Fred Miranda wrote:
Should be interesting. Post some 1:1 crops if you can.
Something to keep in mind is that they are only helpful up until 1.5m. After that, the lens performs great on its own.
I would say the performance cutoff is more like 2m, hence the Proxar purchase, which was much less expensive.
I'll post the images likely next weekend as I'm not sure when the Elpro 4 will arrive.
Now I just need to convince my model, to, well, model for me
Fred Miranda wrote:
The Elpro 4 works with a simple 58-55mm step down ring.
How are you planning on attaching the Proxar B60 2m to the 40/1.2?
Wound't the B57 be a better choice?
Got the 58 to 55 step down ring on the way - likely won't get the Elpro 'til mid next week.
Initially I'll just temporarily attach the B60 to the 40/1.2. If it works well enough I'll have to transplant the lens element per the usual methods.
Yes, the B57 would have been better, but those appear to be quite old and not multi-coated.
You can get a 58mm male thread to B60 adapter ring but they want crazy amounts of $$ for these . . . like $150 used.
The Zeiss T* Coated f=2m B60 was only $37, so if it's too big I won't be out a lot.
Also, I couldn't find dimensions for the B60 Proxar, but a B60 to 62mm female adapter looks something like the attached image, so the lens element will be around 60 or 62mm OD. Not too bad to adapt to since the 40/1.2 E mount version is ~70mm in outer diameter.
A cheap set of 6Xmm add-on macros lenses usually are good candidates for extracting the poor quality lens elements and putting in the Proxar since the rings are designed for thick glass elements unlike filter rings which are designed for very thin flat glass.
Bay 60 to 62mm Thread Adapter
Feb 02, 2018 at 07:43 PM
imagesfromobjects Offline • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
Are you guys certain it's an IQ dip and not just a DOF issue? Could be sample variation or me just having different standards, but I'm not noticing any dip until mayyybe 0.5m to min distance. Edges are weak, sure but I can't say I've ever used a lens that performs anywhere near this level of sharpness wide open. I'm not trying to be provocative or anything, just feel like I'm missing something, have only used crappy lenses, or just happened upon a really good copy. Huh.
imagesfromobjects wrote:
Are you guys certain it's an IQ dip and not just a DOF issue? Could be sample variation or me just having different standards, but I'm not noticing any dip until mayyybe 0.5m to min distance. Edges are weak, sure but I can't say I've ever used a lens that performs anywhere near this level of sharpness wide open. I'm not trying to be provocative or anything, just feel like I'm missing something, have only used crappy lenses, or just happened upon a really good copy. Huh.
My uses are for candids in the the 1-2m distance range - when things get below 1.5m as Fred has pointed out contrast and sharpness really seem to fall off. My judge is eyebrow and eyelash and hair contrast and resolving ability.
Sure DOF is shallow, but quite clearly what is in best focus is not the sharpest or highest of contrast compared to further away.
A gold standard for me is the 65/2 CV which is outstanding with the same kind of shots - super super sharp and very high contrast wide open at MFD or infinity (the no secondary color also helps . . )
Feb 02, 2018 at 08:09 PM
imagesfromobjects Offline • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
No doubt there is sample variation, sensor variation, and differences in what folks require for their particular applications. I'm just really starting to wonder if I'm missing something, so please feel free to pick these apart based on sharpness criteria.
This is a quick-n-dirty test I just did tonight - please forgive the lack of methodology and artistic nature of these shots. I stick the little man in front of some truck cartoons and he suddenly becomes the ideal (perfectly still) model.
These are two shots, hand held. Higher ISO than I'd like, but hey. Camera used was Sony A7. Processed minimally in C1 with an adaptation of Fujifilm Acros Yellow Filter, basic levels adjusted. Luminance NR turned completely off to avoid any detail being lost. Sharpening minimal - 230 with 0.9 radius, Threshold 1, Halo Suppression off.
Jpegs output to 1920p long edge, 100% and 200% crops from ARW:
[EDIT - file size exceeded, so linking via Flickr. Click for larger]
jhinkey wrote:
Also, I couldn't find dimensions for the B60 Proxar, but a B60 to 62mm female adapter looks something like the attached image, so the lens element will be around 60 or 62mm OD. Not too bad to adapt to since the 40/1.2 E mount version is ~70mm in outer diameter.
