I clicked the link and it seems that you need to review/update your article, it has old/false information and missing lenses. For example it's still talking Proxar for ZM25, even Hiruhiko simulated it with 2500mm and people confirmed 2500mm works much better than Proxar. So you might want to click the other link in first post and review your article recommendations or if you do not trust my wiki (I wouldn't, like I do not trust your article, I do not assume you to trust my wiki...), then browse through thread pages manually... But in any case please update your article or add warning that it has info only for first ~20 pages of the thread and will therefore contain false information. If somebody finds the article and doesn't read the whole thread they will purchase wrong front lens(es) unless they do it for lens, which was tested in the very beginning of the thread e.g. G21.
Your article may be better source for non-Zeiss lenses, as I'm not that interested and I may have not seen all non-Zeiss posts in this thread.
I clicked the link and it seems that you need to review/update your article, it has old/false information and missing lenses. For example it's still talking Proxar for ZM25, even Hiruhiko simulated it with 2500mm and people confirmed 2500mm works much better than Proxar. So you might want to click the other link in first post and review your article recommendations or if you do not trust my wiki (I wouldn't, like I do not trust your article, I do not assume you to trust my wiki...), then browse through thread pages manually... But in any case please update your article or add warning that it has info only for first ~20 pages of the thread and will therefore contain false information. If somebody finds the article and doesn't read the whole thread they will purchase wrong front lens(es) unless they do it for lens, which was tested in the very beginning of the thread e.g. G21.
Your article may be better source for non-Zeiss lenses, as I'm not that interested and I may have not seen all non-Zeiss posts in this thread.
Samuli...Show more →
What an overly arrogant and misleading post.
Please tell me which tested lenses are missing in the article.
Furhermore we have seen several people using the widely available 1m proxar on ZM25 with great success.
As I remember HaruhikoT never said the PCX is better, but he cannot fully simulate he Proxar lenses.
I also can't remember seeing a direct comparison of both options.
So there is no false information and no one will buy a false filter going by that article!
I will of course add the PCX 2500 as a second option.
BastianK wrote:
Please tell me which tested lenses are missing in the article.
Missing atleast G2/35 and ZM2/35 (thou not sure would I list ZM2/35 on your article as I never got it to work well with standard camera, only with Kolari v2 & 3000mm PCX [for sure it would work with Kolari UT as well] - you may want to list only what works in standard camera?).
(I do not claim to know everything, please check the thread if you want to know for sure what lenses you are missing)
BastianK wrote:
Furhermore we have seen several people using the widely available 1m proxar on ZM25 with great success.
As I remember HaruhikoT never said the PCX is better, but he cannot fully simulate he Proxar lenses.
I also can't remember seeing a direct comparison of both options.
After shooting first time with 2500mm there was no point doing any comparisons, the difference was so clear for me that I can't see a reason to spend hours/days for some comparison. Specially boke improves (less astigmatism caused issues) and larger aperture can be used. Guy has shoot Big Bronco with both - not a direct comparison as shoot different times. Guy, myself and maybe others tried with Proxar first, but found 2500mm to be significant improvement.
In beginning everyone tried to put Proxars to whatever lenses as "default" solution, and it helped in most cases but never really was "optimal solution". I was first happy to get ZM25 somehow working with Proxar, but knowing how excellent ZM25 is with 2500mm there is no going back. Now having the knowledge of the whole thread I would not use Proxar with any lens, for all lenses discussed in thread there are better solution now.
BastianK wrote:
So there is no false information and no one will buy a false filter going by that article!
Please shoot ZM25 with Proxar and 2500mm. I doubt you recommend Proxar after using both front lens solutions.
