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.90 #1Front-End Filter Improves Corner Smearing
No I can't remember. Im getting old bud. 
Oct 03, 2017 at 10:41 AM
p.90 #2Front-End Filter Improves Corner Smearing
Gunzorro wrote:
Looks pretty convincing that the added filter provides better IQ.
The question is: why don't manufacturers incorporate such a corrective lens as part of the design for appropriate lenses? Lazy? Ignornant? Penny-pinching?These lenses are Leica M-mount and therefore not designed for the Sony sensor. We are adding front lenses to mitigate induced field curvature and astigmatism caused by the thicker stack.
The designers were not lazy or ignorant. We are the ones that are crazy!Ha-ha! 
Well, I'm certainly an ignorant one!
Thanks for the reminder, Fred -- about the M-mount, not the ignorance.
On the contrary! It would be great if you could join the FM PCX team!
Fred Miranda wrote
Gunzorro wrote
Fred Miranda wrote
More...The question is: why don't manufacturers incorporate such a corrective lens as part of the design for appropriate lenses? Lazy? Ignornant? Penny-pinching?
The designers were not lazy or ignorant. We are the ones that are crazy!
Well, I'm certainly an ignorant one!
Thanks for the reminder, Fred -- about the M-mount, not the ignorance.
On the contrary! It would be great if you could join the FM PCX team!
Oct 03, 2017 at 10:42 AM
p.90 #3Front-End Filter Improves Corner Smearing
GMPhotography wrote:
No I can't remember. Im getting old bud.
I remember you sent me some tear down pictures.
No I can't remember. Im getting old bud.
I remember you sent me some tear down pictures.
Oct 03, 2017 at 10:43 AM
p.90 #4Front-End Filter Improves Corner Smearing
Does anyone know which PCX filter(s) would be best suited for a 28cron asph and 50lux asph? No idea where to start.... I'm interested in giving it a whirl.
Oct 03, 2017 at 11:13 AM
p.90 #5Front-End Filter Improves Corner Smearing
I think I found the Ultron 28 teardown. Thanks Fred
Edited on Oct 03, 2017 at 11:31 AM · View previous versions
Edited on Oct 03, 2017 at 11:31 AM · View previous versions
Oct 03, 2017 at 11:19 AM
p.90 #6Front-End Filter Improves Corner Smearing
Gary Clennan wrote:
Does anyone know which PCX filter(s) would be best suited for a 28cron asph and 50lux asph? No idea where to start.... I'm interested in giving it a whirl.
For the 50lux you would need a PCX 10m. I'm not sure about the 28cron.
Does anyone know which PCX filter(s) would be best suited for a 28cron asph and 50lux asph? No idea where to start.... I'm interested in giving it a whirl.
For the 50lux you would need a PCX 10m. I'm not sure about the 28cron.
 |
||
 |
||
|
Oct 03, 2017 at 11:19 AM
p.90 #7Front-End Filter Improves Corner Smearing
Fred Miranda wrote:
For the 50lux you would need a PCX 10m. I'm not sure about the 28cron.
Thanks Fred! Is there anything I need to look for when ordering? Any preferred vendors?
Gary Clennan wrote
Does anyone know which PCX filter(s) would be best suited for a 28cron asph and 50lux asph? No idea where to start.... I'm interested in giving it a whirl.Thanks Fred! Is there anything I need to look for when ordering? Any preferred vendors?
Oct 03, 2017 at 11:23 AM
p.90 #8Front-End Filter Improves Corner Smearing
Gary Clennan wrote:
For the 50lux you would need a PCX 10m. I'm not sure about the 28cron.Thanks Fred! Is there anything I need to look for when ordering? Any preferred vendors?
OptoSigma does not offer a 10m PCX. You may have better luck with Eksma Optics. Make sure to get a coated version.
Fred Miranda wrote
Gary Clennan wrote
Does anyone know which PCX filter(s) would be best suited for a 28cron asph and 50lux asph? No idea where to start.... I'm interested in giving it a whirl.OptoSigma does not offer a 10m PCX. You may have better luck with Eksma Optics. Make sure to get a coated version.
Oct 03, 2017 at 11:30 AM
p.90 #9Front-End Filter Improves Corner Smearing
GMPhotography wrote:
I think I found the Ultron 28 teardown. Thanks Fred
ok, my guess is that infinity adjustment can be done by changing the orientation of the focus ring in relation to the brass part of the helicoid in your second image. not sure how they're attached from the image so it's tough to say how one would do that. often there is a set screw (or two or three) that can't be easily accessed without removing the focus ring from that brass portion of the helicoid.
