Highest Resolution at About 2x

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

Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau

alligator
Posts: 25
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 2:43 pm
Location: United States

Highest Resolution at About 2x

Post by alligator »

What are considered the highest resolution objectives or lenses to shoot at about 2x (DX or Full frame)?

I have searched the site and have found a lot about shooting at 2x but some of it seems conflicting and some of it might be dated. I am currently using a 2x Mitutoyo (mounted on a 200mm Mitutoyo tube lens), but am not as happy with the results at 2x as I am with my 5x, 10x, and 20x Mitutoyo objective results. (I also own a copy of the Mitty 1x, but it is pretty useless as the working distance is too short and my micro Nikkors give better results and are easier to use).

So what do people think is the best (meaning highest quality result) way to shoot at about 2x?

JohnyM
Posts: 463
Joined: Tue Dec 24, 2013 7:02 am

Post by JohnyM »

Current trend would be Minolta 5400. But even Mp-E65 would be an improvement over 2x Mitty.

ray_parkhurst
Posts: 3402
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 10:40 am
Location: Santa Clara, CA, USA
Contact:

Post by ray_parkhurst »

The dated part is the long-held top ranking for the Canon 35mm Macrophoto lens. It's still very good of course, but it has been surpassed by the Minolta 5400. Take a look at RobertOtoole's tests here:

https://www.closeuphotography.com/2x-lens-test

I am currently doing a lot of work with Stack and Stitch at 2x, and unfortunately the 35MP and the 5400 have too-short working distance, so I am using the Nikon 95mm Printing-Nikkor. It is not telecentric, but the long working distance helps mitigate the effects of lighting angle variation.

PS you can get some quantitative comparison data for different lenses at 2x here:

http://coinimaging.com/macro_lens_tests.html

Watch for Miljenko's upcoming publishing of his test data for a wide variety of lenses. I'm sure there will be useful data for comparison at 2x in there.

PPS: looking at the numbers on coinimaging comparing the 35MP vs the 95PN, and the test results on Robert's 2x compo page, the comparison of the 95PN vs Minolta 5400 is fairly striking. To summarize:

The 35MP is slightly sharper in the center than both 95PN and 5400
The 35MP is slightly weaker in the corners than both 95PN and 5400
The 35MP has visible CAs, while both 95PN and 5400 do not

It's interesting that the "lowly" 5400 lens ends up being comparable to the 95PN, a lens many times more expensive.

Lou Jost
Posts: 5933
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2015 7:03 am
Location: Ecuador
Contact:

Post by Lou Jost »

I think it would help if you would specify the desired FOV rather than the desired magnification. A subject that needs 2x on a crop sensor needs 3x on the FF sensor. Is there a reason you specifically ask about 2x on both kinds of sensors? If you have a specific FOV in mind, then you can play with sensor size to give you more lens options.

Beatsy
Posts: 2102
Joined: Fri Jul 05, 2013 3:10 am
Location: Malvern, UK

Post by Beatsy »

Minolta DImage 5400 is hands-down the best "affordable" option these days. Particularly for 2x but also for nearby magnifications (say 1.2x to 2.8x). FF and APS-C. Demand has pushed the price up though - they go for around £350 (if you're lucky) to £550 (if you're not). Very glad I got in early :)

Having said that, the 5400 does have a couple of cons IMO. The short focal length (35mm) means large bands of "streakies" around the edges on deep stacks. Also, it is COMPLETELY intolerant of (stray) light entering the lens from anywhere except the subject. That can complicate lighting a bit. Neither are insurmountable problems at all, but just including them for completeness.

ray_parkhurst
Posts: 3402
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 10:40 am
Location: Santa Clara, CA, USA
Contact:

Post by ray_parkhurst »

Beatsy wrote:Minolta DImage 5400 is hands-down the best "affordable" option these days. Particularly for 2x but also for nearby magnifications (say 1.2x to 2.8x). FF and APS-C. Demand has pushed the price up though - they go for around £350 (if you're lucky) to £550 (if you're not). Very glad I got in early :)

Having said that, the 5400 does have a couple of cons IMO. The short focal length (35mm) means large bands of "streakies" around the edges on deep stacks. Also, it is COMPLETELY intolerant of (stray) light entering the lens from anywhere except the subject. That can complicate lighting a bit. Neither are insurmountable problems at all, but just including them for completeness.
Thanks Beatsy, I have not used my 5400 much due to the short focal length, and was not aware of the flare/stray light issue. I actually have not used my 35MP much due to short focal length...seems a pattern here.

