sebboh wrote:
i agree the g45 bokeh is pretty terrible wide open, it's pretty good stopped down though (except for the hexagons). i don't think the 35/2 distagon has terribly good bokeh either. i was thinking specifically of makten's style and the shots he posted of the 35/2. the g45 excels 3D rendering at mid distance. it is similar in rendering to f1.4 planar but greater contrast, saturation, and dof for a given aperture.
Jonas B wrote:
Well, maybe; every time I hear people praise the G Contax 45/2 they seem to forget the lens is barely usable wide open. It is of course but not when there is anything busy in the background. The 3D rendering at mid distance - there I agree. I had fun with the lens that way but it never worked as a f/2 lens for me.
Cheers,
/Jonas
it depends a lot on the personal tastes, lots of people that just love sharpness and don't care about bokeh or actually like the harshness, for them the g45 is great wide open. such people will look at a shot like this and not see anything wrong with it:
I almost spit out my drink laughing when I read that the G 45/2 "is barely usable wide open." Makes me wonder how people do photography at all, when there's no lens that is absolutely perfect in every single way.
It should be necessary to say it, but to each their own!
sebboh wrote:
it depends a lot on the personal tastes, lots of people that just love sharpness and don't care about bokeh or actually like the harshness, for them the g45 is great wide open. such people will look at a shot like this and not see anything wrong with it:
(image of an old lorry)
You are right, we are all different. Well, I can contribute; here is one for those who doesn't care for bokeh:
Above: The very first image I took with the G Contax Planar 45/2. Just outside the shop where I bought it, wide open of course.
To my taste that is a lousy image indeed, in about every aspect. This was back in 2010 and the image is taken with a Panasonic G1. The G1 was the first mirror less camera on the market. Today that camera can't be considered as anything special but it swayed me away from mirrors. Still have the camera, not the lens.
arduluth wrote:
I almost spit out my drink laughing when I read that the G 45/2 "is barely usable wide open." Makes me wonder how people do photography at all, when there's no lens that is absolutely perfect in every single way.
It should be necessary to say it, but to each their own!
realVivek wrote:
Very few will dispute that, Jonas. Is it possible that images like that and not the lens that crystallized your opinion?
Often, we form very subjective opinions based on whatever factor.
Yes, an abuse of a lens, a camera and 12 megapixels...
That's true Vivek. Anyone never using the lens in situations with busy backgrounds won't notice the problem making the lens a waste of time for me.
Stopped down, for cityscapes and such the lens is good but I want my lenses to be versatile and fast. I run the 45mm through my usual test cycle (not only stupid bike handles, I promise). I liked the absence from flare for example. There is excelled competing with the Leica R-Summilux 50/1.2 E60. Few lenses does that. I guess the focusing experience (using those early adapters for the µ4/3 system) also helped me decide about the lens,
The image I posted is saved as "the first" - I have a bunch of similar ugly images taken with different lenses through the years.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Update regarding adding achromat close up lens to the CV 40/1.2.
The CV 40/1.2 is a lens optimized for infinity distance. It performs best at long distances in terms of resolution and contrast.
The optimal range seems to be from 2.5m to infinity and resolution gradually degrades when focused closer than that. I find the worse performance starts at MDF until about 0.8m. For those saying their lenses are sharp, I agree, it's sharp for a f/1.2 lens even at non-optimal distances but the whole point of this is to make it even better.
Adding achromat close up lenses allow the CV 40/1.2 to focus at the 'optimal zone' and therefore there will be gains in resolution and contrast with less haze.
Which close up lens is the best? I tested this last night and like the Leica lenses the best. (Elpro 3 and Elpro 4).
The Minolta No.0 (0.94x diopter) does not match the IQ of the Leicas, especially when focusing off axis.
So for close-up photography, one could use the Elpro 3 (1.66x diopter) at closer range... > 0.5m until 0.7m with noticeable gains in resolution. (At MDF, I didn't detect much difference). However, it's a bit restrictive since the maximum distance would be 0.7m.
The Elpro 4 (0.75x diopter) could be used as a environment portrait option since at infinity, will let the lens focus at 1.5m.
The Minolta should be the 'in-between' option but from my initial tests, it does not match the IQ of the Leica across the frame. It's still better than bare but it may not be worth the trouble.
It I were to but only one close-up lens, it would be the Elpro 4 for its IQ and flexibility. (focus from MDF until 1.5m)
I love the CV 40/1.2 look (veil and all) when shooting at any distance but this could be a nice option for those striving to get sharper and more contrasty images at close range.
PS:
1) The Close-up lenses increase resolution even when stopping down the lens to f/1.7-2.
2) I also tried my Nikon No.0 close-up lens but it's not achromatic and results were not great, so it's out.
3) Both Elpro 3 and Elpro 4 have 55mm threads so a 58-55mm step-down ring would be needed. The good news is that there is no mechanical vignetting.
Sorry, no samples yet. I want to find a good subject and take some time to run a very precise test....Show more →
Wish I'd waited for your test before buying the Minolta! Oh well. Found an OK price on an Elpro 4...
Did you get a sense of the off axis performance? On the Lox 35 I found +2 gave slight centre improvement at .6m but considerable off axis degradation.
DavidBM wrote:
Wish I'd waited for your test before buying the Minolta! Oh well. Found an OK price on an Elpro 4...
Did you get a sense of the off axis performance? On the Lox 35 I found +2 gave slight centre improvement at .6m but considerable off axis degradation.
