Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: rainer_v on December 07, 2009, 05:21:20 pm
-
so i went on this evening testing this time the 24TSE under tungsten light, which in this case wasn't an easy light source because several little lamps are directly shining in the lens. anyway, its a situation which i am faced very often in a similar way, esp if shooting interiors at night.
i will go on in the next days comparing the 24tse together with the 1,4extender against the rodenstock digital 45mm lens and the 45tse against the 60HR.
to read the tests together i post here the links to the other lens tests:
23HR against the 17TS-E:
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=39838 (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=39838)
because the 24tse is wider than its equivalent 35HR lens ( on a mf sensor with 36x48mm ) i tested also the 28HR against it,
which is again slightly wider than the 24tse, but if stitched together to the max. frame size the resulting fov is quite similar.
what surprise with the 28HR because its behavior in terms of flare isn't very nice under the light source i had here.
in practice i never felt this being a problem, but of course i never have shot side by side with various lenses comparing them directly.
normally the 28HR is a quite a nice piece of glass, but here it showed some strong internal reflections.
not ot misshape the impression of this lens i dont want to post it, its a very unusal behavor the lens showed at this setting.
i will give it another chance in another moment, its not fair to pick up such unfavorable setting, if this is a singular situation, and so it appears to me.
the 35hr reacted way better but still behind the 24tse in terms of flare i.m.o.
i exposed both images to the extreme upper limit, just so that there has remained a bit of texture in the white tilings in front of the cam.
the shots with the HR lenses show more detail, but noise seems to be better with the canon and especially its no- flare behavior is fantastic.
the mf sensor seems to render better zones with very lo contrast, as the blue wood at the roof.
i saw this in the outside shots too, esp. in the grass area, although not sure if there wasn't a bit of back-focus too in the game on the canon shot.
i prefer the colors of the e75, they are more "real" but most likely its a question of tweaking the colors either in a profile or in photoshop.
with the 35HR appeared a problem i never was concient: the extreme upper left edge is unsharp. i have to check which caused this.
all three other edges are ok, so it could be sth. in the lens which isn't aligned very well. sh.....
to show the possible image circle i shifted all three lenses as much as possible up and down and combined them in ps. to one shot.
the canon would have if stitched in that way app. 47 mp. the HR shots with the e75 53mp. not a big difference, the reason for such small difference
is caused by the same shift way of both lenses but the slightly smaller pixel size of the canon.
both shots were taken with f11 and tethered to my macbookpro.
i shot with 1,6 / 3 / 6 seconds and selected for both the 3 second expsure.
both programs were stable, except eXposure 7 crashed one time ( in app. 1 hour of work ) for unknown reasons.
i prefer the tethering of the canon for its bright big preview which makes focussing quiet easy and perfect,
the live view of the e75lv is a big help compared if it wouldnt be implemented,
but under lo light conditions you cant stop down the lens to focus correctly because contrast for the live view
gets to lo.
i marked the original frame size from a unstitched unshifted single shot red.
here we go: first image is the canon, than the sinar both images are app. 50% of their original size, the crops are 100% .
[attachment=18472:3_24tse_stitched.jpg]
[attachment=18473:3_35HR_stitched.jpg]
and now some 100% crops.
upper image always is the canon, image at bottom the e75.
[attachment=18474:3_24tse_crop1.jpg]
[attachment=18475:3_24tse_crop2.jpg]
[attachment=18476:3_24tse_crop3.jpg]
[attachment=18477:3_24tse_crop4.jpg]
-
Rainer, your findings are really interessting and very valuable - thanks a lot for sharing!
-
DELETED
-
That's an impressive copy of the !7 you have there. I hope I get as lucky when I get around to buying one.
its this time the 24tse mk2 ...
-
These results are in line with what I get from my 24 tse mkII.
