View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
stevemark
Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 3754 Location: Switzerland
|
Posted: Sat May 16, 2020 8:12 pm Post subject: Minolta MD-III 2/50mm plus 2x Converter "300-S" |
|
|
stevemark wrote:
Intrigued by Haruo Sato's new "Nikkor Tale" about the Nikon TC teleconverters i checked the performance of the Minolta 2x converter "300-S" together with the MD-III 2/50mm lens. The results were a complete surprise: The images taken with the converter have a better corner performance and less CAs than the images taken without converter!
100% crops (extreme corner) from Sony A7II 24 MP full frame camera, JPGs "out of camera".
Upper row: Minolta MD-III 2/50mm wide open and stopped down two steps.
Lower row: Minolta MD-III 2/50mm plus 2x teleconverter Minolta 300-S wide open and stopped down two steps.
Stephan
_________________ www.artaphot.ch |
|
Back to top |
|
|
D1N0
Joined: 07 Aug 2012 Posts: 2491
|
Posted: Sat May 16, 2020 8:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
D1N0 wrote:
Teleconverters magnify the center of the image. So it stands to reason that the weak parts at the edges en corners are cropped out. _________________ pentaxian |
|
Back to top |
|
|
hasenbein
Joined: 15 May 2020 Posts: 93
|
Posted: Sat May 16, 2020 8:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
hasenbein wrote:
Teleconverter means in fact "optical cropping".
So it's obvious that the corners of the image with TC are what is midfield in the image without TC.
And thus this "surprising finding" presented her is just... er... lacking knowledge |
|
Back to top |
|
|
visualopsins
Joined: 05 Mar 2009 Posts: 10531 Location: California
Expire: 2025-04-11
|
Posted: Sat May 16, 2020 9:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
visualopsins wrote:
Also, lens alone wide open, the corners can be outside depth of focus. _________________ ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮ like attracts like! ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮
Cameras: Sony ILCE-7RM2, Spotmatics II, F, and ESII, Nikon P4
Lenses:
M42 Asahi Optical Co., Takumar 1:4 f=35mm, 1:2 f=58mm (Sonnar), 1:2.4 f=58mm (Heliar), 1:2.2 f=55mm (Gaussian), 1:2.8 f=105mm (Model I), 1:2.8/105 (Model II), 1:5.6/200, Tele-Takumar 1:5.6/200, 1:6.3/300, Macro-Takumar 1:4/50, Auto-Takumar 1:2.3 f=35, 1:1.8 f=55mm, 1:2.2 f=55mm, Super-TAKUMAR 1:3.5/28 (fat), 1:2/35 (Fat), 1:1.4/50 (8-element), Super-Multi-Coated Fisheye-TAKUMAR 1:4/17, Super-Multi-Coated TAKUMAR 1:4.5/20, 1:3.5/24, 1:3.5/28, 1:2/35, 1:3.5/35, 1:1.8/85, 1:1.9/85 1:2.8/105, 1:3.5/135, 1:2.5/135 (II), 1:4/150, 1:4/200, 1:4/300, 1:4.5/500, Super-Multi-Coated Macro-TAKUMAR 1:4/50, 1:4/100, Super-Multi-Coated Bellows-TAKUMAR 1:4/100, SMC TAKUMAR 1:1.4/50, 1:1.8/55
M42 Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 2.4/35
Contax Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* 28-70mm F3.5-4.5
Pentax K-mount SMC PENTAX ZOOM 1:3.5 35~105mm, SMC PENTAX ZOOM 1:4 45~125mm
Nikon Micro-NIKKOR-P-C Auto 1:3.5 f=55mm, NIKKOR-P Auto 105mm f/2.5 Pre-AI (Sonnar), Micro-NIKKOR 105mm 1:4 AI, NIKKOR AI-S 35-135mm f/3,5-4,5
Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (51B), Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (51BB), SP 500mm f/8 (55BB), SP 70-210mm f/3.5 (19AH)
Vivitar 100mm 1:2.8 MC 1:1 Macro Telephoto (Kiron)
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
aidaho
Joined: 29 Apr 2018 Posts: 456 Location: Ukraine
|
Posted: Sat May 16, 2020 9:36 pm Post subject: Re: Minolta MD-III 2/50mm plus 2x Converter "300-S" |
|
|
aidaho wrote:
stevemark wrote: |
Intrigued by Haruo Sato's new "Nikkor Tale" about the Nikon TC teleconverters i checked the performance of the Minolta 2x converter "300-S" together with the MD-III 2/50mm lens. The results were a complete surprise: The images taken with the converter have a better corner performance and less CAs than the images taken without converter! |
Interesting.
