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.51 #2Front-End Filter Improves Corner Smearing
GMPhotography wrote:
It falls through other retaining rings. The EL Pro catches it so no need for a 55-52. I tried finding where this is mentioned but could not.
Understand now. Just wonder, will 49->52 and then blank 52 filter with retaining ring works? I understand PCX 5M is only around 50mm right?
Thanks.
It falls through other retaining rings. The EL Pro catches it so no need for a 55-52. I tried finding where this is mentioned but could not.
Understand now. Just wonder, will 49->52 and then blank 52 filter with retaining ring works? I understand PCX 5M is only around 50mm right?
Thanks.
Feb 21, 2017 at 05:54 AM
p.51 #3Front-End Filter Improves Corner Smearing
Tried that combo and it vignettes
wstam wrote:
Understand now. Just wonder, will 49->52 and then blank 52 filter with retaining ring works? I understand PCX 5M is only around 50mm right?
Thanks.
wstam wrote:
GMPhotography wrote
It falls through other retaining rings. The EL Pro catches it so no need for a 55-52. I tried finding where this is mentioned but could not.Thanks.
Feb 21, 2017 at 06:04 AM
p.51 #4Front-End Filter Improves Corner Smearing
Correction. I forgot the Slim 49 to start. This is for hood use
Start with slim 49, 49-55, blank 55 I used a tiffen UV, optimasigma .5 than ELPro 3 retaining ring.
If you not using the hood than you don't need the 49 to start.
Start with slim 49, 49-55, blank 55 I used a tiffen UV, optimasigma .5 than ELPro 3 retaining ring.
If you not using the hood than you don't need the 49 to start.
Feb 21, 2017 at 06:36 AM
p.51 #5Front-End Filter Improves Corner Smearing
GMPhotography wrote:
Correction. I forgot the Slim 49 to start. This is for hood use
Start with slim 49, 49-55, blank 55 I used a tiffen UV, optimasigma .5 than ELPro 3 retaining ring.
If you not using the hood than you don't need the 49 to start.
Guy,
Did your LPRO3 had the two nobs for rotation or you had to make them to removing the retention ring?
Correction. I forgot the Slim 49 to start. This is for hood use
Start with slim 49, 49-55, blank 55 I used a tiffen UV, optimasigma .5 than ELPro 3 retaining ring.
If you not using the hood than you don't need the 49 to start.
Guy,
Did your LPRO3 had the two nobs for rotation or you had to make them to removing the retention ring?
Feb 21, 2017 at 09:30 AM
p.51 #6Front-End Filter Improves Corner Smearing
HaruhikoT wrote:
Hi @BastianK@, @freaklikeme@ and @Samuli Vahonen@@,
Proxar 0.5m for ZM18 is not my estimation but @candreyo@'s report.
I respect candreyo's experiment and ZM18 is not my own lens, but in theory Proxar (Meniscus) 0.5m seems be too strong. PCX 3m would work better. I will post simulated MTFs later.
Luckily Samuli's order includes 3m Optosigma. Looking forward to see Samuli's ZM18+PCX3m test.
Though Optosigma's 50mm diameter may be too small. I'm worrying mechanical vignetting.
And thank you for creating that wiki, Samuli!
Haruhiko
Here is my simulation result.
PCX 3m (e.g. SLB-50-3000PM) would be optimal for Zeiss ZM Distagon 18mm F4.
Lower left graph shows there is huge Field Curvature without filter, and the lower right graph shows resolution peaks well centered across frame, that means the FC is well corrected.
Correction of FC greatly contributes to corner sharpness when you focus on center (Upper two graphs).
Hi @BastianK@, @freaklikeme@ and @Samuli Vahonen@@,
Proxar 0.5m for ZM18 is not my estimation but @candreyo@'s report.
I respect candreyo's experiment and ZM18 is not my own lens, but in theory Proxar (Meniscus) 0.5m seems be too strong. PCX 3m would work better. I will post simulated MTFs later.
