Amazing!
Wouldn't you have, accidentally, some shots with that Tessar wide open with OOF highlights? I'm curious how that version of the Tessar renders that kind of background (my experience is with an old 50/2.8 in M42 mount).
haavee wrote:
Amazing!
Wouldn't you have, accidentally, some shots with that Tessar wide open with OOF highlights? I'm curious how that version of the Tessar renders that kind of background (my experience is with an old 50/2.8 in M42 mount).
cheers,
h.
Sure, I'll do that for you later tonight or tomorrow night. But I think it should be known that this lens isn't that great at 2.8 "wide open" nor stopped all the way down at f/22. Here, check out this animation; Look at the windshield vertical stabilizer bar (focus point) and notice the softness at f/2.8. Also notice how the colors and micro-contrast go all to crap at f/22. So I try to avoid those stops. In between 2.8 and 4.0 (at about 3.4) it's just fine though - same as it is at f/4.0. But whatever, this lens usually sells for under $200 ($80 ~ $175) so it's relevant I guess. Here's that anim:
The animation is fun to watch and illustrative. From f/16 you see the diffraction kicking in (if I am correct). Actually I'm somewhat surprised at the (maybe exaggerated) softness even past f/8. The f/16 and f/22 stops I rarely use on any lens ... I have not yet had a lens which produces good images at those settings.
My M42 Tessar can be pretty sharp at f/2.8 - I think it's more related to focussingdistance than anything else. I think I've read in the ZF/ZE/ZM thread (or any of the other Zeiss related threads) that indeed lensperformance may be quite different between close-up or at infinity.
The animation is fun to watch and illustrative. From f/16 you see the diffraction kicking in (if I am correct).
Yeah, that's right. The aperture blades get in the way, cause too much disruption, and the disrupted waves start distorting and canceling what would otherwise be a clean image waves.
What can't light act as particles when you want it too. Gerrr. :P
Actually I'm somewhat surprised at the (maybe exaggerated) softness even past f/8. The f/16 and f/22 stops I rarely use on any lens ... I have not yet had a lens which produces good images at those settings.
I don't see any in the F8 sample. I can barely notice a tad at f/16 - but hat's easily recovered in PP. At f/22 it's pretty bad tho. I have a few lenses where it's pristine from f/2 al the way through to f/32 or f/22. So it's not impossible. If I recall, this Tessar was designed in the 50's even tho they were still manufactured up until recently (or maybe even still are ?). 70's and later designs are typically better.
Keep in mind that the anim is composed of unprocessed 100% crops tho. Nada... from RAW straight to dithered 256 color GIF frames. So according to HIS mathematics this means you have to sit 1.5 meters from the screen in order to not notice any of the low color dithering at typical LCD dot pitches.
Here's what the entire frame looks like processed and scaled to 16%:
My M42 Tessar can be pretty sharp at f/2.8 - I think it's more related to focussingdistance than anything else. I think I've read in the ZF/ZE/ZM thread (or any of the other Zeiss related threads) that indeed lensperformance may be quite different between close-up or at infinity.
Yeah, I've read such things as well. It's probably true. I can't remember ever trying to test it tho. It makes sense - the way internal focus groups work. So I don't doubt it.
Distagon 2,8/28mm MM 81xx
I had 2 copies of AEJ and this MM is much much much better in terms of sharpness, 3d and vignietting. AEJ wasn`t better than my oly 28/2.8 until f/5.6(corners). MM is better wo than oly at any aperture...close focusing is way better than ae version. Love it!
Bifurcator! Thanks a lot for such a prompt service! Do you do childrens parties too?
The OOF highlights render really very nicely! Yummy. Now I have to rethink my "which tessar to get" strategy once more. (there's also the 12-blade chrome versions ... though I hardly see anyone posting images shot with those, which could mean something). WIkipedia places the (first) design of the tessar in 1902 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tessar) ... so it goes way back!
Well, as far as diffraction, light, waves, particles etc - I have a physics background so no stranger to those concepts But when it comes to putting theory to practice you're never quite sure when certain physical circumstances trigger observable effects like this diffraction. (theory has it that even when you shoot wide open there's diffraction - only there's other reasons why you don't see it ).
