Edge to Edge Sharpness on LE

I would have to imagine it would be the GG - otherwise would you have change the HVX zoom settings for each lens?
And how would you deal with ensuring 35mm FOV on a 35mm zoom lens?

But like I said - just wanting to make sure.

EDITED TO ADD:
Unless you meant the exit pupil of the taking lens, in which case I could see that - measuring from the mount essentially.
GG still seems to make more sense to me for some reason.
 
Luis Caffesse said:
I would have to imagine it would be the GG - otherwise would you have change the HVX zoom settings for each lens?
And how would you deal with ensuring 35mm FOV on a 35mm zoom lens?

But like I said - just wanting to make sure.
Click to expand...

Well, because no matter what you would be setup for 35mm FOV with each lens. It wouldn't change for each lens, it's the same FOV throughout. So, if you're setup for a 35mm, you're setup for every other lens. Same with the 50mm.

The Taking lens is what gives you the image, the GG is just netting it. It shouldn't have anything to do with FOV outside of how large or small you can get it by zooming the lens out on the HVX.

I might be wrong.
 
Kholi said:
The Taking lens is what gives you the image, the GG is just netting it. It shouldn't have anything to do with FOV outside of how large or small you can get it by zooming the lens out on the HVX.

I might be wrong.
Click to expand...

Well - the position of the focal plane definitely plays a part in FOV.
Move it further back, and you've essentially increased your focal length, move it closer and you've shortened it.

Granted, a moot point in the case of adapters as we wouldn't be moving the GG or the lens mount anywhere.

But still - seeing as it's a couple of inches from the GG to the lens mount, seems like we should try to get a definitive answer as to where to measure from in order to ensure 35mm frame size.
 
Kholi,
I will email you some charts. I don't know why you guys find it hard to find them. I went on the web first day I got my adapter and found pdf's of charts. They were also posted on the Redrock site at least and Ryan Walters gave me another one. No mystery - take the pdf to Kinko's. Anyone else who wants them I'll send.

Re 35mm FOV. I've argued with Barry about this. I disagree strongly that it matters a to anyone accept some guy who who has a 35mm adapter and wants to think he's emulated film.

When you see a vistavision film do you think - Oh that 's not 35mm look? No you watch the movie. Same re cinemascope or any other format. Formats wre determined by economics not aesthetics. I agree with you about DOF - that many people using adapters shoot with too low a DOF, but image size is just one part of that equation. That issue is DOF not image size.

The advantages of full SLR size are the ability to get a wide angle image without having to buy absurdly expensive lenses, lower DOF and theoretically better resolution because you are shooting a wider target with the full lens. I don't know if our little systems can make use of the greater resolution but in theory it should be there.

Brian at Redrock told me he felt he had seen that. He felt it was a trade off between 35mm cine Zeiss lenses that were sharper vs. Nikon lenses that were poorer optically but had the advantage of the larger target.

My guess is that a sharp full frame Nikon zoom @ 2.8 might have similar DOF and wider available FOV's compared to a bunch of 35mm Zeiss Superspeeds @ 1.6 for about $25,000 less investment. I'm not knocking the Zeiss though. If I could afford them though I wouldn't be shooting with an HVX. I just shot a spot with them on HDCam and they were wonderful.

Last part of that argument is that the cool thing about Flip optics is the ability to zoom in on the screen with a single lens. This renders the 35mm cine frame completely irrelevant.

BTW - I know argue with you alot, but I thought the tests you did with different rear element sizes was very cool and a useful new piece of information. Thanks. I think Dennis has talked about that as well.
- Lenny Levy
 
Lenilenapi said:
Kholi,
I will email you some charts. I don't know why you guys find it hard to find them. I went on the web first day I got my adapter and found pdf's of charts. They were also posted on the Redrock site at least and Ryan Walters gave me another one. No mystery - take the pdf to Kinko's. Anyone else who wants them I'll send.

Re 35mm FOV. I've argued with Barry about this. I disagree strongly that it matters a to anyone accept some guy who who has a 35mm adapter and wants to think he's emulated film.

