Variety photography objectives comparison

rmpsrpms

I published this comparison over on Photomacrography.net, as well as both LCR and CC Coin Photography Forums, and since it was coin-specific I thought folks here might have some interest...

I did a comparative shootout of 14 objectives I had laying around from various projects and purchases. I did NOT do a good job of ensuring a consistent magnification, so you'll see anywhere from ~4x to ~6x or possibly higher. The two 20mm objectives I tested were tough to get below 6x on my setup so that's where I tested. them. Most of these are fairly modest in price and quality and I wanted to see which of them had acceptable results in this magnification range, which is perfect for showing die variety details on coins. I used a 1956-D Lincoln Cent as the subject and shot around the mintmark area. The stacks required were modest, from 4-7 images depending on the lens. Camera was a Canon XS 10MP APS-C, which was (one of) Canon's first to incorporate EFSC in Live View.

Here are the objectives I tested:



Front row L-R:
Parco 4 0.15
Bausch & Lomb 48mm 0.08
Olympus M5 0.1
Technical Instruments 4 0.13
Olympus 4 0.1
Nikon 4 Plan 0.1
Nikon 4 0.1
"Made In Germany" 5/0.1

Back row L-R:
Canon 20mm f3.5-22 Macrophoto
Nikon Plan 4 0.13
Zeiss 20mm f3.2-f32 Makrotar
Nikon 5x Measuring Microscope (M26 mount)
Bausch & Lomb 48mm f4.5-22 Micro Tessar
Canon 35mm f2.8-f22 Macrophoto

And here are the images of the 56-D Lincoln (in no particular order):

Canon 35mm f2.8-22 Macrophoto at f2.8


Canon 35mm f2.8-22 Macrophoto at f4


Parco 4x 0.15


Made in Germany 5x 0.1


Technical Instruments 4x 0.13


Nikon 4x 0.1


Olympus 4x 0.1


Nikon 4Plan 0.1


Olympus M5 0.1


Bausch & Lomb 48mm 0.08


Bausch & Lomb 48mm f4.5-22 Micro Tessar at f4.5


Canon 20mm f3.5-22 Macrophoto at f3.5


Nikon 5x Measuring Microscope


Zeiss 20mm f3.2-f32 Makrotar


Nikon Plan 4 0.13

JamesM

Interesting, out of curiosity what one is your preferred lens for this application and why?

coinsarefun

Very cool!!!
To me the Zeiss 20mm f3.2-f32 Makrotar has the sharpest image

blu62vette

Good stuff!

lcoopie

all good

OriginalDan

Awesome! Thanks for sharing.

panther

Outstanding pictures.
I think the Cherry Pickers quide need you as there new Photographer.

rmpsrpms

<< <i>Very cool!!!
To me the Zeiss 20mm f3.2-f32 Makrotar has the sharpest image >>



Yeah, the Zeiss has that 3D look, and it is the most saturated of the bunch. I think this is fairly typical of Zeiss lenses, and one of the reasons they are so desirable (and expensive). The 20mm Canon and the Zeiss are very close, and for sharpness I personally give the nod to the Canon, but the Zeiss has an overall better image.

rmpsrpms

<< <i>Interesting, out of curiosity what one is your preferred lens for this application and why? >>



My preference is the Nikon 5x Measuring Microscope objective, no question. It gives a great result, sharp from edge to edge, and good color fidelity (if a bit under-saturated). It also has MEGA working distance so it's super easy to get light on the coin. It isn't the sharpest of the bunch, but is sharp enough to give a good presentation of a variety shot. I have Nikon's 3x and 10x objectives as well, and they are equally flexible with long working distances. In fact, the 10x has almost 2 inches working distance, which is five to ten times what a typical 10x objective offers.

Now, keep in mind that none of these are particularly expensive objectives. You can get any of them for less than $300, and the Nikon 4 Plan 0.1 (which gives a very respectable result) is less than $100. Some are even cheaper, but their performance is commensurate with their price. That said, I paid only $16 for the "Made in Germany" 5x, and while not at the top of the heap, it does OK for a very modest investment.

JRocco

Great thread and very interesting too.
Thanks for putting all the work you did into this.

crazyhounddog

Way cool!! Looks like you have some VERY cool toys there bud!! I love the look of ALL of your images....Very well done!....CHD

LanceNewmanOCC

.
i'd love links to all the threads you posted this comparison for objectives

a larger test base would be nice if any accurate results are to be considered. we know just how much the most miniscule of variances with this type of photography can vastly affect the outcome.

whereas your normal stacked objective images are 10 out of 10, none of these go above 8.75. i will also say, i understand the time and effort that goes into a comparative analysis like this and it ain't easy being cheesy.

now if you said that you gave each objective an effort that is 10 out of 10 and your test base had say 5 different images for each objective to rule out performance bias on your part and or variances from lighting, micro shake etc, then we would be in a position to pick which are the top 3 per say. the easiest is to start ruling out the less performers from the top ones and although the low performers would be excluded right away, they still out-perform macro lenses and digi-scopes right out of the gate, at least from what i've seen for the effort involved.