However I've never seen that kind of flare with my 35XL
-
My new 24 is a significant improvement over the old one....but also ..... on a related note. Rainer mentioned in a earlier thread that the new 24T/S worked well with the Canon EX 1.4xII extender (which I already owned). Indeed it does by my tests. It creates, a what, 32mm lens? I have always carried an Olympus 35 PC with a Canon lens mount to cover that mid range between the 24 and 45. The Olympus is a pretty good little lens, but the Canon 24 T/S II with the extender surpasses it in terms of resolution, CA and shift range. So I will no longer carry my little Olympus 35PC, but use the extender on the new 24 instead. Sweet.
-
OK, I'm nearly jealous. When I tested the 24ts-e mkII+1.4 it was pretty bad ... If one of you can post your successes I'm heading out to try a new 1.4x (not that I don't take your word for it).
Have they improved the 1.4x in some way recently? Is there a mkII? Perhaps I tested an earlier version?
-
Yes this is the newish EF 1.4x II extender on the new 24 T/S II compared to a hand picked (best of 4 mint that I bought and tested) Olympus 35 T/S which is a tight little lens.
-
Does the image circle diminish when used with the 1.4x?
-
Does the image circle diminish when used with the 1.4x?
I don't know. You need less coverage at longer focal lengths. All I know is there is absolutely 0 vignetting or falloff at full shift when used on the 24 T/S II. I have to say when Rainer mentioned it in a previous thread and said it worked well, you could have knocked me over with a feather. I would never have considered it as a possibility.
-
I don't know. You need less coverage at longer focal lengths. All I know is there is absolutely 0 vignetting or falloff at full shift when used on the 24 T/S II. I have to say when Rainer mentioned it in a previous thread and said it worked well, you could have knocked me over with a feather. I would never have considered it as a possibility.
coverage is enough ..
the 1,4 ext adds barrel distortion, but because there is no asp. element its a simple rounded barreling which is also symmetric, because the extender does not move its position. its with photoshop tools easy to 100% correctable.
sharpness and CA still is excellent together with the 24ts-e. not so with the 45ts-e. there the results are poor if used together with the extender. havent tried with the 17ts-e cause i use in this case the 24 if i need the 17 a bit longer.
-
i believe the second series of Canon extenders is better, but variable - just got mine back from Canon with fairly bad focus improved (with micro adjust not too big an issue or with MF lenses).
i find 90 ts quite happy with the 1.4x - it seems to me that extenders work better with simpler lens designs. yes, the barrel distortion is easy to correct, the problem that i find is serious loss of sharpness and CA at the edges, but not at all bad on the 90 ts
-
Thanks for both comparisons Rainer. I was going to buy a second flash pack and a couple of heads next month but I think I'll now spend that money upgrading my 24 TS and also get the 17 TS. Now I've got to find some sucker willing to purchase my old 24 TS.
-
Very interesting comparison, thanks. Here I go again talking about stretching, but looking at the images side by side, it appears that the Rod 35mm stretches the images much less then the Canon 24 mm (I would dare say no stretching what so ever but I have not seen the space in person) while getting pretty much the same FOV in a single shot.
-
As a matter of fact, if those red lines are placed right, the Rod 35 has a wider FOV in the vertical in a single shot with little or no stretching.
-
Very interesting comparison, thanks. Here I go again talking about stretching, but looking at the images side by side, it appears that the Rod 35mm stretches the images much less then the Canon 24 mm (I would dare say no stretching what so ever but I have not seen the space in person) while getting pretty much the same FOV in a single shot.
Physically impossible. Please explain.
