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.14 #1Front-End Filter Improves Corner Smearing
I know the discussion has shifted to the ZM35, but I've just reread through the earlier pages and was wondering if their was a consensus on what the best option for the Contax G 28mm would be?
Is the G28+PCX1.5m Reversed the ideal?
Is the G28+PCX1.5m Reversed the ideal?
Dec 17, 2016 at 10:27 AM
p.14 #2Front-End Filter Improves Corner Smearing
Hi Ceder,
Apologies on the dark video, I hope to get a video done with more light over Christmas break.
With regards to the ZM 28mm 2.8, I have this lens and I have found the best filter to use is a 1500mm Planoconvex from OptoSigma. This sharpens the corners of the lens up tremendously, very similar to the improvements that Haruhiko posted with his modified ZM 35mm and Contax G 28mm lenses.
The process to open them is very similar to what I showed in the video with the ZM 18mm. You need to remove the rear lens retention ring on the lens, then the whole lens block removes from the lower helicoil. On the part that is removed, you will see shims in the same location as was showed on the ZM 18mm. I had to remove 2 shims to achieve infinite focus.
A note to those that use both Leica style rangefinders and Sony A7 cameras. I have tested today that the modifications to the ZM 28mm lens has a negative effect when using Leica M filter stack cameras. There appears to be no free lunch. The corners on my Leica M240 are worse with correction lens on.
So while the ZM 28mm lens can be adjusted with shim removals to get them to focus correctly on the rangefinder, the corners degrade with the planoconvex lens. This is opposite to the results with the correction lenses on with Sony cameras, where you see a noticeable boost in performance.
I've decided to bring my Zeiss 28mm back to how it originally was and use that in my Leica M240 (which I have rangefinder focus frames for) and leave my ZM 25mm Biogon modified with the Proxar lens on it, for dedicated use on my Sony A7Rii.
Equally, my Zeiss ZM 18mm will remain with the Proxar lens on, but I will use the Voigtlander 21mm Ultron in my Leica M240.
I guess this makes senses this would occur like this, as essentially the Proxar lenses are tweaking the incoming light to reduce astigmatism on a given sensor stack. A stack thicker then the Sony sensor like M4/3 would probably need a different correction lens then the Sony sensor would, for any given lens.
ceder wrote:
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!
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 personally opened up the 85mm f4, 35mm f1.4, 28mm f2.8, 25mm f2.8 and 18mm f4 with this method. Some have slightly different designs, but essentially they all are very similar in how one gets inside them.
The exception is the Zeiss 85mm ZM f2 Sonnar, which I have not been able to figure out how it opens.
Apologies I couldn't do a more elaborate video at the moment, I may have a better opportunity to do a longer one with more in depth details of how each lens is opened over Christmas break. But hopefully you guys now have an idea how to open ZM lenses better.
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.
Apologies on the dark video, I hope to get a video done with more light over Christmas break.
With regards to the ZM 28mm 2.8, I have this lens and I have found the best filter to use is a 1500mm Planoconvex from OptoSigma. This sharpens the corners of the lens up tremendously, very similar to the improvements that Haruhiko posted with his modified ZM 35mm and Contax G 28mm lenses.
The process to open them is very similar to what I showed in the video with the ZM 18mm. You need to remove the rear lens retention ring on the lens, then the whole lens block removes from the lower helicoil. On the part that is removed, you will see shims in the same location as was showed on the ZM 18mm. I had to remove 2 shims to achieve infinite focus.
A note to those that use both Leica style rangefinders and Sony A7 cameras. I have tested today that the modifications to the ZM 28mm lens has a negative effect when using Leica M filter stack cameras. There appears to be no free lunch. The corners on my Leica M240 are worse with correction lens on.
So while the ZM 28mm lens can be adjusted with shim removals to get them to focus correctly on the rangefinder, the corners degrade with the planoconvex lens. This is opposite to the results with the correction lenses on with Sony cameras, where you see a noticeable boost in performance.