Edited to add:

alligator, can you tell us more about what you're planning to do at 2x?

alligator
Posts: 25
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 2:43 pm
Location: United States

Post by alligator »

Lou Jost wrote:I think it would help if you would specify the desired FOV rather than the desired magnification. A subject that needs 2x on a crop sensor needs 3x on the FF sensor. Is there a reason you specifically ask about 2x on both kinds of sensors? If you have a specific FOV in mind, then you can play with sensor size to give you more lens options.
You have previously mentioned that a 2x image from an infinite objective (such as a Mitutoyo 2x) on a Dx cropped sensor using a 200mm tube lens, will cover the same FOV as the same objective on a full frame 35mm camera using a 300mm tube lens, and that is true. But the resolution of the objective is the same in both cases... it is a case of "empty magnification", isn't it?

If that is correct, then what is the point of going to the trouble of changing from Dx to full frame in the first place? It seems to me that such a change is more worthwhile if there is an increase in resolution.

I am interested in getting the best resolution possible, not just increasing the size of the image to cover a full frame sensor. I am satisfied with the resolution I am getting with my other objectives but not with the resolution I am getting from my Mitutoyo 2x. That is why I "specifically ask about 2x on both kinds of sensors". Perhaps the best way to get to 2x is different for full frame than it is for a Dx sensor (because the highest resolution lens/objective that covers a Dx sensor might not cover the full frame sensor), so I ask about both.

Adalbert
Posts: 2403
Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2015 1:09 pm

Post by Adalbert »

Hi Alligator,
What about the Rodenstock APO-RODAGON N 50mm 1:2,8 revers mounted ?
BR, ADi

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

Post by RobertOToole »

Adalbert wrote:Hi Alligator,
What about the Rodenstock APO-RODAGON N 50mm 1:2,8 revers mounted ?
BR, ADi

Tested an 50 APO-Rodagon awhile back, it was just one sample of course so it could have been dropped from 6 feet up at some point, but long story short is wasn't in the same class as the other optics here, not even close, not APO, and especially not worth the $ paid.

Earlier this year I tested a group of lenses at 2x. The Min5400 was first, MacroVaron second, Rayfact GF 2x third. All the others, MP-E 65, magnagons and Scitex were way down the scale mostly due to being out of their range and the Canon having an issue with CAs.

Hope this helps.

Robert

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

Post by RobertOToole »

Beatsy wrote:Minolta DImage 5400 is hands-down the best "affordable" option these days. Particularly for 2x but also for nearby magnifications (say 1.2x to 2.8x). FF and APS-C. Demand has pushed the price up though - they go for around £350 (if you're lucky) to £550 (if you're not). Very glad I got in early :)

Having said that, the 5400 does have a couple of cons IMO. The short focal length (35mm) means large bands of "streakies" around the edges on deep stacks. Also, it is COMPLETELY intolerant of (stray) light entering the lens from anywhere except the subject. That can complicate lighting a bit. Neither are insurmountable problems at all, but just including them for completeness.
Hi Beatsy,

I like to wrap a small section of a flocking sheet around the front of the Min5400 to serve as a soft lens hood. It really helps. I do this with almost all lenses before I shoot.

The Tominon 35 should be mentioned when talking affordable lenses at 2x, its a very underrated lens. The coverage is huge and the image quality is very good. Its not going to beat a Minolta 5400 but it beats enlarging lenses and even some macro lenses.