Luckily Samuli's order includes 3m Optosigma. Looking forward to see Samuli's ZM18+PCX3m test.
Though Optosigma's 50mm diameter may be too small. I'm worrying mechanical vignetting.
And thank you for creating that wiki, Samuli!
Haruhiko
Here is my simulation result.
PCX 3m (e.g. SLB-50-3000PM) would be optimal for Zeiss ZM Distagon 18mm F4.
Lower left graph shows there is huge Field Curvature without filter, and the lower right graph shows resolution peaks well centered across frame, that means the FC is well corrected.
Correction of FC greatly contributes to corner sharpness when you focus on center (Upper two graphs).
Feb 21, 2017 at 09:43 AM
p.51 #7Front-End Filter Improves Corner Smearing
Fred I had them. If not maybe get a small hacksaw so you get both at once lined up. Been thinking about that for you when you mentioned you did not. Or drill two small holes if you have a spanner
Fred Miranda wrote:
Start with slim 49, 49-55, blank 55 I used a tiffen UV, optimasigma .5 than ELPro 3 retaining ring.
If you not using the hood than you don't need the 49 to start.Guy,
Did your LPRO3 had the two nobs for rotation or you had to make them to removing the retention ring?
Fred Miranda wrote:
GMPhotography wrote
Correction. I forgot the Slim 49 to start. This is for hood useStart with slim 49, 49-55, blank 55 I used a tiffen UV, optimasigma .5 than ELPro 3 retaining ring.
If you not using the hood than you don't need the 49 to start.
Did your LPRO3 had the two nobs for rotation or you had to make them to removing the retention ring?
Feb 21, 2017 at 10:02 AM
p.51 #8Front-End Filter Improves Corner Smearing
Love to see the results from this
HaruhikoT wrote:
Proxar 0.5m for ZM18 is not my estimation but @candreyo@@'s report.
I respect candreyo's experiment and ZM18 is not my own lens, but in theory Proxar (Meniscus) 0.5m seems be too strong. PCX 3m would work better. I will post simulated MTFs later.
Luckily Samuli's order includes 3m Optosigma. Looking forward to see Samuli's ZM18+PCX3m test.
Though Optosigma's 50mm diameter may be too small. I'm worrying mechanical vignetting.
And thank you for creating that wiki, Samuli!
HaruhikoHere is my simulation result.
PCX 3m (e.g. SLB-50-3000PM) would be optimal for Zeiss ZM Distagon 18mm F4.
Lower left graph shows there is huge Field Curvature without filter, and the lower right graph shows resolution peaks well centered across frame, that means the FC is well corrected.
Correction of FC greatly contributes to corner sharpness when you focus on center (Upper two graphs).
https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2233/32652891840_e82a3cc214_o_d.jpg
HaruhikoT wrote:
HaruhikoT wrote
Hi @BastianK@@, @freaklikeme@@ and @Samuli Vahonen@@@,Proxar 0.5m for ZM18 is not my estimation but @candreyo@@'s report.
I respect candreyo's experiment and ZM18 is not my own lens, but in theory Proxar (Meniscus) 0.5m seems be too strong. PCX 3m would work better. I will post simulated MTFs later.
Luckily Samuli's order includes 3m Optosigma. Looking forward to see Samuli's ZM18+PCX3m test.
Though Optosigma's 50mm diameter may be too small. I'm worrying mechanical vignetting.
And thank you for creating that wiki, Samuli!
Haruhiko
PCX 3m (e.g. SLB-50-3000PM) would be optimal for Zeiss ZM Distagon 18mm F4.
Lower left graph shows there is huge Field Curvature without filter, and the lower right graph shows resolution peaks well centered across frame, that means the FC is well corrected.
Correction of FC greatly contributes to corner sharpness when you focus on center (Upper two graphs).
https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2233/32652891840_e82a3cc214_o_d.jpg
Feb 21, 2017 at 10:03 AM
p.51 #9Front-End Filter Improves Corner Smearing
Good thing about this is that with a weak 3m filter, probably there's no need to disassemble the ZM18 for removing shims. All adapters focusing a bit past infinity should work.