I've decided to bring my Zeiss 28mm back to how it originally was and use that in my Leica M240 (which I have rangefinder focus frames for) and leave my ZM 25mm Biogon modified with the Proxar lens on it, for dedicated use on my Sony A7Rii.
Equally, my Zeiss ZM 18mm will remain with the Proxar lens on, but I will use the Voigtlander 21mm Ultron in my Leica M240.
I guess this makes senses this would occur like this, as essentially the Proxar lenses are tweaking the incoming light to reduce astigmatism on a given sensor stack. A stack thicker then the Sony sensor like M4/3 would probably need a different correction lens then the Sony sensor would, for any given lens.
ceder wrote:
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 personally opened up the 85mm f4, 35mm f1.4, 28mm f2.8, 25mm f2.8 and 18mm f4 with this method. Some have slightly different designs, but essentially they all are very similar in how one gets inside them.
The exception is the Zeiss 85mm ZM f2 Sonnar, which I have not been able to figure out how it opens.
Apologies I couldn't do a more elaborate video at the moment, I may have a better opportunity to do a longer one with more in depth details of how each lens is opened over Christmas break. But hopefully you guys now have an idea how to open ZM lenses better.
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 01:02 PM
p.14 #3Front-End Filter Improves Corner Smearing
MAubrey wrote:
I know the discussion has shifted to the ZM35, but I've just reread through the earlier pages and was wondering if their was a consensus on what the best option for the Contax G 28mm would be?
Is the G28+PCX1.5m Reversed the ideal?
Just found this thread and it looks like there is hope for the Contax G's below 35mm. Was there also a verdict what is best for the G21?
And am I correct that infinity focus is not affected as the G lenses are built to focus beyond anyway?
Thanks for these interesting findings HaruhikoT.
I know the discussion has shifted to the ZM35, but I've just reread through the earlier pages and was wondering if their was a consensus on what the best option for the Contax G 28mm would be?
Is the G28+PCX1.5m Reversed the ideal?
Just found this thread and it looks like there is hope for the Contax G's below 35mm. Was there also a verdict what is best for the G21?
And am I correct that infinity focus is not affected as the G lenses are built to focus beyond anyway?
Thanks for these interesting findings HaruhikoT.
Dec 17, 2016 at 02:12 PM
p.14 #4Front-End Filter Improves Corner Smearing
Fred sent me a email on this for my ZM 35. I just put a order in I think. Waiting to pay for it. I have a TON of step ups and rings so I'll figure that part out
Dec 17, 2016 at 03:31 PM
p.14 #5Front-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.
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_149b865048_o_d.jpg
https://farm1.staticflickr.com/400/31324459580_388306dc79_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
Haruhiko,
This is candy to our eyes! Thanks for the samples and detailed explanation on how to build the filter.
From your corner crops we already know it works great even wide open. Were you able to run a simulation (filter/no filter) that confirms your real world results?
Thanks for this!
Fred
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
https://farm1.staticflickr.com/436/31324460100_149b865048_o_d.jpg
https://farm1.staticflickr.com/400/31324459580_388306dc79_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
Haruhiko,
This is candy to our eyes! Thanks for the samples and detailed explanation on how to build the filter.
From your corner crops we already know it works great even wide open. Were you able to run a simulation (filter/no filter) that confirms your real world results?
Thanks for this!
Fred
Dec 17, 2016 at 05:05 PM
p.14 #6Front-End Filter Improves Corner Smearing
Looks really good to me, Im in.
Dec 17, 2016 at 05:56 PM
p.14 #7Front-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.
Fred,
Where can we get the 5m PCS in North America?
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.
Fred,
Where can we get the 5m PCS in North America?
Dec 17, 2016 at 06:13 PM
p.14 #8Front-End Filter Improves Corner Smearing
Steve Spencer wrote:
Fred,
Where can we get the 5m PCS in North America?
Your can order directly from OptoSigma America distributor.
The contact is Brad. Email him and he will process your order. Their office is only 20min. from my house. (Orange County, CA)
[email protected]
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.Where can we get the 5m PCS in North America?
Your can order directly from OptoSigma America distributor.
