Fred Miranda wrote:
If you find a achromat +0.5, let us know.
Will do! There's that minolta 0.37 that should give you 2.7m focus with lens at infinity (though that really is a bit too weak maybe)
0.7 seems about right: that's 1.42 or so metre focus with lens at infinity. But I don't know of any achromats. But it's possible that it's weak enough that a single element is fine. So I look forward to your tests!
(And a modern one of those likely has better coatings against flare and so on than the older 2 element ones)
philip_pj wrote:
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.
Voigtländer have a history of including close-up lenses, I bet the bean counters have their say on why not include it this time.
zaphodm wrote:
You do realise that you guys are OBSESSED with these front filters, yes?
(not judging, just observing)
Well, if as well as loving photography, you kind of guiltily love lenses as a second (hopefully minor) hobby, but don't have the expertise or money or time to set up as a lens designer and manufacturer, the discovery that you can actually improve performance in meaningful ways by adding an element to the only place you can easily - the front - is pretty liberating.
And in the case of getting better performance near MFD for lenses that are optimised near infinity and don't have floating elements, all you need is simple off the rack low positive diopter filters. Which makes it the most legal fun you can have for forty bucks.
And actually, if we can get good performance out to a metre, genuinely useful for photography too!
If I understand it correctly, the maximum focal distance with an attached closeup lens is 1/Diopter from the attached lens (with the master lens set to infinity). So, you'll have to add the length of the master lens if you want to know the distance to the sensor, which is the usual measurement.
Edit: I think weaker filters than +1 diopter is kind of moot since the Nokton is only unsharp close to MFD.
And I agree with sebboh about portraits. Don't think I want better sharpness for that. But for flowers and similar, it can probably be beneficial.
Makten wrote:
If I understand it correctly, the maximum focal distance with an attached closeup lens is 1/Diopter from the attached lens (with the master lens set to infinity). So, you'll have to add the length of the master lens if you want to know the distance to the sensor, which is the usual measurement.
Edit: I think weaker filters than +1 diopter is kind of moot since the Nokton is only unsharp close to MFD.
And I agree with sebboh about portraits. Don't think I want better sharpness for that. But for flowers and similar, it can probably be beneficial.
I think the Nokton is noticeably worse at say 1.5 to two metres than it is from say 2.5 on; so a less than 1 diopter filter might well help in that range...
DavidBM wrote:
I think the Nokton is noticeably worse at say 1.5 to two metres than it is from say 2.5 on; so a less than 1 diopter filter might well help in that range...
Maybe! Don't forget that you'll probably introduce curvature of field with the filter also.
Here some shots from this weekend at the Biennale. Many will follow. But these are all at f1.2 and show environmental portraits. As I don't show any pictures of people in the web, you'll get some art instead.
There is basic processing in C1 (lens corrections, WB, exposure, levels). Very low input/output-sharpening. No clarity. No crops.
In my opinion this lens is more than sharp enough for any environmental portrait no matter what distance. Just be carefull if you go to the borders/corners of the frame, it can get very ugly there.
In my opinion the most important thing is to get rid of the lack of contrast with a proper black point and white point.
DavidBM wrote:
Yes useful list: that's where I heard about the Minolta.
I've just snagged one at an OK price: figure it may go up a lot if this thread takes off
I just tested the Leica Elpro 3 and it let's me focus from MDF until ~0.7m (lens at infinity distance). Its strength is similar to Nikon 5T's
There is zero vignetting so it's safe to get the Minolta No.0 55mm. (+0.94). All it's needed is a step-down ring (58-55mm)
If you want more range with high IQ, perhaps the Leica Elpro 4 (55mm) could be the best option. (+0.75 diopter)...
Fred Miranda wrote:
I just tested the Leica Elpro 3 and it let's me focus from MDF until ~0.7m (lens at infinity distance). Its strength is similar to Nikon 5T's
There is zero vignetting so it's safe to get the Minolta No.0 55mm. (+0.94). All it's needed is a step-down ring (58-55mm)
If you want more range with high IQ, perhaps the Leica Elpro 4 (55mm) could be the best option. (+0.75 diopter)...
