caseyhayward
Active member
Ok,
This lens has been knocked around on these boards quite a bit (literally) but a lot of people have questions about it, as did I when I was buying my HPX 500 but could not get the powers that be to upgrade the lens.
So I finally did some basic tests and here are my results along with observations from the field.
Here are three separate shots from the YJ 18x at extreme tele, extreme wide and mid focal lengths:
162 mm
9mm
60mm
These were to test for CA and as you can see, the long end of the lens has quite a bit of the dreaded blue fringe. But the mid and wide end don't seem to suffer the same problem. (note I did see more CA in the 60mm footage on my monitor when I was shooting. Perhaps the tiff compressed out some of the CA?)
I tend to shoot at the extremes of the lens for some reason so these results make me happy and sad.
As for the other problem people suggest this lens has, breathing, here is what I found. For those who don't know what breathing is (I didn't at one time) it is the changing of the frame size when you focus the lens. Good lenses don't breath much, bad ones do. It's almost like you are changing the focal length of the lens (zooming) while you are focusing. With the YJ in an unscientific test I found the breathing to be the equivalent of turning a couple millimeters on the zoom ring. In other words it is quite noticeable. This is a subjective area of lens use though. I am not a huge fan of the overused rack focus and tend to do my focus adjustments outside of what the editor will put on screen. If some of the focusing does make it in it tends to be ok because I work on reality based projects and audiences have come to expect the aesthetics of production in these situations.
If, however you are shooting fiction work that you want to be clean and sharp, this probably isn't the lens for you.
So I would conclude that the YJ 18x9B4 KRS is okay for an SD lens. When it enters the world of HD shooting it is definitely less desirable for most folks. The CA is my biggest problem with the lens. But I will continue to use it because it is better than no lens at all. In fact, I tested it side by side with an older J15x9.5 (broadcast series lens) and the YJ performed better than the broadcast lens in the area of CA.
I hope this helps. I realize that most people considering using this lens are in my shoes, not in a place to afford a better lens. So to them I say this is a decent lens and it will work well if you adjust for it's shortcomings. If you do have the money for an HD lens or a newer high-end SD lens but were toying with the YJ to cut costs I would say don't.
I hope this helps. Feel free to ask questions.
This lens has been knocked around on these boards quite a bit (literally) but a lot of people have questions about it, as did I when I was buying my HPX 500 but could not get the powers that be to upgrade the lens.
So I finally did some basic tests and here are my results along with observations from the field.
Here are three separate shots from the YJ 18x at extreme tele, extreme wide and mid focal lengths:
162 mm
9mm
60mm
These were to test for CA and as you can see, the long end of the lens has quite a bit of the dreaded blue fringe. But the mid and wide end don't seem to suffer the same problem. (note I did see more CA in the 60mm footage on my monitor when I was shooting. Perhaps the tiff compressed out some of the CA?)
I tend to shoot at the extremes of the lens for some reason so these results make me happy and sad.
As for the other problem people suggest this lens has, breathing, here is what I found. For those who don't know what breathing is (I didn't at one time) it is the changing of the frame size when you focus the lens. Good lenses don't breath much, bad ones do. It's almost like you are changing the focal length of the lens (zooming) while you are focusing. With the YJ in an unscientific test I found the breathing to be the equivalent of turning a couple millimeters on the zoom ring. In other words it is quite noticeable. This is a subjective area of lens use though. I am not a huge fan of the overused rack focus and tend to do my focus adjustments outside of what the editor will put on screen. If some of the focusing does make it in it tends to be ok because I work on reality based projects and audiences have come to expect the aesthetics of production in these situations.
If, however you are shooting fiction work that you want to be clean and sharp, this probably isn't the lens for you.
So I would conclude that the YJ 18x9B4 KRS is okay for an SD lens. When it enters the world of HD shooting it is definitely less desirable for most folks. The CA is my biggest problem with the lens. But I will continue to use it because it is better than no lens at all. In fact, I tested it side by side with an older J15x9.5 (broadcast series lens) and the YJ performed better than the broadcast lens in the area of CA.
I hope this helps. I realize that most people considering using this lens are in my shoes, not in a place to afford a better lens. So to them I say this is a decent lens and it will work well if you adjust for it's shortcomings. If you do have the money for an HD lens or a newer high-end SD lens but were toying with the YJ to cut costs I would say don't.
I hope this helps. Feel free to ask questions.
Last edited:
