I have just posted the test for the Schneider Macro Varon 85/4.5 lens. This is a bellows lens and it performs extremely well from 0.5:1 to 2:1. It exceeds in all categories except for resolution and that is likely only limited by the f/4.5 aperture. Most of the lenses that outperform this lens have larger working apertures. I guess there is another limitation in that this is an expensive lens. But hey, you can spend a lot on a traditional macro lens also.
I have started working on a new lens sent to me recently. It is a Schneider Macro Varon 85/4.5. This is a bellows lens from Schneider that has a variable aperture from 4.5 to 8 and an adjustment ring for adjusting the lens elements for magnification - a lot like the Nikon Printing-Nikkor 150/2.8 I tested a while back (the older version). So far this lens is extremely good an appears to be a true APO lens. It's sharpness and resolution is just a touch less than the best of the Printing-Nikkors and its corners are extremely sharp. So far the only limitation of this lens is that its aperture only opens to f/4.5. Using a much larger aperture tends to mean a lot of focus stacking, so it's not much of a limitation. Stay tuned for the final test appearing soon.
I have finally posted the lens test for the Nikon Printing-Nikkor 150 mm f/2.8 newer version. This lens is a little different than the old one and doesn't have the magnification adjustment ring. This lens acts like other Printing-Nikkor lenses and is heavily optimized for 1:1. That means it works really well at 1:1 and performance falls off as you go above and below that magnification. If you want a bellows lens, stick to the older model.
I have completed the numerical testing for the Printing-Nikkor 150/2.8. This again is a newer model of the lens that I tested previously. It performs extremely well at 1:1 and at f/2.8, but as expected, the performance falls off as you go up or down in magnification. I still have to take pictures of and with the lens to get the test completed. That should occur soon.
It has been a while since I have added anything to this site. Just caught up doing other things. I have recently received a Printing-Nikkor 150/2.8 that I am testing. This is a newer version than the one I have already tested. This version does not have the magnification adjustment ring that the other had and so far acts like other Printing-Nikkor's that I have tested. In other words it works really well at the intended magnification (1:1) and not as well for everything else. I hope to have the test up in a few days.
Comment: Dear Sir, I have a question. I am planning to use my DSLR Nikon (D610) to scan 35 and medium format negatives. I have Nikon bellows PB-6 system. What is a best lens you suggest to use for this task? I have Apo-Rodagan D 75mm
Comment: You really need a lens that performs well from 0.5:1 to 1:1 with a flat field. The Apo-Rodagon 75 should be good for that. You could also use a shorter focal length macro lens like a 50 mm (without a bellows) to get good results.
In case you haven't noticed the sidebar, the Printing-Nikkor 95/2.8 lens test is posted. It is similar to most of the other Printing-Nikkor lenses (except the 150 with its additional magnification adjustment ring) in that it is optimized for a specific magnification - 1:2 in this case. It performs extremely well at that mag and not so well at other magnifications. It should be reversed when used above 1:1 and as would be expected, performs very well at 2:1 when reversed. It is really best left to those who want to image at 1:2 or collectors.
Comment: For adapting the printing Nikkors, RAF camera( can be found on E bay makes a very cheap M45- M 52 mm adapter ring, It works well ( I was the [person who asked him to make it)
Comment: Thanks for the info. I may have to pick one up even though I don't have an M45 lens of my own.
I decided that testing the Printing-Nikkor 95 in reverse orientation above 1:1 would be beneficial since it is optimized for 1:2 and when reversed at 2:1 it should perform pretty well. Testing has confirmed that performance improves above 1:1 when reversed and is quite good at 2:1 as predicted. I have all of the numbers and pictures done and just need to finish the writing now. Should be online soon.
I have finished the numerical testing on the Printing-Nikkor 95/2.8. It is extremely good at 0.5:1, the magnification it is optimized for. As the magnification rises above 0.5:1, the performance deteriorates fairly quickly - center and corners. To get decent performance much above 0.5:1, you would need to stop it down quite a bit, negating the reason you would use this lens in the first place. I still need to take pictures with it and put together the text before it all shows up online.
Finally, I'm working on a new lens test - a Nikon Printing-Nikkor 95mm f/2.8. This is a lens optimized for 1:2 magnification. I have completed aperture testing and found that it is at its best at f/3.3. That best is extremely good - virtually as good as the best lens I have tested, the Printing-Nikkor 150. We will see how it performs at different magnifications - find out how tightly it is optimized for 1:2.
Commenting now available on these posts. I have been working on getting a comment system up and running. It is pretty simple for now and doesn't require you to sign in. It just requires you to pass a test to prove that you aren't a robot (computer) trying to post spam to the site.
Since I am interested in lenses and coins this post serves both interests. An enlarging lens can be a good replacement for a loupe. An enlarging lens in the 40 or 50 mm range will be a good choice for most coins. If you want more magnification, go shorter focal length (or longer for less). Use one with a larger aperture if possible and you will get a larger field of view (like a 50/2.8). nike huarache Men correr ultra gris, NIKE Men s s Mayfly NIKE Lite SE Running c6e64de An advantage of an enlarging lens as a loupe is that the area of sharpness in the center of the field of view will be larger since they are more complex/corrected lenses compared to loupes. The only drawback is that they are larger than a loupe and don't have a built-in lens cap. you will need a couiple of lens caps for it.