When you see a vistavision film do you think - Oh that 's not 35mm look? No you watch the movie. Same re cinemascope or any other format. Formats wre determined by economics not aesthetics. I agree with you about DOF - that many people using adapters shoot with too low a DOF, but image size is just one part of that equation. That issue is DOF not image size.

The advantages of full SLR size are the ability to get a wide angle image without having to buy absurdly expensive lenses, lower DOF and theoretically better resolution because you are shooting a wider target with the full lens. I don't know if our little systems can make use of the greater resolution but in theory it should be there.

Brian at Redrock told me he felt he had seen that. He felt it was a trade off between 35mm cine Zeiss lenses that were sharper vs. Nikon lenses that were poorer optically but had the advantage of the larger target.

My guess is that a sharp full frame Nikon zoom @ 2.8 might have similar DOF and wider available FOV's compared to a bunch of 35mm Zeiss Superspeeds @ 1.6 for about $25,000 less investment. I'm not knocking the Zeiss though. If I could afford them though I wouldn't be shooting with an HVX. I just shot a spot with them on HDCam and they were wonderful.

Last part of that argument is that the cool thing about Flip optics is the ability to zoom in on the screen with a single lens. This renders the 35mm cine frame completely irrelevant.

BTW - I know argue with you alot, but I thought the tests you did with different rear element sizes was very cool and a useful new piece of information. Thanks. I think Dennis has talked about that as well.
- Lenny Levy
Click to expand...

Nothing to disagree with here. My main reason for sticking with 35mm FOV is because I've noticed since I've adjusted I'm much more pleased with the results I'm getting. But, there are also other ways to work around it. Maybe it's best to keep both in mind and use whatever you can when you can.

I'm DEFINITELY one to panhandle the zoom ability of the LetusEX and it's cool that the others can do it now. It's a VERY useful side-effect (or whatever anyone wants to call it.) Although you're simply cropping the image, it's definitely opening up another realm of freedom when usin' these Frankenstein Contraptions.

I still have to post up the video and images of the rear elements but I do want to know if anyone else has thoughts on rear element size and relevance to 35mm Adapters? What did Dennis have to say about it?

Oh and thanks for the resolution charts. Now I can test the rear element thing betters.
 
Last edited:
Dennis has spent an enormous amount of time studying which lenses vignette (light level and sharpness) under what circumstances and how he can design his diffusing elements to compensate. I don't know about all of what he learned and can't testify as to whether all his suggested diffusers work as described because I haven't tried them. I only know that he described stuff like this to me almost a year ago in long phone conversations.
Dennis's conversations - He is very open to talking about technical stuff - first hipped me to some of the bizarre features of these adapters - different DOF's, nonlinear response, different vignetting with different lenses and different video cameras etc.

I'm not saying that as an endorsement of the Brevis, just to the fact that these issues have been around for a long time, and Dennis can really get talking. I learned alot from him. I imagine that Hienle , Wayne and Brian can do the same thing.

Incidently I have an old crappy 35-135 f3.5 Tamron with a smaller rear element and which uses a universal type adapter to fit my Nikon. That thing vignettes like crazy and was totally unusable on any adapter. Like looking through a gun barrel. I found that very strange over a year ago, as it worked fine on my Nikon.

Lenny Levy.
BTW I just mount the Kinko printouts on a show card with clips or tape them on. I ought to mount it better with spray or something but haven't bothered.
 
Ted Spencer said:
A curious thing about these chart shots is that the bare HVX shows the most edge softness in the upper left corner but the HVX+LEX shot is softest in the lower right. It suggests that the difference is even greater than it appears, since the HVX starts with a lower right "advantage" and ends up (+LEX) with a lower right "disadvantage".

IIRC, I also noticed worse right edge softness than left in most of the problematic LEX clips and grabs I 've seen.
Click to expand...

My apologies I forgot to mention that I didn't bother flipping the SG image in post, hence the inverse results of the LE.
 
Luis Caffesse said:
Just curious - 2 feet as measured from what?
I assume it's from the focal plane (the GG in this case) - right?

Just want to make sure.
Click to expand...