I think I found the Ultron 28 teardown. Thanks Fred
ok, my guess is that infinity adjustment can be done by changing the orientation of the focus ring in relation to the brass part of the helicoid in your second image. not sure how they're attached from the image so it's tough to say how one would do that. often there is a set screw (or two or three) that can't be easily accessed without removing the focus ring from that brass portion of the helicoid.
Oct 03, 2017 at 12:39 PM
p.90 #10Front-End Filter Improves Corner Smearing
Hello, thank you for this post. I have read in other threads that techart adapter was able to focus at infinit with the contax g 21 ... It looks there is some contradictory information or most probably I am missing something. I am sorry I am just a newby best regards and thank you in advance for your help.
best regards and thank you in advance for your help.Oct 03, 2017 at 01:15 PM
p.90 #11Front-End Filter Improves Corner Smearing
hanay78 wrote:
Hello, thank you for this post. I have read in other threads that techart adapter was able to focus at infinit with the contax g 21 ... It looks there is some contradictory information or most probably I am missing something. I am sorry I am just a newby best regards and thank you in advance for your help.
i'm pretty sure the OP got that to work fine. most of these posts about reaching infinity are regarding voigtlander lenses on the m-mount techart adapter, not contax g lenses on contax g mount techart (though i've heard some people having issues with some adapters on the contax g 28).
Hello, thank you for this post. I have read in other threads that techart adapter was able to focus at infinit with the contax g 21 ... It looks there is some contradictory information or most probably I am missing something. I am sorry I am just a newby
best regards and thank you in advance for your help.i'm pretty sure the OP got that to work fine. most of these posts about reaching infinity are regarding voigtlander lenses on the m-mount techart adapter, not contax g lenses on contax g mount techart (though i've heard some people having issues with some adapters on the contax g 28).
Oct 03, 2017 at 01:33 PM
p.90 #12Front-End Filter Improves Corner Smearing
Got the Ultron 28/2 today.
With the 5m PCX and my 'short' K&F Concept adapter, infinity is at the 5m mark, so I think I have a lot of room for a stronger PCX front-lens. I will take some pictures of the lens (front and rear ) and send it in for simulation today.
Fred
With the 5m PCX and my 'short' K&F Concept adapter, infinity is at the 5m mark, so I think I have a lot of room for a stronger PCX front-lens. I will take some pictures of the lens (front and rear ) and send it in for simulation today.
Fred
Oct 04, 2017 at 01:36 PM
p.90 #13Front-End Filter Improves Corner Smearing
BTW: At f/6.7 (these Ultrons go half stops), the image is already very sharp to the very corners with the "5m" front lens. Which probably is not the optimal PCX for it.
Here is a crop showing the extreme edges. Mid-field and center look great as well. (but not as good as CV 35/1.7)
I'm actually surprised the extreme corners look that good with the 5m PCX. Perhaps the optimal will be around 3m.
Here is a crop showing the extreme edges. Mid-field and center look great as well. (but not as good as CV 35/1.7)
I'm actually surprised the extreme corners look that good with the 5m PCX. Perhaps the optimal will be around 3m.
 |
||
 |
||
|
|
||
 |
||
|
Oct 04, 2017 at 01:44 PM
p.90 #14Front-End Filter Improves Corner Smearing
Does look pretty good actually
Oct 04, 2017 at 02:46 PM
p.90 #15Front-End Filter Improves Corner Smearing
GMPhotography wrote:
Does look pretty good actually
I'd say it's actually excellent starting at f/6.7. At infinity, it's already better than the ZF 28/2, ZM 28/2.8 + PCX and I dare to say Leica 28/2.8 R II. All these lenses need f/8 or f/9 for the edges.
There is also the possibility this performance could improve when using the optimal PCX for it.
Center resolution looks great but not as good as the CV 35/1.7 @ f/2. That's probably one of the sharpest 35mm lens I've tested.
Does look pretty good actually
I'd say it's actually excellent starting at f/6.7. At infinity, it's already better than the ZF 28/2, ZM 28/2.8 + PCX and I dare to say Leica 28/2.8 R II. All these lenses need f/8 or f/9 for the edges.
There is also the possibility this performance could improve when using the optimal PCX for it.
Center resolution looks great but not as good as the CV 35/1.7 @ f/2. That's probably one of the sharpest 35mm lens I've tested.
Oct 04, 2017 at 09:30 PM
p.90 #16Front-End Filter Improves Corner Smearing
How does it look if un-corrected? Does it ever get sharp at corners?
Oct 04, 2017 at 09:41 PM
p.90 #17Front-End Filter Improves Corner Smearing
kaioyang wrote:
Speaking of 28mm, has anyone tested the Minolta M-rokkor 28/2.8? What filter strength would it need?
