This topic is in the 2009 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2009Coastal Optics alternatives?
p.2 #1Coastal Optics alternatives?
Leica 60/2.8 do have visible LCA. It's very hard to find a macro lens without visible LCA at 1:2 or 1:1 ratio. Coastal 60/4 is probably the only one thst meet your standard.
May 29, 2009 at 08:47 AM
p.2 #2Coastal Optics alternatives?
Leica 60 is probably the best you're going to find short of paying for the APO, etc correction in the CO 60. Amazing lens for modest $$. The CZ 60 MP S is also great - had one prior to the Leica and loved it, but it is a VERY large lens vs. the Leica (diameter must be close to 2x the Leica's) and is not feasibly convertible to Nikon IF that should ever be a consideration in the future.
If you stretch the FL a bit the CV 90/3.5 APO is a killer, very well APO corrected and very close focus. Stick a tube on it... Tested mine against my Leica 90 AA R - and sold the Leica.
If you stretch the FL a bit the CV 90/3.5 APO is a killer, very well APO corrected and very close focus. Stick a tube on it... Tested mine against my Leica 90 AA R - and sold the Leica.
May 29, 2009 at 10:43 AM
p.2 #3Coastal Optics alternatives?
jjlphoto wrote:
Zeiss really struggles with distortion in its SLR lenses. Compared are the distortion curves superimposed and rescaled on top of themselves from the data sheets from the Zeiss 50/2 Macro and the leica 60/2.8 Macro. The Leica is in red.
What image magnification does the Leica curve represent?
Anyway, the difference between 50 mm and 60 mm is significant, as is the difference between f/2.0 and f/2.8. You may consider to compare apples with apples and inspect for example the 1:10 distortion graph for the Y/C Makro-Planar 60/2.8.
Furthermore there is a difference between struggling and design considerations and tradeoffs.
Zeiss really struggles with distortion in its SLR lenses. Compared are the distortion curves superimposed and rescaled on top of themselves from the data sheets from the Zeiss 50/2 Macro and the leica 60/2.8 Macro. The Leica is in red.
What image magnification does the Leica curve represent?
Anyway, the difference between 50 mm and 60 mm is significant, as is the difference between f/2.0 and f/2.8. You may consider to compare apples with apples and inspect for example the 1:10 distortion graph for the Y/C Makro-Planar 60/2.8.
Furthermore there is a difference between struggling and design considerations and tradeoffs.
May 29, 2009 at 11:40 AM
p.2 #4Coastal Optics alternatives?
phuang3 wrote:
Leica 60/2.8 do have visible LCA. It's very hard to find a macro lens without visible LCA at 1:2 or 1:1 ratio. Coastal 60/4 is probably the only one thst meet your standard.
I suspected so.
Any words of experiend experience with the lens for general use? That is as important to me in this case as macro capabilities.
Thank you, /Jonas
Conner999 wrote:
Leica 60 is probably the best you're going to find short of paying for the APO, etc correction in the CO 60. (...)
If you stretch the FL a bit the CV 90/3.5 APO is a killer, very well APO corrected and very close focus. Stick a tube on it... Tested mine against my Leica 90 AA R - and sold the Leica.
The CV90/3.5 is too long for me, just as the 90CronAA was. I hope you found a good new home for the Summicron. My OM90/2 Macro was better at close distances, not surprisngly, and it now lives in Switzerland. It's amazing how these lenses travel around the globe.
Cheers, /Jonas
Leica 60/2.8 do have visible LCA. It's very hard to find a macro lens without visible LCA at 1:2 or 1:1 ratio. Coastal 60/4 is probably the only one thst meet your standard.
I suspected so.
Any words of experiend experience with the lens for general use? That is as important to me in this case as macro capabilities.
Thank you, /Jonas
Conner999 wrote:
Leica 60 is probably the best you're going to find short of paying for the APO, etc correction in the CO 60. (...)
If you stretch the FL a bit the CV 90/3.5 APO is a killer, very well APO corrected and very close focus. Stick a tube on it... Tested mine against my Leica 90 AA R - and sold the Leica.
The CV90/3.5 is too long for me, just as the 90CronAA was. I hope you found a good new home for the Summicron. My OM90/2 Macro was better at close distances, not surprisngly, and it now lives in Switzerland. It's amazing how these lenses travel around the globe.
Cheers, /Jonas
May 29, 2009 at 12:16 PM
jjlphoto
Offline
Activity
[X]
Details
p.2 #5Coastal Optics alternatives?