-
i printed the images yesterday at various sizes and the findings are i.m.o. quite interesting, and a bit surprising to me
because its nor the resolution which i see important in the image impression.
in terms of resolution there is hardly to see any difference up to A1.
at A0 ( 80 x 120cm ) the sinar starts to resolve the fine letters in the kitchen furnitures a bit better,
at 160x220cm this remains the same, but this little more in small detail does not look important at all to the overall image impression, please have the size of the image in mind. this is not inviting to come closer than 30 - 50cm and even if youd o its not so interesting if you can read all the letters a bit better or a bit less, and its really a bit better only.
what seems more important to the image impression is the better resolving capacitie of the sinar in lo contrast zones ,
as the red tray with the flowers on the left side or the bluish wood bars at the ceiling.
here the canon looked with the conversion you see here more undefined and washed out, meanwhile the sinar resolves very good this zones.
this is important for the overall impression of the images, because this are larger zones whcih are clearly visible from any viewing distance.
anyway, after seeing the prints i converted the canon file again looking esp. at the contrast and optimizing this in LL3.
difference much less now in the A0 prints, if any.
there is no more difference in quality at this size which i could valuate as important, the little bit more detail in the sinar shots does not bring advantage in the print impression for my taste here.
its weird. so many variables ... its really not easy.
funny too, i tried RPP ( Raw PhotoProcessor ) , it delivered better contrast with the canon but unusable results with the small red led lights you see in the center in the watch. they were not more readable ...
btw. canons DPP delivers less sharp and detailled results as LL3.
.... i will go on with my testings, now i smelled blood.
i will check it out how the two systems behave for landscape stuff, esp. for rendering of grass and fine details with lo contrast.
-
Physically impossible. Please explain.
Open both images and look at them side by side, look at the rafters in the roof. In the Canon image there appears to be more depth in the rafters then in the Sinar image. We are not dealing with reality here, but how each lens precieves reality, so yes, it is physically possible since each lens will be different.
Look at how the chandelier is rendered in each image, notice how the oven seems further away in the Canon, the doorway seems more stretched in the Canon.
Also from reading these post, it also appears that Rodenstock's quality control and precision is much better then Canon's.
-
Very interesting comparisons - thank you for taking the time to present all this. I can't help wondering whether the Canon shots would be significantly improved if the AA filter were removed from the camera.
-
Also from reading these post, it also appears that Rodenstock's quality control and precision is much better then Canon's.
Really?! As the OP states, the Rodenstock lens shows evidence of internal misalignment (upper left hand corner), whereas the Canon does not.
-
However I've never seen that kind of flare with my 35XL
I have never seen that with my 35XL on Leaf 75/22 - could it be the IR filter on your sinar back that provide the flare here - the flare have more or less the color of an IR filter, and it reminds me of the kind of flare you could get from cc filters in front of the lens.
and if I remember correctly Hasselblad changed their IR filter due to some flare problems - I have a feeling, it's not your lens......
/adam
-
Open both images and look at them side by side, look at the rafters in the roof. In the Canon image there appears to be more depth in the rafters then in the Sinar image. We are not dealing with reality here, but how each lens precieves reality, so yes, it is physically possible since each lens will be different.
Look at how the chandelier is rendered in each image, notice how the oven seems further away in the Canon, the doorway seems more stretched in the Canon.
If you take the Canon image and crop it to match the Sinar image, then size the Sinar image down to the Canon's pixel dimensions -> you'll see that the perspective is slightly different for each image. The Sinar image is turned every so slightly to the right compared to the Canon.
Is that stretching or a slightly different perspective with very wide lens? If anything, the Sinar appears to be slightly more dragged out on the left (layer the two files below in PS,) but again, I think this is the difference in perspective exaggerated by a very wide lens.
[attachment=18480:3_24tse_stitched.jpg]
[attachment=18481:3_35HR_stitched.jpg]
--
Site (http://www.jonroemer.com/) | Blog (http://www.jonroemer.com/blog/)
-
Yes this is the newish EF 1.4x II extender on the new 24 T/S II compared to a hand picked (best of 4 mint that I bought and tested) Olympus 35 T/S which is a tight little lens.