I uploaded some of the 2x test results from the Tominon 35 page on my site where I compare it to the Canon MP-E at 2.1x.

https://www.closeuphotography.com/tominon-35mm/

ray_parkhurst
Posts: 3402
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 10:40 am
Location: Santa Clara, CA, USA
Contact:

Post by ray_parkhurst »

RobertOToole wrote:
Beatsy wrote:Minolta DImage 5400 is hands-down the best "affordable" option these days. Particularly for 2x but also for nearby magnifications (say 1.2x to 2.8x). FF and APS-C. Demand has pushed the price up though - they go for around £350 (if you're lucky) to £550 (if you're not). Very glad I got in early :)

Having said that, the 5400 does have a couple of cons IMO. The short focal length (35mm) means large bands of "streakies" around the edges on deep stacks. Also, it is COMPLETELY intolerant of (stray) light entering the lens from anywhere except the subject. That can complicate lighting a bit. Neither are insurmountable problems at all, but just including them for completeness.
Hi Beatsy,

I like to wrap a small section of a flocking sheet around the front of the Min5400 to serve as a soft lens hood. It really helps. I do this with almost all lenses before I shoot.

The Tominon 35 should be mentioned when talking affordable lenses at 2x, its a very underrated lens. The coverage is huge and the image quality is very good. Its not going to beat a Minolta 5400 but it beats enlarging lenses and even some macro lenses.

I uploaded some of the 2x test results from the Tominon 35 page on my site where I compare it to the Canon MP-E at 2.1x.

https://www.closeuphotography.com/tominon-35mm/
Quite a few coin photographers use the 35mm Tominon for variety shots. I have one in my reference rack that had a bad aperture leaf, so I removed the aperture completely, and use it now as a fixed-aperture objective whenever the question of how good they are wide open comes up. They were made for the Polaroid MP3/MP4 Macro Photo system, so they were developed specifically for macro photography, and for large coverage. Their performance wide open is actually the big surprise, but this may point toward their intended use at higher magnifications.

While we're on subject of short macro lenses for 2x, I'd put in a vote for the Nikon 35mm Macro Nikkor.

Maybe I'll do a 35mm Shootout to compare these lenses.

Robert, what would you say about the 32mm Tomioka/Yashica at 2x?

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

Post by RobertOToole »

A little embarrassed to say that I forgot about the 32mm Tomioka/Yashica at 2x.

Too many lenses :(

The Nikon 35mm Macro Nikkor is a f4.5? I forget. You don't see those for sale too often.

Robert

ray_parkhurst
Posts: 3402
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 10:40 am
Location: Santa Clara, CA, USA
Contact:

Post by ray_parkhurst »

RobertOToole wrote:A little embarrassed to say that I forgot about the 32mm Tomioka/Yashica at 2x.

Too many lenses :(

The Nikon 35mm Macro Nikkor is a f4.5? I forget. You don't see those for sale too often.

Robert
Yes, f4.5. From memory of earlier tests, it's pretty sharp and has better CAs than the 65mm or 120mm. I have never tested a 16mm.

Lou Jost
Posts: 5933
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2015 7:03 am
Location: Ecuador
Contact:

Post by Lou Jost »

"But the resolution of the objective is the same in both cases... it is a case of "empty magnification", isn't it?
Edit--I misremembered the thing in brackets. Please ignore it: [Alligator, not necessarily. Rik has shown that the aerial image of even a good 10x infinite objective contains significantly more detail than ordinary sensors can capture. So increasing the number of pixels by spreading the image over a larger sensor with more pixels will improve the image.]

The Mitu 2x is known to be an under-performer though.
Last edited by Lou Jost on Mon Sep 10, 2018 5:21 am, edited 1 time in total.

ray_parkhurst
Posts: 3402
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 10:40 am
Location: Santa Clara, CA, USA
Contact:

Post by ray_parkhurst »

Lou Jost wrote:
"But the resolution of the objective is the same in both cases... it is a case of "empty magnification", isn't it?
So increasing the number of pixels by spreading the image over a larger sensor with more pixels will improve the image.
Even if there is more information, the magnification can still be "empty". Beyond a certain amount of diffraction softening, increasing magnification may still add a bit more information but the image won't be perceived as being more detailed.

PS...I know what you are going to say...downsize the FF image to same size as APS-C and it will be more detailed. But of course 100% crops will suffer from lower perceived detail if the lens is well beyond diffraction limit, so it depends on how the images will be used.

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic