Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: Graham Mitchell on May 23, 2009, 08:34:05 am
-
Would you like to see faster medium format lenses being made for medium format cameras? I don't see anyone mentioning this but perhaps we are all quietly thinking it? I'm curious.
Faster lenses of course give you brighter viewfinder, easier focusing (both manual and auto) and more selective focusing/blurred backgrounds.
Yes, this will generally add to the size, weight and price of the lenses, but I am assuming that if you wanted the cheapest, lightest or most compact solution you wouldn't be using medium format in the first place.
One of the reasons I selected the Rollei platform was the fast lenses, but I would prefer them even faster. Although the larger sensor size gives us a stop or so advantage with respect to DOF, there are a few 35mm lenses which are a lot faster. I really started thinking about this when I saw Leica's proposed new lens lineup for the S2 - not that fast, and they had a chance to create a fast new lineup which could really offer something different.
So... more f2 lenses, even f1.7?
-
Would you like to see faster medium format lenses being made for medium format cameras? I don't see anyone mentioning this but perhaps we are all quietly thinking it? I'm curious.
Faster lenses of course give you brighter viewfinder, easier focusing (both manual and auto) and more selective focusing/blurred backgrounds.
Yes, this will generally add to the size, weight and price of the lenses, but I am assuming that if you wanted the cheapest, lightest or most compact solution you wouldn't be using medium format in the first place.
One of the reasons I selected the Rollei platform was the fast lenses, but I would prefer them even faster. Although the larger sensor size gives us a stop or so advantage with respect to DOF, there are a few 35mm lenses which are a lot faster. I really started thinking about this when I saw Leica's proposed new lens lineup for the S2 - not that fast, and they had a chance to create a fast new lineup which could really offer something different.
So... more f2 lenses, even f1.7?
I find the Rollei 50/2.8, 110/2.0 and 180/2.8 fast enough and also would not expect that I could handle shallower DOF.
-
So far I guess I am the only NO vote.
Remember, nature creeps in; faster glass will be bigger. I have 50mm 3.5 and at 2.8 (thanks o Graham!) I rarely use it, except that 3.5 is a bit sharper than the 3.5
In general like a cars red-line, and the reserve on a gas tank-it is there for emergencies, Not normal work. The wider open a lens the less detail, more issue
Laws of physics.
I would rather see better autofocus techniques, maybe a bit better CA control, and yes, a bit chrisper.
There are lots of ways to get light, like, getting more light, ev correction (most backs have at least 14bits, and 8-10 is fine for most work) and the magic ISO (like, bigger, not smaller pixels.
I think we are about at the limit for uncooled sensors (maybe a solid state refrigerator could make a 3 micron pixel work but, if you dont have the photons, you are not going to make an image.
Think ablou it.
regards
Victor
-
I would like it a tad faster and a lot lighter and more compact
A 100/2.0 or an 80/2.0 would be nice. OTOH I am pretty content with the current available lenses for my system. If anything I would like a bit lower prices on some of them (the ones I don't have yet but want to).
-
Well, there IS a terrific 80mm 2.0. I use it all the time. Tack sharp.
Of course, you'll need to get a Contax 645 body to use it...
regards
Victor
-
Well, there IS a terrific 80mm 2.0. I use it all the time. Tack sharp.
Of course, you'll need to get a Contax 645 body to use it...
regards
Victor
Hi Victor, care to post a sample from that lens wide open? It would be a welcome addition to the thread.
-
"I really started thinking about this when I saw Leica's proposed new lens lineup for the S2 - not that fast, and they had a chance to create a fast new lineup which could really offer something different."
As far as I understood it, faster lenses will come in the future for the S-system, but they decided to go with CS-lenses first. Just look at the size difference of the 2,5/35CS in comparison to the 30-90 or 24mm (both don't have a central shutter) and you will get an idea how limiting central shutters are for lens designers.
-
I think the Rollei system is already pretty dang fast
I've got the 80/2, 110/2 and 180/2.8 and they are wonderful. Faster 6x6 would be just too heavy and big.
-
I've got the 80/2, 110/2 and 180/2.8 and they are wonderful. Faster 6x6 would be just too heavy and big.
I think you're right - they are fast enough for 6x6. Part of the problem is (most of) our sensors aren't big enough. If 645 size sensors become more standard, this will be less of an issue.
-
Hi Victor, care to post a sample from that lens wide open? It would be a welcome addition to the thread.
I'll see if I have one. But remember, I am NOT a fan of pushing lenses full wide (even Leica, the fast lens champs to some, are always quite a bit better 1/2 to 1 stop closed down.)
Now, having seen the Contax 35mm do so well,
wide opened (at 3.5),
at the corner,
on a P65+
hey, I am interested myself.
Tomorrow I'll take a few shots with the 80/2 and we will see!
best regards
Victor
-
Would you like to see faster medium format lenses being made for medium format cameras? I don't see anyone mentioning this but perhaps we are all quietly thinking it? I'm curious.
Faster lenses of course give you brighter viewfinder, easier focusing (both manual and auto) and more selective focusing/blurred backgrounds.
Yes, this will generally add to the size, weight and price of the lenses, but I am assuming that if you wanted the cheapest, lightest or most compact solution you wouldn't be using medium format in the first place.
One of the reasons I selected the Rollei platform was the fast lenses, but I would prefer them even faster. Although the larger sensor size gives us a stop or so advantage with respect to DOF, there are a few 35mm lenses which are a lot faster. I really started thinking about this when I saw Leica's proposed new lens lineup for the S2 - not that fast, and they had a chance to create a fast new lineup which could really offer something different.
So... more f2 lenses, even f1.7?
Graham,
Did you happen to see this thread over at FM (85 1.2 converted to mamiya 645)?
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/771979 (http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/771979)
-
I'll see if I have one. But remember, I am NOT a fan of pushing lenses full wide (even Leica, the fast lens champs to some, are always quite a bit better 1/2 to 1 stop closed down.)
Now, having seen the Contax 35mm do so well,
wide opened (at 3.5),
at the corner,
on a P65+
hey, I am interested myself.
Tomorrow I'll take a few shots with the 80/2 and we will see!
best regards
Victor
I've got two of 'em--just to weigh in with another opinion, in my experience 80/2 is not at all 'tack sharp' at f/2. Low contrast and astigmatism abound. Not as much as the Schneider Xenotar 80/2, but certainly not what I'd consider 'tack sharp'.
I look forward to your samples, Victor--if yours are better than mine, then I'll know I've got to send mine in for some service.
As for the original question--I'd love more speed. Problem is, the quality seems to suffer at these large apertures (even the legendary 110/2 isn't particularly sharp wide open--I speak of high frequency MTF here, not subjective 'sharpness'). And they're expensive and heavy to carry. So assuming they solve all three of those minor issues, and I'm all for it!
-Brad
-
Graham,
Did you happen to see this thread over at FM (85 1.2 converted to mamiya 645)?
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/771979 (http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/771979)
No I didn't see that before but the results are interesting! Thanks for posting.
-
I've got two of 'em--just to weigh in with another opinion, in my experience 80/2 is not at all 'tack sharp' at f/2. Low contrast and astigmatism abound. Not as much as the Schneider Xenotar 80/2, but certainly not what I'd consider 'tack sharp'.
I look forward to your samples, Victor--if yours are better than mine, then I'll know I've got to send mine in for some service.
As for the original question--I'd love more speed. Problem is, the quality seems to suffer at these large apertures (even the legendary 110/2 isn't particularly sharp wide open--I speak of high frequency MTF here, not subjective 'sharpness'). And they're expensive and heavy to carry. So assuming they solve all three of those minor issues, and I'm all for it!
-Brad
The Rollei 80/2 is sharp at f/2 and the 110/2 is very sharp at f/2. I posted some sample images of each wide a while back - can't find the post right now but they are up there. I was impressed anyhow. The 80/2 does ghost halo around OOF objects while the 110/2 does not so much. It's nice to have both.
-
Contax 2.0/80 (P45)
quick setupt at home - overview:
[attachment=13945:CFT002873.jpg]
f2 (with usm)[attachment=13948:CFT002873_f2_usm.jpg]
f2.8 (with usm)
[attachment=13949:CFT002874_f28_usm.jpg]
f4 (with usm)
[attachment=13950:CFT002875_f4_usm.jpg]
as sharpening was just a quick action here (producing some artifacts) in addition the crops without sharpening if someone wants to figure out other sharpening sets:
f2 (no sharpening)
[attachment=13944:CFT002873_f2.jpg]
f2.8 (no sharpening)
[attachment=13946:CFT002874_f28.jpg]
f4 (no sharpening)
[attachment=13947:CFT002875_f4.jpg]
I have 2 copies of the 2.0/80. Both perform the same way.
At f2 it's not would I would call "tack sharp" and clean but for certain purposes it's usable.
-
Thanks for posting. Sometimes selective focus is more important than being "tack sharp"
-
Thanks for posting. Sometimes selective focus is more important than being "tack sharp"
agreed, this was adressed to the statements above.
Regarding your question about faster glass even with the common 1.3 and 1.1 crop backs - compared to film there is a loss of 1.5 f-stops in DOF (IMHO). Actually there is not less DOF but as digital is so much sharper at the focus plane it looks like having less DOF. The digital sensors like contrast... so the sharpness in the focus plane appears much higher as the surrounded DOF - this is why even at f11 or f16 it's so important to focus accurate as one still see where the actual focus plane is (hope it's reasonable explained).
-
@thomas
I'll have to admit that f2 looks better than expected, even when stepping from 22->39->50MP doesn't make so much sense resolution-wise!?
The MTF looks dramatic in comparison:
http://www.zeiss.de/C12567A8003B8B6F/Embed...nar2_80mm_d.pdf (http://www.zeiss.de/C12567A8003B8B6F/EmbedTitelIntern/Planar2_80mm_d/$File/Planar2_80mm_d.pdf)
I have tested the Schneider 2,8/50 once - what a beast! But lenses for smaller sensors should be more reasonable.
The best fast lens I've ever seen is the Summilux50Asph:
[attachment=13956:RBBStudio002.jpg]
(1,4/50Asph 1/60s handheld 400ASA M8 - center is a 100% crop of the ARRI lamphead above)
Since the S-lenses share the same design-philosophy and manufacturer (even designer ;-) we can expect similar performance from f1.4/f1.7-S-lenses in the future.
-
I'll have to admit that f2 looks better than expected, even when stepping from 22->39->50MP doesn't make so much sense resolution-wise!?
yes, f2 is quite okay. Shot was taken at near distance (1meter); it's getting even a bit better in farer distances (but infinitey is too far, of course). As to the pixel size I 'd assume the bigger the pixelpitch the better the lens will perform (so it should be better with 9micron chips or so. Could try it with a P21+... maybe later on).
-
I've got two of 'em--just to weigh in with another opinion, in my experience 80/2 is not at all 'tack sharp' at f/2. Low contrast and astigmatism abound. Not as much as the Schneider Xenotar 80/2, but certainly not what I'd consider 'tack sharp'.
I look forward to your samples, Victor--if yours are better than mine, then I'll know I've got to send mine in for some service.
-Brad
A I said, I hard ever use wide open, and would certainly NEVER accuse a lens of being 'tack sharp' wide open (don't know if possible, and would certainly question the sanity of the lens designer!)
The words "tack sharp" for the 80mm 2.0 Contax come from another person's comment on a f5.6 shot I took in London (street, people) and the 100% from a P45+ was quite sharp.
Anyway attached are shots I took this am. quite close (DOF at 2.0 was about 1/4 inch!)
2.0 is soft, but I can't imagine when I would use such narrow DOF
2.8 makes a BIG jump
and the 5.6 is where I would normally shoot 'fast' (best 8-11)
The scene
then ceneter and edge at 2, 2.8 and 5.6 resp
regards
Victor
PS, these are, except first 100% crops of the P65+ at 60MP (ISO was 50)
PPS The center bud is NOT in focus-I missed esp at 2.0. Look at the right edge of the left image. Nice detail and the edge is clean.
-
have used the Contax 80 f2.0 extensively at wide apertures (on P45+) and agree with most of above - its near useless at f2.0, except for focusing, and for that matter 2.8, starts to become useful at f4.0 and then something happens at f5.6 and it becomes really good. I think its not just stopping down using the center of the lens, but also flare/internal light reflections are minimized after f5.6 on, and it all comes together at that aperture.
I dearly wish it was better at wider apertures, but it just ain't so, i.m.h.o.
-
I suppose the 80/2 shot was tough to gauge.
here's a perrenial favorite of sharpness and detail watchers
the brick wall!
ok so I cheated, and its a brick walkway too
the first is a center area of the 80/2 at 2.0
the next is far edge
you can almost see from the 200 to 330 kb files that there is more detail in the center
but on my monitor not bad, esp since you would never really see this; it is a gain 100% crop of the P65+ at iso 50
C1 processing
Victor
PS I have the 45mm 2.8 and at 2.8 THAT lens is quite usable
-
the brick wall!
ok so I cheated, and its a brick walkway too
the first is a center area of the 80/2 at 2.0
the next is far edge
If these are 100% crops, I really don't find them bad, considering... How good is the Rollei 80/2?
-
If these are 100% crops, I really don't find them bad, considering... How good is the Rollei 80/2?
I would do a test but it's dark here now. Remind me if I haven't posted a sample tomorrow.
-
The Rollei lenses are exceptional and I believe have both zeiss and Schneider roots. The 80/2.8 for Rollei is an older zeiss design (like hassey?) while the zeiss 80/2 was only Contax. I think there were both 2.8 and 2.0 80mm schneider designs for Rollei.
I have a 300mm 2.0 ENORMOUS schneider lens and I think they use fewer elements for their fast lenses (can someone confirm?), so I am curious to see Grahams results
I would not quibble with the results; if they are better I would like to know. There are view camera mounts for Rollei where I could use my Contax mount P65+. It is just that the Contax is small and convenient ana great travel 'walkaround' lens. (Yes, I found it easier to use than the Leica R seies on the road.)
With Contax, Rollei and Hasselblad V there is a quality that many prefer. I am one. Doesn't make it better, (well, maybe it does!
regards
Victor
-
With Contax, Rollei and Hasselblad V there is a quality that many prefer.
Today I checked if the alignment of my split image screen (adjusted to the film plane my P45) also works well with my new P21+. Apparently the focus plane of the P45 and the P21+ match.
But... doing the test I determined that my Contax 2.0/80 has an "aperture error" (in German it's called "Blendenfehler"; maybe someone can help me out with proper translation here): stopping down the focus shifts back a little bit with each f stop. Oddly enough this applies to both of my copies of the 2.0/80 in exactly the same way.
Anyway... here's another f2 shot this time with the P21+.
With the bigger pixel size f2 is still somewhat uneven and not "tack sharp"... but if the look is required I'd say it is "usable".
(sharpening with C1 preset "Version 3.7 Standard")
scene
[attachment=14006:f2scene.jpg]
center
[attachment=14007:f2center.jpg]
edge (crop 1.3!)
[attachment=14008:f2corner.jpg]
-
Focus shift seems to be a bit of an open secret for lenses. The Leica M 35.. 1.4 seemed to have the most. (lots of discussion on the Leica forum.) Leica admitted to this effect. It may be due to design elements that reduce CA or other effects.
Focus shift may result from design comprises, and is likely in a lot more lenses than we think. It seems to stop at f4 to f5.6
The 80/2 may very well have it, or it could be one of your elements is slightly out of position.
I had not noticed on mine, but I will check.
regards
Victor
-
But... doing the test I determined that my Contax 2.0/80 has an "aperture error" (in German it's called "Blendenfehler"; maybe someone can help me out with proper translation here): stopping down the focus shifts back a little bit with each f stop. Oddly enough this applies to both of my copies of the 2.0/80 in exactly the same way.
Anyway... here's another f2 shot this time with the P21+.
I was going to comment on your first set of samples where the f/2 shot seemed to be sharp in front of the metal as the spiderweb was sharp while the more stopped down images seemed to focus more behind and the metal was more sharp.
Actually this type of focus shift with different aperture settings has been established - probably more the norm with lenses than not - and nothing wrong with your lenses. This is more of a problem with autofocus and autostop down cameras, but you can always use your DOF button to see it.
-
Actually this type of focus shift with different aperture settings has been established - probably more the norm with lenses than not - and nothing wrong with your lenses. This is more of a problem with autofocus and autostop down cameras, but you can always use your DOF button to see it.
oh, okay - thank you!
But it seems that this is just a problem at closer distances. At medium or wide distances I've never noticed the effect (well, not at the aptertures I shoot with).
-
oh, okay - thank you!
But it seems that this is just a problem at closer distances. At medium or wide distances I've never noticed the effect (well, not at the aptertures I shoot with).
Actually there is an article linked to the main LL page about differences between lenses that details this focus shift ... http://luminous-landscape.com/essays/digital-world.shtml (http://luminous-landscape.com/essays/digital-world.shtml) . Anyhow yes this is always there at any focal length but just more apparent with close subjects since the DOF is much smaller. Amount of error probably does vary with lens design as well. I seem to remember there being a difference in the amount of error between the types of lenses tested in the article.
-
Actually there is an article linked to the main LL page about differences between lenses that details this focus shift ... http://luminous-landscape.com/essays/digital-world.shtml (http://luminous-landscape.com/essays/digital-world.shtml) . Anyhow yes this is always there at any focal length but just more apparent with close subjects since the DOF is much smaller. Amount of error probably does vary with lens design as well. I seem to remember there being a difference in the amount of error between the types of lenses tested in the article.
thank you very much!
-
Medium format is not for low light.
Due size of image plane the DOF is already shallow at f/4, but indeed the Mamiya 80mm f/1.9 all manual is a very lovely lens for portraits etc, as also of light weight.
Personally I do not want heavier lenses, but it would be welcome to see more lenses of lighter weight, as also cameras of lighter weight - of course maintained image qualities.
Regards
Anders
P.S. If I could have one wish, it would be aperture ring on also my AF lenses...
-
Anyhow yes this is always there at any focal length but just more apparent with close subjects since the DOF is much smaller.
I've checked that (roughly). Focussing itself is more critical at wider distances of course (just touching the focus ring may cause a difference of 1 meter or so...) due to the gear ratio of focus.
But the focus shift seems to be constant all over the distances. So it seems to disappear up from a certain distance (not really disappearing maybe, but not noticeable anymore due to the wider DOF as you say). Does that make sense?
I would do a test but it's dark here now.
still dark in north-east Europe? :-)
-
I am in the I dont care camp I guess..I have a few versions of relatively fast F2 from Ziess in Contax and F/FE mounts as well as Rollie mount..F2 gives me a beez dick's worth of focal plane not a lot to play with when hand holding a MF camera and back..for tripod shots - yeah sure..ok ..but on a tripod in set up situations..give me some swing and tilt to play with selective focus and lot more sexy OOF effects. I am old school with camera gear - diifferent tools for different tasks. So faster MF for me is not very interesting if for cost and ergonomic reasons alone..the Rollie 100/2 is as fat and heavy a piece of glass as would try hand holding in MF land you need a lot of light to shoot wide open hand held - and steady hands - mine aren't getting any steadier every day - thats for sure -
-
Dear peter
how do you use the Rollei lenses? with an adapter for a view camera? I can't figure how to use with the Phase back (alpa do not have an adapter.)
I can't see getting a rollei body as Phase doesn't have a mount. (who does? The Sinar that Graham uses seems quite good.)
Will I have to extend my collecting? (No, not right now! :-)
regards
Victor
-
still dark in north-east Europe? :-)
Graham has been a dedicated contributor here. I am sure he will provide samples when he has the time.
Victor
-
Dear peter
how do you use the Rollei lenses? with an adapter for a view camera? I can't figure how to use with the Phase back (alpa do not have an adapter.)
I can't see getting a rollei body as Phase doesn't have a mount. (who does? The Sinar that Graham uses seems quite good.)
Will I have to extend my collecting? (No, not right now! :-)
regards
Victor
Hey Victor,
I picked up a nice set of PQ ( limited to 1/500th lenses) from Schneider ( 40/80/180 ) and the 110 Zeiss all in Rollie mounts ( 6x6) when I switched from Phase P45+ and Phamiya into a HY6 body and Sinar 75LV rotating back -very nice.
What do I like about the Sinar back - apart from the rotating ability? I use Contax Hasselblad V and Mamiya RZ mount adaptors with it - so I can decide which camera/lens combo to use according to need. The other thing I really like about Sinar - is ( depsite its relatively clunky software which isnt really clunky ) I like the colour I get from this back. All in all a very flexible system and the Hy6 is a very good camera body. Like you I am a fanatical about teh glass hanging off the front of cameras. One day I am hoping we can get a larger square chip from someone..and the Hy6 is good to go if/when we get it.
Pete
-
Would you like to see faster medium format lenses being made for medium format cameras? I don't see anyone mentioning this but perhaps we are all quietly thinking it? I'm curious.
What do you call fast, and what do you call medium format?
6*17 is medium format, and I am thinking about the Schneider Fine art Gold 1100 for shift-and-stitch GPX pix... but if you have waves in the picture, and you use a polarizing filter and 50 asa, you need about f4 for 1/125, and the 1100 is f22 with a shutter, or f14 without!
If you do a 400 mm * 170 mm single row shift-and-stitch, (giving you about a GigaPixel) I suppose that would be large format digital?
I have 600 mm and 900 mm aerial lenses with 150 mm front elements (f6) which would be OK wide open using movements without a polarizer... using one shot for the waves and several for the res of the pic.
This is why so many seascapes have "artistically" blurred waves - the photographers did not have the option to do anything else if they wanted DOF without movements.