Best lens for macro electronic components

[Zucca]

Thanks to TiN for his excellent guides:

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/how-to-make-decent-photographs-for-forum-postsarticlespublications/
https://xdevs.com/guide/hwphoto/

anyway I would like to know what are the macro lenses you use for shooting electronics components/circuits.
Yes I know the right light is the key to success, but I am now shopping for a new macro lens and before I pull the trigger I would like to know what you guys are using.

Ah my new horse is a Canon R6, so I am looking at the RF Macro lens, but I am open to everything.

What do you suggest?

EDIT: First on my list
Venus Optics Laowa 100mm f/2.8 2X Ultra Macro with Canon AF version
https://www.venuslens.net/product/laowa-100mm-f-2-8-2x-macro-apo/ref/515/

[Kleinstein]

If the purpose if the pictures is more for documenting / finding faults one may not even need a dedicated macro lense. A "normal (e.g. 100 mm)" lens and additional conversion lenses to put in front may be good enough and much cheaper.  A main down-side of the cheap way is often chromatic aberations and some lack of compfort (e.g. actual aperture and focal distance is not what is seen on the lense). This may be an issue for artistic pictures, but less for fault finding.  Good (bright) light is also important, as one may use a relatively small aperture (e.g. 1/16) to get more depth of field.

For macro shots I use a Sigma 105 mm DG Macro HSM with a Nikon D5300.
For electronics pictures the focal length is a bit on the long side as one may need quite some distance - for insects this is nice.

[alm]

In my opinion comfort features like being able to go from high magnification to lower are very useful. For example taking an overview shot of a large PCB and then a close-up of a dry joint. Or autofocusfor low magnification work. Autofocus is useless at 1:1. Linear distortion might also be important.

My absolute favourite lens for documenting electronics is the Nikon Micro-Nikkor 70-180mm. The short end is just short enough to capture a 19" rack enclosure in one frame, while the long focal length and high 1:1.33 magnification ratio allow for capturing small details without worrying about shadows. Unfortunately, this lens is discontinued and I'm not aware about any current real zoom macro lens, as opposed to a regular telezoom that marketing slapped a macro badge on.

I don't think you need a 2:1 lens for electronics. A 1:1 already let's you fill the frame with a piece of a pcb the size of your thumbnail. The majority of shots will be at much smaller magnification.

How big are the pcbs you're working on and how big is your space? I've had to climb on chairs to fit a large pcb in my frame. I'm wondering if something like a 60-70mm macro lens wouldn't work better. What current lenses do you have? What focal lengths do you use for electronics pictures?

[Zucca]

Thanks for all the comments.
I should add I have a 20-70mm f2.8L and I need something to get closer than that.

I don't think you need a 2:1 lens for electronics. A 1:1 already let's you fill the frame with a piece of a pcb the size of your thumbnail. The majority of shots will be at much smaller magnification.

True but if I pull the trigger I would like something to cover me if I need to get a details of a cold joint.

[mawyatt]

If cost is a concern look to the Raynox DCR-125 and 250 add on Lenses, these are very usefully and work well, and should do a decent job with your Canon 20-70mm. We used these often and they also work well as a "tube" lens working with infinity type microscope lenses for getting down to detailed chip images. BTW be sure to get the necessary "ring" adapters for the lenses you would like to use with the Raynox.

Dedicated macro lens are usually very good, especially the ones from the camera body OEM, but can be somewhat expensive. Recall the Venus Optics did receive some good reviews.

A couple important things to consider when working at macro levels, the subject to lens distance is important because the further the lens front surface the better because of getting "quality" lighting around the subject. Others are vignetting and image edge distortion and focus.

Also consider a sturdy tripod, rather than trying handheld, our experience with image stabilization at macro and below levels has't been good.

Caution: Quality images fo electronics can become addictive, if you get "bit" prepare to open your wallet, and a deep study into optics 

Don't ask how we know this

We can elaborate on our progress and developments from ~2000 if interested, but don't want to clutter up the thread.

Anyway, you have a fun journey ahead enjoy

Best,

[Zucca]

If cost is a concern look to the Raynox DCR-125 and 250 add on Lenses

Many thanks for the suggestions, the Raynox looks good:

https://www.closeuphotography.com/135-componon-s-vs-raynox-dcr-250/2020/2/25/135mm-tube-lens-test-part-2-componon-s-56135-vs-raynox-125mm

[mawyatt]

Hats off, you found one of the best sites around for lens evaluation, was going to point you to Robert's site if you showed an interest in such. Be sure to check out the AmScope 4X for $18 he found, really good little 4X lens for the $.

BTW guess where Robert got the idea of using Silicon Wafers as Test subjects

Here's another site you might like, where the World Class macro folks hang out!!

https://www.photomacrography.net/index.htm

Best,

[Kleinstein]

An add on lens usually works best with a relatively long focal length lense to start with.  The extra lense reduces the combined focal length to maybe half to 2/3. The part that is needed is the distance from the sensor to the lense. To get closer focussing one needs more distance there. The other alterternative to use a more normal lense for shorter focussing is adding an tube extension: this can work too, but may loose some automatic functions and the lense distortion can become significant when using the lense at a shorter distance. Though simpler at first glance the extension tubes can be more tricky than an add on lense.

For really close macros a full size sensor is not really needed. The relative large absolute aperture size reduces the depth of field. One may crop the final picture anyway quite a bit.
Vignetting is usually relatively easy to corret and can be reduced with cropping.

For hand help pictures in addition to holding the direction, there comes the need to keep the distance steady so that the focus can follow. Changing the distance between the time the AF operates and the picture is actually taken becomes a new source for focussing errors one usually does not care very much with longer distances. With real close ups the DOF can be less than 1 mm and a correct focus thus very important. So a good stand could be an option for static pictures.

[alm]

True but if I pull the trigger I would like something to cover me if I need to get a details of a cold joint.

Keep in mind that going beyond 1:1 requires special equipment and technique regarding lighting (very little working distance, yet you need lots of light), a very stable camera support that can get the camera exactly where you want it to be, and quite possibly software and hardware to do focus stacking to deal with the miniscule depth of field. Just keeping your subject in focus is a challenge! I'd focus (no pun intended) on magnification below 1:1, which unless you're into IC decapping is generally the more interesting range for electronics.

If cost is a concern look to the Raynox DCR-125 and 250 add on Lenses, these are very usefully and work well, and should do a decent job with your Canon 20-70mm.

Will they mount on the 20-70 (24-70?)'s large filter threads?

[Cubdriver]

I'm shooting with a 5D IV, so I'm using an EF mount lens.  The one I use most for gear shots, especially the close-ups, is the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L IS macro.  You could probably use it on the Rx with an adapter.  IMO it gives very good results, and find it spends a lot of time on the camera just for general usage.  I throw the EF 24-105 f/4L on for wider shots.



I typically shoot on a stable tripod using LED lights above and behind to get decent light levels, and with apertures between f/16 and f/22 to get decent depth of field.  This often requires shutter speeds in the neighborhood of 1/4~1 second, so stable support is a must, and a remote shutter release helps, too.  I also use a Manfrotto 410 geared head on the tripod for ease of positioning of the camera - makes it easy to get fine adjustments for accurate framing.


-Pat

[Zucca]

Similar setup here Pat...
Manfrotto are a must!

I used the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L IS macro a lot but I am looking for a x2, just because sometime I need to go beyond the 1:1 barrier.
Moreover the Laowa 100mm f/2.8 2X is much cheaper. And since I am on a tripod anyway for macro I do not need too much IS.

[Cubdriver]

If you want crazy close, the MP-E 65mm goes 1:1 to 5:1.  That one is definitely a challenge to use, and a focus rail is a necessity









Above displays taken with the 100mm for size reference:


-Pat

[mawyatt]

Here's another site for more exotic close up lenses.

https://coinimaging.com/

Best,

[Zucca]

Those pics are stellar!
2:1 is just for 1%, 99% I will stay 1:1.

No need to go 5:1, but you are temping me!

[spostma]

A superb macro lens that was used in 9600DPI dia scanners:
https://www.closeuphotography.com/minolta-dimage-scan-elite-5400-lens/


A comment on http://extreme-macro.co.uk/extreme-macro-closeup-lenses/ said interestingly:

A far cheaper solution is to get hold of a damaged pair of 10x50 binoculars and use its objective lens, which typically is c. 51 mm diameter and c. 200mm focal length (+5D)
Glue it into an appropriate 52mm step-up or step-down ring (e.g. Kood) but with the original INNER face that was towards the eyepiece NOW facing outwards.
It should be that way round because that was the correction for which the objective lens was originally computed.
You'll find the image quality and flatness off field are very close to those of the original prime lens.
You can make a "hood" by glueing a 20 mm wide ring of thin cardboard around the exposed part of the objective and painting the inside black.


And a lot of information on achromatic add-on macro lenses:
https://www.angelfire.com/ca/erker/closeups.html
https://www.ohse.de/uwe/articles/oly-converters.html
http://fuzzcraft.com/achromats.html

[Zucca]

New candidate for my purchase, Laowa 90mm f/2.8 2x Ultra Macro APO which is RF compatible and has sort of IS in it, nice!

https://www.venuslens.net/product/laowa-90mm-f-2-8-2x-macro-apo/

https://dustinabbott.net/2022/06/laowa-90mm-f2-8-apo-2x-macro-review/

[mawyatt]

A superb macro lens that was used in 9600DPI dia scanners:
https://www.closeuphotography.com/minolta-dimage-scan-elite-5400-lens/

Yes indeed!! We have the Minolta DI-5400 lens from long ago before the craze started, also acquired long ago a Printing Nikkor PN105 F2.8A that was used to reproduce 35mm motion picture film from the master that was sent out to the theaters!! Another good one if you can find such is the Lomo 3.7X and Canon 35mm Bellows lens, some of the old lenses are really good from 1 to 5X, then the microscope infinity type from Mitutoyo take over.

Here's the PN105 on a custom machined lens fixture attached to a Nikon D800E (also gets attached to a D850 or Z7), the fixtures mounted onto a custom THK Linear Rail for focus stacking. Everything is operated from custom controllers and such.

Best,

[magic]

If cost is a concern look to the Raynox DCR-125 and 250 add on Lenses, these are very usefully and work well, and should do a decent job with your Canon 20-70mm.

Will they mount on the 20-70 (24-70?)'s large filter threads?

Mechanically, you need a step-down ring to 43mm filter thread, that should be doable. Don't use the included universal adapter even if it fits, it's weak plastic junk prone to breaking and dropping the Raynox on whatever you are photographing.

Optically, cut a 35mm hole in a piece of paper (actual diameter measured on actual lenses, I own both of them), hold in front of the lens, see if it vignettes. At the wide end it surely will.

[mawyatt]

Here's a small example of some of the focus stacking equipment developed over the years, and some of the necessary lightning strobes. These strobes were positioned by the "C Stands" to get the proper lighting, which at higher magnifications requires massive amounts of light. The focus stacking fixtures are for vertical and horizontal use, and some have X, Y,  & Z for Stack and Stitch efforts, automated controllers based upon the Trinamic Devices were developed for stacking and S&S efforts.

This is the kind of effort required when your imaging chips that get blown up very large, sometimes covering a large wall. We started these efforts back in 2000 using the usual shooting thru a microscope, but soon realized the limitations and decided to develop our own lens, fixtures and controllers. Quite an undertaking back then and evolved into these type of fixtures and setups.

One very difficult obstacle that showed up was flip chip solder balls. When these are new and not oxidized, the surface is like a tiny 40~100um polished spherical mirror that reflects everything from everywhere!! Another was the perspective change when stacking and especially when S&S when you are trying to line up 19 tiles, each tile stacked with 300~400 individual image (yes 6,000~8,000 images) to render a final image of 30,000 by 25,000 pixels!! Because chips have precise features that must line up perfectly when stacking and especially when stitching, this calls for a different type lens design called "Telecentric", where the apparent magnification doesn't depend on distance to subject. This is just scratching the surface tho, lots of interesting challenges encountered!!

Anyway, fun stuff indeed!!

Best,

[mawyatt]

Couple more images of the focus stacking setup rails.

Best,

[mawyatt]

Mechanically, you need a step-down ring to 43mm filter thread, that should be doable. Don't use the included universal adapter even if it fits, it's weak plastic junk prone to breaking and dropping the Raynox on whatever you are photographing.

Yes exactly!! Why we mentioned earlier "If cost is a concern look to the Raynox DCR-125 and 250 add on Lenses, these are very usefully and work well, and should do a decent job with your Canon 20-70mm. We used these often and they also work well as a "tube" lens working with infinity type microscope lenses for getting down to detailed chip images. BTW be sure to get the necessary "ring" adapters for the lenses you would like to use with the Raynox."

Best,

[jpanhalt]

I hope this is not too far OT.  Way back in the 70's, I had a real Nikon F.  Then got a macro lens for it (can't give the exact one) and used it for documentation and comparing immunoprecipitin bands.  Used B&W negatives.  It was fantastic.  In fact, since it was my personal camera and lens, I rarely took that lens off even when that particular project was done.

I am not into $>5K equipment (2022 equivalent) anymore, but find the Z50 attractive.  It comes in a kit with a 16-50mm lens.  Any opinions on that lens' macro abilities.  The cheapest Z-macro seems to be the MC50/f2.8 at $650.

Edit: Spell check didn't like "immunoprecipitin."  That's what they are.

[mawyatt]

You don't have to spend a lot of $ to get some decent macro images, the final rendering is 90% behind the camera and 10% equipment

The 1st image is with the $18 mentioned AmScope 4X lens, think the 2nd image was with a clone 5X that cost $250.

Best,

[jpanhalt]

I failed to mention that as a retired pathologist I have several microscopes.  I made an adapter for my CoolPix 990  to my binocular/dissecting Nikon microscope.  It works too.  I want something simpler, uses modern memory, takes less space, and has more uses. 60 years of junk accumulated over a career takes up a lot of space.  I am trying to cut back to save my hiers the pain.

[mawyatt]

Will they mount on the 20-70 (24-70?)'s large filter threads?

You need to get "ring" adapters which will mount the Raynox to the front of your lens. As mentioned by magic, don't rely on the plastic spring loaded grabber supplied, get a proper set of ring adapters, they aren't expensive.

Best,