Printing Nikkor 105 and Zeiss S-Planar 74 mm tested

Have questions about the equipment used for macro- or micro- photography? Post those questions in this forum.

Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau

enricosavazzi
Posts: 1474
Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2009 2:41 pm
Location: Västerås, Sweden
Contact:

Printing Nikkor 105 and Zeiss S-Planar 74 mm tested

Post by enricosavazzi »

I used some vacation time to test a couple of lenses on Micro 4/3:

Printing Nikkor 105 mm f/2.8. Proved its worth once more at 1x, even on Micro 4/3 and even in 50 Mpixel enhanced resolution mode. Thanks again to Christian (member typestar) for providing this lens.
http://savazzi.net/photography/printing ... 105mm.html

Zeiss S-Planar 74 mm. Not as bad as I remembered in terms of low contrast.
http://savazzi.net/photography/zeiss_s-planar74.html
--ES

Lou Jost
Posts: 5943
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2015 7:03 am
Location: Ecuador
Contact:

Post by Lou Jost »

Numerous examples of its capabilities are available online, see for example the extensive test on coinimaging.com. The general consensus is that you cannot go wrong with this lens at magnifications around 1x and sensor size up to full frame. On the other hand, the purpose of this page is to test the lens on Micro 4/3, and I am not aware of any previous extensive test on this format.
I've tested this lens on the PEN F in high-res mode with good results. I used the very same copy of the PN105A that was tested at coinimaging.com. I compared extension versus teleconverters for achieving 1.4x. My results are quite different than yours; mine clearly favored the TC. Because of the large image circle I think you should have used a FF teleconverter instead of the MFT teleconverter; I suspect your results would then agree with mine:

http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... ccfb6ce6ba

I also tested the Metabones Speedbooster and found it to be better than extension. I do not have an explanation for why your results are different from mine in this case. It is possible that there was slight corner vignetting and I didn't notice it. Will check the originals. But sharpness is definitely slightly better using the Speedbooster.

enricosavazzi
Posts: 1474
Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2009 2:41 pm
Location: Västerås, Sweden
Contact:

Post by enricosavazzi »

Interesting, I must have forgotten your tests.

This is what I get with the SpeedBooster (I may have done a little post-processing, but the vignetting is as is). Reduced frame:
Image

I also got some transversal CA with the SpeedBooster, here at or near a corner, 1:1 pixel crop:
Image

I cannot find the tests with FL multiplier at the moment, but IQ was worse at the center than by extending the lens. I will post if I find them.

PS - I did not find the preliminary test images, but made new ones and added them to the web page.
Last edited by enricosavazzi on Sat Dec 30, 2017 4:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
--ES

Lou Jost
Posts: 5943
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2015 7:03 am
Location: Ecuador
Contact:

Post by Lou Jost »

In my tests, there was a very significant improvement when using a FF teleconverter vs extension. The center showed very little difference but the corners showed large differences.

Regarding the Speedbooster vignetting, I see no detectable vignetting in my Speedbooster images now that I am reviewing them again. Using the eyedropper in Photoshop and taking a 50x50 sample of the high-res 50Mp image, I do measure a very slight drop in intensity in the corner of my test image where there was black paper, from (45,45,46) in the extreme corner to (47,47, 48) on the middle of the short edge. This is not perceptible. Of course, black paper is not the best target for seeing vignetting!!! However, in the corner that has a butterfly wing, there is also no perceptible vignetting.

Here is the photo again.
Image

typestar
Posts: 199
Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2009 1:45 am
Location: Austria

Re: Printing Nikkor 105 and Zeiss S-Planar 74 mm tested

Post by typestar »

enricosavazzi wrote:I used some vacation time to test ...
Printing Nikkor 105 mm f/2.8. Proved its worth once more at 1x, even on Micro 4/3 and even in 50 Mpixel enhanced resolution mode.
Thanks again to Christian (member typestar) for providing this lens. ...
Dear Enrico, I am glad to see, that the PN 105 (and the custom adapter provided) makes you happy and achieves this great results. It is good to know this famous lens is in such professional hands!

All the best for your work:

Christian

Chris S.
Site Admin
Posts: 4042
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 9:55 pm
Location: Ohio, USA

Post by Chris S. »

Enrico,

As always, marvelously conducted and presented tests. :smt023
. . . the older, non-A version (of the Printing Nikkor 105 f/2.8 ) is probably best at f/3.5
I concur, based on an aperture series I ran on my specimen of this lens at 1:1.

--Chris S.

enricosavazzi
Posts: 1474
Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2009 2:41 pm
Location: Västerås, Sweden
Contact:

Post by enricosavazzi »

Lou,

I suspect that there have been multiple versions of the SpeedBooster, with optical differences. Certainly there are today multiple models with different optics for different uses (generic Micro 4/3, two optically different dedicated Canon models for Micro 4/3, two optically different for Blackmagic movie cameras, etc).

It may well be that we did use different models for our tests, which could explain the different results. Mine is a SpeedBooster for Micro 4/3 from 2014 (or earlier), with Olympus OM front mount.
--ES

Lou Jost
Posts: 5943
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2015 7:03 am
Location: Ecuador
Contact:

Post by Lou Jost »

That probably explains the difference, Enrico. Mine is the latest model (as of mid-2016) Metabones Speedbooster Ultra 0.71x with Nikon front mount. It is this item at BH Photo:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/ ... speed.html

The differences between your results and mine regarding the teleconverter are most likely due to your use of the smaller-area MFT teleconverter versus my use of a full-frame teleconverter.

Edit: Another possible explanation for both your problems--- perhaps the distance between the PN105 and the TC or Speedbooster was not the appropriate one? Or, could the circular baffle you added to your extension tube have been causing the vignetting you saw when using the Speedbooster?

enricosavazzi
Posts: 1474
Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2009 2:41 pm
Location: Västerås, Sweden
Contact:

Post by enricosavazzi »

Lou Jost wrote:...

Edit: Another possible explanation for both your problems--- perhaps the distance between the PN105 and the TC or Speedbooster was not the appropriate one? Or, could the circular baffle you added to your extension tube have been causing the vignetting you saw when using the Speedbooster?
I mounted the TC or SpeedBooster directly on the camera body. This is the way they are designed to work.

The baffle is no longer in place, it was a quick fix to verify that the loss of contrast I was seeing was caused by internal reflections/diffusion. I removed the baffle after flocking the interior of all tubes, because it no longer made a difference then. I think the problem with the SpeedBooster I use is that the diameter of its entrance element is just a bit too small to cover the whole sensor if rays entering the optics come from infinity or a long distance. It works better if the rear element of the lens is close to the SpeedBooster.

From what I can see on the Metabones web site, some of the current SpeedBooster models have a much larger entrance element.
--ES

Lou Jost
Posts: 5943
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2015 7:03 am
Location: Ecuador
Contact:

Post by Lou Jost »

I mounted the TC or SpeedBooster directly on the camera body. This is the way they are designed to work.
Yes, but it was the distance between the PN105 and the TC or Speedbooster that concerned me. If there were changes in adapters when mounting the PN on the Speedbooster, differences in their thickness might not have been accounted for. I suppose this couldn't have happened with the TC, though, since that had MFT mounts on both sides.

RobertOToole
Posts: 2627
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:34 pm
Location: United States
Contact:

Post by RobertOToole »

Very interesting read Enrico, lots of information.

I was expecting to see a Zeiss Vs PN shootout?

Suspect the PN would have more resolution on the small sensor?

I recognize that wafer, I believe I have the same one!

Robert

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic