sebboh wrote:
i'm betting that i like the less sharp, glowier naked lens better for environmental portraits, but i'll be interested to see.
At the distances used for environmental portraits, I doubt the diopter would be of much benefit. The lens only shows significan weakness at really close range, I think.
Luvwine wrote:
At the distances used for environmental portraits, I doubt the diopter would be of much benefit. The lens only shows significan weakness at really close range, I think.
I'm seeing a huge difference with the diopter at 0.7 meters.
And in my review I thought performance at 1m was worse than infinity, so it may help there too..
DavidBM wrote:
I'm seeing a huge difference with the diopter at 0.7 meters.
And in my review I thought performance at 1m was worse than infinity, so it may help there too..
I could try with a Leica Elpro 3 I have in hand...just need a step down ring. It's achromatic and 55mm thread. (+1.66 diopter)
DavidBM wrote:
Oh! Please tell me if it vignettes (if not there's an old Minolta No 0 two element 0.95 dioptre that would be ideal than can be had in 55mm)
I should get a step down ring on Tuesday and will let you know. I don't think it will vignette. (55 to 58 is very small difference)
I will try my Nikon No.0 as well. (+0.7)
Fred Miranda wrote:
I should get a step down ring on Tuesday and will let you know. I don't think it will vignette. (55 to 58 is very small difference)
I will try my Nikon No.0 as well. (+0.7 diopter)
philip_pj wrote:
'That never happens on the internet.'
Like: 'I was incorrect, thank you for enlightening me, I apologize for speaking in ignorance.'
You have to wonder what the lens design community think of users plonking filters on the products of their blood, sweat and tears, endless ray traces, program determinations, sensor thickness considerations - only to improve their optical performance, sometimes radically? lol.
I guess they would think "well, if we could mix and match elements for different focussing distances, we'd be golden. But we can't. But users sort of can to a limited degree by adding them...."
Got one too. I should be able to test the Leica Elpro 3 (+1.66, 55mm), Minolta No.0 (+0.94, 55mm) and Nikon No.0 ( +0.7, 52mm) on Tuesday or Wednesday...If we can get close to 1m with better IQ, I think it's worth it.
I just placed my Nikon 52mm in front of the CV 40/1.2 and didn't get hard vignetting but it could happen when adding the step-down ring.
Another lens this could be useful on is the Mitakon .95/50. I had one for a while, but found its performance at closer distances considerably worse than at mid to infinity, enough that (impressive though it was for a 0.95) I thought it wasn't worth it.
But if this would make it better for closer portraits....
Fred Miranda wrote:
Got one too. I should be able to test the Leica Elpro 3 (+1.66, 55mm), Minolta No.0 (+0.94, 55mm) and Nikon No.0 ( +0.7, 52mm) on Tuesday or Wednesday...If we can get close to 1m with better IQ, I think it's worth it.
You'll get them well before me I expect (eBay's super slow international shipping) so i get a free
pass on the testing
To my eyes, this lens performs best from 3m to infinity. It's also very good at 2m but resolution starts to decline from here until MFD where it's at its worse and needs to be stopped down for acceptable results.
Fred Miranda wrote:
To my eyes, this lens performs best from 3m to infinity. It's also very good at 2m but resolution starts to degrade from here until MFD where it's at its worse and needs to be stopped down for acceptable results.
Exactly my take on it. Which is a slight pity for enviro portraits.
An even weaker diopter might get then 1-2m range close to peak performance.
I see there is a rare and expensive 72mm 0.37 dioptre achromat from Minolta!
DavidBM wrote:
Exactly my take on it. Which is a slight pity for enviro portraits.
An even weaker diopter might get then 1-2m range close to peak performance.
I see there is a rare and expensive 72mm 0.37 dioptre achromat from Minolta!
A weaker diopter (less than +1) may not make too much of a difference though. I will test the Nikon +0.7 though.
If we can get MDF until 1m with better IQ, it may be worth the trouble carrying a close-up filter since the lens already performs very well from 2m to infinity.
Fred Miranda wrote:
A weaker diopter (less than +1) may not make too much of a difference though. I will test the Nikon +0.7 though.
If we can get MDF until 1m with better IQ, it may be worth the trouble carrying a close-up filter since the lens already performs very well from 2m to infinity.
I *think* a 0.5 dioptre would give you focus at 2m with the lens set to infinity.
So it would be great at 2m; and maybe quite good in the 1-2m zone, but that's more math than I'm up for in this brief break from work...
DavidBM wrote:
I *think* a 0.5 dioptre would give you focus at 2m with the lens set to infinity.
So it would be great at 2m; and maybe quite good in the 1-2m zone, but that's more math than I'm up for in this brief break from work...
