52 M42 Filter Adapter Ring"

But when I ask eBay about M42 52mm it first says 0 results and then spontaneously changes the query to m42 mm which is useless. Quite puzzling!

--Rik

Edit 4/9/2013: An adapter ring can now be found at http://www.ebay.com/itm/42mm-p-1-0-to-5 ... 0458800434.
(The listing for 360331162800 has recently been changed to "Shipping and Handling / Excludes: United States". When asked to clarify and provide an alternate method of ordering, the vendor for 360331162800 replied only "Because ebay forces sellers to use e-express to ship to US." After several exchanges of email, the seller re-listed the item in a different store under this new number.)

Edit 4/16/2013: A mating pair of two adapter rings, M42-52mm and 52mm-M42, can now be found at http://www.ebay.com/itm/set-of-2-M42-to ... 0637327932 .

seta666 · Post by **seta666** » Tue Sep 18, 2012 1:57 pm

rjlittlefield wrote:Thanks!

That's exactly what I was looking for: "42mm to 52mm 42/52 M42 Filter Adapter Ring"

But when I ask eBay about M42 52mm it first says 0 results and then spontaneously changes the query to m42 mm which is useless. Quite puzzling!

--Rik

I just use for searching "M42 52" and if there is too many results "M42 52 ring" ;-)
I use those rings a lot, I have three of each

There is another useful one which is M42 male to 52 male 260776778422

EDIT
I have updated the initial post with images of the Raynox mounted; on the test distance between Tube lens and objective was 26mm in normal position and 34mm in reversed position. I run a new stack in reversed position with only 14mm separation (no iris) and the results were even worst.

Regards
Javier

rjlittlefield · Post by **rjlittlefield** » Tue Sep 18, 2012 2:31 pm

As requested, I've removed a couple of confusing posts.

One more thing I'm curious about. It appears that you've removed the normal brown barrel from the CFI 10X objective. Is that to provide a little more space for illumination? How did you hold onto the objective to remove the barrel?

--Rik

seta666 · Post by **seta666** » Tue Sep 18, 2012 2:40 pm

Thanks!! It was easy, in my copy was very loose and it just came out when unscrewing it from the 25-M42 adapter.
Whenever is posible I remove the lens barrels both to provide more room for illumination and so that smaller cylinder diffusers can be used

Javier

rjlittlefield · Post by **rjlittlefield** » Tue Sep 18, 2012 5:11 pm

> in my copy was very loose and it just came out when unscrewing it from the 25-M42 adapter

Thanks, that info was what I needed -- no sealant.

My copy was locked tight, but it came loose OK when I clamped the threads between some plastic pads and turned the barrel by hand.

One storage vial did get sacrificed to provide plastic pads with nicely preformed threads, but I'm sure I'll have use for those in the future.

--Rik

seta666 · Post by **seta666** » Thu Sep 20, 2012 6:57 am

I have updated the post with Raynox DCR-150 and Raynox 6X as tube lenses

Regards
Javier

pierre · Post by **pierre** » Mon Oct 08, 2012 11:06 pm

Thanks for your very interesting tests and reports Javier !

dmillard · Post by **dmillard** » Sat Oct 13, 2012 4:41 pm

Javier,

Thanks for sharing your results! I know how much work it takes to compile this information.

Regards,
David

johan · Post by **johan** » Mon Feb 25, 2013 7:11 am

Thank you Javier, 150 (normal way round) + Nikon 10x on APSC worked well for me, which I tried because of this post. I had longer distance though between Raynox and objective, I used a focusing helicoid. I havn't done anything for a while so a nice thing to come back to. Excuse the dust, I hadn't planned on posting this but it was purdy so I thought what the heck...

Sunset Moth by Johan J.Ingles-Le Nobel, on Flickr