The contact is Brad. Email him and he will process your order. Their office is only 20min. from my house. (Orange County, CA)
[email protected]
Dec 17, 2016 at 06:54 PM
p.14 #9Front-End Filter Improves Corner Smearing
Fred Miranda wrote:
Fred,
Where can we get the 5m PCS in North America?Your can order directly from OptoSigma America distributor.
The contact is Brad. Email him and he will process your order. Their office is only 20min. from my house. (Orange County, CA)
[email protected]
Thanks Fred.
Steve Spencer wrote
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.Where can we get the 5m PCS in North America?
The contact is Brad. Email him and he will process your order. Their office is only 20min. from my house. (Orange County, CA)
[email protected]
Thanks Fred.
Dec 17, 2016 at 07:29 PM
p.14 #10Front-End Filter Improves Corner Smearing
wfrank wrote:
Is the G28+PCX1.5m Reversed the ideal?Just found this thread and it looks like there is hope for the Contax G's below 35mm. Was there also a verdict what is best for the G21?
And am I correct that infinity focus is not affected as the G lenses are built to focus beyond anyway?
Thanks for these interesting findings HaruhikoT.
Correct about Contax G lenses focusing beyond infinity. Even using a quite strong 1m. close up lens I had no difficulty reaching infinity with the G28. I think also that MAubrey is right about a PCX 1.5m being the best match for this lens and probably the G21 as well. I used ordinary 1m and 1.4m close-up lenses ( which aren't plano convex but meniscus) and the results were barely acceptable, really far away of what achieved HaruhikoT with a PCX lens
MAubrey wrote
I know the discussion has shifted to the ZM35, but I've just reread through the earlier pages and was wondering if their was a consensus on what the best option for the Contax G 28mm would be?Is the G28+PCX1.5m Reversed the ideal?
And am I correct that infinity focus is not affected as the G lenses are built to focus beyond anyway?
Thanks for these interesting findings HaruhikoT.
Correct about Contax G lenses focusing beyond infinity. Even using a quite strong 1m. close up lens I had no difficulty reaching infinity with the G28. I think also that MAubrey is right about a PCX 1.5m being the best match for this lens and probably the G21 as well. I used ordinary 1m and 1.4m close-up lenses ( which aren't plano convex but meniscus) and the results were barely acceptable, really far away of what achieved HaruhikoT with a PCX lens
Dec 18, 2016 at 03:45 AM
p.14 #11Front-End Filter Improves Corner Smearing
MAubrey wrote:
what the best option for the Contax G 28mm would be?
Is the G28+PCX1.5m Reversed the ideal?
Yes.
wfrank wrote:
Was there also a verdict what is best for the G21?
And am I correct that infinity focus is not affected as the G lenses are built to focus beyond anyway?
I use PCX1.5m Reversed for both G21 and G28 and feel satified with them.
Correct. At least my adapter can reach infinity.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Were you able to run a simulation (filter/no filter) that confirms your real world results?
Below shows MTFs using my current sim model.
The lower two unfamilliar graphs represent Through-Focus MTF (focus point vs. contrast).
Without filter, blue lines (mid corner) and green lines (extreme corner) give peak contrast at different focus points from that of purple lines (on-axis).
With PCX 5m, all peaks are in unison.
I think this well represents the improvement of field curvature.
Again please note zeiss datasheet gives very limited information about zm35d so this model is based on some hypothetical values that may not be accurate.
what the best option for the Contax G 28mm would be?
Is the G28+PCX1.5m Reversed the ideal?
Yes.
wfrank wrote:
Was there also a verdict what is best for the G21?
And am I correct that infinity focus is not affected as the G lenses are built to focus beyond anyway?
I use PCX1.5m Reversed for both G21 and G28 and feel satified with them.
Correct. At least my adapter can reach infinity.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Were you able to run a simulation (filter/no filter) that confirms your real world results?
Below shows MTFs using my current sim model.
The lower two unfamilliar graphs represent Through-Focus MTF (focus point vs. contrast).
