Schneider APO-Xenoplan 35mm f1.8 Machine Vision Lens stacked with 120/5.6 Makro-Symmar lens mounted inside the Thorlabs SM2/52mm threaded extension tube setup.
The Lenses
Basic low-cost generic 35mm f/3.5 Enlarger Lens
Test setup: stacked with 120 Makro-Symmar
Effective Aperture: f/19
Aperture setting: f/5.6
Canon MP-E 65mm 1-5x Macro Lens
Test setup: Normal mount
Effective Aperture: f/15
Aperture setting: f/3.5
Copal 35mm f/4 E18C Printing Machine Lens
Test setup: stacked with 120 Makro-Symmar
Effective Aperture: f/13.6
Nominal aperture: f/4
JML 21mm f/3.5 Lens
Test setup: extension only
Effective Aperture: f/15
Nominal aperture: f/3.5
Nikon CFI Super Fluor 4X/0.20 ∞/- Objective
Test setup: Raynox 170mm tube lens
Effective Aperture: f/10
Nominal aperture: f/2.2
Schneider APO-Xenoplan 35mm f1.8 Machine Vision Lens
Test setup: stacked with 120 Makro-Symmar
Effective Aperture: f/9.9
Aperture setting: f/2
Schneider 35mm f/2.8 lens Componon Machine Vision Lens
Test setup: stacked with 120 Makro-Symmar
Effective Aperture: f/9.86
Aperture setting: f/3.2
Schneider Xenon 35mm f/2 Machine Vision Lens
Test setup: stacked with 120 Makro-Symmar
Effective Aperture: f/8.1
Aperture setting: f/2.4
Tominon 35mm f/4.5 Copy Lens
Test setup: stacked with 120 Makro-Symmar
Effective Aperture: f/15.3
Aperture setting: f/4.5
Test Setup
Camera: Sony α6300, model # ILCE-6300, also known as: A6300
Sensor size: APS-C. 23.5 × 15.6 mm. 28.21 mm diagonal. 3.92 micron sensor pitch
Flash: Godox TT350s wireless flash x 2 with one Godox X1s 2.4G wireless flash transmitter
Vertical stand: Nikon MM-11 with a Nikon focus block
A series of images was made with each lens in 4 micron steps and the sharpest frame was then chosen using Photoshop at 100% view. Separate images were selected for each crop area as needed. Each image was processed in PS CC with identical settings of sharpening: Amount 30, Radius 0.5, Detail 100, Masking 30. All noise reduction and lens correction turned off, all settings were zeroed out (true zero) and the same settings were used for all of the images. All of the crop images shown here are single files. None of the crop images are stacked.
Below is the the Schneider 35mm f/2.8 lens Componon Machine Vision Lens mounted in reverse with the lens hood installed on the rear of the lens. The Schneider 120mm f/5.6 Makro-Symmar line scan lens is out of sight mounted inside the Thorlabs SM2 extension tube. They are both mounted on threaded adapters allowing rear lens to be focused on infinity and to allow the front lens to be mounted in reverse as close to the rear lens as needed.
Schneider 35mm f/2.8 lens Componon Machine Vision Lens mounted in reverse and a Schneider 120mm f/5.6 Makro-Symmar line scan lens out of sight and installed inside the Thorlabs extension tube.
3.4X TEST RESULTS
The wafer image below shows the entire wafer test area and has been resized to 1500 pixels with the crop areas highlighted in white squares.
All of the images below were processed as a batch with identical settings in ACR (Adobe Camera Raw) so I know it doesn’t look like it but all of the crops below have the exact same settings applied. That is amount 40, radius 0.5 and threshold 0.
Click on the image below to view a larger version in a Lightbox viewer, but this will only be the largest size image if your screen/window is large enough. The size of the image sent to your device is based on the screen size. The comparison images below are 750 pixels across. To see an images in a new browser tab, right click, or two-finger press, and select Open in a New Tab or New Window from the menu. You can also right click, or two-finger press, and select Save Image As and compare the images in an image viewer.
Center area 100% crops:
Low-cost 35mm f/3.5 enlarging lens VS Canon MP-E 65mm f2.8 1-5x macro lens
The first two lenses we are looking at are the two least sharpest lenses in the test, the 35mm enlarger lens and the Canon MP-E. The enlarger lens was sharpest at f/5.6, the MP-E was tested at sharpest at f/3.5. This lens is labeled Spiratone Macrotar and can be picked up for somewhere in between $5 and $20 on eBay. For this test the lens was stacked on a Schneider 120/5.6 Makro-Symmar for the best image quality possible, on extension alone there were definitely issues with low contrast and fuzziness. The Canon MP-E 65 is by far the most well known lens in this test and for good reason, it offers decent performance from 1-5x with full frame sensor coverage.
Remember you can always click on any of the crop images to open in a new tab or better yet, right mouse or two finger click and select save as and compare the images in another app.
Center sharpness: The Canon is sharper but there is not as much of a difference than one would expect. The Canon as used here at an effective aperture of f15, the low dollar enlarger lens was used at f19 effective.
Chromatic aberrations: The enlarger lens is not as sharp as the Canon but I was surprised to see that it shows a lot less pink edge fringing than the MP-E 65.
Verdict: The Canon MP-E is sharper but there is more pink fringing around the edges but to be fair this wafer is a very high contrast target so the fringing would probably not be visible in real life situations.
Notes: The enlarger lens tested here was sold in the late 1970s and early 1980s under at least a dozen different labels like Spiratone, Accura, Vivitar, Soligor, and Besler.
To see an images in a new browser tab, right click, or two-finger press, and select Open in a New Tab or New Window from the menu. You can also right click, or two-finger press, and select Save Image As and compare the images in an image viewer.
Canon MP-E 65mm f2.8 1-5x macro lens vs Copal 35mm B18C printing lens
The printing machine lens uses an f/4 aperture disk installed in the factory. I tried a larger disk and moving the disk (between the two lenses) but the factory size and placement performed best. The MP-E was shot at f3.5 for this test.
Center sharpness: The Copal, with a faster effective f13.6 aperture does show more sharpness and fine detail, but I don’t necessary like the image it produces better than the Canon.
Chromatic aberrations: with these two you have to settle for the pink fringing out of the Canon or the yellow blue chromatic aberrations from the Copal on the right.
Verdict: Copal E18C printing machine lens is shaper here than the Canon so it is better, but I don’t the way the Copal reproduces the wafer. It comes down to pink fringing vs yellow and blue aberrations.
Notes: Two weeks before this test I picked two of these Copal lenses for $20 on Ebay a week with one 40mm version also. After this test I had a chance to try the 40mm and it looks like it performs much better than this 35mm version. It looks like the seller sold-out quickly after I made my purchase but I might have a spare copy if you are interested.
To see an images in a new browser tab, right click, or two-finger press, and select Open in a New Tab or New Window from the menu. You can also right click, or two-finger press, and select Save Image As and compare the images in an image viewer.
JML 21mm f3.5 lens vs Tominon 35mm f4.5 Lens
Center sharpness: The sharpness results are very close between these two lenses, and I mean really close! The Tominon has a slower nominal aperture, f4.5 vs f3.5 for the JML they have identical effective apertures of f15.3 since the Tominon is stacked.
Chromatic aberrations: Both lenses do an excellent job here. The Tominon has a more neutral or cooler color response, the JML is warmer.
Image Quality Verdict: Both are very good performers. I would say in regards to image quality, these two lenses are about equal. JML 21mm lenses are just impossible to find, but the Tominons are available on eBay. Pretty impressive performance from the Tominon compared to the famous JML 21.
Notes: The JML lens is a loaner from a friend and was originally purchased as part of a batch of lenses that came up on eBay years ago for $10 a unit. This was my first test of the lens so I have no idea about the best magnification range for the lens. The Tominon was a new-old-stock unit still in the foam and cardboard container purchased for about $60 from a silicon valley surplus seller, not on eBay! To be fair this is my 4th sample and by far the best Tominon I own. The other 3 lenses are just okay so the lens sample variation is a factor for sure. To be fair the Tominon lens was made in the 1970s, that’s almost 50 years ago!
To see an images in a new browser tab, right click, or two-finger press, and select Open in a New Tab or New Window from the menu. You can also right click, or two-finger press, and select Save Image As and compare the images in an image viewer.
Schneider 35mm f2.8 Componon vs Schneider 35mm f2 Xenon
Center sharpness: The Componon is very good, the Xenon is excellent. The faster f8.5 effective aperture of the Xenon should give it a sharpness advantage over the Componon’s f10.5 and it does.
Chromatic aberrations: Both are very good here with just a tiny amount of pink fringing around some of the scratches in the disk.
Image Quality Verdict: The Xenon resolves fine details better in the center.
Notes: The Componon 35mm is much easier to find on the used market. Xenons due pop up eBay but they are not common.
To see an images in a new browser tab, right click, or two-finger press, and select Open in a New Tab or New Window from the menu. You can also right click, or two-finger press, and select Save Image As and compare the images in an image viewer.
Nikon Super Fluor 4x 0.20 vs Schneider APO-Xenoplan 35mm f1.8 Machine Vision Lens
Center sharpness: These are the two sharpest lenses in this test. The Nikon has better contrast and sharpness where the Schneider has slightly better fine details. The APO-Xenon is one of the sharpest lens I have tested.
Chromatic aberrations: The Nikon has a purple cast that is normal for super fluor lenses, the APO-Xenoplan is very clean, at least in this center crop area, but still shows some pink fringing around some highlights.
Image Quality Verdict: I think the APO-Xenoplan has a slight advantage in fine detail and without any color cast at all. The Nikon image is more contrasty with less fine detail.
Notes: The APO-Xenoplan can be found on the used market. I paid about $125 for a new-old-stock unit. The Nikon S Fluor 4x objective can be very hard to find but they are available if you are patient.
Edge area 100% crops:
cheap 35mm f3.5 enlarging lens VS Canon MP-E 65mm f2.8 1-5x macro lens
The cheap enlarger lens was used in the test at f5.6 and stacked on a Makro-Symmar, the MP-E was used at f3.5.
Edge sharpness: The Canon is a sharpness advantage here as expected.
Chromatic aberrations: The sharpness advantage of the MP-E comes with moderate pink fringing, see the vertical black bar on the left side of the frame. The enlarger lens has some lateral chromatic aberrations but no pink fringing.
Image Quality Verdict: The Canon is sharper away from the center but I thought that the MP-E would have a bigger advantage.
Notes: The enlarger lens tested here was sold in the 1980’s branded with at least a dozen different names like; Spiratone, Accura, Vivitar, Soligor, Besler.
To see an images in a new browser tab, right click, or two-finger press, and select Open in a New Tab or New Window from the menu. You can also right click, or two-finger press, and select Save Image As and compare the images in an image viewer.
Canon MP-E 65mm f2.8 1-5x macro lens vs Copal 35mm B18C printing lens
Edge sharpness: The Copal printing machine lens image on the right is sharper than the Canon MP-E 65 away from the center.
Chromatic aberrations: The Copal image has a yellow and blue cast but the MP-E has some pink fringing.
Image Quality Verdict: Copal E18C printing machine lens is better than the Canon MP-E 65 here if you don’t mind the yellow and blue aberrations.
To see an images in a new browser tab, right click, or two-finger press, and select Open in a New Tab or New Window from the menu. You can also right click, or two-finger press, and select Save Image As and compare the images in an image viewer.
JML 21mm f3.5 lens vs Tominon 35mm f4.5 Lens
The JML and Tominon were used at maximum aperture for this test.
Edge sharpness: Both images have lots of detail but the Tominon is slightly better here in sharpness and resolving fine wafer details.
