This topic is in the 2016 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2016Front-End Filter Improves Corner Smearing
p.13 #1Front-End Filter Improves Corner Smearing
JimBuchanan wrote:
After doing some tests on the TAP adapter, I find in the parked infinity position, it really focuses past infinity by about .036" (.036" too thin). If the Hawks doesn't have this kind of compensation, try TAP "parked infinity" for greater range. . .
The Hawk's V5 offers 3 times that adjustment past infinity.
HaruhikoT wrote:
Currently I'm not sure why my previous simulation doesn't match actual results.
Might the floating elements design be the cause here?
HaruhikoT wrote:
My 5m PCX (SLB-50-5000PM) improves field curvature. And the great news is, with 5m PCX and my cheap Pixco LM-NEX adapter, it can reach almost infinity (tested 30m+ @f1.4@) without modification.
Could you also share a photo how you mounted that lens?
As I understand they come as bare lenses without thread or anything.
I am especially asking, because the distance between front lens element and additional lens seems to have quite the impact on the achieved image quality as well as magnificiation.
So to get your promising results it would be a good idea to also mount it the same way.
PS: with the Hawks infinity adjustment and a 5m filter it will easily be possible to reach infinity without any modifications on the lens.
SLB-50-5000PM and Hawks (still) on my shopping list
After doing some tests on the TAP adapter, I find in the parked infinity position, it really focuses past infinity by about .036" (.036" too thin). If the Hawks doesn't have this kind of compensation, try TAP "parked infinity" for greater range. . .
The Hawk's V5 offers 3 times that adjustment past infinity.
HaruhikoT wrote:
Currently I'm not sure why my previous simulation doesn't match actual results.
Might the floating elements design be the cause here?
HaruhikoT wrote:
My 5m PCX (SLB-50-5000PM) improves field curvature. And the great news is, with 5m PCX and my cheap Pixco LM-NEX adapter, it can reach almost infinity (tested 30m+ @f1.4@) without modification.
Could you also share a photo how you mounted that lens?
As I understand they come as bare lenses without thread or anything.
I am especially asking, because the distance between front lens element and additional lens seems to have quite the impact on the achieved image quality as well as magnificiation.
So to get your promising results it would be a good idea to also mount it the same way.
PS: with the Hawks infinity adjustment and a 5m filter it will easily be possible to reach infinity without any modifications on the lens.
SLB-50-5000PM and Hawks (still) on my shopping list
Dec 16, 2016 at 12:48 AM
p.13 #2Front-End Filter Improves Corner Smearing
@JimBuchanan - Are you sure it’s 0.036” ? This is 0.9mm, quite a lot of margin for an expensive product.
@ BastianK - I don’t think that the Hawks allows 3 x 0.9=2.7mm. of infinity tuning. Maybe you read hastily 0.0036” ? Or maybe Jim meant 0.0036” and you’re right.
@ HaruhikoT - I hope you didn’t get me wrong with my comments about your “disappearance”. It was only a small joke intended to have you back ... and it worked !
@ BastianK - I don’t think that the Hawks allows 3 x 0.9=2.7mm. of infinity tuning. Maybe you read hastily 0.0036” ? Or maybe Jim meant 0.0036” and you’re right.
@ HaruhikoT - I hope you didn’t get me wrong with my comments about your “disappearance”. It was only a small joke intended to have you back ... and it worked !
Dec 16, 2016 at 05:29 AM
p.13 #3Front-End Filter Improves Corner Smearing
artur5 wrote:
@ BastianK - I don’t think that the Hawks allows 3 x 0.9=2.7mm. of infinity tuning. Maybe you read hastily 0.0036” ? Or maybe Jim meant 0.0036” and you’re right.
I assumed 0.0036" = 0.1 mm. The Hawks is said to offer 0.3mm.
@ BastianK - I don’t think that the Hawks allows 3 x 0.9=2.7mm. of infinity tuning. Maybe you read hastily 0.0036” ? Or maybe Jim meant 0.0036” and you’re right.
I assumed 0.0036" = 0.1 mm. The Hawks is said to offer 0.3mm.
Dec 16, 2016 at 05:31 AM
p.13 #4Front-End Filter Improves Corner Smearing
JimBuchanan wrote:
Yes, we will see tomorrow if the Hawks help (If I can focus at 2.5 or 3m I'm happy). I've seen great results towards the edges (as far as FC) with the even stronger Minolta No.0 filter. I'm more interested in improving FC at WO more than anything since this lens works great without any filters at f/6.3 and smaller at infinity distance.After doing some tests on the TAP adapter, I find in the parked infinity position, it really focuses past infinity by about .036" (.036" too thin). If the Hawks doesn't have this kind of compensation, try TAP "parked infinity" for greater range. . .
Jim,
I roughly tested parking TAP at infinity when switching to MF but didn't notice any meaningful distance improvement with both my Nikon or Minolta filters.
They remain pretty much at the same distance range as with my other adapters.
Fred Miranda wrote
The Nikon No. 0 is @1.4m (0.7 ptr), which is not that far and could be the best option as far as size and strength. (it's also multi-coated)Yes, we will see tomorrow if the Hawks help (If I can focus at 2.5 or 3m I'm happy). I've seen great results towards the edges (as far as FC) with the even stronger Minolta No.0 filter. I'm more interested in improving FC at WO more than anything since this lens works great without any filters at f/6.3 and smaller at infinity distance.
Jim,
I roughly tested parking TAP at infinity when switching to MF but didn't notice any meaningful distance improvement with both my Nikon or Minolta filters.
They remain pretty much at the same distance range as with my other adapters.
Dec 16, 2016 at 09:34 AM
p.13 #5Front-End Filter Improves Corner Smearing
(Corrected) The TAP unit focused past infinity by about .36 millimeter or 14/1000s inch. One of my calibrated M to Sony E adapters is 9.78 millimeters thick. That one is my tried and true reference that gives hardstop infinity focus with either new Leica M lenses or ones just returned from New Jersey on a Sony E camera. I have another custom adapter that is off that by .001" or so. I'd say the variance of this adapter is +/- .001-.002" from the theoretical thickness it needs to be.
The reason I mentioned the TAP thickness is because I am in the process of mounting a Nikkor-S on the TAP that doesn't have a helical, similar to the Heliar 40. I used my calibrated adapter with a custom mount for the Nikkor-S and with the TAP, it auto focused at infinity (confirmed with MF) and the chrome mount of the TAP extended out more.
I then shimmed the custom M mount of the Nikkor-S enough where after AF on infinity, switching to MF, there was no movement of the TAP at all. My TAP at infinity park is 9.42 millimeters thick. That's where I got the .36 millimeter. (Corrected)
Furthermore, my just received Leicaist macro M to E adapter measured 9.63 millimeters thick, not as thin as the TAP, but thinner than theoretical and therefore should focus a M lens slightly past infinity.
Edited on Dec 16, 2016 at 11:44 AM · View previous versions
The reason I mentioned the TAP thickness is because I am in the process of mounting a Nikkor-S on the TAP that doesn't have a helical, similar to the Heliar 40. I used my calibrated adapter with a custom mount for the Nikkor-S and with the TAP, it auto focused at infinity (confirmed with MF) and the chrome mount of the TAP extended out more.
I then shimmed the custom M mount of the Nikkor-S enough where after AF on infinity, switching to MF, there was no movement of the TAP at all. My TAP at infinity park is 9.42 millimeters thick. That's where I got the .36 millimeter. (Corrected)
Furthermore, my just received Leicaist macro M to E adapter measured 9.63 millimeters thick, not as thin as the TAP, but thinner than theoretical and therefore should focus a M lens slightly past infinity.