Without filter, blue lines (mid corner) and green lines (extreme corner) give peak contrast at different focus points from that of purple lines (on-axis).
With PCX 5m, all peaks are in unison.
I think this well represents the improvement of field curvature.
Again please note zeiss datasheet gives very limited information about zm35d so this model is based on some hypothetical values that may not be accurate.
 |
||
| https://farm1.staticflickr.com/400/31679219056_3c9bca2e6f_o_d.jpg | ||
|
Dec 18, 2016 at 04:06 AM
p.14 #12Front-End Filter Improves Corner Smearing
candreyo wrote:
A note to those that use both Leica style rangefinders and Sony A7 cameras. I have tested today that the modifications to the ZM 28mm lens has a negative effect when using Leica M filter stack cameras. There appears to be no free lunch. The corners on my Leica M240 are worse with correction lens on.
So while the ZM 28mm lens can be adjusted with shim removals to get them to focus correctly on the rangefinder, the corners degrade with the planoconvex lens. This is opposite to the results with the correction lenses on with Sony cameras, where you see...Show more →
Thanks for checking and reporting these details!
A note to those that use both Leica style rangefinders and Sony A7 cameras. I have tested today that the modifications to the ZM 28mm lens has a negative effect when using Leica M filter stack cameras. There appears to be no free lunch. The corners on my Leica M240 are worse with correction lens on.
So while the ZM 28mm lens can be adjusted with shim removals to get them to focus correctly on the rangefinder, the corners degrade with the planoconvex lens. This is opposite to the results with the correction lenses on with Sony cameras, where you see...Show more →
Thanks for checking and reporting these details!
Dec 18, 2016 at 09:02 AM
p.14 #13Front-End Filter Improves Corner Smearing
candreyo wrote:
Hello Brandon,
Many thanks for your input on this, I appreciate it.
No, I have no intentions of using the software commerically, Im merely trying to use it to model some of the Zeiss ZM lenses I own, to help me narrow done which PCX filters may work.
I wish I had about $900.00 of disposible income, I could buy a near complete set of PCX lenses and see what actually works without simulating it.
Unfortunately, I only have enough money set asisde at the moment for 2-3 PCX lenses, so I would like to use the software to help me narrow down which...Show more →
Candreyo,
Were you able to narrow down which PCX lens would work best for the ZM 28/2.8?
According to @HaruhikoT , the G 28/2.8 seems to work best with a 1.5m (reversed) PCX filter. Have you tried this configuration with your ZM 28? They are both Biogon but have different optical designs. I can't find the exit pupil distance (mm) for the ZM.
Hello Brandon,
Many thanks for your input on this, I appreciate it.
No, I have no intentions of using the software commerically, Im merely trying to use it to model some of the Zeiss ZM lenses I own, to help me narrow done which PCX filters may work.
I wish I had about $900.00 of disposible income, I could buy a near complete set of PCX lenses and see what actually works without simulating it.
Unfortunately, I only have enough money set asisde at the moment for 2-3 PCX lenses, so I would like to use the software to help me narrow down which...Show more →
Candreyo,
Were you able to narrow down which PCX lens would work best for the ZM 28/2.8?
According to @HaruhikoT , the G 28/2.8 seems to work best with a 1.5m (reversed) PCX filter. Have you tried this configuration with your ZM 28? They are both Biogon but have different optical designs. I can't find the exit pupil distance (mm) for the ZM.
Dec 18, 2016 at 10:44 AM
p.14 #14Front-End Filter Improves Corner Smearing
HaruhikoT wrote:
Below shows MTFs using my current sim model.
The lower two unfamilliar graphs represent Through-Focus MTF (focus point vs. contrast).
Without filter, blue lines (mid corner) and green lines (extreme corner) give peak contrast at different focus points from that of purple lines (on-axis).
With PCX 5m, all peaks are in unison.
I think this well represents the improvement of field curvature.
Again please note zeiss datasheet gives very limited information about zm35d so this model is based on some hypothetical values that may not be accurate.
https://farm1.staticflickr.com/400/31679219056_3c9bca2e6f_o_d.jpg
Thanks for the simulation graphs! It's interesting that the MTF is improved everywhere at f/1.4, even in the center!