Measure from the ground glass with adaptors, from the film plane for film, from the chip on video, etc. In short, you measure from where the image is formed.
 
RE: 35mm Cine FOV.

I actually like the option of going with a bigger target a la Vista Vision. It's possible to go wider on the GG than cine 35 with my SG but with my LE any wider than 35 cine I begin to run into vignetting issues just outside 35 cine.
 
Tim Naylor said:
My apologies I forgot to mention that I didn't bother flipping the SG image in post, hence the inverse results of the LE.
Click to expand...

The images I'm referring to were the ones early in the thread that you downloaded from Ryan Walters' site. Image flipping wasn't a factor, so the corner focus disparity would appear to be relevant.

Regarding that, do you know of a way to access other images from his review/blog? I couldn't find any links, and I'd love to get a hi-rez look at some of the others, especially his "Great Piece Of Glass" lens test which involved Nikon, Zeiss, LEX and HVX. My current plan is to start my LEX kit with a new Zeiss 50mm lens like the one he tested, so its performance versus the Nikon would be most interesting.
 
Last edited:
Ted,

When I saw Ryan's glass comparison I was frankly uncertain whether something had gone wrong on the Nikon shot. It just didn't jive with my own tests at all. I beleive he was testing against Zeiss super speeds wasn't he?
I would expect them to look better than the Nikon's, but the Nikon just looked far worse than any screen shots I ever took. Could be a bad lens or just have gotten a hair off on his back-focus. I don't know, but something looked off to me.
Again I can't recall for sure but I don't think he was comparing the new Zeiss Nikon with a Nikkor, but rather was comparing the super speed cine lens. The Zeiss Nikon's are not in a class with the cine super speeds which are incredible lenses and apprpriately expensive ( $4-5000@)
Most tests I've read have been somewhat inconclusive about the Zeiss Nikkors. Some people rave about them, but on the still websites I've read a number of reviews that said they were no better than the old Nikkor glass and some people found them worse.

Lenny Levy
 
The Zeiss lens apparently was the 50mm f/1.4 ZF Planar T Manual Focus I plan to buy form B&H for $492:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/441695-REG/Zeiss_1405174_50mm_f_1_4_ZF_Manual.html

From Ryan's article:

"The lenses used in this test are as follows: a used Nikon 50mm f1.8 ($100); a new Zeiss ZF 50mm T1.4 ($550); and the RED 18mm - 50mm Zoom T3 (f2.8) set at 50mm ($6500)"

Only the RED was a Cinema lens.

I'd certainly be interested in reading any other reviews of the Zeiss you might point me to. Based on Ryan's test, it pretty much dusted the Nikon, which was admittedly old, and perhaps not performing up to snuff.

Regardless, I'd love to see all the grabs at full rez since for the most part the article's shots are so tiny as to be nearly useless.
 
Ted Spencer said:
The Zeiss lens apparently was the 50mm f/1.4 ZF Planar T Manual Focus I plan to buy form B&H for $492:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/441695-REG/Zeiss_1405174_50mm_f_1_4_ZF_Manual.html

From Ryan's article:

"The lenses used in this test are as follows: a used Nikon 50mm f1.8 ($100); a new Zeiss ZF 50mm T1.4 ($550); and the RED 18mm - 50mm Zoom T3 (f2.8) set at 50mm ($6500)"

Only the RED was a Cinema lens.

I'd certainly be interested in reading any other reviews of the Zeiss you might point me to. Based on Ryan's test, it pretty much dusted the Nikon, which was admittedly old, and perhaps not performing up to snuff.

Regardless, I'd love to see all the grabs at full rez since for the most part the article's shots are so tiny as to be nearly useless.
Click to expand...

Checkout http://www.photozone.de/
It has some very objective reviews on glass using MTF charts to track resolution. The zeiss, voightlander and nikon 2.8 zooms seem to be the sharpest still glass out there. The Nikon primes score about 10 percent less sharp. Still quite excellent. That being said, I still think Ryan's Nikkor glass was a bum piece of glass. The difference should be about as drastic as the difference between the tests we did with my primes and Kwan's zooms. Noticeable but not drastic. As soon as Adorama has it in stock, I'm putting out for the Voightlander 58mm 1.4. It exceeds the Zeiss on a few levels, all metal and cheaper buy a hundred bucks. Also, 58mm is a great length.
 
