Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

Author Topic: Some interesting findings on Sony FE-mount lenses by Camerarentals  (Read 5256 times)

Telecaster

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3686
Re: Some interesting findings on Sony FE-mount lenses by Camerarentals
« Reply #20 on: October 23, 2015, 04:35:02 pm »

IMO the value of Camerarentals' FE lens testing method lies in their detection of sample-to-sample variation free from whatever post-shot, pre-RAW-file-creation processing Sony may do. It's always good to know how consistent (or not) lens manufacturing is. But as to how any particular lens performs on their test rig…the rig isn't a Sony camera and what they're doing isn't photography. So ultimately you must take photos with a representative sample of a given lens to determine its worth.

-Dave-
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: Some interesting findings on Sony FE-mount lenses by Camerarentals
« Reply #21 on: October 23, 2015, 05:39:40 pm »

Hi Jack,

I don't agree on this. An MTF measurement involves the whole surface of the lens and almost all lenses improve in MTF when stopped down. On a perfect system maximum MTF is gained at maximum aperture but most systems reach optimum MTF stopped down a bit.

A lens having high MTF will also have high MTF stopped down, well corrected is well corrected, after all. But a lens that is unusable at full aperture can be very good stopped down. Therefore, I would say the stopped down figure is the most important, unless shooting at full aperture.

It can be argued that if one buys an f/1.4 lens he/she pays for that lens to perform at f/1.4.

For me it is a bit interesting. The reason I bought the 90/2.8 G was that I wanted a lens around 85 mm that:
  • That was very sharp at f/5.6
  • That also was very sharp at maximum aperture
  • Had very little axial chromatic aberration
Two lenses that obviously filled the bill were the Zeiss Otus 85/1.4 and the Zeiss 135/2 APO Sonnar, but the Otus was both to large and to expensive and the APO Sonnar is 135 mm, and I have found that 135 mm is something I seldom use. Other options were the Sony 90/2.8G and the Batis 85/1.8. The Sony 90/2.8G produced very good figures in Imatest based testing at Lensrentals and also very good results at DxO-mark. I am not a tester having access to both lenses, needed to buy one.

Now, I am quite happy with my 90/2.8G. It outresolves the A7rII sensor across the field at full aperture and it shows no or little green/magenta fringing on out of focus areas in the images I have shot this far. If this is due to software correction Sony writes very good image.

I include MTF plots for the Hasselblad Distagon 60/3.5 CF, the Hasselblad HC 50/3.5 II and the new Zeiss Loxia 21/2.8. All these are very fine lenses. Distagon 60/3.5 CF is an old design and improves significantly when stopped down. The HC 50/3.5 II is a very good performer even fully open while the new Loxia shows very little improvement when stopping down.

Best regards
Erik



This has been repeated a few times in this thread but I don't believe it applies.

In typical photography and tests, scene-reflected light is assumed to arrive at the camera as a large wavefront perpendicular to the lens, which is then focused by the entire lens surface onto the sensing medium.  Larger apertures in this case mean less diffraction but more contributions from more glass, which may mean more aberrations - so at low f-numbers, as aperture is increased performance tends to decrease as a result of the typically larger aberrations.

I have never seen or used an optical bench.  However from the images of OLAF I have gleaned it looks to me that it shoots a laser-like beam of light to a single spot on the lens (as opposed to a wavefront) in order to determine something similar to the spot's related Point Spread Function, from which MTF and aberrations can be seen/derived.  In other words it measure the performance of the lens one spot at a time, only at that one spot.  If this is correct, aperture makes no difference whatsoever to aberrations (they are what they are at that one spot), although diffraction would still affect the results - so performing these tests at maximum aperture would provide the highest figures of merit for the lenses.

So I think Roger's optical bench tests are as objective and accurate as any especially because they are shot with the lens at maximum aperture.  On the other hand he himself cautions about the fact that the lens is tested at infinity focus and performance may vary if the subject is closer than that.

Jack
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

Jack Hogan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 798
    • Hikes -more than strolls- with my dog
Re: Some interesting findings on Sony FE-mount lenses by Camerarentals
« Reply #22 on: October 24, 2015, 04:56:52 am »

Hi Jack,

I don't agree on this. An MTF measurement involves the whole surface of the lens and almost all lenses improve in MTF when stopped down. On a perfect system maximum MTF is gained at maximum aperture but most systems reach optimum MTF stopped down a bit.  A lens having high MTF will also have high MTF stopped down, well corrected is well corrected, after all. But a lens that is unusable at full aperture can be very good stopped down. Therefore, I would say the stopped down figure is the most important, unless shooting at full aperture.

Hi Erik,

I see your point and I agree that it would be useful to have values at other f-numbers for general photography purposes.  Perhaps my previous post was a bit too quick off the post and I should have  differentiated between checking manufacturing lens quality vs general photography usage.  I can especially see how my statement that 'performing these tests at maximum aperture would provide the highest figures of merit for the lenses' could be misleading.  For the former objective I still believe Roger's fully open approach gives the best results; but for the latter I agree that closing down the aperture may give more representative results for photographers at large.

My (limited) understanding of optical benches is that they do not measure the lens the way we use it (all at once).  Instead, and simplifying for clarity, they map the 'smoothness/accuracy' of the surface of the effective lens tiny area by tiny area with a PSF 'microscope' and record its performance as they go along.  The MTF curve that they publish is an average of several measurements at the same radial distance in the map (see Roger's quip about a lot of the variance being WITHIN a copy).  Closing the aperture down will only make such measurements less accurate.  This provides as good a lens-only manufacturing check as possible: they are way more accurate than what we can get by mounting the lens on a camera and trying to reverse out the effects of the sensor.

If an analogy helps, the difference between the two methods is similar to determining how well highly-polished satellite dishes are manufactured by measuring the signal at the output of the LNB -  a fine method - versus shining a multitude of laser beams on each parabola and measuring reflected individual spot sizes and shapes near the focus point  - a more laborious but more accurate overall method that also provides much more information about the quality of the build at various points on the parabola's surface.  In the first case if the parabola's aperture is doubled the effective precision of the signal onto the focus point is invariably degraded because with fixed tolerances it is harder to hit a small target from further away; one could improve the effective precision by shielding the extra aperture and increasing exposure time.  In the second case, however, if one wants to map the performance of the whole parabola, one might as well do it all the way to the edge of the aperture, no matter how large.

So with an optical bench I believe that one does want to measure MTF at the widest available aperture.  Call it a lens manufacturing quality check.  But photographers may be less interested in QC results than performance around their sweet-spot settings.  Perhaps we could ask Roger to produce results at f/1.4, 2.8, 4, 5.6 and 8 for especially interesing lenses.  I understand that it is quite a time consuming process, though, so this may not be a practical suggestion.

Jack
« Last Edit: October 24, 2015, 06:08:42 am by Jack Hogan »
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up