I guess the real question here is: how bad will it lag behind the MD-III 100/2.5@F4
Methinks MD-III 100/2.5@F4 will destroy MD-III 50/2@F2 + 2x tele. _________________ https://www.flickr.com/photos/curry-hexagon/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
stevemark
Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 3754 Location: Switzerland
|
Posted: Sat May 16, 2020 9:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
stevemark wrote:
hasenbein wrote: |
Teleconverter means in fact "optical cropping".
So it's obvious that the corners of the image with TC are what is midfield in the image without TC.
And thus this "surprising finding" presented her is just... er... lacking knowledge |
Errr ... not really. Of course i know that the teleconverter is "cropping" the central part out of the original (larger) image. However, the 2x teleconverter is enlarging all the image errors (CAs, astigmatism, spherical aberrations ...) twofold.
I know from my practical experience with Canon FD, Minolta MC/MD, Minolta/Sony AF and Tamron converters that almost any combination of lenses with a 2x converter drastically reduces the image quality. The combination and the results shown above are really a rare exception, and not at all "to be expected". You may read Haruo Satos article on the Nikon teleconverters:
https://imaging.nikon.com/history/story/0073/index.htm
Stephan _________________ www.artaphot.ch |
|
Back to top |
|
|
stevemark
Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 3754 Location: Switzerland
|
Posted: Sat May 16, 2020 9:49 pm Post subject: Re: Minolta MD-III 2/50mm plus 2x Converter "300-S" |
|
|
stevemark wrote:
aidaho wrote: |
stevemark wrote: |
Intrigued by Haruo Sato's new "Nikkor Tale" about the Nikon TC teleconverters i checked the performance of the Minolta 2x converter "300-S" together with the MD-III 2/50mm lens. The results were a complete surprise: The images taken with the converter have a better corner performance and less CAs than the images taken without converter! |
Interesting.
I guess the real question here is: how bad will it lag behind the MD-III 100/2.5@F4
Methinks MD-III 100/2.5@F4 will destroy MD-III 50/2@F2 + 2x tele. |
Yes, of course! _________________ www.artaphot.ch |
|
Back to top |
|
|
lumens pixel
Joined: 27 Feb 2019 Posts: 834
Expire: 2021-06-25
|
Posted: Sat May 16, 2020 10:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
lumens pixel wrote:
Did you focus with the 50 alone on the extreme corner zone you have cropped ?
The field of view difference between 50 and 100 is significant. At 100 mm there is not much focus difference between center and corner. 50 is another story. _________________ Lumens Pixel
-------------
Minolta SR mount: 16 2,8; Sigma SuperWide 24 2,8; 28 2,5; 28 2,8; 28 3,5; 35 2,8; 45 2,0; 50 1,4; 50 1,7; 50 2,0; 58 1,4; 85 2,0; 100 2,5; 100 4 Macro; 135 3,5; 135 2,8; 200 4; RF 250 5,6; 24-35 3,5; 35-70 3,5; 75-150 4; 70-210 4
Canon FD mount: Tokina RMC 17 3,5; 28 2,8; 35 2,8; 50 1,8; 50 3,5 Macro; 55 1,2; 135 3,5; 135 2,5; 200 4,0; 300 5,6; 28-55 3,5 4,5; Tokina SZ-X SD 270; 70-150 4,5; 70-210 f4; 80-200 4L; Tokina SZ-X 845
Tamron Adaptall: 28-80 3,5-4,2 (27A); 70-210 3,8-4 (46A); 60-300 (23A); 90 2,5 (52B); 35-135 3,5-4,5 (40A)
Tamron SP: 20-40 2,7-3,5 (266D) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
stevemark
Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 3754 Location: Switzerland
|
Posted: Sun May 17, 2020 8:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
stevemark wrote:
lumens pixel wrote: |
Did you focus with the 50 alone on the extreme corner zone you have cropped ? |
No. I always focus using the central part of the image. However. in the case of the Mibolta MD 2/50mm, the curvature of field is well controlled, and not much difference would be seen if i had focused on the corners.