Huh! Didn’t know about it. If the Minolta works out buy I want to try further out I’ll give it a go.
I see there’s the Elpro-S as well which is $1450 for a two element diopter!!
Here are the crops (100%). This time sharpened.
All are handheld shots and a wife beside me. I did my best, but a few may be out of focus or have some motion blur.
Lower center is a "selfi". Also at f1.2.
@Fred: May you explain me how I can avoid the artifacts in transitions in my pictures? The jpgs don't show that on my computer (or on flickr, facebook) but on FM. Here an example on flickr of the 5th picture (pic in the center below).
As I think about this, for the vast majority of my shots, a diopter would not be worth the hassle. If shooting at minimum focusing distance, I would just change lenses to say the CV 65/2. Perhaps I am missing something to be gained here, so happy to learn why the hassle of adding a diopter has advantages. I get that it is smaller and lighter than carrying a second lens, but how often is this going to be that useful?
Fred Miranda wrote:
I just tested the Leica Elpro 3 and it let's me focus from MDF until ~0.7m (lens at infinity distance). Its strength is similar to Nikon 5T's
There is zero vignetting so it's safe to get the Minolta No.0 55mm. (+0.94). All it's needed is a step-down ring (58-55mm)
If you want more range with high IQ, perhaps the Leica Elpro 4 (55mm) could be the best option. (+0.75 diopter)...
---------------------------------------------
DavidBM wrote:
In actual measurement using a +2 filter focus is at .64 metres with lens set to infinity (which is a bit more than the ,54 I’d predict)
Luvwine wrote:
As I think about this, for the vast majority of my shots, a diopter would not be worth the hassle. If shooting at minimum focusing distance, I would just change lenses to say the CV 65/2. Perhaps I am missing something to be gained here, so happy to learn why the hassle of adding a diopter has advantages. I get that it is smaller and lighter than carrying a second lens, but how often is this going to be that useful?
Whether it’s worth the hassle is entirely personal. And we don’t even know yet exactly what performance gains there are ( my tests so far are only on centre).
But if you want a 40mm perepctive for some image, and you want to focus around a metre or closer, and you want to use a wide aperture, then it seems you’ll get very visible (not merely measurable) boosts in contrast and sharpness at least centrally.
Certainly if you have a normal macro with you, and you want a 50-60 perspective, that’s a better choice at these distances. But you won’t always have one with you (I usually use the 40 as a sole walk around, and if I take something else it would be a lot wider or shorter) and if you do you might not want that perspective for a certain shot. In which case an inexpensive filter you can just screw on might improve things. I use this lens at around 1m realyy quite often. Worth the hassle? Doesn’t seem that much hassle to me, but that’s an entirely personal trade off.
DavidBM wrote:
Whether it’s worth the hassle is entirely personal. And we don’t even know yet exactly what performance gains there are ( my tests so far are only on centre).
But if you want a 40mm perepctive for some image, and you want to focus around a metre or closer, and you want to use a wide aperture, then it seems you’ll get very visible (not merely measurable) boosts in contrast and sharpness at least centrally.
Certainly if you have a normal macro with you, and you want a 50-60 perspective, that’s a better choice at these distances. But you won’t always have one with you (I usually use the 40 as a sole walk around, and if I take something else it would be a lot wider or shorter) and if you do you might not want that perspective for a certain shot. In which case an inexpensive filter you can just screw on might improve things. I use this lens at around 1m realyy quite often. Worth the hassle? Doesn’t seem that much hassle to me, but that’s an entirely personal trade off....Show more →
I agree. The lens performs best at infinity and the right diopter strength may allow some of that high performance to be achieved at closer distances. If that's worth or not, it's entirely subjective and subject dependent.
I can already tell the improvement is not that big when testing my Elpro 3 (+1.66) and Nikon No.0 close-up lenses (+0.7) but there is definitely an improvement. I'm not sure it's worth investing on this.