Chromatic aberrations: Both lenses do a super job controlling CAs but the Tominon images is more neutral, the JML has a slight warm cast.
Verdict: Tominon 35mm is sharper off center.
Note: This is the first time I have used the JML lens and 3.4x might be not be in the best magnification range for this lens.
To see an images in a new browser tab, right click, or two-finger press, and select Open in a New Tab or New Window from the menu. You can also right click, or two-finger press, and select Save Image As and compare the images in an image viewer.
Schneider 35mm f2.8 Componon vs Schneider 35mm f2 Xenon
Both lenses were tested here in reverse stacked with a Schneider 120/5.6 Makro Symmar. The Componon was best at f3.1, the Xenon was best at f2.5. (Since this test I have found ways to improve the performance of the Componon by controlling the aperture with a disk between the stacked lenses also there are other versions of the 35mm Componon that allow up to f/2.2 with excellent results)
Edge sharpness: Both image samples look great with lots of contrast and an amazing amount of fine detail. The Componon may have better fine detail but the Xenon has more contrast.
Chromatic aberrations: The Xenon is very clean, the Componon has some very slight pink fringing.
Verdict: The Componon is also very good here but 2/35 Xenon is sharper and cleaner.
Notes: Since this test I have found ways to improve the performance of the lens quite a bit. Setting the Componon to maximum and controlling the aperture with a disk between the stacked lenses does give you more performance than using the iris in the body of the lens. Also other versions of the 35mm Componon allow you to use up to f/2.2 with excellent results. The Componon makro iris machine vision version is easy to find on eBay. The Xenon is very difficult.
To see an images in a new browser tab, right click, or two-finger press, and select Open in a New Tab or New Window from the menu. You can also right click, or two-finger press, and select Save Image As and compare the images in an image viewer.
Nikon Super Fluor 4x 0.20 vs Schneider APO-Xenoplan 35mm f1.8 Machine Vision Lens
The S Fluor lens was used with a reversed Raynox 170mm tube lens, the Schneider was reverse mounted and used at f2 on a Makro-Symmar focused on infinity wide open.
Sharpness: The Nikon Super Fluor is excellent here away from the center, the APO-Xenoplan sharpness has a drop in image quality compared to the center.
Chromatic aberrations: The Super Fluor showing good CA control here where the Schneider is showing some blue and orange CAs.
Verdict: The Nikon S Fuor 4x is better at the edge. The Nikon Super Fluor is very consistent from center to edge where the Schneider has a noticeable drop in image quality.
Corner Area 100% Crops
Cheap 35mm f3.5 enlarging lens VS Canon MP-E 65mm f2.8 1-5x macro lens
Corner sharpness: The Canon MP-E is sharp and clean in the corners with a flat field.
Chromatic aberrations: The Canon crop is moderately clean, the enlarger lens shows blue CAs.
Verdict: The Canon corner performance is much better.
CANON MP-E 65MM F2.8 1-5X MACRO LENS VS COPAL 35MM B18C PRINTING LENS
Corner sharpness: Both lenses are very good in the corners. The Copal lens might have a edge is sharpness here.
Chromatic aberrations: The Canon image is cleaner here than the Copal which has a strong yellow cast.
Verdict: The Copal might be slightly sharper but the Canon is almost as sharp but with a much more neutral colors.
JML 21MM F3.5 LENS VS TOMINON 35MM F4.5 LENS
Corner sharpness: The Tominon is sharp in the corner crop area, the JML is a bit soft at least at the outer edge.
Chromatic aberrations: Tominon 35mm f4.5 is perfectly neutral, the JML looks too warm here.
Verdict: Tominon 35mm f4.5 is definitely better than the JML 21 in the corners at 3.4x.
SCHNEIDER 35MM F2.8 COMPONON VS SCHNEIDER 35MM F2 XENON
Corner sharpness: The Componon 35 produces sharper corners in this test compared to the Xenon 35.
Chromatic aberrations: Both lenses produce are very clean without any CA issues.