Feb 21, 2017 at 12:54 PM
p.51 #10Front-End Filter Improves Corner Smearing
HaruhikoT wrote:
Proxar 0.5m for ZM18 is not my estimation but @candreyo@@'s report.
I respect candreyo's experiment and ZM18 is not my own lens, but in theory Proxar (Meniscus) 0.5m seems be too strong. PCX 3m would work better. I will post simulated MTFs later.
Luckily Samuli's order includes 3m Optosigma. Looking forward to see Samuli's ZM18+PCX3m test.
Though Optosigma's 50mm diameter may be too small. I'm worrying mechanical vignetting.
And thank you for creating that wiki, Samuli!
HaruhikoHere is my simulation result.
PCX 3m (e.g. SLB-50-3000PM) would be optimal for Zeiss ZM Distagon 18mm F4.
Lower left graph shows there is huge Field Curvature without filter, and the lower right graph shows resolution peaks well centered across frame, that means the FC is well corrected.
Correction of FC greatly contributes to corner sharpness when you focus on center (Upper two graphs).
https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2233/32652891840_e82a3cc214_o_d.jpg
Thanks, Haruhiko! I reached out to Brad at Sigma to see if it's possible to special order a PCX 3m with a 57mm diameter. I'll let everyone know what he says when I hear back.
HaruhikoT wrote
Hi @BastianK@@, @freaklikeme@@ and @Samuli Vahonen@@@,Proxar 0.5m for ZM18 is not my estimation but @candreyo@@'s report.
I respect candreyo's experiment and ZM18 is not my own lens, but in theory Proxar (Meniscus) 0.5m seems be too strong. PCX 3m would work better. I will post simulated MTFs later.
Luckily Samuli's order includes 3m Optosigma. Looking forward to see Samuli's ZM18+PCX3m test.
Though Optosigma's 50mm diameter may be too small. I'm worrying mechanical vignetting.
And thank you for creating that wiki, Samuli!
Haruhiko
PCX 3m (e.g. SLB-50-3000PM) would be optimal for Zeiss ZM Distagon 18mm F4.
Lower left graph shows there is huge Field Curvature without filter, and the lower right graph shows resolution peaks well centered across frame, that means the FC is well corrected.
Correction of FC greatly contributes to corner sharpness when you focus on center (Upper two graphs).
https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2233/32652891840_e82a3cc214_o_d.jpg
Thanks, Haruhiko! I reached out to Brad at Sigma to see if it's possible to special order a PCX 3m with a 57mm diameter. I'll let everyone know what he says when I hear back.
Feb 21, 2017 at 01:44 PM
p.51 #11Front-End Filter Improves Corner Smearing
Please do. I'm still really tempted to buy a used ZM 18. That give me 4 ZM lenses that have the same Zeiss look.
freaklikeme wrote:
HaruhikoT wrote
HaruhikoT wrote
Hi @BastianK@@@, @freaklikeme@@@ and @Samuli Vahonen@@@@,Proxar 0.5m for ZM18 is not my estimation but @candreyo@@@'s report.
I respect candreyo's experiment and ZM18 is not my own lens, but in theory Proxar (Meniscus) 0.5m seems be too strong. PCX 3m would work better. I will post simulated MTFs later.
Luckily Samuli's order includes 3m Optosigma. Looking forward to see Samuli's ZM18+PCX3m test.
Though Optosigma's 50mm diameter may be too small. I'm worrying mechanical vignetting.
And thank you for creating that wiki, Samuli!
Haruhiko
PCX 3m (e.g. SLB-50-3000PM) would be optimal for Zeiss ZM Distagon 18mm F4.
Lower left graph shows there is huge Field Curvature without filter, and the lower right graph shows resolution peaks well centered across frame, that means the FC is well corrected.