Edited on Dec 16, 2016 at 11:44 AM · View previous versions
Dec 16, 2016 at 10:04 AM
p.13 #6Front-End Filter Improves Corner Smearing
I'm a bit lost here. The difference in registry distance between Leica-M and Sony-E mounts is, in theory, 9.7mm. (27.7-18). This is roughly 0.382". You're talking about 0.94-0.97" !. That's more like the thickness of adapters for SLR mounts to Sony-E.
Dec 16, 2016 at 10:36 AM
p.13 #7Front-End Filter Improves Corner Smearing
artur5 wrote:
I'm a bit lost here. The difference in registry distance between Leica-M and Sony-E mounts is, in theory, 9.7mm. (27.7-18). This is roughly 0.382". You're talking about 0.94-0.97" !. That's more like the thickness of adapters for SLR mounts to Sony-E.
Opps, units corrected. Thanks, for catching this!
I'm a bit lost here. The difference in registry distance between Leica-M and Sony-E mounts is, in theory, 9.7mm. (27.7-18). This is roughly 0.382". You're talking about 0.94-0.97" !. That's more like the thickness of adapters for SLR mounts to Sony-E.
Opps, units corrected. Thanks, for catching this!
Dec 16, 2016 at 10:47 AM
p.13 #8Front-End Filter Improves Corner Smearing
@BastianK and others interested on the Hawks.
I just tested my 35/1.4 ZM + Nikon No 0 filter with my Novoflex vs new v5 Hawks adapter (with its infinity setting closest to the camera as possible) and the maximum distance didn't change much from 1.5m....(actually if there is a difference it's very small)...so don't go buy the Hawks adapter thinking you will be able to focus further than that....it's a great adapter for what's intended though. It's light (50g) and well built.
Now I just need @HaruhikoT to confirm that the 5m PCX filter is really the best choice for the 35/1.4ZM so I can order one.
I just tested my 35/1.4 ZM + Nikon No 0 filter with my Novoflex vs new v5 Hawks adapter (with its infinity setting closest to the camera as possible) and the maximum distance didn't change much from 1.5m....(actually if there is a difference it's very small)...so don't go buy the Hawks adapter thinking you will be able to focus further than that....it's a great adapter for what's intended though. It's light (50g) and well built.
Now I just need @HaruhikoT to confirm that the 5m PCX filter is really the best choice for the 35/1.4ZM so I can order one.
Dec 16, 2016 at 03:46 PM
p.13 #9Front-End Filter Improves Corner Smearing
Fred Miranda wrote:
I just tested my 35/1.4 ZM + Nikon No 0 filter with my Novoflex vs new v5 Hawks adapter (with its infinity setting closest to the camera as possible) and the maximum distance didn't change much from 1.5m....(actually if there is a difference it's very small)...so don't go buy the Hawks adapter thinking you will be able to focus further that that....it's a great adapter for what's intended though. It's light (50g) and well built.
Bummer. I really thought the 0.3mm would have greater impact.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Now I just need @HaruhikoT@ confirm that the 5m PCX filter is really the best choice for the 35/1.4ZM so I can order one.
Well, I wanted to wait for that as well, but when I saw the stock was low at the german distributor I kinda ran out of patience and ordered one ^^
I just tested my 35/1.4 ZM + Nikon No 0 filter with my Novoflex vs new v5 Hawks adapter (with its infinity setting closest to the camera as possible) and the maximum distance didn't change much from 1.5m....(actually if there is a difference it's very small)...so don't go buy the Hawks adapter thinking you will be able to focus further that that....it's a great adapter for what's intended though. It's light (50g) and well built.
Bummer. I really thought the 0.3mm would have greater impact.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Now I just need @HaruhikoT@ confirm that the 5m PCX filter is really the best choice for the 35/1.4ZM so I can order one.
Well, I wanted to wait for that as well, but when I saw the stock was low at the german distributor I kinda ran out of patience and ordered one ^^
Dec 16, 2016 at 04:05 PM
p.13 #10Front-End Filter Improves Corner Smearing
BastianK wrote:
Bummer. I really thought the 0.3mm would have greater impact.