Verdict: In the far corners, the 2.8/35 Componon is better than the Xenon and every other lens in this test.
NIKON SUPER FLUOR 4X 0.20 VS SCHNEIDER APO-XENOPLAN 35MM F1.8 MACHINE VISION LENS
Corner sharpness: The Nikon Super Fluor 4x is sharp in the far corner crop but the field curves quite a bit (you can see the drop-off on the right side due to field curvature). The APO-Xenoplan sharpness has dropped compared to the center.
Chromatic aberrations: The Nikon is showing very good CA control here with clean blacks, where the Schneider suffers from some CAs, especially near the left edge.
Image Quality Verdict: The Nikon Super Fluor 4x is consistent from center to edge and it shows in this test on an APS-C sensor.
Results
Best Overall:
Nikon CFI Super Fluor 4X/0.20 ∞/- + Raynox 170mm tube lens in reverse
Best Lens:
Schneider Xenon 35mm f/2 Line Scan Lens + Schneider 120mm f5.6 Makro-Symmar lens
Schneider Componon 35mm f/2.8 Line Scan Lens + Schneider 120mm f5.6 Makro-Symmar lens.
Best Value:
The Tominon 35 wasn’t the sharpest in any of the crop areas but it was consistent from edge to edge with very good CA. These lenses sell for anywhere from $20 to $69 online
Center:
1. Schneider APO-Xenoplan 35mm f1.8 + Schneider 120mm f5.6 Makro-Symmar lens
2. Nikon CFI Super Fluor 4X/0.20 ∞/- + Raynox 170mm tube lens in reverse
3. Schneider Xenon 35mm f/2 + Schneider 120mm f5.6 Makro-Symmar lens
4. Schneider Componon 35mm f2.8 + Schneider 120mm f5.6 Makro-Symmar lens
5. JML 21mm / Tominon 35mm f/4.5 Lens + Schneider 120mm f5.6 Makro-Symmar lens
Edge:
1. Nikon CFI Super Fluor 4X/0.20 ∞/- + Raynox 170mm tube lens in reverse
2. Schneider Xenon 35mm f/2 + Schneider 120mm f5.6 Makro-Symmar lens
3. Schneider Componon 35mm f2.8 + Schneider 120mm f5.6 Makro-Symmar lens
4. Tominon 35mm f/4.5 Lens + Schneider 120mm f5.6 Makro-Symmar lens
5. Schneider APO-Xenoplan 35mm f1.8 + Schneider 120mm f5.6 Makro-Symmar lens
Corner:
1. Schneider Componon 35mm f2.8 + Schneider 120mm f5.6 Makro-Symmar lens
2. Nikon CFI Super Fluor 4X/0.20 ∞/- + Raynox 170mm tube lens in reverse
3. Schneider Xenon 35mm f/2 + Schneider 120mm f5.6 Makro-Symmar lens
4. Tominon 35mm f/4.5 Lens + Schneider 120mm f5.6 Makro-Symmar lens
5. Canon MP-E 65mm 1-5x Macro Lens
Lenses That Didn’t Make it
Rodenstock Eurygon 35mm f4
The single Eurygon 35mm sample I tested was a very poor performer so the results were left out of the test.
Nikon Plan APO 4x 0.20 Objective
The Nikon Plan APO 4x produced the sharpest center results of the test, but at the same time, the worst corners of any lens in the test, including the basic low-cost enlarger lens so so the results were left out. I would not recommend the Nikon Plan APO 4x for photography.
Links For More Information
Nikon CFI Super Fluor 4X/0.20 objective:
https://www.closeuphotography.com/nikon-super-fluor-4x-objective/
Schneider Componon 35mm f2.8 Lens:
https://www.closeuphotography.com/schneider-componon-35mm/
Schneider Xenon 35mm f2 Lens:
https://www.closeuphotography.com/schneider-kreuznach-xenon-28mm-f2-lens/
Tominon 35mm f/4.5 Lens Info:
https://www.closeuphotography.com/tominon-35mm/