Thanks I was hoping but I want to use the ELPro. I'm having a hard time getting it off and on with the hood this way. I'm hoping at least the ELPro I can get my fingers in there and turn it better
wstam wrote:
Thanks teeraash and Guy for the info.
....
@teeraash@, do you mean you also use a front-end filter on c/y 28mm 2.8? What lens is that? I also have this c/y 28mm.
Thanks.
Yes. 5M on Contax/Yashica 28mm f2.8. I see significant improvement in edges/corners and mid-fields from f2.8 - f11.
5M on c/y 28/2.8 is much much better than 1.5M on ZM 28/2.8. At 2.8 it is better in all areas including center. At f4 to 5.6, all areas of c/y are better than the zm, excepting the center area. At f8 to f22, corners and edges of c/y are better than zm.
Besides the sharpness, rendering of c/y is nicer as the color rendering of zm to me is too dry (yellowish). By all means, if you already have c/y, get the PCX 5M to go along with it on the A7RM2 (sell the 28 zm is not a bad idea, I think).
If you want I can post the effects of 5M on c/y and comparison of c/y with the equivalence zm.
teeraash wrote:
Yes. 5M on Contax/Yashica 28mm f2.8. I see significant improvement in edges/corners and mid-fields from f2.8 - f11.
5M on c/y 28/2.8 is much much better than 1.5M on ZM 28/2.8. At 2.8 it is better in all areas including center. At f4 to 5.6, all areas of c/y are better than the zm, excepting the center area. At f8 to f22, corners and edges of c/y are better than zm.
Besides the sharpness, rendering of c/y is nicer as the color rendering of zm to me is too dry (yellowish). By all means, if you already have c/y, get the PCX 5M to go along with it on the A7RM2 (sell the 28 zm is not a bad idea, I think).
If you want I can post the effects of 5M on c/y and comparison of c/y with the equivalence zm. ...Show more →
I'd be fascinated to see the c/y with and without front filter. My guess would hav been that a Contax lens would not benefit from a front filter because such strongly retrofocus wides have fairly parallel ray angles...
teeraash wrote:
Yes. 5M on Contax/Yashica 28mm f2.8. I see significant improvement in edges/corners and mid-fields from f2.8 - f11.
5M on c/y 28/2.8 is much much better than 1.5M on ZM 28/2.8. At 2.8 it is better in all areas including center. At f4 to 5.6, all areas of c/y are better than the zm, excepting the center area. At f8 to f22, corners and edges of c/y are better than zm.
Besides the sharpness, rendering of c/y is nicer as the color rendering of zm to me is too dry (yellowish). By all means, if you already have c/y, get the PCX 5M to go along with it on the A7RM2 (sell the 28 zm is not a bad idea, I think).
If you want I can post the effects of 5M on c/y and comparison of c/y with the equivalence zm. ...Show more →
Wow. This is interesting. A question on lens size. Can't check my c/y 28mm now. Isn't the filter size 55mm? If I am not wrong PCX lens is ~52mm. Are you using a larger size version?
teeraash wrote:
Yes. 5M on Contax/Yashica 28mm f2.8. I see significant improvement in edges/corners and mid-fields from f2.8 - f11.
5M on c/y 28/2.8 is much much better than 1.5M on ZM 28/2.8. At 2.8 it is better in all areas including center. At f4 to 5.6, all areas of c/y are better than the zm, excepting the center area. At f8 to f22, corners and edges of c/y are better than zm.
Besides the sharpness, rendering of c/y is nicer as the color rendering of zm to me is too dry (yellowish). By all means, if you already have c/y, get the PCX 5M to go along with it on the A7RM2 (sell the 28 zm is not a bad idea, I think).
If you want I can post the effects of 5M on c/y and comparison of c/y with the equivalence zm. ...Show more →
Thanks for the info. I think the 5M PCX mainly affects field curvature for this lens.
Question: The CY 28/2.8 filter thread is 55mm and the 5M PCX is 50mm. Didn't you get vignetting?
I'd be fascinated to see the c/y with and without front filter. My guess would hav been that a Contax lens would not benefit from a front filter because such strongly retrofocus wides have fairly parallel ray angles...
I will have to redo the test again. As the framing of these two sets of images from the c/y lens, one with filter and another without, were some what differences making it difficult to compare. But on a more careful scrutinize by comparing images that located on the same spot of the sensor not the same spot on the scenery, you may be right. Anyway, I will have to redo it again to be certain. Thank you for the comment.
BTW: there is a very easy way align the PCX lens on its filter. I just added two small pieces of double-side tape squares to the first filter. (Opposing each other)
Then, I aligned the lens visually as good as possible. When I can see great centering, I just pressed the lens down a little bit. At this point the lens won't move anymore and I can add the rest of the system. (step-up, retaining ring, etc.)
@Fred Miranda@
Could you also upload your 35mm ZM 1.4 full res with/without 5m filter infinity shots at f/1.4 somewhere as Guy did?
Would be greatly appreciated!
Have ElPro in hand and im confused how to set this up. I think I use a 49 thin blank that gets me past the hood than 49-55. Than here is the part I'm lost take out the glass from the EL Pro put in a generic 55 retaining ring than lens than EL Pro retaining ring
BastianK wrote:
@Fred Miranda@@
Could you also upload your 35mm ZM 1.4 full res with/without 5m filter infinity shots at f/1.4 somewhere as Guy did?
Would be greatly appreciated!
I'll check if I can find it Bastin. If not, I will test it again.
GMPhotography wrote:
Have ElPro in hand and im confused how to set this up. I think I use a 49 thin blank that gets me past the hood than 49-55. Than here is the part I'm lost take out the glass from the EL Pro put in a generic 55 retaining ring than lens than EL Pro retaining ring
Focus was adjusted for every shot to get best across frame sharpness (and because of significant focus shift this lens shows).
Light was chaninging a bit unfortunately, but both filters look very good.
If I was to be splitting hairs I would say Eksma is a little bit better in the midframe and Optosigma in the corners.
But both are viable options.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I'll check if I can find it Bastian. If not, I will test it again.
PS: Still interested
rhawidantas wrote:
Impressive. I wil surely be getting the Eksma.
Do you think in updating your post with a "how to" on building this filter?
You need:
46->55mm step up ring
55->52mm step down ring
52->58mm step up ring
Gaffer Tape for centering (I used four small stripes, you can see two in the photo)
Focus was adjusted for every shot to get best across frame sharpness (and because of significant focus shift this lens shows).
Light was chaninging a bit unfortunately, but both filters look very good.
If I was to be splitting hairs I would say Eksma is a little bit better in the midframe and Optosigma in the corners.
But both are viable options.
DavidBM wrote:
The Opto results seem contrastier than the Eksma
Is this down to changed light, or the uncoated Eksma, or something else?
If I were to look at the midframe crops: mostly change of light.
But taking a closer look at the center crops at f/2.8 especially the tree on the right hand side of them,
Optosigma seems to have a little more contrast to it.
It may be due to the Eksma being 5 mm thick and Optosigma 3 mm, it may be the missing coating on the Eksma,
it may also be tolerances in focusing when talking about these subtle differences.
Both are viable options in my opinion.
Comparing the coated filters Optosigma is slightly cheaper in Germany,
but that may differ depending on what local distributors each of us has to deal with.
PS: the setup as shown here weighs 35g with Eksma filter. For comparison: the lens hood 15g.
Bastian, thanks for posting the VM 35 Ultron shots. Perhaps you mentioned it already, but what did you need to do to get back to infinity with the 5m lens?