lumens pixel wrote: |
The field of view difference between 50 and 100 is significant. At 100 mm there is not much focus difference between center and corner. 50 is another story. |
Yes, there is some difference, but not that much ... see the 100% crops below!
Anyway, I didn't want to start an "academic" discussion, but i simply wanted to share the fact that the MD-III 2/50mm & MD 300-S 2x converter combination works surprisingly well - certainly much better than any other "lens & 2x converter" combination i know!
Stephan _________________ www.artaphot.ch |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Ernst Dinkla
Joined: 30 Nov 2016 Posts: 378
|
Posted: Sun May 17, 2020 9:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ernst Dinkla wrote:
There is some analogy with using APS lenses + a teleconverter on an FF sensor compared to using them straight on an APS camera with a sensor having a higher pixel density. Prof Hank had some surprising results that way. Will try to add a link here. http://aggregate.org/DIT/EI2016/ei2016MIX.pdf
The Nikon article mentions that the converter is designed for the 2.0 lens. We have seen more 2.0 standard lenses that perform almost equal to faster lenses stopped down to 2.0 and at the same stops further on. There is a quote in Arthur Cox's Photographic Optics that it is sometimes preferable for a lens design to reduce the lens elements diameter and reduce aberrations that way, while sacrificing edge performance with light fall off etc. The Yashica ML 50mm 2.0 comes to mind.
Edit: The difference in your samples is really surprising. I have done some tests with 50mm lenses and a Kenko 1.4x teleconverter and never got that gain. Is the 50mm 2.0 hitting the infinity stop when you used it? If so I wonder whether infinity calibration of the lens was correct as I find the 50mm 2.0 result more disappointing than the combination being better. Stopped down that would be less a problem if no focus shift happens on that lens. In combination with the teleconverter the total infinity calibration might be better by sheer luck when the teleconverter is a bit shorter than it should be. I know this comment is near blasphemy but nevertheless ...... _________________ Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
March 2017 update, 750+ inkjet media white spectral plots
Last edited by Ernst Dinkla on Sun May 17, 2020 3:51 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
tb_a
Joined: 26 Jan 2010 Posts: 3678 Location: Austria
Expire: 2019-08-28
|
Posted: Sun May 17, 2020 12:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
tb_a wrote:
Ernst Dinkla wrote: |
There is some analogy with using APS lenses + a teleconverter on an FF sensor compared to using them straight on an APS camera with a sensor having a higher pixel density. |
This does indeed work quite well.
Have done some experiments with the Pentax APS-C SMC 55-300mm zoom and a Kenko MC7 Tcon on my Sony A7R II 42MP FF and the result is far better than expected.
Definitely a usable 600mm lens on FF.
Example shot uncropped, distance apprx. 30m, clickable for better quality viewing:
_________________ Thomas Bernardy
Manual focus lenses mainly from Minolta, Pentax, Voigtlaender, Leitz, Topcon and from Russia (too many to be listed here). |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Antoine
Joined: 08 Jan 2016 Posts: 298 Location: London
|
Posted: Mon May 18, 2020 7:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
Antoine wrote:
Thanks Steve for this trial.Very interesting! I certainly was not expecting such impressively clear result as indeed weaknesses should be enhanced...
The next step is indeed to compare it wide open with 300-s with the 100 mm 2.5. A comparison with same light (f/4 and f/ would really be interesting.
A question is also whether such result is related to the 50 mm f2 or if more lenses do perform well with the 300 s. (1.2 or 1.4 plus 300-s versus 100 mm f 2.5) _________________ Antoine
Sony A6000 APS-C and Sony A7 Rii
Minolta Fisheye MD Rokkor 7.5 mm f4, Fisheye MD 16 f2.8 MD R 17mm f4, MD R 20mm f2.8, MC VFC & MDIII 24mm f2.8, MD 28mm f2.0 &3.5, MD II 35mm 1.8, MD 45mm f2.0, MD 50mm f 1.2 & MD I f1.4, MC PG 58mm 1.2, MD 85mm f2.0, MD R 85mm f2.8 Varisoft, MC 85mm f1.7 MD R 100mm f2.5, MD R 100mm f4.0 macro, MD III 135mm f2.8, MD R 200mm f2.8 & 4.0, RF 250mm f5.6, MD 300mm f4.5, MD APO 400 mm f5.6, RF 500mm f8.0, RF 800mm f8.0 *2 300-s and 300-l
100 mm f4 macro bellows (5/4)
Vivitar 17mm f3.5, Elicar 300mm mirror f5.6, Zhongi turbo ii
Sigma 16mm f 2.8 fish eye
Zooms:24-50 mm f4, 35-70 mm f3.5 macro, 28-85mm f3.5-4.5, 50-135 f 3.5, 70-210 f4 and MD APO 100-500 mm f8 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
tb_a
Joined: 26 Jan 2010 Posts: 3678 Location: Austria
Expire: 2019-08-28
|
Posted: Mon May 18, 2020 9:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
tb_a wrote:
Antoine wrote: |
The next step is indeed to compare it wide open with 300-s with the 100 mm 2.5. A comparison with same light (f/4 and f/ would really be interesting. |
You have everything to find out. Please check and let us know your result.
Antoine wrote: |
A question is also whether such result is related to the 50 mm f2 or if more lenses do perform well with the 300 s. (1.2 or 1.4 plus 300-s versus 100 mm f 2.5) |
That's not the question as the explanation is already clear: Any lens with weak corner performance will benefit from a high quality converter as only the good center will be magnified and shown in the final picture. That's comparable to the usage of FF lenses on a APS-C or MFT sensor where only the sweet spot of the lens is used.
I've done really stunning macro shots with several Minolta 50mm 1.4 and 1.7 lenses in combination with the legendary Vivitar (Kenko) 2x macro tele converter which turns any 50mm lens into a 100mm macro one with 1:1 magnification ratio. There are already several threads with example pictures in this forum which are proving this already. Also the better DOF of a 2x magnified 50mm lens may still make sense in comparison to a real 100mm macro lens, particularly for situations where focus stacking isn't a feasable option.
However, to use any 50mm lens and converter combination instead of the MD 100/2.5 lens for general shootings wouldn't come to my mind. _________________ Thomas Bernardy
Manual focus lenses mainly from Minolta, Pentax, Voigtlaender, Leitz, Topcon and from Russia (too many to be listed here). |
|
Back to top |
|
|
stevemark
Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 3754 Location: Switzerland
|
Posted: Mon May 18, 2020 4:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
stevemark wrote:
Ernst Dinkla wrote: |
...
Edit: The difference in your samples is really surprising. I have done some tests with 50mm lenses and a Kenko 1.4x teleconverter and never got that gain. Is the 50mm 2.0 hitting the infinity stop when you used it? If so I wonder whether infinity calibration of the lens was correct as I find the 50mm 2.0 result more disappointing than the combination being better. Stopped down that would be less a problem if no focus shift happens on that lens. In combination with the teleconverter the total infinity calibration might be better by sheer luck when the teleconverter is a bit shorter than it should be. I know this comment is near blasphemy but nevertheless ...... |
The adapter i use allows focusing beyond infinity; your theory therefore isn't true ...
The MD-III 2/50mm explicitly was designed by Minolta as a "budget lens" (at least the technical report says so). There's no really high refractive glass (one lens nD 1.74, three more lenses nD 1.72); however the glass used has Abbe numbers in the range of 50, thus allowing a good color correction (both the MD-III 1.4/50mm and the 1.2/50mm have more lateral CAs). The other advantage of the MD-III 2/50mm is its really low distortion (about 0.1%). _________________ www.artaphot.ch |
|
Back to top |
|
|
stevemark
Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 3754 Location: Switzerland
|
Posted: Mon May 18, 2020 5:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
stevemark wrote:
Antoine wrote: |
Thanks Steve for this trial.Very interesting! I certainly was not expecting such impressively clear result as indeed weaknesses should be enhanced...
The next step is indeed to compare it wide open with 300-s with the 100 mm 2.5. A comparison with same light (f/4 and f/ would really be interesting. |
Here you are:
Given the fact that the MD-III 2.5/100mm is one of the sharpest vintage 100mm lens (sharper than the Canon nFD 2.8/100, the Konica 2.8/100mm and the Nikkor 2.5/105mm), the differences between "MD 2/50mm plus 2x 300-S converter" and "MD 2.5/100mm" are remarkably small.
Antoine wrote: |
A question is also whether such result is related to the 50 mm f2 or if more lenses do perform well with the 300 s. (1.2 or 1.4 plus 300-s versus 100 mm f 2.5) |
I have just checked the performance of the "MD-III 1.4/50mm plus 2x 300-S converter" and the "MD-III 1.2/50mm plus 2x 300-S converter" combinations. Basically they perform similar to the MD-III 2/50mm, but they have more CAs. This is not surprising since they use glass with higher refractive index and thus higher dispersion. _________________ www.artaphot.ch |
|
Back to top |
|
|
stevemark
Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 3754 Location: Switzerland
|
Posted: Mon May 18, 2020 5:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
stevemark wrote:
Finally a comparison of the
1) Minolta MD-III 2/50mm plus 2x 300-S converter
2) Canon nFD 1.8/50mm plus 2x-B converter
It is obvious that the Canon combo displays the typical "converter" look with lots of flare at f1.8 (f3.6 effective). If you look at these images the astonishing performance of the Minolta combo becomes obvious. And yes, i have double-checked the Canon combo: Two samples of the 1.8/50mm and two samples of the 2x-B converter. Both perform poorly ...
S _________________ www.artaphot.ch |
|
Back to top |
|
|
visualopsins
Joined: 05 Mar 2009 Posts: 10531 Location: California
Expire: 2025-04-11
|
Posted: Mon May 18, 2020 6:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
visualopsins wrote:
Crop image with tc to apsc size. Compare corners with corners of image without tc. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Antoine
Joined: 08 Jan 2016 Posts: 298 Location: London
|
Posted: Mon May 18, 2020 7:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Antoine wrote:
stevemark wrote: |
Finally a comparison of the
1) Minolta MD-III 2/50mm plus 2x 300-S converter
2) Canon nFD 1.8/50mm plus 2x-B converter
It is obvious that the Canon combo displays the typical "converter" look with lots of flare at f1.8 (f3.6 effective). If you look at these images the astonishing performance of the Minolta combo becomes obvious. And yes, i have double-checked the Canon combo: Two samples of the 1.8/50mm and two samples of the 2x-B converter. Both perform poorly ...
S |
Absolutely striking/remarkable results, I must confess. Thanks Steve! A unique example where one does not need to further close down after having already sacrificed 2 stops with the converter.
(I also got very good results with the 200 mm 2.8 and 300-s... a 400 mm 5.6... except for the ca) _________________ Antoine
Sony A6000 APS-C and Sony A7 Rii
Minolta Fisheye MD Rokkor 7.5 mm f4, Fisheye MD 16 f2.8 MD R 17mm f4, MD R 20mm f2.8, MC VFC & MDIII 24mm f2.8, MD 28mm f2.0 &3.5, MD II 35mm 1.8, MD 45mm f2.0, MD 50mm f 1.2 & MD I f1.4, MC PG 58mm 1.2, MD 85mm f2.0, MD R 85mm f2.8 Varisoft, MC 85mm f1.7 MD R 100mm f2.5, MD R 100mm f4.0 macro, MD III 135mm f2.8, MD R 200mm f2.8 & 4.0, RF 250mm f5.6, MD 300mm f4.5, MD APO 400 mm f5.6, RF 500mm f8.0, RF 800mm f8.0 *2 300-s and 300-l
100 mm f4 macro bellows (5/4)
Vivitar 17mm f3.5, Elicar 300mm mirror f5.6, Zhongi turbo ii
Sigma 16mm f 2.8 fish eye
Zooms:24-50 mm f4, 35-70 mm f3.5 macro, 28-85mm f3.5-4.5, 50-135 f 3.5, 70-210 f4 and MD APO 100-500 mm f8
Last edited by Antoine on Mon May 18, 2020 7:52 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
lumens pixel
Joined: 27 Feb 2019 Posts: 834
Expire: 2021-06-25
|
Posted: Mon May 18, 2020 7:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
lumens pixel wrote:
This says a lot about the quality of the MDIII 50 2 and I agree with that.
Now watch the nFD 50 1,8 with the Panagor macro converter (probably same as Vivitar but I have no clue).
[img][/url]Paquerette Macro by lumens pixel, sur Flickr[/img] _________________ Lumens Pixel
-------------
Minolta SR mount: 16 2,8; Sigma SuperWide 24 2,8; 28 2,5; 28 2,8; 28 3,5; 35 2,8; 45 2,0; 50 1,4; 50 1,7; 50 2,0; 58 1,4; 85 2,0; 100 2,5; 100 4 Macro; 135 3,5; 135 2,8; 200 4; RF 250 5,6; 24-35 3,5; 35-70 3,5; 75-150 4; 70-210 4
Canon FD mount: Tokina RMC 17 3,5; 28 2,8; 35 2,8; 50 1,8; 50 3,5 Macro; 55 1,2; 135 3,5; 135 2,5; 200 4,0; 300 5,6; 28-55 3,5 4,5; Tokina SZ-X SD 270; 70-150 4,5; 70-210 f4; 80-200 4L; Tokina SZ-X 845
Tamron Adaptall: 28-80 3,5-4,2 (27A); 70-210 3,8-4 (46A); 60-300 (23A); 90 2,5 (52B); 35-135 3,5-4,5 (40A)
Tamron SP: 20-40 2,7-3,5 (266D) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
stevemark
Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 3754 Location: Switzerland
|
Posted: Thu May 21, 2020 5:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
stevemark wrote:
Today, while cleaning up my Canon FD/nFD stuff, i found an Nikon TC-200 converter (which has the same optical construction as the TC-1). Obviously I had forgotten that I have one! Of course i immediately went out to check its performance in combination with the Nikkor-H 2/50mm and the Nikon E 1.8/50mm (same optical construction as the newer version of the Nikkor 1.8/50mm and the AF Nikkor 1.8/50mm). The results are similar to the results of the Canon nFD 1.8/50mm plus Canon 2x-B converter, and not nearly as good as with the Minolta MD 2/50mm plus Minolta 300-S 2x converter:
Stephan _________________ www.artaphot.ch |
|
Back to top |
|
|
visualopsins
Joined: 05 Mar 2009 Posts: 10531 Location: California
Expire: 2025-04-11
|
Posted: Sat May 23, 2020 8:41 pm Post subject: Re: Minolta MD-III 2/50mm plus 2x Converter "300-S" |
|
|
visualopsins wrote:
stevemark wrote: |
Intrigued by Haruo Sato's new "Nikkor Tale" about the Nikon TC teleconverters i checked the performance of the Minolta 2x converter "300-S" together with the MD-III 2/50mm lens. The results were a complete surprise: The images taken with the converter have a better corner performance and less CAs than the images taken without converter!