but since we aren't asked to be the judge, i will concur with JamesM and ask, which do you think is best, not so much from this one study, but from a cost, magnification, results oriented approach for diversity and then maybe another of your opinions on which of the best have what specific qualities in the most desirable areas.

it appears as if you didn't use a light ring. if not, why?

i also HIGHLY recommend you get one of those brushes the ladies use to apply blush, it has ultra fine soft brushes to get those pesky surface particles off that I would be happy to use on all coins but proofs 68 and above. i use one on say jeffersons, lincolns, large cents, roosies etc and it works fantastic.

to wrap up, tyvm for sharing and showing us the grand results from top-notch macro photography with professional equipment and experience. and if you don't reply to this post, i take no offense, i'm just rambling
.

nwcoast

Most excellent comparison study!
Thank you for making the effort and for sharing the results!

Most interesting... I too find the zeiss, olympus and Canon to be superior..

rmpsrpms

Lance...I'll address points your points below...Ray



<< <i>i'd love links to all the threads you posted this comparison for objectives >>



Here are the links...

Photomacrography.net
Lincoln Cent Resource Coin Photography Forum
Coin Community Coin Photography Forum



<< <i>a larger test base would be nice if any accurate results are to be considered. we know just how much the most miniscule of variances with this type of photography can vastly affect the outcome. >>



Agreed. Even though I tried to do this in as controlled a manner as possible, the physical differences in the setups between lenses affect the lighting, and since I did the stacks manually there is some variability there. I did not take care to adjust bellows extensions to match magnifications, either, and it's a natural thing to think that higher magnification images are better/sharper vs lower mag because more detail shows. You will see these issues in the comments on the other forums.



<< <i>whereas your normal stacked objective images are 10 out of 10, none of these go above 8.75. i will also say, i understand the time and effort that goes into a comparative analysis like this and it ain't easy being cheesy. >>



The objective I usually use is the Nikon 4 Plan 0.1, and the image I got in this comparison is about what I normally see from this objective. One interesting thing is that I think I'm getting more image compression from Photobucket than in the past. I uploaded all these images at 1296x864 pixels, but they are all being downsized to 1024x682, and appear to be more compressed than usual. This may be a factor in the quality difference. I am thinking I need to drop Photobucket because of this.



<< <i>now if you said that you gave each objective an effort that is 10 out of 10 and your test base had say 5 different images for each objective to rule out performance bias on your part and or variances from lighting, micro shake etc, then we would be in a position to pick which are the top 3 per say. the easiest is to start ruling out the less performers from the top ones and although the low performers would be excluded right away, they still out-perform macro lenses and digi-scopes right out of the gate, at least from what i've seen for the effort involved. >>



In reality, the stacking process gets rid of a lot of the variability and allows you to eliminate the most egregious differences between the lenses. If any shot had a micro shaking problem it would show up in the final image. I suppose if ALL images had a problem then they'd all look bad, but I've taken so much care to eliminate mirror slap and shutter shake that I don't think there is much of it happening in these shots. Lighting is a big variable, but not for things like sharpness or resolution, which is what I would tend to judge these objectives on. As you might see in my responses on another forum, I ranked the lenses in two groups: do they cover the full APS-C sensor and provide a sharp image across the whole field, or don't they. That's the #1 down-selection, and after that you just have relatively minor variance. One thing I should note is I set white balance to "tungsten" for all shots, so the differences in color are completely due to the lenses, which some folks found interesting.



<< <i>but since we aren't asked to be the judge, i will concur with JamesM and ask, which do you think is best, not so much from this one study, but from a cost, magnification, results oriented approach for diversity and then maybe another of your opinions on which of the best have what specific qualities in the most desirable areas. >>



Request for judgement was implied And ultimately I'll stick with the answer I gave before...I prefer the Nikon 5x Measuring Microscope objective because of its working distance. But the Nikon Plan 4 0.13, the Canon 20mm, the Zeiss 20mm, the Nikon 4 Plan 0.1, and the Canon 35mm, and the Olympus 4x 0.1 all cover the full APS-C sensor with good sharpness to the corners, so all are pretty much acceptable for this work.



<< <i>it appears as if you didn't use a light ring. if not, why? >>



I could have used a ring light but they reduce the contrast quite a bit and make the shots look more washed-out. It's also hard to get light onto the coin at all for the short working distance objectives like the Canon and Zeiss 20mm, and I don't think a ringlight would work well. I have used half ping pong balls with good success on these objectives but the "look" is very different from direct lighting and I didn't want to have that skew the perceived results.



<< <i>i also HIGHLY recommend you get one of those brushes the ladies use to apply blush, it has ultra fine soft brushes to get those pesky surface particles off that I would be happy to use on all coins but proofs 68 and above. i use one on say jeffersons, lincolns, large cents, roosies etc and it works fantastic. >>



Actually, for objective comparisons, those pieces of dust are very beneficial. The way the objective resolves the dust particles is an important part of the comparison. I blow the coin with a photographic bellows before each shot, so the only particles left are the ones that are permanently attached. I suppose I could brush them off, but as I said "they add".