I guess the only downside would be a little bit more distortion when using the filter.
Fred Miranda wrote
Were you able to run a simulation (filter/no filter) that confirms your real world results?The lower two unfamilliar graphs represent Through-Focus MTF (focus point vs. contrast).
Without filter, blue lines (mid corner) and green lines (extreme corner) give peak contrast at different focus points from that of purple lines (on-axis).
With PCX 5m, all peaks are in unison.
I think this well represents the improvement of field curvature.
Again please note zeiss datasheet gives very limited information about zm35d so this model is based on some hypothetical values that may not be accurate.
https://farm1.staticflickr.com/400/31679219056_3c9bca2e6f_o_d.jpg
Thanks for the simulation graphs! It's interesting that the MTF is improved everywhere at f/1.4, even in the center!
I guess the only downside would be a little bit more distortion when using the filter.
Dec 18, 2016 at 10:45 AM
p.14 #15Front-End Filter Improves Corner Smearing
Hi Fred,
I had to do trial and error with the ZM 28mm, as I was unable to program the lens using OSLO due to lack of technical data from Zeiss.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Many thanks for your input on this, I appreciate it.
No, I have no intentions of using the software commerically, Im merely trying to use it to model some of the Zeiss ZM lenses I own, to help me narrow done which PCX filters may work.
I wish I had about $900.00 of disposible income, I could buy a near complete set of PCX lenses and see what actually works without simulating it.
Unfortunately, I only have enough money set asisde at the moment for 2-3 PCX lenses, so I would like to use the software to help me narrow down which PCX lenses may work best for the 25mm and 28mm Zeiss Biogon ZM's.
I have created a 28mm ZM profile, using Haruhiko T's 28G lens template, and you are right. Without knowing the exact specifications of the lens, its very difficult to try and model it. i have been using a caliper to try and estimate the various dimensions I need, and have not had any luck getting the lens file to compute properly.
My goal ultimately is to find which PCX lenses work best with the Zeiss 25 and 28mm ZM, lenses, then let the community know this, so that anyone who may own these type of lenses can get the correct PCX lens that addresses the corner smearing issue the best.
Im going to have another go this evening trying to further program a Zeiss 28mm ZM lens file, but if I continue to run into issues, I may post what code I have here and ask for some guidance.
Best Regards,
CandreyoCandreyo,
Were you able to narrow down which PCX lens would work best for the ZM 28/2.8?
According to @HaruhikoT@@ , the G 28/2.8 seems to work best with a 1.5m (reversed) PCX filter. Have you tried this configuration with your ZM 28? They are both Biogon but have different optical designs. I can't find the exit pupil distance (mm) for the ZM.
I had to do trial and error with the ZM 28mm, as I was unable to program the lens using OSLO due to lack of technical data from Zeiss.
Fred Miranda wrote:
candreyo wrote
Hello Brandon,Many thanks for your input on this, I appreciate it.
No, I have no intentions of using the software commerically, Im merely trying to use it to model some of the Zeiss ZM lenses I own, to help me narrow done which PCX filters may work.
I wish I had about $900.00 of disposible income, I could buy a near complete set of PCX lenses and see what actually works without simulating it.
Unfortunately, I only have enough money set asisde at the moment for 2-3 PCX lenses, so I would like to use the software to help me narrow down which PCX lenses may work best for the 25mm and 28mm Zeiss Biogon ZM's.
I have created a 28mm ZM profile, using Haruhiko T's 28G lens template, and you are right. Without knowing the exact specifications of the lens, its very difficult to try and model it. i have been using a caliper to try and estimate the various dimensions I need, and have not had any luck getting the lens file to compute properly.
My goal ultimately is to find which PCX lenses work best with the Zeiss 25 and 28mm ZM, lenses, then let the community know this, so that anyone who may own these type of lenses can get the correct PCX lens that addresses the corner smearing issue the best.