Correction of FC greatly contributes to corner sharpness when you focus on center (Upper two graphs).
https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2233/32652891840_e82a3cc214_o_d.jpg
Feb 21, 2017 at 02:12 PM
p.51 #13Front-End Filter Improves Corner Smearing
Unfortunately, 0.5m was the filter that I found worked best from what I had available to try out. I have the 0.5, 1.0 and 2.0 Proxars and a 1500mm Planoconvex.
0.5m may not be the best filter for the ZM18 as Haruhiko mentions. I do find that a different filter could help us gain more with this lens, but not sure myself what filter would be the most optimum for this lens.
I did not have issues with vignetteing using the 0.5mm Proxar. I held the Proxar against the front of the lens using a 58mm lens adapter ring.
I am interested to see Samuli's results also 😁
If the 3000mm works really well for the ZM18, I may pull the trigger myself for one of them, along with a 5000mm for the 35mm Distagon ZM.
HaruhikoT wrote:
Hi @BastianK@, @freaklikeme@ and @Samuli Vahonen@@,
Proxar 0.5m for ZM18 is not my estimation but @candreyo@'s report.
I respect candreyo's experiment and ZM18 is not my own lens, but in theory Proxar (Meniscus) 0.5m seems be too strong. PCX 3m would work better. I will post simulated MTFs later.
Luckily Samuli's order includes 3m Optosigma. Looking forward to see Samuli's ZM18+PCX3m test.
Though Optosigma's 50mm diameter may be too small. I'm worrying mechanical vignetting.
And thank you for creating that wiki, Samuli!
Haruhiko
0.5m may not be the best filter for the ZM18 as Haruhiko mentions. I do find that a different filter could help us gain more with this lens, but not sure myself what filter would be the most optimum for this lens.
I did not have issues with vignetteing using the 0.5mm Proxar. I held the Proxar against the front of the lens using a 58mm lens adapter ring.
I am interested to see Samuli's results also 😁
If the 3000mm works really well for the ZM18, I may pull the trigger myself for one of them, along with a 5000mm for the 35mm Distagon ZM.
HaruhikoT wrote:
Hi @BastianK@, @freaklikeme@ and @Samuli Vahonen@@,
Proxar 0.5m for ZM18 is not my estimation but @candreyo@'s report.
I respect candreyo's experiment and ZM18 is not my own lens, but in theory Proxar (Meniscus) 0.5m seems be too strong. PCX 3m would work better. I will post simulated MTFs later.
Luckily Samuli's order includes 3m Optosigma. Looking forward to see Samuli's ZM18+PCX3m test.
Though Optosigma's 50mm diameter may be too small. I'm worrying mechanical vignetting.
And thank you for creating that wiki, Samuli!
Haruhiko
Feb 21, 2017 at 04:05 PM
p.51 #14Front-End Filter Improves Corner Smearing
GMPhotography wrote:
Please do. I'm still really tempted to buy a used ZM 18. That give me 4 ZM lenses that have the same Zeiss look.
Proxar 0.5m for ZM18 is not my estimation but @candreyo@@@@'s report.
I respect candreyo's experiment and ZM18 is not my own lens, but in theory Proxar (Meniscus) 0.5m seems be too strong. PCX 3m would work better. I will post simulated MTFs later.
Luckily Samuli's order includes 3m Optosigma. Looking forward to see Samuli's ZM18+PCX3m test.
Though Optosigma's 50mm diameter may be too small. I'm worrying mechanical vignetting.
And thank you for creating that wiki, Samuli!
HaruhikoHere is my simulation result.
PCX 3m (e.g. SLB-50-3000PM) would be optimal for Zeiss ZM Distagon 18mm F4.
Lower left graph shows there is huge Field Curvature without filter, and the lower right graph shows resolution peaks well centered across frame, that means the FC is well corrected.
Correction of FC greatly contributes to corner sharpness when you focus on center (Upper two graphs).
https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2233/32652891840_e82a3cc214_o_d.jpgThanks, Haruhiko! I reached out to Brad at Sigma to see if it's possible to special order a PCX 3m with a 57mm diameter. I'll let everyone know what he says when I hear back.