Also speaking of 28mm, has anyone tested the Konica M-Hexanon 28/2.8?
Speaking of 28mm, has anyone tested the Minolta M-rokkor 28/2.8? What filter strength would it need?
Also speaking of 28mm, has anyone tested the Konica M-Hexanon 28/2.8?
Oct 04, 2017 at 11:45 PM
p.90 #18Front-End Filter Improves Corner Smearing
Based on Fred's picture of the lens itself I run simulation for CV28 F2.
PCX 2m may be the best and 2.5m also looks very good. From my quick check 1.5m was not good, and 3m is also good but not the best. Attachment direction of PCX will not affect in this case.
PCX 2m may be the best and 2.5m also looks very good. From my quick check 1.5m was not good, and 3m is also good but not the best. Attachment direction of PCX will not affect in this case.
|
||
| https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4457/37546853821_01f9f81fc6_o_d.jpg | ||
|
Oct 07, 2017 at 02:39 AM
p.90 #20Front-End Filter Improves Corner Smearing
Steve Spencer wrote:
it makes sense for comparing lenses, i wouldn't make any decisions as to which lens to keep and which lens to sell though based on things i can't notice in normal pictures though. there are lots of more obvious differences between these lenses.Do you still have the CV 35/1.7 + 5m lens? If so, I have a question for you.
Without the from lens, if you focus on the extreme edge, does it look 'the same', 'better' or 'worse' compared to using the front-lens on it?the cv is actually nehemiah's and i believe he was planning to sell it because he prefers the pentax 35/1.8. if he still has it i'll check, but you might have your own filter first.Hmmm . . . I just saw a Pentax 35/1.8 in the used case this morning for $799. I was wondering why the high price! I guess it must have some merit to it.it's a very nice lens, it is competitive for landscape with the cv + 5m pcx (comparison) and seems to have a nicer draw for portraits imo. it's too big for my taste, but much smaller than the ZA 35/1.4. it focuses the wrong way and has very little focus damping, which is quite annoying too.
https://phillipreeve.net/blog/35mm-comparison-voigtlander-zeiss-leica/Thanks Bastian. I hadn't read that review yet (not sure how I missed it), but it was excellent. It agrees very much with my own experience. The sad part for me is that, despite Stephen's nice examples, I don't find any of these lenses very compelling for portraits and I would love a smaller 35mm for portraits. I do love the ZM for close up shots and it is great for stopped down landscapes as well and I prefer the high contrast look but none of these really work for me as an all around 35mm.i find cv to be much more consistently pleasing for portraits than the zm and its equal for landscape. this is on my kolari mod camera though. i like the FE 35/1.4 better still for portraits (never notice the midzone dip for portraits), but it's size makes it a nogo for me.Bastian's review and my experience with the ZM makes me wonder whether I would ever be happy with the CV as a portrait lens. It looks like the CV has very similar bokeh to the ZM from Bastian's tests and that is really what bothers me about the ZM as a portrait lens. I get that for lots of people the high contrast look of the ZM wouldn't be what they want for portraits, but sometimes I like that. I think I have asked you before Derek, but how would you compare the CV to the Zeiss C/Y 35 f/1.4 for portraits? I am leaning in that directions these days, but I am still pretty undecided. I may just give up on shooting 35mm portraits on the Sony, and then I would go with the Zeiss Contax 645 45 f/2.8 on my Fuji GFX, which seems to my eye to share a lot of features with the C/Y 35 f/1.4. I am really enjoying the GFX for shooting portraits with its tilt/swivel EVF which allows shooting holding the camera at my chest.Steve, i really don't think there is any better 35mm lens for portraits than the c/y 35/1.4 (though my wife prefers the lux pre-asph). i actually think under 1 meter the zm draws very similarly to the c/y (especially if you focus with a helicoid adapter rather than the lenses own helicoid), but with a bit more bite and a bit less smoothness and SA centrally:
http://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3770/32768073743_021773c906_o.jpg
http://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4189/33865523464_6417298525_o.jpg
at slightly longer distances though, the zm has very ugly bokeh (weird squares). the c/y isn't great in this regard either. the cv is better in this regard – it has cat's eyes instead with less color aberration and less bright outlines. the cv has it's own attractiveness at close range wide open, but it's different from the zm and certainly high contrast:
http://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2941/32972671820_bb3cc73860_o.jpg
http://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2893/33444928620_8c63d5ec3f_o.jpg
bokeh comparison between the two:
cv f/1.7:
http://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2844/33497202632_17bceb0150_o.jpg
zm f/1.7:
http://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3937/33524538961_69851fa710_o.jpg