Thanks for posting the results of this test. I have the Olympus lens too, a Sinaron version. Mine has CA & barrel distortion, but not as much distortion as the original 24 TSE. I like the fact the the Olympus has shift as well as rise/fall, but the lack of a locking mechanism is sometime problematic.
-
Open both images and look at them side by side, look at the rafters in the roof. In the Canon image there appears to be more depth in the rafters then in the Sinar image. We are not dealing with reality here, but how each lens precieves reality, so yes, it is physically possible since each lens will be different.
Look at how the chandelier is rendered in each image, notice how the oven seems further away in the Canon, the doorway seems more stretched in the Canon.
Also from reading these post, it also appears that Rodenstock's quality control and precision is much better then Canon's.
You're seeing differences in perspective because of camera position, shift amounts, and sensor size.
Regarding the myth of quality control, read this: http://www.josephholmes.com/news-medformatprecision.html (http://www.josephholmes.com/news-medformatprecision.html)
There is a section near the bottom with some 35mm HR examples.
Here's some responses to the above article: http://www.josephholmes.com/news-fellowphotographers.html (http://www.josephholmes.com/news-fellowphotographers.html)
"for anyone thinking of going the MF route...You have to kiss a lot of frogs."
I wonder what people's impressions would have been of Rainier's tests had he not revealed which image was which....
-
You're seeing differences in perspective because of camera position, shift amounts, and sensor size.
Regarding the myth of quality control, read this: http://www.josephholmes.com/news-medformatprecision.html (http://www.josephholmes.com/news-medformatprecision.html)
There is a section near the bottom with some 35mm HR examples.
Here's some responses to the above article: http://www.josephholmes.com/news-fellowphotographers.html (http://www.josephholmes.com/news-fellowphotographers.html)
"for anyone thinking of going the MF route...You have to kiss a lot of frogs."
I wonder what people's impressions would have been of Rainier's tests had he not revealed which image was which....
People will see what they want to see, even those (or especially those) who have no direct experience. There are still many who believe that a lens with a longer focal length will, in and of itself and regardless of sensor size/film size/stitched virtual sensor size, show less distortion, even though this misconception is easily disproved.
-
There are still many who believe that a lens with a longer focal length will, in and of itself and regardless of sensor size/film size/stitched virtual sensor size, show less distortion, even though this misconception is easily disproved.
oh please, don't even mention it. Am too scared this debate to start again.
Best
Thierry
-
Very interesting comparison. I had always thought that, even if you could get a smaller-format setup to more or less match the resolution of a medium-format one, the larger-format image would still be able to render more tonal differentiation than the smaller one. I don't see any marked difference in this regard with this comparison. Perhaps only with large-format digital would there start to be an appreciable difference in resolution and tonal range.
-
Okay I am going to stop with this.
Something else that I have noticed is that that are many more points on the stars formed off of the lights in the Rod images then in the Canon images. I have always been told that these are formed from the light refracting off of where the leaves in the aperture meet. That would mean that Rod uses 16 leaves for each of their apertures.
Is that true? Sounds like a little overkill if so.
-
Very interesting.
The main difference i see is that the eMotion is half an hour slower than the 5dII.
I think i spend the rest of the money on a nice vacation.
-
i tested today the 24TS-eII outside and also together with the 1.4ext ( newer version) against the 45digitar and the 35HR.
i will post my findings the next days in a new tread, but to anticipate it:
the extender works very very well with the 24tse together. you will see.
-
Okay I am going to stop with this.
Something else that I have noticed is that that are many more points on the stars formed off of the lights in the Rod images then in the Canon images. I have always been told that these are formed from the light refracting off of where the leaves in the aperture meet. That would mean that Rod uses 16 leaves for each of their apertures.
Is that true? Sounds like a little overkill if so.