About the Nikon 50mm F1.2

I own that lens - it is pretty sharp.

Ken Rockwell says:

"[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The photographic reason to get a Nikon 50mm f/1.2 is because it's the sharpest Nikon 50mm lens in production when used at f/2. It's only a half-stop faster than f/1.4, so I wouldn't worry about wide-open speed. The f/1.2 performs about the same as the f/1.4 lenses when used at f/1.4, also no big deal."[/FONT]
 
Tim Naylor said:
Checkout http://www.photozone.de/
It has some very objective reviews on glass using MTF charts to track resolution. The zeiss, voightlander and nikon 2.8 zooms seem to be the sharpest still glass out there. The Nikon primes score about 10 percent less sharp. Still quite excellent. That being said, I still think Ryan's Nikkor glass was a bum piece of glass. The difference should be about as drastic as the difference between the tests we did with my primes and Kwan's zooms. Noticeable but not drastic. As soon as Adorama has it in stock, I'm putting out for the Voightlander 58mm 1.4. It exceeds the Zeiss on a few levels, all metal and cheaper buy a hundred bucks. Also, 58mm is a great length.
Click to expand...

I read the reviews - looks like a great lens at a great price. Thanks for the link.

The only area that the Zeiss significantly exceeded the Voigtlander was in edge sharpness at the widest apertures. That does give me pause just a little, since 35mm adapters and the HVX itself already gobble light, and edge softness is clearly a big issue with them as well. So edge resolution at wide apertures could turn out to be disproportionately important. Otherwise the Voigtlander, like you said, mostly exceeded the Zeiss in the other categories and costs $113 less. Pretty cool.

I haven't got my LEX yet (and I'm hoping I don't until it get its recently rumored improvements), but when I do, if you've got the Voigtlander, maybe I'll pick up the Zeiss from B&H and we can compare. They normally allow returns for a refund up to a week later (hopefully that policy includes lenses) so if the Voigtlander wins, I could get it instead.

I imagine you're about as tired of all these gear "shootouts" as anyone could be, but if you're game it might be worth doing.
 
I'm looking into getting the 58mm Voigtlander as well, specifically because of the large elements. I would like to know how much larger, however, they are in comparison to the 50mm 1.4 Nikon.
 
My Letus is goin out for repairs so no results yet. But I did wanna come back to this thread after re-watchin IanD's Lomo tests:

The wides in his shots exhibit nothing even close to the edge softness I saw with the Zeiss lenses. In fact, I don't even see edge softness in IanD's wides, but I'm sure someone could point it out to me.

It also wasn't as drastic as the res charts that Tim posted up, although I am in no way doubting what he's seeing because as I said, I saw it on set and it made me kinda sick to my tummy.

I'm gonna get ahold of some Lomo lenses within the next week, but as soon as I get my Letus back I will still be tryin' my own unit and lenses to see about the edge sharpness.
 
yeah, my edge to edge tests didnt look as bad as his either. i just noticed a slight softening on one side near the edge.
 
Ted Spencer said:
The only area that the Zeiss significantly exceeded the Voigtlander was in edge sharpness at the widest apertures. That does give me pause just a little, since 35mm adapters and the HVX itself already gobble light, and edge softness is clearly a big issue with them as well. So edge resolution at wide apertures could turn out to be disproportionately important. Otherwise the Voigtlander, like you said, mostly exceeded the Zeiss in the other categories and costs $113 less. Pretty cool.
Click to expand...

This site has info on both the Zeiss Planar and the Voigtlander Nokton. According to the lab tests here, the Voigtlander is sharper both at the edges and in the center.

http://slrlensreview.com/content/view/376/51/

http://slrlensreview.com/content/view/432/132/

I should be getting my Nokton early next week so I'll be giving it a whirl on the LEX soon enough...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top