Cine lenses vs. Zeiss luminars (interesting example)

[dh003i]

Reading through a few threads on good macro lenses, this page from Lefkowitz' Manual of Close-Up Photography came to mind. An interesting example of the resolution of a Cine Switar vs. Zeiss Luminar 25mm lens.

44690
Cine Switar vs. a Luminar 25mm lens at 10:1 (comparison is at a 16x enlargement of the corner of a 35mm negative). Left: Cine lens. Right: Zeiss Luminar.

(zip file with entire page scanned in):
44691

[Dr Klaus Schmitt]

Cine lenses were the "poor mans" high magnification macro lenses used reversed. The Zeiss Luminars (16/25/40/63/100mm) were developed around 1950 and still beat most other macro lenses hands down. What most don't know, they resolve about 350-380 lpm (line pairs per millimeter). Only the very later made Nikon their series of Macro Nikkors (19/35/65/120mm) for their Multiphot photomacrography system (quite a copy of the Leitz Aristophot, but very thoughtfully enhanced), which are about on par with the Luminars. Both the Luminars and the Macro Nikkors cover 4x5" (13x18cm) format and allow up to 1000mm bellows extension. All data of such lenses (only about 300, I have to list some 300++ maybe after retirement...don't hold your breath) may be found on my site http://www.macrolenses.de

[dh003i]

Cine lenses were the "poor mans" high magnification macro lenses used reversed. The Zeiss Luminars (16/25/40/63/100mm) were developed around 1950 and still beat most other macro lenses hands down. What most don't know, they resolve about 350-380 lpm (line pairs per millimeter).

Wow! That is very impressive (at what magnification ratio do they get that many lp/mm, though?).

Brian Caldwell has claimed (http://photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00AJNr?start=10) that the 55/2.8 Micro Nikkor (which Dan Fromm recommended to me) gets almost 700 lp/mm f/2.8 on-axis for 470nm blue light, from the patent application (but looking at the patent, I'm not sure where that information is).


If you analyze the patent prescription for the 55mm f/2.8 Micro Nikkor (U.S.Patent 4,260,223 (http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4260223.html) example #1) you will find that it is fully diffraction limited (Strehl ratio > 0.9) at f/2.8 on-axis for monochromatic blue light (470nm). Under these conditions the lens will just barely resolve about 700 line pairs per millimeter.


Only the very later made Nikon their series of Macro Nikkors (19/35/65/120mm) for their Multiphot photomacrography system (quite a copy of the Leitz Aristophot, but very thoughtfully enhanced), which are about on par with the Luminars.

Interestingly, according to one test (http://www.tonipuma.it/tecnica/63vs65/index.htm) (translation to English (http://babelfish.yahoo.com/translate_url?doit=done&tt=url&intl=1&fr=bf-home&trurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tonipuma.it%2Ftecnica%2F63vs65%2Findex.htm&lp=it_en&btnTrUrl=Translate)), the 65/4.5 Macro Nikkor is slightly better than the a 63/4.5 Luminar at the edges wide open (see this comparison figure (http://www.tonipuma.it/tecnica/63vs65/immagini/t180bordi.jpg)). Wonder if the difference is significant in relation to sample variation.


Both the Luminars and the Macro Nikkors cover 4x5" (13x18cm) format and allow up to 1000mm bellows extension. All data of such lenses (only about 300, I have to list some 300++ maybe after retirement...don't hold your breath) may be found on my site http://www.macrolenses.de

Looking around the forum, I found your website from your posts. I've been to this great website and have it bookmarked. Thank you for the excellent site with an amazing compilation of macro lenses!

Dan Fromm said he tested a good copy of the Kodak Cine Ektar 25/1.9 vs. the a good Zeiss Luminar 25/2.8 and says that it outperformed the Luminar at 10:1 and above, though.

When you say the Luminars and Nikkors cover 4x5, I presume you don't mean they cover it at infinity, but at their optimal magnification ratios? (e.g., according to Lefkowitz, the 15-20mm ones are optimized for ~15x, the 20-30mm ones optimized for 10x, the 30-40mm ones 6x, the 50-60mm ones 3x, and the 80-150mm ones for 1x).

[Nathan Potter]

dh003i, Klaus has reminded me that I first rigged a Leitz Aristophot macro unit to do initial scanning macrophotographs using the 120 mm Leitz Summar that came with it. I also have a 50 mm. Milar somewhere. I later bought the unit and it sits in a corner of my darkroom. Incredibly a ring light attachment with 12 tungsten bulbs (all of which still work!) came with the Aristophot. I still use it for occasional macro work along with the 4X5 Linhof reflex housing on top. I think this may be about vintage 1960.

But the Zeiss Luminars I used later produced superior 4X5 images of planar objects when well focused. These may still be unmatched for white light use - I'm not sure.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.