Im going to have another go this evening trying to further program a Zeiss 28mm ZM lens file, but if I continue to run into issues, I may post what code I have here and ask for some guidance.
Best Regards,
Candreyo
Were you able to narrow down which PCX lens would work best for the ZM 28/2.8?
According to @HaruhikoT@@ , the G 28/2.8 seems to work best with a 1.5m (reversed) PCX filter. Have you tried this configuration with your ZM 28? They are both Biogon but have different optical designs. I can't find the exit pupil distance (mm) for the ZM.
Dec 18, 2016 at 12:16 PM
p.14 #16Front-End Filter Improves Corner Smearing
Fred Miranda wrote:
I guess the only downside would be a little bit more distortion when using the filter.
If necessary I will create a correction profile for Lightroom, have done that in the past a few times for lenses where none is available (like Tokina 17mm RMC 3.5).
I guess the only downside would be a little bit more distortion when using the filter.
If necessary I will create a correction profile for Lightroom, have done that in the past a few times for lenses where none is available (like Tokina 17mm RMC 3.5).
Dec 18, 2016 at 12:19 PM
p.14 #17Front-End Filter Improves Corner Smearing
Many thanks - I will give it a try! Will just get a spanner first
candreyo wrote:
Hi Ceder,
Apologies on the dark video, I hope to get a video done with more light over Christmas break.
With regards to the ZM 28mm 2.8, I have this lens and I have found the best filter to use is a 1500mm Planoconvex from OptoSigma. This sharpens the corners of the lens up tremendously, very similar to the improvements that Haruhiko posted with his modified ZM 35mm and Contax G 28mm lenses.
The process to open them is very similar to what I showed in the video with the ZM 18mm. You need to remove the rear lens retention ring on the...Show more →
candreyo wrote:
Hi Ceder,
Apologies on the dark video, I hope to get a video done with more light over Christmas break.
With regards to the ZM 28mm 2.8, I have this lens and I have found the best filter to use is a 1500mm Planoconvex from OptoSigma. This sharpens the corners of the lens up tremendously, very similar to the improvements that Haruhiko posted with his modified ZM 35mm and Contax G 28mm lenses.
The process to open them is very similar to what I showed in the video with the ZM 18mm. You need to remove the rear lens retention ring on the...Show more →
Dec 18, 2016 at 01:53 PM
p.14 #18Front-End Filter Improves Corner Smearing
Thanks for this solution. I posted some shots in the FE images thread with the G21 and the opto sigma 1.5m PCX. My method of attaching is a little different. I have a 55-52 step down ring then a Cokin P 52mm adapter which keeps the PCX lens in place. I previously chopped in half a cheap Cokin P holder and when using it on the G21 without problems I could attach an ND and CPL without vignetting.
Dec 18, 2016 at 02:56 PM
p.14 #19Front-End Filter Improves Corner Smearing
candreyo wrote:
Hi Fred,
I had to do trial and error with the ZM 28mm, as I was unable to program the lens using OSLO due to lack of technical data from Zeiss.
Many thanks for your input on this, I appreciate it.
No, I have no intentions of using the software commerically, Im merely trying to use it to model some of the Zeiss ZM lenses I own, to help me narrow done which PCX filters may work.
I wish I had about $900.00 of disposible income, I could buy a near complete set of PCX lenses and see what actually works without simulating it.
Unfortunately, I only have enough money set asisde at the moment for 2-3 PCX lenses, so I would like to use the software to help me narrow down which PCX lenses may work best for the 25mm and 28mm Zeiss Biogon ZM's.
I have created a 28mm ZM profile, using Haruhiko T's 28G lens template, and you are right. Without knowing the exact specifications of the lens, its very difficult to try and model it. i have been using a caliper to try and estimate the various dimensions I need, and have not had any luck getting the lens file to compute properly.
My goal ultimately is to find which PCX lenses work best with the Zeiss 25 and 28mm ZM, lenses, then let the community know this, so that anyone who may own these type of lenses can get the correct PCX lens that addresses the corner smearing issue the best.