Toothwalker wrote:
....What image magnification does the Leica curve represent?
Anyway, the difference between 50 mm and 60 mm is significant....inspect for example the 1:10 distortion graph for the Y/C Makro-Planar 60/2.8....
I used to own the CY S-Planar 60/2.8, am well aware of it's being about perfectly corrected at 1:10. However, the Zeiss CY S-Planar 60/2.8 charts show that at infinity, it pincushions, and at 1:2 & 1:1 the CY S-Planar 60/2.8 shows a bit of barrel.
The very rare and expensive CY S-Planar 100/4 is almost perfectly corrected at infinity, but at 1:10; 1:2, 1:1 exhibits a very slight barrell, but still less than the CY S-Planar 60/2.8 at comparable magnifications.
It's too bad that Leica only specs it at infinity, and the new Zeiss data sheets don't even mention distance at all, making comparison problematic as you mentioned.
....What image magnification does the Leica curve represent?
Anyway, the difference between 50 mm and 60 mm is significant....inspect for example the 1:10 distortion graph for the Y/C Makro-Planar 60/2.8....
I used to own the CY S-Planar 60/2.8, am well aware of it's being about perfectly corrected at 1:10. However, the Zeiss CY S-Planar 60/2.8 charts show that at infinity, it pincushions, and at 1:2 & 1:1 the CY S-Planar 60/2.8 shows a bit of barrel.
The very rare and expensive CY S-Planar 100/4 is almost perfectly corrected at infinity, but at 1:10; 1:2, 1:1 exhibits a very slight barrell, but still less than the CY S-Planar 60/2.8 at comparable magnifications.
It's too bad that Leica only specs it at infinity, and the new Zeiss data sheets don't even mention distance at all, making comparison problematic as you mentioned.
May 29, 2009 at 01:13 PM
p.2 #6Coastal Optics alternatives?
Jonas,
Many folks, self included, use/d the 60 as their normal lens. WO is very nice in center, but come F4+ the resolution just takes of. Nice mechanics. No real need for hood since front element so recessed. Very flare resistant. Nice color and bokeh.
If you find a BGN copy, give it a whirl and if you like, can always look for a more pristine version - or move on and likely get your $$ back. US$400ish would be a normal price for a clean version. Given the 10+ fold price difference between it and the CO, it would make sense to try the Leica (or others) first. The CO would rock, but man do you pay for it.
Figured the 90 would be too long. My/your 90AA ended up in Texas. Yup, they do travel.
Many folks, self included, use/d the 60 as their normal lens. WO is very nice in center, but come F4+ the resolution just takes of. Nice mechanics. No real need for hood since front element so recessed. Very flare resistant. Nice color and bokeh.
If you find a BGN copy, give it a whirl and if you like, can always look for a more pristine version - or move on and likely get your $$ back. US$400ish would be a normal price for a clean version. Given the 10+ fold price difference between it and the CO, it would make sense to try the Leica (or others) first. The CO would rock, but man do you pay for it.
Figured the 90 would be too long. My/your 90AA ended up in Texas. Yup, they do travel.
May 29, 2009 at 02:41 PM
p.2 #7Coastal Optics alternatives?
jjlphoto wrote:
I used to own the CY S-Planar 60/2.8, am well aware of it's being about perfectly corrected at 1:10. However, the Zeiss CY S-Planar 60/2.8 charts show that at infinity, it pincushions, and at 1:2 & 1:1 the CY S-Planar 60/2.8 shows a bit of barrel.
The very rare and expensive CY S-Planar 100/4 is almost perfectly corrected at infinity, but at 1:10; 1:2, 1:1 exhibits a very slight barrell, but still less than the CY S-Planar 60/2.8 at comparable magnifications.
Personally I find any distortion below 1% hardly objectionable even for architecture. (Where I should add that the common "% of image height" distortion curves are not the most convenient curves to judge line straightness.)
It's too bad that Leica only specs it at infinity, and the new Zeiss data sheets don't even mention distance at all, making comparison problematic as you mentioned.
The Zeiss data sheets are certainly less detailed than they used to be, but they do mention distance. You posted two distortion curves for the Makro-Planar 2/50, where the sheet tells us that the solid curve corresponds to infinity and the dashed curve to 1:1. (Which must be a typo as the lens does not magnify beyond 1:2).
