www.photomacrography.net :: View topic - Printing Nikkor 105 and Zeiss S-Planar 74 mm tested
www.photomacrography.net Forum Index
An online community dedicated to the practices of photomacrography, close-up and macro photography, and photomicrography.
Photomacrography Front Page Amateurmicrography Front Page
Old Forums/Galleries
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Printing Nikkor 105 and Zeiss S-Planar 74 mm tested

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    www.photomacrography.net Forum Index -> Equipment Discussions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
enricosavazzi



Joined: 21 Nov 2009
Posts: 994
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

PostPosted: Sat Dec 30, 2017 7:11 am    Post subject: Printing Nikkor 105 and Zeiss S-Planar 74 mm tested Reply with quote

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_nikkor_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
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Lou Jost



Joined: 04 Sep 2015
Posts: 2367
Location: Ecuador

PostPosted: Sat Dec 30, 2017 8:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
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/viewtopic.php?t=34833&sid=661e83c2b3c9bbea6995a2ccfb6ce6ba

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.
_________________
Lou Jost
www.ecomingafoundation.wordpress.com
www.loujost.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
enricosavazzi



Joined: 21 Nov 2009
Posts: 994
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

PostPosted: Sat Dec 30, 2017 11:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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:


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


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.
_________________
--ES


Last edited by enricosavazzi on Sat Dec 30, 2017 4:12 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Lou Jost



Joined: 04 Sep 2015
Posts: 2367
Location: Ecuador

PostPosted: Sat Dec 30, 2017 11:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.

_________________
Lou Jost
www.ecomingafoundation.wordpress.com
www.loujost.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
typestar



Joined: 12 Dec 2009
Posts: 130
Location: Austria

PostPosted: Sat Dec 30, 2017 2:24 pm    Post subject: Re: Printing Nikkor 105 and Zeiss S-Planar 74 mm tested Reply with quote

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
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Chris S.
Site Admin


Joined: 05 Apr 2009
Posts: 2994
Location: Ohio, USA

PostPosted: Sat Dec 30, 2017 11:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Enrico,

As always, marvelously conducted and presented tests.

Quote:
. . . 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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
enricosavazzi



Joined: 21 Nov 2009
Posts: 994
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

PostPosted: Sun Dec 31, 2017 1:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Lou Jost



Joined: 04 Sep 2015
Posts: 2367
Location: Ecuador

PostPosted: Sun Dec 31, 2017 4:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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/1158846-REG/metabones_mb_spnfg_m43_bm3_nikon_g_micro_4_3_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?
_________________
Lou Jost
www.ecomingafoundation.wordpress.com
www.loujost.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
enricosavazzi



Joined: 21 Nov 2009
Posts: 994
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

PostPosted: Sun Dec 31, 2017 6:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Lou Jost



Joined: 04 Sep 2015
Posts: 2367
Location: Ecuador

PostPosted: Sun Dec 31, 2017 6:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
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.
_________________
Lou Jost
www.ecomingafoundation.wordpress.com
www.loujost.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
RobertOToole



Joined: 17 Jan 2013
Posts: 670
Location: United States

PostPosted: Sun Dec 31, 2017 12:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    www.photomacrography.net Forum Index -> Equipment Discussions All times are GMT - 7 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group