jhinkey
Offline
Upload & Sell: On
|
 Re: Front-End Filter Improves Corner Smearing | |
sebboh wrote:
Fred Miranda wrote:
sebboh wrote:
Fred Miranda wrote:
sebboh wrote:
Fred Miranda wrote:
KlausJH wrote:
DavidBM wrote:
Yes I've never noticed a midzone dip on the FE 1.4/35 at portrait distances focussing on the subject. It' just seems to gently go from pretty sharp on axis to OK at the periphery very evenly. Infinity might be different, as might closer distances focussing centrally (but why would you do that on a non planar image?)
I agree, at portrait distances it is hardly visible. The dip can best be seen at far distances below f/2.8 between 12 to 15mm from the centre. For landscape photography I would stop down to f/5.6 or f/8 anyway and at near distances when I shoot WO it is not a problem either. But there might be situations when this behavior is not wishful.
Comparing it to my Vario-Sonnar 3.4/35-70 which i had to stop down to f/5.6 to get the same quality as the ZM35 at f/2.8 is showing the ZM is not bad at all.
It's there at portrait distances as well. 
Try a more controlled test focusing at center and then move the subject to the mid-zone. There will be a noticeable loss of resolution.
Without the front-lens, this isn't very noticeable but the front-lens exaggerates it. If you use the lens naked on the A7RII and focus on mid-field, it will be sharper!
if you have to do a controlled test to spot it, it's probably not important for photography imo. sounds like it could be field curvature the way you describe it, if its only visible when you focus centrally?
It's not field curvature because the midzone does not improve when focusing on it.
ah, i thought you were saying it was only visible when you focus and recompose, not when you focus directly on the subject.
Fred Miranda wrote:
sebboh, all these lenses are high performance and the mid-zone dip is not that bad.  A controlled test is a way to compare it to other lenses and to itself (when focusing on other zones). For me, it's just a better way of spotting this instead of just checking my portraits and saying it's fine.
it makes sense for comparing lenses, i wouldn't make any decisions as to which lens to keep and which lens to sell though based on things i can't notice in normal pictures though. there are lots of more obvious differences between these lenses.
Do you still have the CV 35/1.7 + 5m lens? If so, I have a question for you.
Without the from lens, if you focus on the extreme edge, does it look 'the same', 'better' or 'worse' compared to using the front-lens on it?
the cv is actually nehemiah's and i believe he was planning to sell it because he prefers the pentax 35/1.8. if he still has it i'll check, but you might have your own filter first.
Hmmm . . . I just saw a Pentax 35/1.8 in the used case this morning for $799. I was wondering why the high price! I guess it must have some merit to it.
|