Well, I wanted to wait for that as well, but when I saw the stock was low at the german distributor I kinda ran out of patience and ordered one ^^
I tested all my adapters. Here are the results with the Minolta No 0 (which correlates to the Nikon as well. Just replace 1.2 to 1.5m)
Hawks and cheap Fodasy = max distance 1.2m (on the dot)
TAP (using Jim's method of infinity parking) and Novoflex = max distance 'a tad less than 1.2m'
Basically all my adapters give me about the same distance range with my current filters, so don't expect any miracles.
Weight measurements: (just for curiosity)
TAP = 133g
Hawks = 53g
Fodasy = 51g
Novoflex = 39g
Fred Miranda wrote
I just tested my 35/1.4 ZM + Nikon No 0 filter with my Novoflex vs new v5 Hawks adapter (with its infinity setting closest to the camera as possible) and the maximum distance didn't change much from 1.5m....(actually if there is a difference it's almost unnoticeable)...so don't go buy the Hawks adapter thinking you will be able to focus further that that....it's a great adapter for what's intended though. It's light (50g) and well built.Fred Miranda wrote
Now I just need @HaruhikoT@@ confirm that the 5m PCX filter is really the best choice for the 35/1.4ZM so I can order one.I tested all my adapters. Here are the results with the Minolta No 0 (which correlates to the Nikon as well. Just replace 1.2 to 1.5m)
Hawks and cheap Fodasy = max distance 1.2m (on the dot)
TAP (using Jim's method of infinity parking) and Novoflex = max distance 'a tad less than 1.2m'
Basically all my adapters give me about the same distance range with my current filters, so don't expect any miracles.
Weight measurements: (just for curiosity)
TAP = 133g
Hawks = 53g
Fodasy = 51g
Novoflex = 39g
Dec 16, 2016 at 04:16 PM
p.13 #11Front-End Filter Improves Corner Smearing
BTW: I wouldn't be able to get the 5m PCX filter before Jan. 15th. Their american distributer is only 15 miles from my house and he told me that he ordered one (from Japan) and should have it at their location after the 15th for pickup.
Dec 16, 2016 at 04:19 PM
p.13 #12Front-End Filter Improves Corner Smearing
Fred Miranda wrote:
BTW: I wouldn't be able to get the 5m PCX filter before Jan. 15th. Their american distributer is only 15 miles from my house and he told me that he ordered one (from Japan) and should have it at their location after the 15th for pickup.
It's really too bad the ZM 35 struggles so badly on the Sony sensor. I love mine, but I might pitch it for an rx1rII as I often shoot WO.
BTW: I wouldn't be able to get the 5m PCX filter before Jan. 15th. Their american distributer is only 15 miles from my house and he told me that he ordered one (from Japan) and should have it at their location after the 15th for pickup.
It's really too bad the ZM 35 struggles so badly on the Sony sensor. I love mine, but I might pitch it for an rx1rII as I often shoot WO.
Dec 16, 2016 at 11:10 PM
p.13 #13Front-End Filter Improves Corner Smearing
nehemiahphoto wrote:
It's really too bad the ZM 35 struggles so badly on the Sony sensor. I love mine, but I might pitch it for an rx1rII as I often shoot WO.
The RX1RII does not have this problem but has a different rendering. (no complaints on that department either)
The ZM 35/1.4 is outstanding on the A7RII at infinity stopped down and close distance wide open (up to 1.5m).
The only problem is after 2-3m distance where the FC is very apparent towards the corners of the frame. That's where these filters would come to the rescue.
Perhaps we can find a solution with a front filter that makes the lens great for all distances.
Fred Miranda wrote
BTW: I won't be able to get this adapter before Jan. 15th. Their american distributer is only 15 miles from my house and he told me that he ordered one (from Japan) and should have it at their location after the 15th for pickup.The RX1RII does not have this problem but has a different rendering. (no complaints on that department either)
The ZM 35/1.4 is outstanding on the A7RII at infinity stopped down and close distance wide open (up to 1.5m).
The only problem is after 2-3m distance where the FC is very apparent towards the corners of the frame. That's where these filters would come to the rescue.
Perhaps we can find a solution with a front filter that makes the lens great for all distances.
Dec 16, 2016 at 11:23 PM
p.13 #14Front-End Filter Improves Corner Smearing
Fred Miranda wrote:
It's really too bad the ZM 35 struggles so badly on the Sony sensor. I love mine, but I might pitch it for an rx1rII as I often shoot WO.The RX1RII does not have this problem but has a different rendering. (no complaints on that department either)
The ZM 35/1.4 is outstanding on the A7RII at infinity stopped down and close distance wide open (up to 1.5m).
The only problem is after 2-3m distance where the FC is very apparent towards the corners of the frame. That's where these filters would come to the rescue.
Perhaps we can find a solution with a front filter that makes the lens great for all distances.
Yeah, I loved the RX1--used it for about 18 month solid--so many keepers. I have the zm 35 now (and my cy 35), but for my style of shooting, the sensor stack really handicaps this this brilliant lens. Here's an example from tonight--the rx1 sonnar would have been much better here. The center shows extraordinary color, contrast and sharpness. The left side...barf. I really hope a front end filter solution will work. At 5.6 I know it's brilliant, but I often shoot below that, where I really value the Sonnar flat field and sharpness. The problem with the ZM 35 and RX1 sonnar is they both are so good, spectacular, but in different ways.
If not, I'll stick with my CY 35 1.4 and get an rx1 again.
nehemiahphoto wrote
Fred Miranda wrote
BTW: I won't be able to get this adapter before Jan. 15th. Their american distributer is only 15 miles from my house and he told me that he ordered one (from Japan) and should have it at their location after the 15th for pickup.The ZM 35/1.4 is outstanding on the A7RII at infinity stopped down and close distance wide open (up to 1.5m).
The only problem is after 2-3m distance where the FC is very apparent towards the corners of the frame. That's where these filters would come to the rescue.
Perhaps we can find a solution with a front filter that makes the lens great for all distances.
Yeah, I loved the RX1--used it for about 18 month solid--so many keepers. I have the zm 35 now (and my cy 35), but for my style of shooting, the sensor stack really handicaps this this brilliant lens. Here's an example from tonight--the rx1 sonnar would have been much better here. The center shows extraordinary color, contrast and sharpness. The left side...barf. I really hope a front end filter solution will work. At 5.6 I know it's brilliant, but I often shoot below that, where I really value the Sonnar flat field and sharpness. The problem with the ZM 35 and RX1 sonnar is they both are so good, spectacular, but in different ways.
If not, I'll stick with my CY 35 1.4 and get an rx1 again.
Dec 16, 2016 at 11:38 PM
p.13 #15Front-End Filter Improves Corner Smearing
Fine day today with brilliant sunlight here in Japan, I went out to shoot with my new gear!
Here are my tested results of A7RII + Pixco LM-E adapter + ZM 1.4/35 + 5m PCX.
All shots are taken at wide open f1.4.
In-camera default jpeg.
5 different subjects focused at 2m, 4m, 6m, 10m and 300m approximately.
Uncropped jpeg files are available on my flickr.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/147672914@N02
Please check and judge by yourself whether this solution is worth or not
Haruhiko
Edited on Dec 19, 2016 at 07:00 AM · View previous versions
Here are my tested results of A7RII + Pixco LM-E adapter + ZM 1.4/35 + 5m PCX.
All shots are taken at wide open f1.4.
In-camera default jpeg.
5 different subjects focused at 2m, 4m, 6m, 10m and 300m approximately.
Uncropped jpeg files are available on my flickr.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/147672914@N02
Please check and judge by yourself whether this solution is worth or not
 |
||
| https://farm1.staticflickr.com/436/31324460100_15d22817c2_o_d.jpg | ||
|
|
||
| https://farm1.staticflickr.com/400/31324459580_3f09cb05b7_o_d.jpg | ||
|
|
||
| https://farm1.staticflickr.com/570/31696925045_ed55bbe480_o_d.jpg | ||
|
|
||
| https://farm1.staticflickr.com/275/31696924525_af73d48a16_o_d.jpg | ||
|
|
||
| https://farm1.staticflickr.com/405/31696923775_96e11d6d9f_o_d.jpg | ||
|
Haruhiko
Edited on Dec 19, 2016 at 07:00 AM · View previous versions
Dec 17, 2016 at 03:43 AM
p.13 #16Front-End Filter Improves Corner Smearing
Fred Miranda wrote:
How would it compare it to a meniscus 1.75m lens you mentioned on this link?
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1453834/2#13757437
Wouldn't the The Nikon No. 0 is @1.4m be a good choice as well?
My current simulation environment well matched contax G biogons but seems not be able to handle zm35d.
Perhaps zm35d's modern floating element / internal focusing design is affected, but I'm not sure at this time.
So I can't tell that simulated 1.75m meniscus is really work or not, and the Nikon No.0 as well.
artur5 wrote:
@ HaruhikoT - I hope you didn’t get me wrong with my comments about your “disappearance”. It was only a small joke intended to have you back ... and it worked !
No problem. Thank you for encouraging me
BastianK wrote:
Could you also share a photo how you mounted that lens?
As I understand they come as bare lenses without thread or anything.
I am especially asking, because the distance between front lens element and additional lens seems to have quite the impact on the achieved image quality as well as magnificiation.
So to get your promising results it would be a good idea to also mount it the same way.
These pics may help you
1. Hakuba 49-55mm step-up ring
2. Optosigma SLB-50-5000PM bare lens. Curved surface faces to subject.
3. Hakuba 55-52mm step-down ring
4. 52mm front part of AmazonBasics Protection Lens Filter 52mm
When I attach this filter, I tried loosening and tightening the filter and IQ seems not affected.
Unlike meniscus lens, when using PCX, that distance seems to have very small impact on any aberrations in theory also.
How would it compare it to a meniscus 1.75m lens you mentioned on this link?
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1453834/2#13757437
Wouldn't the The Nikon No. 0 is @1.4m be a good choice as well?
My current simulation environment well matched contax G biogons but seems not be able to handle zm35d.
Perhaps zm35d's modern floating element / internal focusing design is affected, but I'm not sure at this time.
So I can't tell that simulated 1.75m meniscus is really work or not, and the Nikon No.0 as well.
artur5 wrote:
@ HaruhikoT - I hope you didn’t get me wrong with my comments about your “disappearance”. It was only a small joke intended to have you back ... and it worked !
No problem. Thank you for encouraging me
BastianK wrote:
Could you also share a photo how you mounted that lens?
As I understand they come as bare lenses without thread or anything.
I am especially asking, because the distance between front lens element and additional lens seems to have quite the impact on the achieved image quality as well as magnificiation.
So to get your promising results it would be a good idea to also mount it the same way.
These pics may help you
1. Hakuba 49-55mm step-up ring
2. Optosigma SLB-50-5000PM bare lens. Curved surface faces to subject.
3. Hakuba 55-52mm step-down ring
4. 52mm front part of AmazonBasics Protection Lens Filter 52mm
When I attach this filter, I tried loosening and tightening the filter and IQ seems not affected.
Unlike meniscus lens, when using PCX, that distance seems to have very small impact on any aberrations in theory also.
|
||
| https://farm1.staticflickr.com/494/31549387892_5a03ce2b1f_o_d.jpg | ||
|
|
||
| https://farm1.staticflickr.com/542/30885573883_35c64e8d1a_o_d.jpg | ||
|
Dec 17, 2016 at 04:28 AM
p.13 #17Front-End Filter Improves Corner Smearing
The adapter is shorter than a normal one, I think?
The frontlens PCX has a focal length of 5 m. That means, that with an adapter with an exact length the infinity mark means 5 m in reality (sort of close-up lens).
My Lux 35 at infinity must be set to at least 5,6 to be (somewhat!) sharp at 5 meter.
Very nice series, thank you. Very interesting.
I wonder, that there are no solutions offered already (Hoya, etc.).
Jan
The frontlens PCX has a focal length of 5 m. That means, that with an adapter with an exact length the infinity mark means 5 m in reality (sort of close-up lens).
My Lux 35 at infinity must be set to at least 5,6 to be (somewhat!) sharp at 5 meter.
Very nice series, thank you. Very interesting.
I wonder, that there are no solutions offered already (Hoya, etc.).
Jan
Dec 17, 2016 at 04:47 AM
p.13 #18Front-End Filter Improves Corner Smearing
jankap wrote:
The adapter is shorter than a normal one, I think?
The frontlens PCX has a focal length of 5 m. That means, that with an adapter with an exact length the infinity mark means 5 m in reality (sort of close-up lens).
My Lux 35 at infinity must be set to at least 5,6 to be (somewhat!) sharp at 5 meter.
Very nice series, thank you. Very interesting.
I wonder, that there are no solutions offered already (Hoya, etc.).
Jan
Yes you are right, my adapter is slightly shorter than normal adapter.
With 5m PCX and this adapter, my zm1.4/35's distance mark exactly works and reaches infinity.
I didn't modify this adapter and I bought it just because it's cheap. I'm so lucky to find this
This is mine:
The adapter is shorter than a normal one, I think?
The frontlens PCX has a focal length of 5 m. That means, that with an adapter with an exact length the infinity mark means 5 m in reality (sort of close-up lens).
My Lux 35 at infinity must be set to at least 5,6 to be (somewhat!) sharp at 5 meter.
Very nice series, thank you. Very interesting.
I wonder, that there are no solutions offered already (Hoya, etc.).
Jan
Yes you are right, my adapter is slightly shorter than normal adapter.
With 5m PCX and this adapter, my zm1.4/35's distance mark exactly works and reaches infinity.
I didn't modify this adapter and I bought it just because it's cheap. I'm so lucky to find this
This is mine:
|
||
| https://farm1.staticflickr.com/388/31581982291_8879c2dc35_b_d.jpg | ||
|
Dec 17, 2016 at 05:34 AM
p.13 #19Front-End Filter Improves Corner Smearing
HaruhikoT wrote:
Fine day today with brilliant sunlight here in Japan, I went out to shoot with my new gear!
Here are my tested results of A7RII + Pixco LM-E adapter + ZM 1.4/35 + 5m PCX.
Thank you so much for your work!
You also granted me some free time as testing my filters here won't be necessary anymore.
I also appreciate that you have investigated the situation at different focus distances.
To me the results are astonishing!
It always made me feel sad to see what may be the best 35mm 1.4 available crippled by the thick cover glass.
But as it seems we can now use it in it's full glory on the A7 cameras.
The optimal filter being a rather weak 5m is also great to hear,
with my too short Fotodiox adapter it will easily be able to focus at infinity.
But as the difference between 5m and infinity on the focusing ring
is not that big I will also try if it is possible to reach great sharpness
at infinity slightly stopped down (f4.0 should work if one can trust the DoF scale on the lens)
with my helicoid adapter, as I don't want to miss the option to focus down to ~20 cm.
I can't wait for my filter to be delievered (@Fred I was told 1-2 weeks, so we are in the same boat I guess).
Edited on Dec 17, 2016 at 01:19 PM · View previous versions
Fine day today with brilliant sunlight here in Japan, I went out to shoot with my new gear!
Here are my tested results of A7RII + Pixco LM-E adapter + ZM 1.4/35 + 5m PCX.
Thank you so much for your work!
You also granted me some free time as testing my filters here won't be necessary anymore.
I also appreciate that you have investigated the situation at different focus distances.
To me the results are astonishing!
It always made me feel sad to see what may be the best 35mm 1.4 available crippled by the thick cover glass.
