Edge to Edge Sharpness on LE
- Thread starter Tim Naylor
- Start date
Ted Spencer
Veteran
Thanks for the links (btw, they're both for the Zeiss, but I found the Voigtlander one as well).
Here's what I find *really* interesting though:
In spite of the fact that the lab test bars/numbers do indeed indicate that the Voigtlander is sharper at the edges, the focus chart images in the reviews clearly show the opposite, even more so if you click on them for the higher rez versions. In those, the Zeiss is *decidedly* sharper at the edges at f1.4 while being pretty comparable at the center.
Don't know how much weight to put on that, but it does seem to contradict the instrumented tests.
Notable also is the fact that the chart shot's FOV is wider, at least height-wise, with the longer lens (Voigtlander 58mm) than with the shorter (Zeiss 50mm). Note the lowest figures in the number scales along the charts' left edges. It suggests that test circumstances are not especially well matched up (which is understandable given that they were separate reviews), but I don't think it makes sense that that would explain the resolution disparity. Someone will correct me on that if I'm wrong, I'm sure.
Thoughts, anyone?
Last edited:
Ted Spencer
Veteran
Thanks Jamal. They do look good!
Leo Versola
Well-known member
Corrected the link in my post.
Yeah, that does look interesting but I didn't base the decision to get one on those test results only. I've read a number other posts on other boards favorably comparing the Voigtlander to the Zeiss so I thought I'd give one a shot; hopefully I will get a tack a$$ sharp copy
.
Yeah, that does look interesting but I didn't base the decision to get one on those test results only. I've read a number other posts on other boards favorably comparing the Voigtlander to the Zeiss so I thought I'd give one a shot; hopefully I will get a tack a$$ sharp copy
.
Ted Spencer
Veteran
Pretty tough to make heads or tails of it when each review contradicts the last, huh? Even tougher when there are contradictions *within* reviews...
:badputer:
:badputer:
Tim Naylor
Veteran
Everything I read on the Voight is that it's E2E isn't great wide open and only perks up once you get past a 2.0. That being said, I'm actually leaning towards the Zeiss now as it's wide open E 2 E seems to be higher. The 50mm 2.0 Macro planar however seems to kick ass in all respects with superior rez at a 2.0. It's rez tests better than the Zeiss 1.4 at a 2.0. But its price is through the roof too.
The last lens to give serious consideration is the ZF 35mm 2.0. It's off the charts rez chart wise. No other manufacturer can bask in its shadow.
The last lens to give serious consideration is the ZF 35mm 2.0. It's off the charts rez chart wise. No other manufacturer can bask in its shadow.
Tim,
Just get the 35mm zeiss and the 50mm 1.4 zeiss (unless you really need the macro). They are both unbelievably sharp, well built and the focus ring feels like a movie lens.
The 28mm is also a great lens but is fairly slow at 2.8 and has a small rear element which leads to vignetting on the letus. Thinking of replacing it with something faster - still haven't figured out what though. It does have to cut with the zeiss.
regards,
Shane.
Ted Spencer
Veteran
This one:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/524035-REG/Zeiss_1486_409_Wide_Angle_28mm_f_2.html
Is f2. Not sure about the rear element. I had planned on getting it in addition to the 50mm 1.4. I'll check its rear end before I do : )
Luis Caffesse
Admin
Thanks for that clarification, Tim.
I figured as much but just wanted to make sure.
Much appreciated.
Dammit, how'd I miss that one? Did the 28/2 come out recently?
Now if they make an 18mm/2 I'd get that.
Shane.
I'm going to be checking the rear element theory very soon. Waiting for my Letus to come back and some new lenses.
Willis Chung
DVXuser Sponsor
anybody have a theory on 25mm lenses regarding vignette? considering 28mm already has that sort of problem.
Luis Caffesse
Admin
If I understand correctly Willis, it's not simply an issue of the focal length, but the theory is that the size of the rear element is a factor in the level of vignetting. So it may not be so easy as asking 'how much does a 25mm vignette' - but instead having to look at specific models of 25mm lenses.
Luis has it right. It's just a theory/thought, though. I would've done more testin' but had to send my unit back. As soon as it comes back I should also have my hands on some more glass to really try this out. I actually hope it has nothing to do with the rear elements, however, because that would really be a pain in the butt.
=P
Arrik
Well-known member
It's been out, but you may have confused it with the 25/2.8. I have the 25 and yes, vignetting and edge softness are a problem.
I'm picking up a 35/2 tomorrow. Cant wait.
Easom Aerospace
Active member
Properly working HVX adapter.
Properly working HVX adapter.
Here is a chart set from various tests. The last image is from my 8 month adapter fixation. I may end up calling it the 'FIXATION' Maybe not. I designed it to hold up to Motion Picture standards and I'm pleased with the results. Special thanks to all who have scrutinized, praised, offered advice and believed in my work. Especially Frank from the Saturday Evening Post Production Company in Germany. Without his patience and faith in this project for the HVX I would still be building toy adapters... I don't have any available at this time exept 1 for him. The future of this adapter looks very bright and I hope to announce a long awaited production run. The HVX and Lens were both set to f4.0 Cory Thanks Luis and Ryan for shooting some tests and putting them out there for all to sse and for for me to plagiarize for this comparison.....