I talked to Brad. It'll be a couple of days on the custom quote. So, hopefully we'll know something by Thursday.
Please do. I'm still really tempted to buy a used ZM 18. That give me 4 ZM lenses that have the same Zeiss look.
freaklikeme wrote
HaruhikoT wrote
HaruhikoT wrote
Hi @BastianK@@@@, @freaklikeme@@@@ and @Samuli Vahonen@@@@@,Proxar 0.5m for ZM18 is not my estimation but @candreyo@@@@'s report.
I respect candreyo's experiment and ZM18 is not my own lens, but in theory Proxar (Meniscus) 0.5m seems be too strong. PCX 3m would work better. I will post simulated MTFs later.
Luckily Samuli's order includes 3m Optosigma. Looking forward to see Samuli's ZM18+PCX3m test.
Though Optosigma's 50mm diameter may be too small. I'm worrying mechanical vignetting.
And thank you for creating that wiki, Samuli!
Haruhiko
PCX 3m (e.g. SLB-50-3000PM) would be optimal for Zeiss ZM Distagon 18mm F4.
Lower left graph shows there is huge Field Curvature without filter, and the lower right graph shows resolution peaks well centered across frame, that means the FC is well corrected.
Correction of FC greatly contributes to corner sharpness when you focus on center (Upper two graphs).
https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2233/32652891840_e82a3cc214_o_d.jpg
I talked to Brad. It'll be a couple of days on the custom quote. So, hopefully we'll know something by Thursday.
Feb 21, 2017 at 04:21 PM
p.51 #15Front-End Filter Improves Corner Smearing
candreyo wrote:
Unfortunately, 0.5m was the filter that I found worked best from what I had available to try out. I have the 0.5, 1.0 and 2.0 Proxars and a 1500mm Planoconvex.
0.5m may not be the best filter for the ZM18 as Haruhiko mentions. I do find that a different filter could help us gain more with this lens, but not sure myself what filter would be the most optimum for this lens.
I did not have issues with vignetteing using the 0.5mm Proxar. I held the Proxar against the front of the lens using a 58mm lens adapter ring.
I am interested to...Show more →
Proxar 0.5m for ZM18 is not my estimation but @candreyo@@'s report.
I respect candreyo's experiment and ZM18 is not my own lens, but in theory Proxar (Meniscus) 0.5m seems be too strong. PCX 3m would work better. I will post simulated MTFs later.
Luckily Samuli's order includes 3m Optosigma. Looking forward to see Samuli's ZM18+PCX3m test.
Though Optosigma's 50mm diameter may be too small. I'm worrying mechanical vignetting.
And thank you for creating that wiki, Samuli!
Haruhiko
Right now with the Hoya +1 closeup lens for my ZM 25. I have the Proxar 1 left over for something. Maybe Im crazy but the 35 takes the .5 the 25 takes the +1 you would think the 18 would take a +2. More field curvature as you get wider. What am I missing
Unfortunately, 0.5m was the filter that I found worked best from what I had available to try out. I have the 0.5, 1.0 and 2.0 Proxars and a 1500mm Planoconvex.
0.5m may not be the best filter for the ZM18 as Haruhiko mentions. I do find that a different filter could help us gain more with this lens, but not sure myself what filter would be the most optimum for this lens.
I did not have issues with vignetteing using the 0.5mm Proxar. I held the Proxar against the front of the lens using a 58mm lens adapter ring.
I am interested to...Show more →
HaruhikoT wrote
Hi @BastianK@@, @freaklikeme@@ and @Samuli Vahonen@@@,Proxar 0.5m for ZM18 is not my estimation but @candreyo@@'s report.
I respect candreyo's experiment and ZM18 is not my own lens, but in theory Proxar (Meniscus) 0.5m seems be too strong. PCX 3m would work better. I will post simulated MTFs later.
Luckily Samuli's order includes 3m Optosigma. Looking forward to see Samuli's ZM18+PCX3m test.