But as it seems we can now use it in it's full glory on the A7 cameras.
The optimal filter being a rather weak 5m is also great to hear,
with my too short Fotodiox adapter it will easily be able to focus at infinity.
But as the difference between 5m and infinity on the focusing ring
is not that big I will also try if it is possible to reach great sharpness
at infinity slightly stopped down (f4.0 should work if one can trust the DoF scale on the lens)
with my helicoid adapter, as I don't want to miss the option to focus down to ~20 cm.
I can't wait for my filter to be delievered (@Fred I was told 1-2 weeks, so we are in the same boat I guess).
Edited on Dec 17, 2016 at 01:19 PM · View previous versions
Dec 17, 2016 at 06:03 AM
p.13 #20Front-End Filter Improves Corner Smearing
Many thanks candreyo for posting this!
I have a ZM 28/2.8 that cannot reach infinity on my M9 (@2.8, stopped down @5.6 it is OK), but perhaps removing a shim will help? Same procedure as in the video?
If you do any more videos, I would appreciate more light (the current one is very dark, cannot see).
Anyone tested what filter is best for the ZM 28/2.8? Corners are pretty bad on non-leica cameras...
Ta!
candreyo wrote:
Here is a link to a quick YouTube video showing very quickly how one disassembles the Zeiss ZM lenses:
I used a Zeiss 18mm ZM in the video, and you can briefly see the custom 58mm to 55mm chrome step down I'm using to hold the 0.5mm Proxar lens in place
I used a camera spanner to loosen the rear retaining nut, then unscrew it off. Once off, the front of the lens pulls outward exposing the internal brass shims.
One either adds or removes these shins to calibrate the lens for infinity.
Most Zeiss ZM lenses have this type of design. I have...Show more →
I have the hawk v3 adapter, and it doesn't have enough distance in it to allow infinity to be reached when the filters are installed.
Version 5 may be different though.I will report as soon as I get mine (v5).
0.3mm could be all the ZM 35 needs to achieve infinity with some of the filters.
We are still waiting for your step-by-step video.
Great point. I do use this lens on TAP when not shooting landscapes and adjusting the lens to use the filter could be the best approach. Would the internal adjustment influence how the lens work with regular adapters when shooting at infinity? I would think the lens would focus beyond infinity at the infinity hard stop but would not no problem reaching infinity by focusing closer.
I have a ZM 28/2.8 that cannot reach infinity on my M9 (@2.8, stopped down @5.6 it is OK), but perhaps removing a shim will help? Same procedure as in the video?
If you do any more videos, I would appreciate more light (the current one is very dark, cannot see).
Anyone tested what filter is best for the ZM 28/2.8? Corners are pretty bad on non-leica cameras...
Ta!
candreyo wrote:
Here is a link to a quick YouTube video showing very quickly how one disassembles the Zeiss ZM lenses:
I used a Zeiss 18mm ZM in the video, and you can briefly see the custom 58mm to 55mm chrome step down I'm using to hold the 0.5mm Proxar lens in place
I used a camera spanner to loosen the rear retaining nut, then unscrew it off. Once off, the front of the lens pulls outward exposing the internal brass shims.
One either adds or removes these shins to calibrate the lens for infinity.
Most Zeiss ZM lenses have this type of design. I have...Show more →
Fred Miranda wrote
candreyo wrote
Hi Fred,I have the hawk v3 adapter, and it doesn't have enough distance in it to allow infinity to be reached when the filters are installed.
Version 5 may be different though.
0.3mm could be all the ZM 35 needs to achieve infinity with some of the filters.
Earlier quote
Adjusting the Zeiss ZM lenses internally is quite easy.Earlier quote
One good thing about using TAP and adjusting the ZM lenses internally to reach infinity with the filters installed, if you want to remove the filters and shoot without them, since the Zeiss ZM lenses will then focus beyond infinity, TAP helps by its ability to regain close focus distancing with them.Dec 17, 2016 at 06:34 AM