THe lens test for the Schneider 40/4 Componon is available now. It is a good lens, but not spectacular. No real vices and reasonably priced.
I am nearly done with the Schneider Componon 40/4 lens test. I have all of the numeric testing complete. I just need to take some pics and put everything together. Should be out in the next day or two. Seems to be be a good, but not spectacular lens. No real issues with the performance as long as I clean off any large fingerprints on it first (see previous posting).
I have wanted to switch my news and additions portion of this page into my own system. I did this by using mySQL and PHP for my homepage. Everything should work as usual, except that my news items will not be imported from Google+ anymore (such as this posting). This allows me to control my links and photos a little better. Hopefully in the future I will also add the ability to post comments directly to a posting. You don't need to do anything to see this page as the index file will redirect you browser to this page. I wanted to do this redirect at the server level, but currently my ISP doesn't allow that. You can certainly change your link to index if you like.
I went back and looked more closely at my 40/4 and found that there was a rather large fingerprint on the rear element (front for me since the lens is reversed). Since the rear element is fairly small, it takes up quite a bit of the available surface and most of the prime real estate in the center of the lens. I cleaned it off and suddenly the contrast was back where I would expect it to be. I will redo the aperture testing to see what the measurement differences are. I will report those differences on the website. Sometime later I will also do my comparison check between two of the same lens - one with bad fungus and one clean to see what the effects are. I suspect the changes will be similar, the most prominent being a drop in contrast.?
I have been a little slow with the testing of the Schneider 40/4. I am almost done with the aperture testing. It has the best resolution at f/4 and it is sharpest at f/5.6. F/4.7 is a good compromise for most imaging. The main problem with it is its lack of image contrast. I had done some basic testing of this lens a couple years back and it seemed to have better contrast then. Not sure what is going on. I will have to look closely at the lens to see if there are any problems with it, like fungus. I don't normally think of this area as a fungus hot spot since I live in the high desert. The lens itself isn't the newest one out there, but it isn't the oldest either. It is one of the newer plastic housing ones, not the oldest metal housing. I will post any updates as they come available.?
Sorry that I haven't been posting anything lately. Just too many things going on to do any lens testing. I want to start simple and plan on testing a Schneider 40/4 enlarging lens. I wanted to test a 50/4 of either Nikon or Schneider make and found that I didn't have the right adapter for either. They both have lens threads of around 32 or 33 mm and all I have is 30.5 or 34. I will have too look on eBay for step-up rings that I can use. So far the 40/4 seems to be relatively low contrast, but sharp wide open.?
I have finally finished my lens test page that puts all of my current data into a lens test form like my original tests, i.e. all the info on a single page instead of the multiple page format that I created a while back. It was an interesting challenge as it uses most of the same code, but in different format/order. I did add a feature that will allow you to move the graph legend on a couple of graphs. There are two graphs that have the problem where the graph line goes behind the legend for a few lenses. As with the other page it allows you to switch between effective aperture and aperture for those lenses that are shown as effective aperture on Nikon bodies.?
For those of you that like the lens tests in the old format (single page), I am creating a page that will do that will all of my data, creating the page on the fly. It's still in process, but it isn't proving too difficult. I just have to reuse and rearrange the old code to make it work like I want it. I haven't had a lot of time for lens testing lately, but will hopefully get back on that bandwagon sometime soon. It has been a busy month.?
I was looking at the Mitutoyo tube lens that I used for testing the Edmund Optics objective and noticed that the lens elements are fairly small on it. Is it limiting the effective aperture/NA of the objective? It certainly didn't perform as well as I would like with an NA that high. I have now also tested the lens with my 200AF micro as the tube lens. this is a popular way to use infinity-corrected objectives since tube lenses aren't all that common. nike I found that it does perform a little better on resolution and sharpness with the 200AF. Otherwise, corners are slightly worse and CA is better with the 200AF.?
I have added a small new article showing a good example of the lens aberration called field curvature. It isn't common to see it where you can actually identify it visually. The nice part about field curvature is that focus stacking will remove its effects.
I have completed a new lens test: Edmund Optics 5x/0.225 infinity-corrected microscope objective. This lens work pretty well, but not as well as I would expect it to with the high NA of 0.225. It does have a lot of working distance. The biggest problem is that it is very expensive and requires a tube lens or longer focal length camera lens to act as a tube lens.?
Comment: Your information is helpful, so I printed it for future reference. Having said that, you have the same problem I am encountering, the blue coloring of Silver coins! That is what I went to your site for, to get an answer re: Blue color silver coins and how to get rid of it. Again, there is some good info on your site, but apparently you cannot get rid of the blueness! Thanks for the other help,
Despite having its undefeated start to the season end last Tuesday, along with a loss to the Indiana Pacers Wednesday night in which LeBron James sat out the second game of a back-to-back trip, the Cleveland Cavaliers remain the best team in the NBA thus far.