I used to own the CY S-Planar 60/2.8, am well aware of it's being about perfectly corrected at 1:10. However, the Zeiss CY S-Planar 60/2.8 charts show that at infinity, it pincushions, and at 1:2 & 1:1 the CY S-Planar 60/2.8 shows a bit of barrel.
The very rare and expensive CY S-Planar 100/4 is almost perfectly corrected at infinity, but at 1:10; 1:2, 1:1 exhibits a very slight barrell, but still less than the CY S-Planar 60/2.8 at comparable magnifications.
Personally I find any distortion below 1% hardly objectionable even for architecture. (Where I should add that the common "% of image height" distortion curves are not the most convenient curves to judge line straightness.)
It's too bad that Leica only specs it at infinity, and the new Zeiss data sheets don't even mention distance at all, making comparison problematic as you mentioned.
The Zeiss data sheets are certainly less detailed than they used to be, but they do mention distance. You posted two distortion curves for the Makro-Planar 2/50, where the sheet tells us that the solid curve corresponds to infinity and the dashed curve to 1:1. (Which must be a typo as the lens does not magnify beyond 1:2).
May 30, 2009 at 07:25 AM
jjlphoto
Offline
Activity
[X]
Details
p.2 #8Coastal Optics alternatives?
Toothwalker wrote:
The Zeiss data sheets are certainly less detailed than they used to be, but they do mention distance. You posted two distortion curves for the Makro-Planar 2/50, where the sheet tells us that the solid curve corresponds to infinity and the dashed curve to 1:1. (Which must be a typo as the lens does not magnify beyond 1:2).
I missed that. Thought it was the usual Sagital/Tangental comparisons. My mistake.
I'm guessing the 1:1 could be for when used with an extension tube?
The Zeiss data sheets are certainly less detailed than they used to be, but they do mention distance. You posted two distortion curves for the Makro-Planar 2/50, where the sheet tells us that the solid curve corresponds to infinity and the dashed curve to 1:1. (Which must be a typo as the lens does not magnify beyond 1:2).
I missed that. Thought it was the usual Sagital/Tangental comparisons. My mistake.
I'm guessing the 1:1 could be for when used with an extension tube?
May 30, 2009 at 11:30 AM
p.2 #9Coastal Optics alternatives?
Conner999 wrote:
Many folks, self included, use/d the 60 as their normal lens. WO is very nice in center, but come F4+ the resolution just takes of. Nice mechanics. No real need for hood since front element so recessed. Very flare resistant. Nice color and bokeh.
One has to start somewhere. I think I'll just buy one and see what I think about it. Thank you,
--
Jonas
Many folks, self included, use/d the 60 as their normal lens. WO is very nice in center, but come F4+ the resolution just takes of. Nice mechanics. No real need for hood since front element so recessed. Very flare resistant. Nice color and bokeh.
One has to start somewhere. I think I'll just buy one and see what I think about it. Thank you,
--
Jonas
May 30, 2009 at 05:00 PM
p.2 #10Coastal Optics alternatives?
Interested to see what you think of it. Older and newer versions are optically the same - just different cams/ROM and hood mechanics of course.
If you get an older Series ___ hood style unit, a 60mm filter or step up ring will screw directly into the barrel. I used a 60-62mm SU ring, allowed me to get a 62mm cap, easier to find filters, etc.
If you get an older Series ___ hood style unit, a 60mm filter or step up ring will screw directly into the barrel. I used a 60-62mm SU ring, allowed me to get a 62mm cap, easier to find filters, etc.
May 31, 2009 at 05:49 AM
p.2 #11Coastal Optics alternatives?
The Zuiko 50/2 does not show any visible CA at close-up range, neither it does for longer range. One of the most underrated lenses. See the 100% crop below:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2483/3582135506_47dce20bcd_o.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2483/3582135506_47dce20bcd_o.jpg
May 31, 2009 at 10:07 AM
p.2 #12Coastal Optics alternatives?
I also did not see any CA with my Zuiko 50/2, and that was on my Kodak SLR/c which really shows the CA on any lens (no AA filter or internal CA processing).
May 31, 2009 at 10:18 AM
p.2 #13Coastal Optics alternatives?
I'm a big fan of the Oly 50 2.0 macro, too. It's at least as sharp at f2.0 at all distances as anything else I tried in that range (Canons 50 1.4, 2.5, Olympus 50 1.2, Leica 50 2.0, Sigma 50 1.4) with good contrast and (for an Olympus-lens) a pleasant bokeh. But I wouldn't call it CA-free.