Oh ah the GIF frames were 1:1 taken from RAW ... well that's why I said "seems soft" - when you put up the processed & scaled image I didn't see no softness, great! At which aperture was that shot btw? Wide open?
thanks again bifurcator!
Piotr: very nices images! #4 is my fav of this series. wow.
Piotr_P: I absolutely love what you've done with the 1,4/85 Planar (especially the 2nd in the series, very lush).
Here are some shots with my 50/1.7. I'm finding that this lens over the Canon allows for a nice processing latitude, bringing out tones and detail that my Canon 50/1.4 never allowed at larger apertures. Its relatively sharp wide open (as its known for being).
haavee wrote:
Bifurcator! Thanks a lot for such a prompt service! Do you do childrens parties too?
Only if there's a sexy mommy involved!
The OOF highlights render really very nicely! Yummy. Now I have to rethink my "which tessar to get" strategy once more. (there's also the 12-blade chrome versions ... though I hardly see anyone posting images shot with those, which could mean something). WIkipedia places the (first) design of the tessar in 1902 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tessar) ... so it goes way back!
Yeah, probably true. I think I remember reading that the 45mm 2.8 here was designed first in the 50's tho.
Oh ah the GIF frames were 1:1 taken from RAW ... well that's why I said "seems soft" - when you put up the processed & scaled image I didn't see no softness, great! At which aperture was that shot btw? Wide open?
No that was the 5.6 sample but it wouldn't matter at that size. I keep repeating myself here saying that no one can tell anything at all from scaled images like typically are posted here. I can use the crappiest lens I have and match the IQ of any lens in existence at these sizes after a little PP - and no one will know the difference. I guess everyone already knows it but I say it anyway.
thanks again bifurcator!
Piotr: very nices images! #4 is my fav of this series. wow.
cheers,
h.
NP, you're welcome. Here's a few more from the same lens:
Bifurcator wrote:
Only if there's a sexy mommy involved!
Oh okay. You're one of *those* . Can't blame you, really, but unfortunately it isn't so.
No that was the 5.6 sample but it wouldn't matter at that size. I keep repeating myself here saying that no one can tell anything at all from scaled images like typically are posted here. I can use the crappiest lens I have and match the IQ of any lens in existence at these sizes after a little PP - and no one will know the difference. I guess everyone already knows it but I say it anyway.
Hmmmm I thought that if the lens under scrutiny has no real sharpness or strong points of its own it'd be mighty difficult to actually PP these features back into the image. I tried. But then again it would most likely be my PP skills - rather lack thereof - that are to blame.
haavee wrote:
Oh okay. You're one of *those* . Can't blame you, really, but unfortunately it isn't so.
I don't think I'm classifiable in such simple terms.
Hmmmm I thought that if the lens under scrutiny has no real sharpness or strong points of its own it'd be mighty difficult to actually PP these features back into the image. I tried. But then again it would most likely be my PP skills - rather lack thereof - that are to blame.
Well, you can think about it mathematically. At 12% scaling a 9 pixel think detail line becomes only one pixel wide. A 3 to 5 pixel flare halo disappears completely - especially in combination with a little sharpening prior to the scale operation. A 4 or 5 pixel detail line becomes sub-pixel micro-detail and textures of about the same granularity (5 or 6 pixel patterns) become micro-contrast detail. This depends somewhat on the scaling algorithm used but this is generally the case.
tonik23 wrote:
I find with mine that I need to wait about half a second after adjusting the focus ring if I am sending it quickly to a new setting for the glass inside to catch up. There is no slop or hysteresis, but it is easy to overshoot focus just a hair because of this if i am too impatient. When I take it a bit slower, it is sharp as a tack wide open unless I goof. The lens is never at fault.
Jim
Here's maybe a 220 degree pano done with a Contax 35 PC at f/11. I think full resolution is about 2/3 zoomed in or slightly more. I have to post the link to Gigapan, as you can't fully appreciate it unless you get near full resolution:
Here's that anim:
I have a few lenses where it's pristine from f/2 al the way through to f/32 or f/22. So it's not impossible. If I recall, this Tessar was designed in the 50's even tho they were still manufactured up until recently (or maybe even still are ?). 70's and later designs are typically better.