Though Optosigma's 50mm diameter may be too small. I'm worrying mechanical vignetting.
And thank you for creating that wiki, Samuli!
Haruhiko
Right now with the Hoya +1 closeup lens for my ZM 25. I have the Proxar 1 left over for something. Maybe Im crazy but the 35 takes the .5 the 25 takes the +1 you would think the 18 would take a +2. More field curvature as you get wider. What am I missing
Feb 21, 2017 at 04:40 PM
p.51 #16Front-End Filter Improves Corner Smearing
GMPhotography wrote:
0.5m may not be the best filter for the ZM18 as Haruhiko mentions. I do find that a different filter could help us gain more with this lens, but not sure myself what filter would be the most optimum for this lens.
I did not have issues with vignetteing using the 0.5mm Proxar. I held the Proxar against the front of the lens using a 58mm lens adapter ring.
I am interested to see Samuli's results also 😁
If the 3000mm works really well for the ZM18, I may pull the trigger myself for one of them, along with a 5000mm for the 35mm Distagon ZM.
Proxar 0.5m for ZM18 is not my estimation but @candreyo@@@'s report.
I respect candreyo's experiment and ZM18 is not my own lens, but in theory Proxar (Meniscus) 0.5m seems be too strong. PCX 3m would work better. I will post simulated MTFs later.
Luckily Samuli's order includes 3m Optosigma. Looking forward to see Samuli's ZM18+PCX3m test.
Though Optosigma's 50mm diameter may be too small. I'm worrying mechanical vignetting.
And thank you for creating that wiki, Samuli!
HaruhikoRight now with the Hoya +1 closeup lens for my ZM 25. I have the Proxar 1 left over for something. Maybe Im crazy but the 35 takes the .5 the 25 takes the +1 you would think the 18 would take a +2. More field curvature as you get wider. What am I missing
Well it's not just down to angle of view; it's a question of ray angle calculated from exit pupil position as well as FL; so there's no way to guess accurately just from fl or a sense of how much field curvature there is.
So if Haruhiko's simulations based on that data say 3m Optosigma, that's where I'd start...
candreyo wrote
Unfortunately, 0.5m was the filter that I found worked best from what I had available to try out. I have the 0.5, 1.0 and 2.0 Proxars and a 1500mm Planoconvex.0.5m may not be the best filter for the ZM18 as Haruhiko mentions. I do find that a different filter could help us gain more with this lens, but not sure myself what filter would be the most optimum for this lens.
I did not have issues with vignetteing using the 0.5mm Proxar. I held the Proxar against the front of the lens using a 58mm lens adapter ring.
I am interested to see Samuli's results also 😁
If the 3000mm works really well for the ZM18, I may pull the trigger myself for one of them, along with a 5000mm for the 35mm Distagon ZM.
HaruhikoT wrote
Hi @BastianK@@@, @freaklikeme@@@ and @Samuli Vahonen@@@@,Proxar 0.5m for ZM18 is not my estimation but @candreyo@@@'s report.
I respect candreyo's experiment and ZM18 is not my own lens, but in theory Proxar (Meniscus) 0.5m seems be too strong. PCX 3m would work better. I will post simulated MTFs later.
Luckily Samuli's order includes 3m Optosigma. Looking forward to see Samuli's ZM18+PCX3m test.
Though Optosigma's 50mm diameter may be too small. I'm worrying mechanical vignetting.
And thank you for creating that wiki, Samuli!
Haruhiko
Well it's not just down to angle of view; it's a question of ray angle calculated from exit pupil position as well as FL; so there's no way to guess accurately just from fl or a sense of how much field curvature there is.
So if Haruhiko's simulations based on that data say 3m Optosigma, that's where I'd start...
Feb 21, 2017 at 05:09 PM
p.51 #17Front-End Filter Improves Corner Smearing
It's just kind of weird how it works.
Feb 21, 2017 at 05:11 PM
p.51 #18Front-End Filter Improves Corner Smearing
GMPhotography wrote:
0.5m may not be the best filter for the ZM18 as Haruhiko mentions. I do find that a different filter could help us gain more with this lens, but not sure myself what filter would be the most optimum for this lens.
I did not have issues with vignetteing using the 0.5mm Proxar. I held the Proxar against the front of the lens using a 58mm lens adapter ring.
I am interested to see Samuli's results also 😁
If the 3000mm works really well for the ZM18, I may pull the trigger myself for one of them, along with a 5000mm for the 35mm Distagon ZM.
Proxar 0.5m for ZM18 is not my estimation but @candreyo@@@'s report.
I respect candreyo's experiment and ZM18 is not my own lens, but in theory Proxar (Meniscus) 0.5m seems be too strong. PCX 3m would work better. I will post simulated MTFs later.
Luckily Samuli's order includes 3m Optosigma. Looking forward to see Samuli's ZM18+PCX3m test.
Though Optosigma's 50mm diameter may be too small. I'm worrying mechanical vignetting.
And thank you for creating that wiki, Samuli!
HaruhikoRight now with the Hoya +1 closeup lens for my ZM 25. I have the Proxar 1 left over for something. Maybe Im crazy but the 35 takes the .5 the 25 takes the +1 you would think the 18 would take a +2. More field curvature as you get wider. What am I missing
It's a difference in lens design and the resulting positions of the exit pupils. Your Biogon and my Elmarit 24 are closer to their true focal lengths (exit pupil to sensor) than the Distagons. So the 35 should take a lower amount of correction because its exit pupil is the farthest away from the sensor. The 18 is somewhere between the 35 and 25, apparently.
At least that's what I got out of the conversation in the first fifteen pages or so of this thread. I may be misinterpreting.
candreyo wrote
Unfortunately, 0.5m was the filter that I found worked best from what I had available to try out. I have the 0.5, 1.0 and 2.0 Proxars and a 1500mm Planoconvex.0.5m may not be the best filter for the ZM18 as Haruhiko mentions. I do find that a different filter could help us gain more with this lens, but not sure myself what filter would be the most optimum for this lens.
I did not have issues with vignetteing using the 0.5mm Proxar. I held the Proxar against the front of the lens using a 58mm lens adapter ring.
I am interested to see Samuli's results also 😁
If the 3000mm works really well for the ZM18, I may pull the trigger myself for one of them, along with a 5000mm for the 35mm Distagon ZM.
HaruhikoT wrote
Hi @BastianK@@@, @freaklikeme@@@ and @Samuli Vahonen@@@@,Proxar 0.5m for ZM18 is not my estimation but @candreyo@@@'s report.
I respect candreyo's experiment and ZM18 is not my own lens, but in theory Proxar (Meniscus) 0.5m seems be too strong. PCX 3m would work better. I will post simulated MTFs later.
Luckily Samuli's order includes 3m Optosigma. Looking forward to see Samuli's ZM18+PCX3m test.
Though Optosigma's 50mm diameter may be too small. I'm worrying mechanical vignetting.
And thank you for creating that wiki, Samuli!
Haruhiko
It's a difference in lens design and the resulting positions of the exit pupils. Your Biogon and my Elmarit 24 are closer to their true focal lengths (exit pupil to sensor) than the Distagons. So the 35 should take a lower amount of correction because its exit pupil is the farthest away from the sensor. The 18 is somewhere between the 35 and 25, apparently.
At least that's what I got out of the conversation in the first fifteen pages or so of this thread. I may be misinterpreting.
Feb 21, 2017 at 05:13 PM
p.51 #19Front-End Filter Improves Corner Smearing
BastianK wrote:
Everybody talks about its character, the unique bokeh but no comments about the corners. It would be interesting to see what PCX/Proxar can do with this extreme lens.I use the Voight 35 1.2 ver II on the A7rII with TAP and don't seem to notice problematic corners. Since you mentioned it, I'll take another look and scrutinze extreme corners more cloesly. Do you have any examples you can post ?Thank you for your response. I had the impression that all the Leica M-mount lenses wider than 50mm have the same problem with smearing in the borders/corners. I was looking forward to buy this lens but I changed my mind after reading the above. This thread however made me reconsider trying it.