The spikes are a diffraction pattern created by the flat sides of the aperture, not the corners. Each diffraction spike extends to either side of the aperture edge. Thus, apertures with 3, 5, or seven flat sides will have 6, 10, and 14 spikes, respectively. Apertures with an even number of blades appear to have half the number of spikes because there are actually two spike patterns that overlay exactly. This is why its a very bad idea to use irises with an even number of blades
In the image taken with a Rodenstock lens there are 14 spikes (not 16!), which is (two) x (seven). In other words, the Rodenstock lens uses an ordinary Copal shutter with seven blades.
-
Nice comparisons, Thanks for sharing.
-
The spikes are a diffraction pattern created by the flat sides of the aperture, not the corners. Each diffraction spike extends to either side of the aperture edge. Thus, apertures with 3, 5, or seven flat sides will have 6, 10, and 14 spikes, respectively. Apertures with an even number of blades appear to have half the number of spikes because there are actually two spike patterns that overlay exactly. This is why its a very bad idea to use irises with an even number of blades
In the image taken with a Rodenstock lens there are 14 spikes (not 16!), which is (two) x (seven). In other words, the Rodenstock lens uses an ordinary Copal shutter with seven blades.
Thanks for the info but can you give me a cite? I'm interested not in the number the the point of creation.
-
Thanks for the info but can you give me a cite? I'm interested not in the number the the point of creation.
I found this: http://dptnt.com/2007/12/what-causes-the-s...n-night-photos/ (http://dptnt.com/2007/12/what-causes-the-sparkles-in-night-photos/) , but its no better than taking my word for it. If you really want to understand the phenomenon in detail you need to study Fourier optics, which is usually a graduate level course. Basically, the image formed by a lens is the Fourier transform of the aperture function.
-
Unrelated, but do you think you could make a case for a set of Canon lenses that were Shift-only? I just wonder, with the tiny tolerances we have now for focus, and everybody viewing at 100%, if the fact that the lens tilt and shift might sacrifice quality. On a job, I rarely tilt, but I shift a LOT, and I stitch. Even when I've got that 24 or 45 set to "zero tilt", there still seems to be a tad amount of leeway, as in "Am in really at zero?", even when locked down in the detente setting. If Canon offered a Shift only set of lenses I'd buy those in addition to the regular T/S.
-
Unrelated, but do you think you could make a case for a set of Canon lenses that were Shift-only? I just wonder, with the tiny tolerances we have now for focus, and everybody viewing at 100%, if the fact that the lens tilt and shift might sacrifice quality. On a job, I rarely tilt, but I shift a LOT, and I stitch. Even when I've got that 24 or 45 set to "zero tilt", there still seems to be a tad amount of leeway, as in "Am in really at zero?", even when locked down in the detente setting. If Canon offered a Shift only set of lenses I'd buy those in addition to the regular T/S.
The new Canon tilt/shifts are great in that they lock down the tilt completely. There's no leeway, there's no question you are at zero, and if you want to use the tilt you have to unlock a second button to do it (before you even deal with tilt control.)
It's not like the old lenses where you could be shooting slightly tilted and not realize it and then kick yourself because you forgot to check.
--
Site (http://www.jonroemer.com) | Blog (http://www.jonroemer.com/blog/)
-
The new Canon tilt/shifts are great in that they lock down the tilt completely. There's no leeway, there's no question you are at zero, and if you want to use the tilt you have to unlock a second button to do it (before you even deal with tilt control.)
It's not like the old lenses where you could be shooting slightly tilted and not realize it and then kick yourself because you forgot to check.
--
Site (http://www.jonroemer.com) | Blog (http://www.jonroemer.com/blog/)
I rarely use the tilt too, but appreciate that it is there occasionally. As a 30+ year view camera user, a camera wouldn't feel complete without tilt. Now with the version II T/S lenses, after carrying your camera on a tripod over your shoulder, you now don't have to check to make sure the tilt didn't slip off 0. The lockout is dead secure. A great upgrade.
-
Remember the 5DII shot is stitched (as is the Sinar). There's not that much difference between frame sizes (not like 35mm vs 6x7 or 4x5). Also, Rainer said the stitched resolutions are 47MP & 53MP.