May 31, 2009 at 01:31 PM
p.2 #14Coastal Optics alternatives?
Speaking of APO lenses, the Leica 75 Summicron M ASPH and 90 Summicron M ASPH are both APO designs. As far as I know, the 50 Summilux M ASPH is also an APO design according to this page. Though APO designs don't necessarily fix everything and usually are only seen in longer focal length lenses.
If you are just shooting macro, maybe check out a bellows system and the Rodenstock 75mm f/4 APO-Rodagon D Enlarging Lens. It's optimized for 1:1. I bet its pretty hard to beat.
If you are just shooting macro, maybe check out a bellows system and the Rodenstock 75mm f/4 APO-Rodagon D Enlarging Lens. It's optimized for 1:1. I bet its pretty hard to beat.
May 31, 2009 at 04:06 PM
p.2 #15Coastal Optics alternatives?
kidtexas wrote:
If you are just shooting macro, (...)
Hi, no, it's not just, or even mainly, for macro. But I'm making a mental note anyway. Thanks.
If you are just shooting macro, (...)
Hi, no, it's not just, or even mainly, for macro. But I'm making a mental note anyway. Thanks.
May 31, 2009 at 05:06 PM
p.2 #16Coastal Optics alternatives?
Cinstance wrote:
The Zuiko 50/2 does not show any visible CA at close-up range, neither it does for longer range. One of the most underrated lenses.
The crop looks really fine. I guess this is a 20+ MP camera...
The image made me think for some time. I clearly see some CA when using my OM50/2 Macro. I don't think it is about sample differences.
In your image the typical blue/yellow Olympus OM CA may be masked.
To check I took a bunch of 50mm lenses I have and shot a series of images of a book shelf:
http://photos.imageevent.com/jonas_b/fmforumsmonthly/fmforums2008/overview_crops_stacked.jpg
The images were taken from about 2.5m with a G1 (so compared to your big FF sensor it is the center quarter of the image only).
Here are 100% crops from the series taken with the OM50/2 Macro:
First f/2
http://photos.imageevent.com/jonas_b/fmforumsmonthly/fmforums2008/OM50_2_Macro_f2_shelf_left_crop_100.jpg
Now f/2.8
http://photos.imageevent.com/jonas_b/fmforumsmonthly/fmforums2008/OM50_2_Macro_f2.8_shelf_left_crop_100.jpg
And finally f/5.6
http://photos.imageevent.com/jonas_b/fmforumsmonthly/fmforums2008/OM50_2_Macro_f5.6_shelf_left_crop_100.jpg
So, when stopped down the CA is nearly gone. Nearly, but not entirely. I wonder if this is the difference I see when looking at those clear and nice images taken with the CO60/4 Macro. How does our eyes, or brains, perceive the images when printed big?
I have for a long time been focused on fast lenses, and nice bokeh. I still am, but I ahve more and more come to look at color aberrations and the impact they have on the image quality.
The OM 50/2 Macro did well in my test, btw. Also bear in mind the G1 has a pixel density corresponding to a 45MP FF camera.
Any thoughts on the matter are welcome.
regards, /Jonas
The Zuiko 50/2 does not show any visible CA at close-up range, neither it does for longer range. One of the most underrated lenses.
The crop looks really fine. I guess this is a 20+ MP camera...
The image made me think for some time. I clearly see some CA when using my OM50/2 Macro. I don't think it is about sample differences.
In your image the typical blue/yellow Olympus OM CA may be masked.
To check I took a bunch of 50mm lenses I have and shot a series of images of a book shelf:
http://photos.imageevent.com/jonas_b/fmforumsmonthly/fmforums2008/overview_crops_stacked.jpg
The images were taken from about 2.5m with a G1 (so compared to your big FF sensor it is the center quarter of the image only).
Here are 100% crops from the series taken with the OM50/2 Macro:
First f/2
http://photos.imageevent.com/jonas_b/fmforumsmonthly/fmforums2008/OM50_2_Macro_f2_shelf_left_crop_100.jpg
Now f/2.8
http://photos.imageevent.com/jonas_b/fmforumsmonthly/fmforums2008/OM50_2_Macro_f2.8_shelf_left_crop_100.jpg
And finally f/5.6
http://photos.imageevent.com/jonas_b/fmforumsmonthly/fmforums2008/OM50_2_Macro_f5.6_shelf_left_crop_100.jpg
So, when stopped down the CA is nearly gone. Nearly, but not entirely. I wonder if this is the difference I see when looking at those clear and nice images taken with the CO60/4 Macro. How does our eyes, or brains, perceive the images when printed big?