The mission to “Defend the Land” has been placed in full drive with the Cavs, who once again look like the clear favorite to represent the Eastern Conference in the NBA Finals come June.
The journey to repeat as NBA champions is no guarantee, but through 11 games — 10 of which have been against Eastern Conference opponents — the Cavs are 9-2. Most notably, they have defeated two of the East’s projected top contenders: the Toronto Raptors (twice this season) and the Boston Celtics.
Prior to its first defeat, the Cavs’ 6-0 start stands as the best team start in LeBron James’s career, having reached the 5-1 mark a total of three times in two consecutive seasons with Miami in 2012 and 2013 in addition to last season with the Cleveland Cavaliers.
It was the second-best start in franchise history, falling short of the 1976-77 Cavaliers’ 8-0 start.
Although records don’t tell all about a team, Cleveland’s current squad could be the best team that has ever surrounded James, who is currently in his 10th season with the franchise since returning in 2014.
Despite still being in his prime, at 31 years old James faces the reality of father time creeping up, considering the retirements of basketball legends Kobe Bryant, Tim Duncan and Kevin Garnett this past season and offseason.
Although the King’s dethronement isn’t expected anytime soon, having recently surpassed NBA Hall of Famer Hakeem Olajuwon for 10th place on the NBA’s all-time scoring list, the Cavaliers’ hometown superstar has about four to six years remaining in his career.
No one can predict what the Cavaliers will become post-LeBron, especially after the additions made in recent years, but it is likely the team will lose its value as a top contender. The immediate decline in wins from 2010-2014, occurring during James’s stint with the Heat, was more than enough evidence that it must build around their star player.
The first step toward rebuilding during those four seasons was the selection of Kyrie Irving with the No. 1 overall pick in the 2011 NBA Draft.
Entering the NBA with a foot injury and offset by other nagging injuries throughout his career, the most significant being his fractured kneecap in game one of the 2015 NBA Finals, Irving slightly became a forgotten cause as a player with the potential to be one of the league’s best point guards.
Despite Irving earning the 2011-12 Rookie of the Year award and being known for his ability to score, a lack of acknowledgment for his game still remained.
After LeBron James signed a five-year, $90 million contract extension during the 2014 offseason, his unexpected return that same year has worked in the favor of Irving ever since.
Playing in just 53 games last season after recovering from the previous year’s knee injury, Irving has excelled, proving his ability to take over on the game’s biggest stage in the NBA Finals.
Convincing many that he outplayed the two-time NBA MVP Steph Curry in the series, averaging 27.1 points per game and scoring the game-winning three-point dagger in his face to secure Cleveland’s first-ever title, Irving used the postseason to remind and prove to the world he is one of the league’s best point guards.
It was obvious then, and it is obvious now that without Irving the Cavaliers cannot win an NBA championship.
Whenever it seems like the Cavs are down and out on the brink of defeat, it is Irving who has stepped up as the team’s savior when even James wouldn’t be expected to prevail.
Although other players such as J.R. Smith, Iman Shumpert, Channing Frye, Kevin Love and more play pivotal roles in the Cavs’ success as well, the tandem of Irving and James has formulated a one-two punch that is capable of carrying Cleveland to future title victories.
The pairing of the two has helped reduce the pressures on James and provides Cleveland with an option to stay within winning games as the team’s leader rests.
For purposes of rest, James intentionally sat out for the first time this season in the Cavs’ game against the Pacers.
In addition to scoring the ball well, ranking third in the league in scoring at 109 PPG, Cleveland has remained consistent on defense, allowing 103.5 PPG. Despite the average, the Cavs have allowed 100-plus points in just six of their 11 games this season.
Although the Golden State Warriors, considered Cleveland’s rival as we anticipate a third-consecutive Finals meeting between the two, are a team capable of going back and forth in a shootout with any team, their occasional lapses on defense detract from their league-leading 117.3 PPG average.
Thus far, the Warriors are tied for allowing the seventh highest opponent PPG average at 109.3. In comparison to Cleveland’s six games, Golden State has allowed 100-plus points in nine of its 11 games.
It is true the Warriors are still adjusting to their addition of former NBA MVP Kevin Durant and the departures of primary role players Harrison Barnes and Andrew Bogut, but Golden State must find a way to resolve its inconsistencies, which mainly fall on it becoming smaller around the key and paint areas.
One can only hope another Cavs-Warriors championship matchup will take place. After leading in points, rebounds, assists, steals and blocks in the NBA Finals, if James and co. were able to defeat the self-embraced “Super Villains” of Golden State, he would achieve the ultimate victory that would earn him a nod in surpassing two of the game’s greatest in Michael Jordan and Kobe Bryant.
Much is still to occur throughout this season. There will be phases during which Cleveland will look like the best team or falter to its high expectations, preventing the prediction of the Cavs winning it all in 2016-17.
It’s a game-by-game process in which teams continue to develop, even in the case of the Cleveland Cavaliers heading into year three of James being back at the helm. Their “All In” mentality is a motto that persists in the championship-or-bust expectations that have become standard for fans such as ourselves to judge accordingly.