Comparing apples and Oranges.... The Letus Extreme is a great unit. The unit i've designed does not utilize a flip. Less Glass, Less light loss, less distortion.... It was also designed specifically for the HVX lens set so it won't work properly with all cameras. It does work as it should with the HVX. And it looks realy cool!
This is a link to the full resolution composite of the charts.......
http://www.mediafire.com/imageview.php?quickkey=91xfldmzml3&thumb=4
You will get a small meduim or large preview but will have to click the file download button to get full image.......
Properly working HVX adapter.
Here is a chart set from various tests. The last image is from my 8 month adapter fixation. I may end up calling it the 'FIXATION' Maybe not. I designed it to hold up to Motion Picture standards and I'm pleased with the results. Special thanks to all who have scrutinized, praised, offered advice and believed in my work. Especially Frank from the Saturday Evening Post Production Company in Germany. Without his patience and faith in this project for the HVX I would still be building toy adapters... I don't have any available at this time exept 1 for him. The future of this adapter looks very bright and I hope to announce a long awaited production run. The HVX and Lens were both set to f4.0 Cory Thanks Luis and Ryan for shooting some tests and putting them out there for all to sse and for for me to plagiarize for this comparison.....
Comparing apples and Oranges.... The Letus Extreme is a great unit. The unit i've designed does not utilize a flip. Less Glass, Less light loss, less distortion.... It was also designed specifically for the HVX lens set so it won't work properly with all cameras. It does work as it should with the HVX. And it looks realy cool!
This is a link to the full resolution composite of the charts.......
http://www.mediafire.com/imageview.php?quickkey=91xfldmzml3&thumb=4
You will get a small meduim or large preview but will have to click the file download button to get full image.......
Attachments
Send me one... i'll test it for you. Canon FD mount or Nikon is good.
Ted Spencer
Veteran
First of all, my sincere congratulations for your hard work so far. I'm sure it was a huge effort.
But in fairness to the two Letus Extreme images you show in your link, the taking lens in both cases was wide open, where for your adapter it was at f4. That by itself could go a long way toward accounting for the difference in edge sharpness.
Luis Caffesse posted a pretty nice looking LEX chart grab with a Nikon at f2.8 and the HVX at 5.6 here:
http://www.pitchproductions.com/pics/F28-56.tif
His image is posted at a lower resolution than the one from your adapter, which could be a factor, but when I view them side by side at similar sizes, Luis's grab is actually a tad sharper to my eye. I think it's not unreasonable to theorize that had he shot with the taking lens at f4 and the camera at f4 as you did that it would be even more so.
Most of these independently generated adapter chart shots (by non-manufacturers) seem to pretty much be "torture test" types - lenses set to their *least* favorable edge-rez setting to show what happens when they're pushed hard. It's certainly the case with the ones you posted as comparisons. By going f4/f4 on yours though, it may have cast it in a more favorable light.
I'd respectfully suggest that you reshoot the chart with the taking lens at f1.4, or at most 1.8 so there's a bit more of a level playing field.
My $.02
Last edited:
Luis Caffesse
Admin
Interesting -
Ted has some great points though, I was about to post almost the exact same thing.
If that grab that I shot is the first one I posted (shot with the Zeiss 50mm at 1.4) then it shouldn't be considered at all - it was found that the backfocus was in fact off, and regardless of that Ted's point is valid in that we should be comparing similar Fstops on the taking lens. The Zeiss that I used is significantly sharper at f4 than it is wide open at f1.4
I wasn't going to post any more res charts, because I was concerned there were issues with the test...but since it's come up here is one more that I shot recently:
Zeiss 50mm Lens @f5.6 / HVX@f4.8
I think you'll notice this one is much sharper than the previous chart where the taking lens was set to f1.4
BUT - to really compare apples to apples we would have to have the same camera with the same lens shooting the same chart in the same lighting scenario - making the only variable the adapter.
Comparing these charts is virtually meaningless as there is no indication of camera settings (on top of the obvious Fstop differences). Both of those factors could significantly alter the perceived sharpness of an image.
Ted has some great points though, I was about to post almost the exact same thing.
If that grab that I shot is the first one I posted (shot with the Zeiss 50mm at 1.4) then it shouldn't be considered at all - it was found that the backfocus was in fact off, and regardless of that Ted's point is valid in that we should be comparing similar Fstops on the taking lens. The Zeiss that I used is significantly sharper at f4 than it is wide open at f1.4
I wasn't going to post any more res charts, because I was concerned there were issues with the test...but since it's come up here is one more that I shot recently:
Zeiss 50mm Lens @f5.6 / HVX@f4.8
I think you'll notice this one is much sharper than the previous chart where the taking lens was set to f1.4
BUT - to really compare apples to apples we would have to have the same camera with the same lens shooting the same chart in the same lighting scenario - making the only variable the adapter.
Comparing these charts is virtually meaningless as there is no indication of camera settings (on top of the obvious Fstop differences). Both of those factors could significantly alter the perceived sharpness of an image.