<< <i>to wrap up, tyvm for sharing and showing us the grand results from top-notch macro photography with professional equipment and experience. and if you don't reply to this post, i take no offense, i'm just rambling
. >>



No worries, ramble on...Ray

LanceNewmanOCC

<< <i>No worries, ramble on...Ray >>



now that is a response worthy of my effort, time and mental faculties

touché to you my friend, touché!
.

morgansforever

IMO the Nikon Plan 4 0.13 and Zeiss 20mm f3.2-f32 Makrotar are the sharpest. Nice work Ray.

cthomas2

very cool!

rmpsrpms

<< <i>IMO the Nikon Plan 4 0.13 and Zeiss 20mm f3.2-f32 Makrotar are the sharpest. Nice work Ray. >>



Indeed IMO the "winner" is the Nikon Plan 4 0.13, but I don't see as much sharpness in the Makrotar as I do in the Canon 20mm. Don't get me wrong, the Makrotar makes a wonderful image and indeed its color and "3D" character set it apart from the others, but I still see the Canon as having a slight edge in sharpness. FYI, the Nikon is also a very "easy" lens to use and has a bit longer working distance than the average 4x objective. Not as much as the 5x MM, which is such a joy to use, but still better than most.

LanceNewmanOCC

.
goodness. if no one made any more posts to the forum starting today, i'm not sure i could read all the amazing threads having the rest of my life to do so. read and process them that is.

some serious talent around here and this is just one example.

old thread
.

ms70

<< <i>Very cool!!!
To me the Zeiss 20mm f3.2-f32 Makrotar has the sharpest image >>



x2 You can actually see shadows from the particles on the coin's surface and it's the clearest.

This was a great thread to bump!

ClosedLoop

these are really some amazing photos.
what does a trained eye look for first when looking at photos like these?
the term "washed out", is this refferring to the edge of the photo?

AUandAG

<< <i>Very cool!!!
To me the Zeiss 20mm f3.2-f32 Makrotar has the sharpest image >>

Davideo

photomacrography.net -

rmpsrpms

<< <i>these are really some amazing photos.
what does a trained eye look for first when looking at photos like these?
the term "washed out", is this refferring to the edge of the photo? >>



You pretty much look for the same things as in full-coin photos, but once you get into higher magnifications the differences between lenses/objectives becomes bigger. When I did this shootout I had probably 25 lenses/objectives to choose from, and eliminated all but the best, so they are actually more similar than if you looked at a full range of what's out there for these magnifications. But to answer your question more specifically, "washed out" usually refers to a whole image or area of an image that has low contrast. Normally images should have the whole dynamic range from darkest areas to brightest areas in order to look "natural". If you look at the two Bausch and Lomb objectives in this shootout, you will see the center of the image is a bit lighter in the shadows than the rest. This is an area of low contrast, and looks "washed out" like a pair of jeans that has been washed too many times and has lost its color.

Other than contrast, the primary attributes I look for in a lens/objective for these magnifications is:

- sharpness in the center. This is usually not too hard to come by.
- sharpness at the edges/corners. This is VERY hard to come by and separates the best from the rest
- color fidelity. Also very tough at these magnifications, much more so than full-coin imaging lenses
- other qualities such as the "3D" look, telecentricity, etc

Ray

lostincoins

How would you rate the Canon MP-E 65mm 5X macro lens to these objectives? I have been considering the purchase of this lens and would appreciate your input.

rmpsrpms

<< <i>How would you rate the Canon MP-E 65mm 5X macro lens to these objectives? I have been considering the purchase of this lens and would appreciate your input. >>



I've never made the plunge into buying a 65MP since it would not fit well in my setup, and I don't do macro in the field beyond 1:1 due to depth of field problems. That said, I've heard they are quite good and in fact many award winning photos are taken with them. My concern with them is their size. The lens is quite large in diameter, and even worse the front lens element is recessed at the front of the lens case, so this puts the large diameter part of the lens even closer to the subject at highest magnification. This will make lighting the subject almost impossible.

For the price of the 65MP, you could purchase a 75ARD1 for 1:1-1:2, a 35MP for 2:1-4:1, and a Nikon M5 (not reviewed in this shootout) for 4:1-6:1 and have a few hundred $$ left over. Each of these is optimum for their mag range, and will give at least as good an image quality as the 65MP. The advantage the 65MP has is direct operation on the camera over the range of 1:1...5:1 magnification, and indeed is the only solution if you need this functionality, which you don't for coins.

lava

Based on those pix, I like the Made in Germany image. As I look at some of the finer details, overall that seems to capture them, such as the vertical line inside the 6 and 9, the flow of the metal between the numerals, the contact mark on the 1, etc.