Here are the rough frame sizes:
[attachment=18487:FrameSizes.jpg]
Brown: stitched Sinar size (48x60mm)
Blue: stitched 5D size (36x49mm)
White: 35mm for reference
Oops. I missed that. But he says he did a stitch with the medium format too, with a shift to the limit of the lens's coverage. Wouldn't that have yielded a much larger file than 53mp?
-
Oops. I missed that. But he says he did a stitch with the medium format too, with a shift to the limit of the lens's coverage. Wouldn't that have yielded a much larger file than 53mp?
sensorsize :
36mm(v) x 48(h) mm is 33mp on the e75,- equ. to 0,9166mp each mm(v)
add the shift:
36mm + 2x 12mm shift
this results in a sensor size of
60mm(v) x 0,9166mp = 55mp.
calculate now a bit cropping after the stitching at the sides and you may end up with such number.
-
I rarely use the tilt too, but appreciate that it is there occasionally. As a 30+ year view camera user, a camera wouldn't feel complete without tilt. Now with the version II T/S lenses, after carrying your camera on a tripod over your shoulder, you now don't have to check to make sure the tilt didn't slip off 0. The lockout is dead secure. A great upgrade.
Thanks Jon and Kirk.
Sounds like it's time to upgrade to Version II.
Great feature to lock down the tilt.
-
Great discussion!!, I hope I am not digressing, with so many experts here I would like to hear if I can use the Nikon TC-14E II with my Nikon 24TS similar to the way Rainer has been using it with Canon. I have a 1.7x TC but that does'nt work with the Nikon 24TS Thank you. Harshan
-
The Nikon teleconverters are only meant to be used with AFS telephoto lenses. There's a tab on the TC that will prevent other lenses from mounting. You can file away the tab to get around this problem; but you need to be careful which lenses you try to mount, since the rear element of the lens could hit the front element of TC depending on the lens's design (not a problem with the 24 PC-E though, since the rear element is pretty deeply recessed). I have not tried this myself.
There's a Kenko/Tamron TC for Nikon mount (actually two, a cheapo one and a more expensive "pro" version) that doesn't have the extra tab and should allow most Nikon lenses to mount. I have no idea how good the optical quality is, though.
-
i tested today the 24TS-eII outside and also together with the 1.4ext ( newer version) against the 45digitar and the 35HR.
i will post my findings the next days in a new tread, but to anticipate it:
the extender works very very well with the 24tse together. you will see.
Do you think you'll be able to post these results?
-
Do you think you'll be able to post these results?
i will post it, although i am a bit lazy to post images for it, more so after the discussion of valid or not valid 35mm related treads.
but i announced to do complete this test and so i post what i found out: i compared my lenses to get a more round view which of my systems can be used together with which lenses.
the situation in the 35mm world has changed.
have it been before the wide angles where was the problem for architecture uses, now the longer lenses between 30 till 70mm are the problematic aerea.
overall the schneider/ rodenstock lenses win now more in this aerea than in the wide angle field, where the exceptional good corrected canon lenses are simply better in terms of distortion ( compared to rodenstock ) and in terms of fall of ( compared to rodenstock + especially schneider ). sharpness of the canons is very good, but not as sharp as the rodenstock if you have in mind that these even dont need to be stopped down to be sharp till the edges of the image circle.
i bought a 45tse after i got the 17+24tse and it does not hold up at all with the quality with the two tse wides.
it shows significant CA if shifted, and although CA normally is easy to correct, not so with shifted lenses cause it starts to be unsymmetric
and what you gain in the correction on the left side you loose on the right side.
urther i compared the 24TSE together with the 1.4ext ( vers2 ) with my pentax 645 35mm af lens, together with the zoerk shift adapter for the canon.
formerly this was the best shiftable wide angle for 35mm, even better than the 24PC olympus which i own as well.