A cheap set of 6Xmm add-on macros lenses usually are good candidates for extracting the poor quality lens elements and putting in the Proxar since the rings are designed for thick glass elements unlike filter rings which are designed for very thin flat glass.
imagesfromobjects wrote: No doubt there is sample variation, sensor variation, and differences in what folks require for their particular applications. I'm just really starting to wonder if I'm missing something, so please feel free to pick these apart based on sharpness criteria.
This is a quick-n-dirty test I just did tonight - please forgive the lack of methodology and artistic nature of these shots. I stick the little man in front of some truck cartoons and he suddenly becomes the ideal (perfectly still) model.
These are two shots, hand held. Higher ISO than I'd like, but hey. Camera used was Sony A7. Processed minimally in C1 with an adaptation of Fujifilm Acros Yellow Filter, basic levels adjusted. Luminance NR turned completely off to avoid any detail being lost. Sharpening minimal - 230 with 0.9 radius, Threshold 1, Halo Suppression off.
Jpegs output to 1920p long edge, 100% and 200% crops from ARW:
[images taken at 0.5 and 1.0 meters including crops]
My comments on these images are that you have a very nice model, that processed, including sharpening, images doesn't tell us much and that the resolving abilities of the camera matters. It's also important to think about the real world result (as you point out when commenting what folks require for their application). For some reason your 200% crops doesn't show up as 200% crops (slightly larger than the 100% ones but not by much, tried using a PC and Firefox and Opera browsers, might be something at my end of course. Are the 100% crops showed correctly? I don't really see the point by going larger than 100; that just adds another unknown factor to the final result.
If this is the typical use and processing for you then it doesn't seem to me as you need to bother about giving your lens any kind of reading glass (coated or not).
There is just so much information to get from your images, as nice as they are. I tried to do a similar thing but thinking about the method (page 44, post 14) and my conclusion is that at 0.5 meters the Elpro 4 helps with both resolution and contrast, at slightly longer distances the the resolution is maintained without the Elpro but when adding it you get higher contrast and still further away it doesn't matter.
For my typical use and style there is no need for any additional close-up lens at all. But the technical stuff is always interesting so I'm looking forward to your coming comparison!
Jonas B wrote: imagesfromobjects wrote:
- please forgive the lack of methodology
My comments on these images are that you have a very nice model, that processed, including sharpening, images doesn't tell us much and that the resolving abilities of the camera matters. It's also important to think about the real world result (as you point out when commenting what folks require for their application). For some reason your 200% crops doesn't show up as 200% crops (slightly larger than the 100% ones but not by much, tried using a PC and Firefox and Opera browsers, might be something at my end of course. Are the 100% crops showed correctly? I don't really see the point by going larger than 100; that just adds another unknown factor to the final result.
If this is the typical use and processing for you then it doesn't seem to me as you need to bother about giving your lens any kind of reading glass (coated or not).
There is just so much information to get from your images, as nice as they are. I tried to do a similar thing but thinking about the method (page 44, post 14) and my conclusion is that at 0.5 meters the Elpro 4 helps with both resolution and contrast, at slightly longer distances the the resolution is maintained without the Elpro but when adding it you get higher contrast and still further away it doesn't matter.
For my typical use and style there is no need for any additional close-up lens at all. But the technical stuff is always interesting so I'm looking forward to your coming comparison!
Limited information, or not, these images have provided more detail than many others that have been posted, for my use. I think I will order the lens. I thank the author.
I was curious and bored this morning so I did a little simple comparison with my Minolta MD 35-70 macro lens. I tried to process them the same in Luminar 2018
A7R3 and Minolta MD 35-70
A6500 and CV 40 f1.2
Feb 03, 2018 at 12:08 PM
imagesfromobjects Offline • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
Jonas B wrote: imagesfromobjects wrote:
- please forgive the lack of methodology
My comments on these images are that you have a very nice model, that processed, including sharpening, images doesn't tell us much and that the resolving abilities of the camera matters. It's also important to think about the real world result (as you point out when commenting what folks require for their application). For some reason your 200% crops doesn't show up as 200% crops (slightly larger than the 100% ones but not by much, tried using a PC and Firefox and Opera browsers, might be something at my end of course. Are the 100% crops showed correctly? I don't really see the point by going larger than 100; that just adds another unknown factor to the final result.
If this is the typical use and processing for you then it doesn't seem to me as you need to bother about giving your lens any kind of reading glass (coated or not).
There is just so much information to get from your images, as nice as they are. I tried to do a similar thing but thinking about the method (page 44, post 14) and my conclusion is that at 0.5 meters the Elpro 4 helps with both resolution and contrast, at slightly longer distances the the resolution is maintained without the Elpro but when adding it you get higher contrast and still further away it doesn't matter.
For my typical use and style there is no need for any additional close-up lens at all. But the technical stuff is always interesting so I'm looking forward to your coming comparison!
Absolutely, fair enough. And thank you for such a thoughtful response and for the kind words about The Dude. I'm also very interested in the technical stuff, but don't want to lose sight of the practical aspects in pursuit of technical perfection. I'll say that, hands-down, this is the best lens I've ever used personally. I'm sure there are "better" ones currently available, but for my uses and needs it's perfect as is. I'd add the caveat of "warts and all", but that's where my confusion lies. Granted I've never owned anything Leica except for a D Lux 3 many years ago, and don't own the Apo Lanthar, so am undoubtedly lacking some frame of reference here,
In reading through the thread, I was just unsure how this lens could possibly be any better, without losing some of the magic, so was genuinely curious to see real world examples of the deficits being discussed. I just honestly don't see it!
Anyway, thanks for replying. Oh- and apologies for not knowing how to post a proper test shot sequence - I've never attempted that before. I'm not sure how I could have processed the files any less to give a more accurate baseline. The BW conversion was to reduce the distraction of the blue glow of the screen. White and black points auto adjusted to 0.01% - no additional tweaks except *extremely* mild sharpening. Output to Jpeg at standard HD 1280x1920. Is there anything I should have done differently?
Little trick in PS for 100 percent crops . Go to the square box tool. Not sure what you call it but set it for a fixed 1200x1200 crop and enlarge image to 100 percent . Click on a section you want to show . Copy it , than hit new and paste than convert that to Srgb and post it. Forum is set for 1200x12000 and that really shows 100 percent crops the best. I do all my Big Bronco lens test exactly like that
This is what I mean when I mention "medium distance bokeh", which many have a hard time understanding.
It's the only reason for very fast lenses, to me. At closer distance the background will be blurred enough with smaller apertures anyway.
GMPhotography wrote:
Little trick in PS for 100 percent crops . Go to the square box tool. Not sure what you call it but set it for a fixed 1200x1200 crop and enlarge image to 100 percent . Click on a section you want to show . Copy it , than hit new and paste than convert that to Srgb and post it. Forum is set for 1200x12000 and that really shows 100 percent crops the best. I do all my Big Bronco lens test exactly like that
Yep- that's basically what I did, but in C1. Zoomed to 100% then cropped, exported to sRBG jpeg. I'm not sure what happened with the 200% crops, but I guess those aren't really necessary. On the a7 sensor, I'm not noticing any resolution dip in the center at any distance. I can link the raw files if anyone is interested. Or, if there's a more objective way to get a jpeg, but at 0.5m the lens is still very clearly outresolving the sensor, as evidenced by the detail lost in between eyelashes.
Can someone please post an example that shows a resolution dip?
Fred Miranda wrote:
Should be interesting. Post some 1:1 crops if you can.
Something to keep in mind is that they are only helpful up until 1.5m. After that, the lens performs great on its own.
Does the Elpro 4 only have a single AR coating?
Just pulled it out of the mail and was surprised by the look of the coatings.
Comparative tests of the Elpro 4 and 2m Proxar later this week now that I have everything.
Feb 05, 2018 at 08:25 PM
imagesfromobjects Offline • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