I haven't seen any samples with the A7 series. I don't know if there is any out there available in full size. Obviously you are happy with its corner performance, which is good news. But there is still a question whether it can perform even better based on what we have read in this thread, especially in small apertures.---------------------------------------------
Everybody talks about its character, the unique bokeh but no comments about the corners. It would be interesting to see what PCX/Proxar can do with this extreme lens.I use the Voight 35 1.2 ver II on the A7rII with TAP and don't seem to notice problematic corners. Since you mentioned it, I'll take another look and scrutinze extreme corners more cloesly. Do you have any examples you can post ?Thank you for your response. I had the impression that all the Leica M-mount lenses wider than 50mm have the same problem with smearing in the borders/corners. I was looking forward to buy this lens but I changed my mind after reading the above. This thread however made me reconsider trying it.
I haven't seen any samples with the A7 series. I don't know if there is any out there available in full size. Obviously you are happy with its corner performance, which is good news. But there is still a question whether it can perform even better based on what we have read in this thread, especially in small apertures.Hello: I use this lens mostly at 1.2 and 1.4 on the A7r2 not really paying too much attention to the corners. I don't mind taking some time this coming weekend to scrutinize the corners stopped down to F8 and will let you know.One quick test shot with the Voightlander 35 F1.2 ver II on the A7rII with the Techart Pro adapter @ F8. IMO the corners look pretty good and no need for the filter glass discussed in this forum.
Note: Due to the adapter the EXIF data displayed in this test image is not correctAlmost all rangefinder lenses look more or less good in the corners at f/8.0 (except for mainly some Biogons).
We are discussing options to get at least usable corners wide open.
Feel free to discuss whatever you like as will I.
LBJ2 wrote
baltmin wrote
LBJ2 wrote
baltmin wrote
Has anybody tested the voigtlander 35mm 1.2 II?Everybody talks about its character, the unique bokeh but no comments about the corners. It would be interesting to see what PCX/Proxar can do with this extreme lens.
I haven't seen any samples with the A7 series. I don't know if there is any out there available in full size. Obviously you are happy with its corner performance, which is good news. But there is still a question whether it can perform even better based on what we have read in this thread, especially in small apertures.
LBJ2 wrote
baltmin wrote
LBJ2 wrote
baltmin wrote
Has anybody tested the voigtlander 35mm 1.2 II?Everybody talks about its character, the unique bokeh but no comments about the corners. It would be interesting to see what PCX/Proxar can do with this extreme lens.
I haven't seen any samples with the A7 series. I don't know if there is any out there available in full size. Obviously you are happy with its corner performance, which is good news. But there is still a question whether it can perform even better based on what we have read in this thread, especially in small apertures.
Note: Due to the adapter the EXIF data displayed in this test image is not correct
We are discussing options to get at least usable corners wide open.
Feel free to discuss whatever you like as will I.
Feb 21, 2017 at 07:36 PM
p.51 #20Front-End Filter Improves Corner Smearing
Okay after another short test on the ZM 35mm 1.4 with my new setup at F4 my corners are killer good. Thats at least a 2 stop improvement.
Things get interesting with the ZM 25 with the Hoya +1 vs the Proxar +1. At 2.8 the Hoya has the slight edge in the corners and interestingly enough the mid range is better and slightly better contrast. Given I can use the hood with the Hoya is easier and just dropping it in a 46mm blank mount its the obvious choice. By F4 it all equals out
Things get interesting with the ZM 25 with the Hoya +1 vs the Proxar +1. At 2.8 the Hoya has the slight edge in the corners and interestingly enough the mid range is better and slightly better contrast. Given I can use the hood with the Hoya is easier and just dropping it in a 46mm blank mount its the obvious choice. By F4 it all equals out
Feb 22, 2017 at 12:13 PM