zm f/1.4:
http://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2894/33524538991_cf76c9dd5c_o.jpg
the pentax 31/1.8 ltd might be more up your alley. i haven't played with it much myself, but the pictures i've seen from nehemiah look very promising – similar to the c/y but with a little less pop and better cross the frame performance.Thanks Derek, I always value your opinion and find it quite helpful. I have the ZM 35 f/1.4 and my problem is that I bought it hoping that I could use it in two different kits and it works quite well in one, but not so well in the other. Where it works for me is in a three lens kit with the Sony A7r II and the Loxia 21 and Loxia 85. These three make a nice fairly small versatile kit. At the wide end the Loxia 21 is fantastic at most everything I want it for. The...Show more →
Steve,
I am in the same boat as you--looking for an everything 35. Aside from the Rx1 which obviously isn't interchangeable, I find the Pentax 31 the best. In terms of draw and portraits, to my mind it's only beat by the CY 35. I borrowed mine to Derek, so he might have an updated opinion. But it's lovely WO (though has some LoCa and a pinch of SA-which I welcome), no pcx filter needed, middle size/weight, lower end for price, and excellent sharpness across the frame slightly stopped down. Flare isn't as good as the ZM35 or CV though. It's 32mm. I prefer it over my ZA 35 (which has restricted usage because it's huge). the Pentax 31 has a smooth rich character draw, would couple nicely with the r80.
Tbh, between the cv 35, rx1, zm 35, CY 35 and Pentax 31 the images and rendering are all pretty excellent, just a matter of what you want to deal with (filters, mf feel, bokeh, price, weight)
Also, all you guys excited to restart all this crazy testing once canon and nikon release FF mirrorless cams with differ sensor stacks? 🤣
sebboh wrote
jhinkey wrote
sebboh wrote
Fred Miranda wrote
sebboh wrote
ah, i thought you were saying it was only visible when you focus and recompose, not when you focus directly on the subject.it makes sense for comparing lenses, i wouldn't make any decisions as to which lens to keep and which lens to sell though based on things i can't notice in normal pictures though. there are lots of more obvious differences between these lenses.
Without the from lens, if you focus on the extreme edge, does it look 'the same', 'better' or 'worse' compared to using the front-lens on it?
Steve Spencer wrote
sebboh wrote
Steve Spencer wrote
BastianK wrote
There are many with and without filter bokeh comparisons in this article, you just need to have a look:https://phillipreeve.net/blog/35mm-comparison-voigtlander-zeiss-leica/
http://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3770/32768073743_021773c906_o.jpg
http://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4189/33865523464_6417298525_o.jpg
at slightly longer distances though, the zm has very ugly bokeh (weird squares). the c/y isn't great in this regard either. the cv is better in this regard – it has cat's eyes instead with less color aberration and less bright outlines. the cv has it's own attractiveness at close range wide open, but it's different from the zm and certainly high contrast:
http://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2941/32972671820_bb3cc73860_o.jpg
http://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2893/33444928620_8c63d5ec3f_o.jpg
bokeh comparison between the two:
cv f/1.7:
http://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2844/33497202632_17bceb0150_o.jpg
zm f/1.7:
http://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3937/33524538961_69851fa710_o.jpg
zm f/1.4:
http://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2894/33524538991_cf76c9dd5c_o.jpg
the pentax 31/1.8 ltd might be more up your alley. i haven't played with it much myself, but the pictures i've seen from nehemiah look very promising – similar to the c/y but with a little less pop and better cross the frame performance.
Steve,
I am in the same boat as you--looking for an everything 35. Aside from the Rx1 which obviously isn't interchangeable, I find the Pentax 31 the best. In terms of draw and portraits, to my mind it's only beat by the CY 35. I borrowed mine to Derek, so he might have an updated opinion. But it's lovely WO (though has some LoCa and a pinch of SA-which I welcome), no pcx filter needed, middle size/weight, lower end for price, and excellent sharpness across the frame slightly stopped down. Flare isn't as good as the ZM35 or CV though. It's 32mm. I prefer it over my ZA 35 (which has restricted usage because it's huge). the Pentax 31 has a smooth rich character draw, would couple nicely with the r80.
Tbh, between the cv 35, rx1, zm 35, CY 35 and Pentax 31 the images and rendering are all pretty excellent, just a matter of what you want to deal with (filters, mf feel, bokeh, price, weight)
Also, all you guys excited to restart all this crazy testing once canon and nikon release FF mirrorless cams with differ sensor stacks? 🤣
Oct 07, 2017 at 04:34 AM