I have for a long time been focused on fast lenses, and nice bokeh. I still am, but I ahve more and more come to look at color aberrations and the impact they have on the image quality.
The OM 50/2 Macro did well in my test, btw. Also bear in mind the G1 has a pixel density corresponding to a 45MP FF camera.
Any thoughts on the matter are welcome.
regards, /Jonas
May 31, 2009 at 05:27 PM
p.2 #17Coastal Optics alternatives?
In the post above, I forgot to mention the light: Quite soft light, partly from a big window 4 meters to the right and a big lamp at the roof (common bulbs). Low intensity and the contrast isn't very high at target.
The images are "not processed" meaning most of the settings in ACR were set to neutral or default, tone curve was flat and there is no sharpening at all applied.
/Jonas
The images are "not processed" meaning most of the settings in ACR were set to neutral or default, tone curve was flat and there is no sharpening at all applied.
/Jonas
May 31, 2009 at 06:54 PM
p.2 #18Coastal Optics alternatives?
Jonas B wrote:
The crop looks really fine. I guess this is a 20+ MP camera...
The image made me think for some time. I clearly see some CA when using my OM50/2 Macro. I don't think it is about sample differences.
In your image the typical blue/yellow Olympus OM CA may be masked.
regards, /Jonas
Did not know you already have the Zuiko
.
Actually my shot was done with a 5D. I can no longer remember the aperture used, but it was stopped down at least to f5.6, probably at f8.
I think the 50/2 did extremely well in your test with a camera that's 45mp equivalent in FF terms. The f5.6 crop has only minumum CA that might not even be visible on a 20MP camera. At f8 it could be even better.
Cinstance wrote
The Zuiko 50/2 does not show any visible CA at close-up range, neither it does for longer range. One of the most underrated lenses.The image made me think for some time. I clearly see some CA when using my OM50/2 Macro. I don't think it is about sample differences.
In your image the typical blue/yellow Olympus OM CA may be masked.
regards, /Jonas
Did not know you already have the Zuiko
.Actually my shot was done with a 5D. I can no longer remember the aperture used, but it was stopped down at least to f5.6, probably at f8.
I think the 50/2 did extremely well in your test with a camera that's 45mp equivalent in FF terms. The f5.6 crop has only minumum CA that might not even be visible on a 20MP camera. At f8 it could be even better.
May 31, 2009 at 07:58 PM
p.2 #19Coastal Optics alternatives?
Cinstance wrote:
Did not know you already have the Zuiko.
Actually my shot was done with a 5D. I can no longer remember the aperture used, but it was stopped down at least to f5.6, probably at f8.
I think the 50/2 did extremely well in your test with a camera that's 45mp equivalent in FF terms. The f5.6 crop has only minumum CA that might not even be visible on a 20MP camera. At f8 it could be even better.
AH, with a 5D "only". I understand, and after having thought about it I think I guessed more MP as the G1 and the OM50/2 doesn't deliver such results. The OM50 is good but it doesn't outresolve the G1 sensor.
At f/5.6 the lens is at its best with the G1. F/8 is OK but after that diffraction starts to set in.
Hmm, everything I try again leads me to again buy a FF camera.
Next test will be about longitudinal CA (The OM50/2 won't do as well there, but I'm pretty sure my other 50mm lenses won't either). That will be done when I got an Elmarit-R 60/2.8.
regards, /Jonas
Did not know you already have the Zuiko
.Actually my shot was done with a 5D. I can no longer remember the aperture used, but it was stopped down at least to f5.6, probably at f8.
I think the 50/2 did extremely well in your test with a camera that's 45mp equivalent in FF terms. The f5.6 crop has only minumum CA that might not even be visible on a 20MP camera. At f8 it could be even better.
AH, with a 5D "only". I understand, and after having thought about it I think I guessed more MP as the G1 and the OM50/2 doesn't deliver such results. The OM50 is good but it doesn't outresolve the G1 sensor.
At f/5.6 the lens is at its best with the G1. F/8 is OK but after that diffraction starts to set in.
Hmm, everything I try again leads me to again buy a FF camera.
Next test will be about longitudinal CA (The OM50/2 won't do as well there, but I'm pretty sure my other 50mm lenses won't either). That will be done when I got an Elmarit-R 60/2.8.
regards, /Jonas
Jun 01, 2009 at 12:05 AM