Off axis is great with the Elpro 3 and 4 and not so great with the Minolta. However, they all give better results than the lens bare.
The Elpro 3 is great for close-ups with max 0.7m distance (e.g. flowers) and the Elpro 4 is a better match for environment portraits or anything at 1 or 1.5m. I think it's work the trouble. I'm getting much better sharpness.
The Elpros weight 50g because it's an amazing glass and construction and the original hood about 15g...so without the hood and close-up lens, there will be an increase of 35g for the total weight.
Here is a sample wide-open using the Elpro 4 at ~ 1m distance (lens at ~ 3m)...don't quote me on the exact distance as I don't remember precisely..so ball-park here. I will test this further later on.
It lifts that haze and increases resolution and contrast. It's just another 'look' when needed.
The close-up lens allows the 40/1.2 to perform at closer distances similarly to how it performs at infinity. So, in practice this acts like a floating element add-on.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Off axis is great with the Elpro 3 and 4 and not so great with the Minolta. However, they all give better results than the lens bare.
The Elpro 3 is great for close-ups with max 0.7m distance (e.g. flowers) and the Elpro 4 is a better match for environment portraits or anything at 1 or 1.5m. I think it's work the trouble. I'm getting much better sharpness.
The Elpros weight 50g because it's an amazing glass and construction and the original hood about 15g...so without the hood and close-up lens, there will be an increase of 35g for the total weight....Show more →
My Raynox 2 diopter achromat (which is amazingly good by the way, comes as a set with a *3* element 3 diopter set, which can be used together as a 5 element 5 dioptre set - gives native macro quality with the 4/180 APO Panther) does beautifully on the Nokton up to .65 metres...
So I knew that if the really remarkable improvement at .65 metre could be extended out to 1-1.5 metre it's be worth the trouble. After all, one of the main reasons I got this lens was for use at wide aperture around 1 - 1.5 metres!
DavidBM wrote:
My Raynox 2 diopter achromat (which is amazingly good by the way, comes as a set with a *3* element 3 diopter set, which can be used together as a 5 element 5 dioptre set - gives native macro quality with the 4/180 APO Panther) does beautifully on the Nokton up to .65 metres...
So I knew that if the really remarkable improvement at .65 metre could be extended out to 1-1.5 metre it's be worth the trouble. After all, one of the main reasons I got this lens was for use at wide aperture around 1 - 1.5 metres!
Fred Miranda wrote:
Here is a sample wide-open using the Elpro 4 at ~ 1m distance (lens at ~ 3m)...don't quote me on the exact distance as I don't remember precisely..so ball-park here. I will test this further later on.
It lifts that haze and increases resolution and contrast. It's just another 'look' when needed.
Whoah! That is indeed just as impressive as the improvements I was seeing at .65 metre. I'm happy.
If I understand this right, you're using a close up filter, for being able to close-focus the lens at near infinity position, where it has best performance.
Have you tried to use an extension tube instead? Shouldn't the result be the same or even better?
PEKA62 wrote:
If I understand this right, you're using a close up filter, for being able to close-focus the lens at near infinity position, where it has best performance.
Have you tried to use an extension tube instead? Shouldn't the result be the same or even better?
No. it won't: remember that what an extension tube does is allow the lens to *actually physically* focus closer. So while there might be a tube length such that the lens is focussed at say 1 metre while the lens is set to infinity, in fact this is optically *exactly the same situation* as with no tube and the lens focused to 1 metre. On a unit focussing lens, all the focus ring or tubes do is move the whole optical unit back and forth. The filter on the other hand, allows close focus with the optical unit closer to the film plane.
PEKA62 wrote:
If I understand this right, you're using a close up filter, for being able to close-focus the lens at near infinity position, where it has best performance.
Have you tried to use an extension tube instead? Shouldn't the result be the same or even better?
Since the whole optical assembly moves when focusing, an extension tube would make no difference at the same distance to subject. You'd only be able to focus closer (with even worse sharpness).
Fred Miranda wrote:
Here is a sample wide-open using the Elpro 4 at ~ 1m distance (lens at ~ 3m)...don't quote me on the exact distance (...)
(images showing an eye)
--------------------------------------------- Fred Miranda wrote:
Here is another quick sample. (images showing small text)
Thank you foe the samples.
The left hand images does look better in some aspects. How much better is hard to say: in the first case I believe there is some camera shake in the right-hand image and in the second case the right-hand image isn't focused the same.
Still, there is some differences with regards to clarity. I'm looking forward to more controlled comparisons. Maybe try to get hold of an Elpro 4 and try some things out myself. Sometimes I like to get close.
Yes they were handheld but I can see a noticeable difference in sharpness when focusing. For example, peaking gets much more apparent with the close-up lens. This was not a precise test as I noted, but I think tripod examples won’t be too much different.
Jonas B wrote: Fred Miranda wrote:
--------------------------------------------- Fred Miranda wrote:
Thank you foe the samples.
The left hand images does look better in some aspects. How much better is hard to say: in the first case I believe there is some camera shake in the right-hand image and in the second case the right-hand image isn't focused the same.
Still, there is some differences with regards to clarity. I'm looking forward to more controlled comparisons. Maybe try to get hold of an Elpro 4 and try some things out myself. Sometimes I like to get close.
I have something I could try a Hassy 60mm filter but I think it’s a plus 2. It’s sitting here doing nothing anyway. I have more leftovers than I can keep track of. Lol