to make it short: the canon 24tse together with the extender is way better than the pentax 35mm fa af. the 24/extender combo is sharper and dont show as much CA,
although CA is stronger visible with the 24+extender than without.
the extender also adds some barrel distortion, but because it is not moving with the shift movements its symmetric and for the absence of apo lenses in it its a simple barreling form which can be removed in photoshop lens correction to 100% if you set the correction to +3%.
so this is clearly the way to go in 35mm if one needs longer shift lenses, which for sure will be the case if this system will be used professional for architecture.
the 24tse is not as good as it is without the extender and it adds a more complicate workflow, but its still a very sharp lens and its the best solution at the moment for a shift lens in the 35mm range which i have seen, and i have seen all available 35mm shift lenses except the contax 35PC.
CA still is not much, but its there now, and in case you have motifs with very saturated colors, esp. in the red/yellow area and high contrast it becomes very visible.
i dont like that much.
beside CA the sharpness holds up as well against the 45 digitar rodenstock >( together with the sinar back ) as does the 17tse against the 23HR and the 24tse against the 35HR.
I dont own the 40HR so i couldnt compare this lens, it might be better than the 45 digital, although this is a good performer too, but inferior compared with the HR line up.
further i compared the 45TSE with the 55mm pentax FA/AF lens, the 55 again with the zoerk adapter.
here the 55mm pentax lens is clearly better than the canon 45tse , and it has over 20mm of shift with the zoerk, which results in a similar fov. than the 45tse ( full shifted too ).
so this is a highly recommend lens, always together with the zoerk,- but i am not sure if he still makes these adapters.
same about the 75mm pentax lens. it is just a great performer on the canon, although both lenses want to be stopped down at least to f11 to be sharp till the edges, better even at f16.
i did not bought the 90tse, cause the pentax 75mm is just perfect.
BTW.:
i had the good luck that i met stefan steib, the ceo of hartblei, last week in munich, together with his new hartblei cam, which recently was reviewed by MR.
aside that i liked a lot the hartblei 40/80/120 tilt/shift lenses which are exceptional good manufactured, i think that the tested 35mm lens setup could be fantastic for his cam,
together with any mf back mounted on it:
17tse, 24tse, 1.4extender for it, zoerk shift adapter together with pentax 645 55mm and 75mm lense and maybe also the 120mm hartblei tilt shift.
and all this would be way more afortable than anything else in the mf world till now, together with a 33 or 39mp back from the 2.hand market its just a bit more expensive than a canon 1dsmk3, and it would cost app. the half than any other shift camera together with an similar set of "real" mf lenses from schneider or rodenstock.
very interesting setup i.m.o.
-
Thank you, I appreciate the response. I will get another 1.4 and retest.
I agree about the 45, although some copies are sharper than others, all show objectionable CA. If I come across a Zoerk will try the 55 and 75.
Thank you again for your comparison posts.
-
i will post it, although i am a bit lazy to post images for it, more so after the discussion of valid or not valid 35mm related treads.
Your format comparison posts are very helpful and much appreciated.
-
I don't understand why it will not be possible to compare 35mm lenses and bodies vs MF
-
The Nikon teleconverters are only meant to be used with AFS telephoto lenses. There's a tab on the TC that will prevent other lenses from mounting. You can file away the tab to get around this problem; but you need to be careful which lenses you try to mount, since the rear element of the lens could hit the front element of TC depending on the lens's design (not a problem with the 24 PC-E though, since the rear element is pretty deeply recessed). I have not tried this myself.
There's a Kenko/Tamron TC for Nikon mount (actually two, a cheapo one and a more expensive "pro" version) that doesn't have the extra tab and should allow most Nikon lenses to mount. I have no idea how good the optical quality is, though.
Thanks Jeff, I think the tab on the TC is the problem. I shall try the non nikon TC's. regards, Harshan