artur5 wrote:
....
Playing devil’s advocate, don’t you think that if a simple front filter is all we need to get the best from RF wides on Sony A7x cameras, Zeiss would have released E-mount versions of their Biogons with a built-in front filter and call it a day ?. Why going with all the the trouble of designing from scratch Loxias and Batises ?
....
By just adding a new front element/filter Zeiss would have to forego the EXIF and weatherproofing built into the Loxia, and of course AF on the Batis, so it seems they preferred to go that route.
mcbroomf wrote:
By just adding a new front element/filter Zeiss would have to forego the EXIF and weatherproofing built into the Loxia, and of course AF on the Batis, so it seems they preferred to go that route.
In fact, the Loxia 35 is basically a Biogon ZM 35/2 with some tweaks for accommodating the Sony sensor stack. So far, it seems also to be the least appreciated lens of their Loxias/Batis E-mount range
artur5 wrote:
In fact, the Loxia 35 is basically a Biogon ZM 35/2 with some tweaks for accommodating the Sony sensor stack. So far, it seems also to be the least appreciated lens of their Loxias/Batis E-mount range
Seems like that's the core issue. "An older design tweaked for" doesn't equal "expressly designed for." But, it does get you a product to market fast, at reduced cost, for what amounted to a new and unproven camera platform.
I wonder how soon is no longer too soon to hope for a redesign of the Loxia 35 and 50. On paper, the current models are still recent products, theoretically. My guess is that revenues aren't yet being seriously hurt: how many truly direct alternatives do customers currently have for these premium, native, manual lenses? Meanwhile, there are a lot of holes without even a placeholder in the Zeiss line that Zeiss needs to fill.
Parariss wrote:
Seems like that's the core issue. "An older design tweaked for" doesn't equal "expressly designed for." But, it does get you a product to market fast, at reduced cost, for what amounted to a new and unproven camera platform.
I wonder how soon is no longer too soon to hope for a redesign of the Loxia 35 and 50. On paper, the current models are still recent products, theoretically. My guess is that revenues aren't yet being seriously hurt: how many truly direct alternatives do customers currently have for these premium, native, manual lenses? Meanwhile, there are a lot of holes without even a placeholder in the Zeiss line that Zeiss needs to fill. ...Show more →
I can't imagine them replacing the 50. Even tweaked, it's an incredible performer--competitive with the best lenses.
Your results with PCX last week show good details in the midzone, but this time those branches look just out-of-focus. Perhaps PCX is slightly decentered this time?
good eye, there are 3 explanations i can think of:
1) decentered filter - pretty sure it was very close to well centered and there doesn't seem to be any asymmetry across the frame.
2) it was raining for this series but not the previous pcx comparison so everything is a little less sharp in the new series (especially at greater distance).
3) i didn't quite reach infinity with the pcx filter on this test - i tuned my g28 to hit infinity right at the stop with the pcx filter on my a7, but i used nehemiah's a7 for this test since mine is now converted. it's possible that flange to sensor distance between our 2 a7s is slightly different which threw my focus off (i just used the stop to try and make focus as consistent as possible between tests, but perhaps that was the wrong decision). i will check into this when i get a chance.
I just got done running another test. I changed some things up. First i got rid of the Hoya, I added a B+W plus 1and than I tried My Optima Sigma .5 (from my ZM 35)for kicks and i had to handhold it over the lens as i did not want to take my setup apart in the field. I did Big Bronco wall test and than I ran another Infinity test. My preliminary results are as follows The Proxar was the worst of the three. The B+W +1 is very good in the corners and on center awesome but it is slightly weaker than the Proxar and also the OptiSigma .5 in the mid frame. I just ordered a Proxar .5 B60 to try now. Im a little surprised how well the OptimSigma at .5 did as the simulation was for a +1.
So here is the deal and how I shot this. Im loading the Raws to see what you all think. Now my disclaimer i may have a very slightly decentered lens here as the right side is slightly weaker than the left but its very hard to tell. I have been all over the map on these tests because of this and Im thinking of sending it to Zeiss. But the results if your paying attention more to the left side are impressive . Keep a eye on the mid zone and you will see what I mean.
So I shot BIG Bronco and Infinity Scene in the same order and shot 2.8,4,5.6,8,11 so a total of 5 per lens filter
In both test the B+W if first, followed by the Proxar +1 than followed by the OptiSigma .5
One foot note the +1 lenses make the 25mm a 26.5mm Im calling it. I tested this yesterday against my zoom. The OptimaSigma its pretty much 25mm.
In all honesty the B+W is really good and more important you can buy at 46mm without any modification and the hood slips right over it. The Proxar+1 or OptiSigma you simply cannot use the hood PERIOD. i have tried every scenario with this and the hood needs at least 2 43mm filter rings just to clear the inside of the hood. Vignettes badly.
Im going to load up the raws. i put my hand in front of lens so I know when I made a change. Ignore my hand images.
Please post images if you would like this is a 1.9 Gb file. Hit button get lunch
Thanks a lot again, for your thorough testing.
Just a question, when you say OptoSigma .5, do you mean +0.5 diopters ( =2mt.) or 0.5mt (=+2 diopters ) ?
I think also that maybe you ran into a sub-par copy of the Hoya +1, if it underperforms compared to the B+W and the Proxar. For one thing, the Hoyas HMC are multicoated while the B+W is single coated so, in all logic, the Hoya should have slightly better contrast.
BTW - When you add a positive element to a lens, the resulting focal is always inferior to that of the main lens. So, a 25mm plus a +1 filter becomes a 24.4mm. There's something wrong with your measurements of the focal length, or else we need to throw away all the basic laws of optics.