Also for ZM18 I would say that Hoya +1 HMC gives better results than Proxar 0.5m. Plus there is quite big challenge to use Proxar or PCX lens without vignetting. Due to this I developed solution based on Hoya +1 HMC, which does not cause additional vignetting and I find it producing better image quality than Proxar or 3000mm(Simulation optimal). Users of A7rII will most likely tolerate more vignetting, as they have less vignetting due to large ray angle, and for them Proxar/PCX solution might be OK from vignetting point of view.
BastianK wrote:
I will of course add the PCX 2500 as a second option.
Why to keep the Proxar as option at all? Also "before 2500mm" Guy tested with Proxar and Hoya, and Hoya little better (page 46) - If listing old info (=Proxar), why not list Hoya as well?
I had the ZM 25 and I tried some different things but I honestly can’t remember what worked best. It’s somehere in this really long thread. The ZM 28 is not that great a lens so maybe avoid that one. I do remember having a hard time getting the ZM to work okay.
Samuli Vahonen wrote:
After shooting first time with 2500mm there was no point doing any comparisons, the difference was so clear for me that I can't see a reason to spend hours/days for some comparison.
Samuli
I know it's a hassle to do careful comparisons and post them, but a lot of people do, and it's one thing to be told that a difference is clear and another to be shown it.
Nothing wrong with sharing observations without doing it; but in a forum like this where people do so often post careful tests, being so, ah, vigorous in your observations without showing the comparisons is perhaps not going to help.
I'm trying to keep track of all @HaruhikoT ' simulation MTF graphs. I went through the entire thread and found most of them. If I'm missing one, please let me know.
Here they are: (The lenses' names are written on each graph)
there is virtually no difference between with the filter or without, i would think i exported the same photos twice except for slight differences in framing/foliage movement. the kolari mod shows marketed improvement in the midzone and inward field curvature towards the corners (left corner is much closer than the right corner).
sebboh wrote:
and finally did an infinity comparison of the contax g 21/2.8 with and without the reversed optosigma 1.5m filter on an a9: http://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4455/37203654340_9b10d844fe_o.jpg full sized
it looks pretty good with the filter, even better at 3-50ft instead of 100ft-5miles used in this test.
Wow that's one of the most astonishing differences with a PCX we've ever seen. Maybe the most astonishing.
Have any of you tested the CV 28/2 Ultron with a PCX lens (2m or 2.5m)?
If so, would a short adapter make it reach infinity?
Let me know if someone has this lens. I need some pictures to calculate the perfect PCX for it.
Thanks!
Fred
Bastian sold his copy before this thread was started. But some days ago he thought about giving it a second chance.
Phillip Reeve wrote:
Bastian sold his copy before this thread was started. But some days ago he thought about giving it a second chance.
Based on the lens likely need of a 2m or 2.5m PCX, do you think that infinity could be reached even with our short adapters? There is absolutely no way to adjust this lens.
Fred Miranda wrote:
There is absolutely no way to adjust this lens.
what makes you sure of this? it seems very strange to make a rangefinder lens that couldn't be adjusted. most lenses adjust infinity focus by changing the point at which the helicoid runs into the hard stops (shims are actually pretty rare).
sebboh wrote:
what makes you sure of this? it seems very strange to make a rangefinder lens that couldn't be adjusted. most lenses adjust infinity focus by changing the point at which the helicoid runs into the hard stops (shims are actually pretty rare).
I should've said no 'easy' way. (by removing shims)
What the heck, I just ordered one. let's see what this puppy can do. I will first try my PCX 5m with it while sending images to Haruhiko for a possible MTF simulation.
or if you do not trust my wiki (I wouldn't, like I do not trust your article, I do not assume you to trust my wiki...), then browse through thread pages manually... But in any case please update your article or add warning that it has info only for first ~20 pages of the thread and will therefore contain false information. If somebody finds the article and doesn't read the whole thread they will purchase wrong front lens(es) unless they do it for lens, which was tested in the very beginning of the thread e.g. G21.
let's see what this puppy can do. I will first try my PCX 5m with it while sending images to Haruhiko for a possible MTF simulation.