Im going to have another go this evening trying to further program a Zeiss 28mm ZM lens file, but if I continue to run into issues, I may post what code I have here and ask for some guidance.
Best Regards,
CandreyoCandreyo,
Were you able to narrow down which PCX lens would work best for the ZM 28/2.8?
According to @HaruhikoT@@@@@@@ , the G 28/2.8 seems to work best with a 1.5m (reversed) PCX filter. Have you tried this configuration with your ZM 28? They are both Biogon but have different optical designs. I can't find the exit pupil distance (mm) for the ZM.
Did you try the 1.5m PCX filter normal or reversed on the ZM 28?
@HaruhikoT@ wrote that it worked best for his G28/2.8 (in reverse orientation) but they probably have different exit pupil distances.
I see from earlier threads that you preferred the 1m Zeiss Proxar for the ZM 28 instead. Is that still the case? If so, how did you attach it to the lens?
Hi Fred,
I had to do trial and error with the ZM 28mm, as I was unable to program the lens using OSLO due to lack of technical data from Zeiss.
Fred Miranda wrote
candreyo wrote
Hello Brandon,Many thanks for your input on this, I appreciate it.
No, I have no intentions of using the software commerically, Im merely trying to use it to model some of the Zeiss ZM lenses I own, to help me narrow done which PCX filters may work.
I wish I had about $900.00 of disposible income, I could buy a near complete set of PCX lenses and see what actually works without simulating it.
Unfortunately, I only have enough money set asisde at the moment for 2-3 PCX lenses, so I would like to use the software to help me narrow down which PCX lenses may work best for the 25mm and 28mm Zeiss Biogon ZM's.
I have created a 28mm ZM profile, using Haruhiko T's 28G lens template, and you are right. Without knowing the exact specifications of the lens, its very difficult to try and model it. i have been using a caliper to try and estimate the various dimensions I need, and have not had any luck getting the lens file to compute properly.
My goal ultimately is to find which PCX lenses work best with the Zeiss 25 and 28mm ZM, lenses, then let the community know this, so that anyone who may own these type of lenses can get the correct PCX lens that addresses the corner smearing issue the best.
Im going to have another go this evening trying to further program a Zeiss 28mm ZM lens file, but if I continue to run into issues, I may post what code I have here and ask for some guidance.
Best Regards,
Candreyo
Were you able to narrow down which PCX lens would work best for the ZM 28/2.8?
According to @HaruhikoT@@@@@@@ , the G 28/2.8 seems to work best with a 1.5m (reversed) PCX filter. Have you tried this configuration with your ZM 28? They are both Biogon but have different optical designs. I can't find the exit pupil distance (mm) for the ZM.
Did you try the 1.5m PCX filter normal or reversed on the ZM 28?
@HaruhikoT@ wrote that it worked best for his G28/2.8 (in reverse orientation) but they probably have different exit pupil distances.
I see from earlier threads that you preferred the 1m Zeiss Proxar for the ZM 28 instead. Is that still the case? If so, how did you attach it to the lens?
Dec 18, 2016 at 03:18 PM
p.14 #20Front-End Filter Improves Corner Smearing
Slingers wrote:
Thanks for this solution. I posted some shots in the FE images thread with the G21 and the opto sigma 1.5m PCX. My method of attaching is a little different. I have a 55-52 step down ring then a Cokin P 52mm adapter which keeps the PCX lens in place. I previously chopped in half a cheap Cokin P holder and when using it on the G21 without problems I could attach an ND and CPL without vignetting.
Hi with the G21 which Mount are you using and did you have to Hack the rear as for Techart TA-GA3?
Thanks for this solution. I posted some shots in the FE images thread with the G21 and the opto sigma 1.5m PCX. My method of attaching is a little different. I have a 55-52 step down ring then a Cokin P 52mm adapter which keeps the PCX lens in place. I previously chopped in half a cheap Cokin P holder and when using it on the G21 without problems I could attach an ND and CPL without vignetting.
Hi with the G21 which Mount are you using and did you have to Hack the rear as for Techart TA-GA3?
Dec 19, 2016 at 06:45 AM