The OptimaSigma we all bought for the ZM 35. I think they call it a PCX 5000 model but they call it a .5.
On focal length I tested this fully when adding a +1 the focal length went longer to 26.5. I also checked by my zoom as well with same exact framing. If you look at the Raws the .5 is wider than the +1.
I just got done running another test. I changed some things up. First i got rid of the Hoya, I added a B+W plus 1and than I tried My Optima Sigma .5 (from my ZM 35)for kicks and i had to handhold it over the lens as i did not want to take my setup apart in the field. I did Big Bronco wall test and than I ran another Infinity test. My preliminary results are as follows The Proxar was the worst of the three. The B+W +1 is very good in the corners and on center awesome but it is slightly weaker than the Proxar and also the OptiSigma .5 in the mid frame. I just ordered a Proxar .5 B60 to try now. Im a little surprised how well the OptimSigma at .5 did as the simulation was for a +1.
So here is the deal and how I shot this. Im loading the Raws to see what you all think. Now my disclaimer i may have a very slightly decentered lens here as the right side is slightly weaker than the left but its very hard to tell. I have been all over the map on these tests because of this and Im thinking of sending it to Zeiss. But the results if your paying attention more to the left side are impressive . Keep a eye on the mid zone and you will see what I mean.
So I shot BIG Bronco and Infinity Scene in the same order and shot 2.8,4,5.6,8,11 so a total of 5 per lens filter
In both test the B+W if first, followed by the Proxar +1 than followed by the OptiSigma .5
One foot note the +1 lenses make the 25mm a 26.5mm Im calling it. I tested this yesterday against my zoom. The OptimaSigma its pretty much 25mm.
In all honesty the B+W is really good and more important you can buy at 46mm without any modification and the hood slips right over it. The Proxar+1 or OptiSigma you simply cannot use the hood PERIOD. i have tried every scenario with this and the hood needs at least 2 43mm filter rings just to clear the inside of the hood. Vignettes badly.
Im going to load up the raws. i put my hand in front of lens so I know when I made a change. Ignore my hand images.
Please post images if you would like this is a 1.9 Gb file. Hit button get lunch
GMPhotography wrote:
Look forward to your thoughts. My brain is getting fried from testing this all out.
Wow, very surprising results!
Big bronco and infinity tests are very consistent.
The big winner is the PCX 5m lens for the ZM 25/2.8. It's better everywhere in the field, especially in the corners.
Second place is the B+W +1 close-up and third place by a very small margin is the Proxar +1 close-up.
I consider the B+W and Proxar so similar the difference could be lens variance.
However, I really like what I see with the PCX 5m!
GMPhotography wrote:
I just ordered a Proxar .5 B60 to try now. Im a little surprised how well the OptimSigma at .5 did as the simulation was for a +1.
Does anyone know what Proxar "diopter power" would be equivalent to a PCX 5m?
I'm not sure if a Proxar 0.5m would yield similar results...but honestly, I don't know this stuff.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Does anyone know what Proxar "diopter power" would be equivalent to a PCX 5m?
I'm not sure if a Proxar 0.5m would yield similar results...but honestly, I don't know this stuff.
I am not an expert, but according to my calculation it will be +0.2 diopter (1000mm / 0.2 = 5000mm), which does not exist for Proxar AFAIK. It seems that the lowest available diopter for close-up lenses of all brands is +1.
I am following this thread closely since the beginning, and I would want to thank to everyone involved in working on this.
Diopter power= 1000/focal length. Alternatively, focal lentgh= 1000/diopter.
I.e. for a PCX 5m-> diopter power =1000/5000 =+0.2
Now, according to HaruhikoT simulations, such weak filter should suit lenses like the ZM35 but, in theory, the ZM25 needs a five times more powerful filter, like those +1 close-up units from Hoya, Proxar or B+W.
Also, it stands against all laws of optics that a positive filter increases the focal lenght of a lens.
Guy, it seems that with your latest tests you spread havoc among the followers of this thread. All the theories are worth nothing !
I'm spreading havoc. I don't know if a Proxar.5 will work now. Just bought one. Lol
What I could do is put the OptimaSigma in my 46mm setup and try this again against the B+W plus 1. Since I handheld it maybe better if I actually mounted the darn thing. The Proxar +1 I have I can just take out now since the B+W seems to better.
Apparently the science might be wrong. Ah hah reality actually does exist.
I'm joking but as you can see it got to be longer.WTF
artur5 wrote:
Diopter power= 1000/focal length. Alternatively, focal lentgh= 1000/diopter.
I.e. for a PCX 5m-> diopter power =1000/5000 =+0.2
Now, according to HaruhikoT simulations, such weak filter should suit lenses like the ZM35 but, in theory, the ZM25 needs a five times more powerful filter, like those +1 close-up units from Hoya, Proxar or B+W.
Also, it stands against all laws of optics that a positive filter increases the focal lenght of a lens.
Guy, it seems that with your latest tests you spread havoc among the followers of this thread. All the theories are worth nothing !
Big bronco and infinity tests are very consistent.
The big winner is the PCX 5m lens for the ZM 25/2.8. It's better everywhere in the field, especially in the corners.
Second place is the B+W +1 close-up and third place by a very small margin is the Proxar +1 close-up.
I consider the B+W and Proxar so similar the difference could be lens variance.
However, I really like what I see with the PCX 5m!
Does anyone know what Proxar "diopter power" would be equivalent to a PCX 5m?
I'm not sure if a Proxar 0.5m would yield similar results...but honestly, I don't know this stuff. ...Show more →
+0.2 I doubt if anyone makes a "closeup filter" that weak. Needs to be something from a lens maker like OptoSigma or Eksma.