100% crops (extreme corner) from Sony A7II 24 MP full frame camera, JPGs "out of camera".
Upper row: Minolta MD-III 2/50mm wide open and stopped down two steps.
Lower row: Minolta MD-III 2/50mm plus 2x teleconverter Minolta 300-S wide open and stopped down two steps.
Stephan
|
The upper right and lower left images compare like apertures. Dof is those, however, is different, because the magnification is different. A more accurate comparison would move the camera closer for the lens-only photos to frame the same view in the lens-with-tc photos, to show same dof. _________________ ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮ like attracts like! ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮
Cameras: Sony ILCE-7RM2, Spotmatics II, F, and ESII, Nikon P4
Lenses:
M42 Asahi Optical Co., Takumar 1:4 f=35mm, 1:2 f=58mm (Sonnar), 1:2.4 f=58mm (Heliar), 1:2.2 f=55mm (Gaussian), 1:2.8 f=105mm (Model I), 1:2.8/105 (Model II), 1:5.6/200, Tele-Takumar 1:5.6/200, 1:6.3/300, Macro-Takumar 1:4/50, Auto-Takumar 1:2.3 f=35, 1:1.8 f=55mm, 1:2.2 f=55mm, Super-TAKUMAR 1:3.5/28 (fat), 1:2/35 (Fat), 1:1.4/50 (8-element), Super-Multi-Coated Fisheye-TAKUMAR 1:4/17, Super-Multi-Coated TAKUMAR 1:4.5/20, 1:3.5/24, 1:3.5/28, 1:2/35, 1:3.5/35, 1:1.8/85, 1:1.9/85 1:2.8/105, 1:3.5/135, 1:2.5/135 (II), 1:4/150, 1:4/200, 1:4/300, 1:4.5/500, Super-Multi-Coated Macro-TAKUMAR 1:4/50, 1:4/100, Super-Multi-Coated Bellows-TAKUMAR 1:4/100, SMC TAKUMAR 1:1.4/50, 1:1.8/55
M42 Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 2.4/35
Contax Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* 28-70mm F3.5-4.5
Pentax K-mount SMC PENTAX ZOOM 1:3.5 35~105mm, SMC PENTAX ZOOM 1:4 45~125mm
Nikon Micro-NIKKOR-P-C Auto 1:3.5 f=55mm, NIKKOR-P Auto 105mm f/2.5 Pre-AI (Sonnar), Micro-NIKKOR 105mm 1:4 AI, NIKKOR AI-S 35-135mm f/3,5-4,5
Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (51B), Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (51BB), SP 500mm f/8 (55BB), SP 70-210mm f/3.5 (19AH)
Vivitar 100mm 1:2.8 MC 1:1 Macro Telephoto (Kiron)
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
sergun
Joined: 01 Jun 2017 Posts: 283 Location: наша раша
|
Posted: Sun May 31, 2020 7:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
sergun wrote:
Is not the topic. There is someone to check the Canon extender FD 1.4 x-A optical characteristics ?. (best in conjunction with Canon nFD 300 F4 non L) _________________ https://www.flickr.com/photos/105161078@N06/
https://fotoload.ru/fotosets/6661/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
tb_a
Joined: 26 Jan 2010 Posts: 3678 Location: Austria
Expire: 2019-08-28
|
Posted: Sun May 31, 2020 7:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
tb_a wrote:
sergun wrote: |
Is not the topic. There is someone to check the Canon extender FD 1.4 x-A optical characteristics ?. (best in conjunction with Canon nFD 300 F4 non L) |
Unfortunately not. But as a general observation I can tell you that I have done a lot of experiments with many different tele converters and lenses and the result varies a lot and is dependent on following factors:
1. The best tele converter doesn't help if the master lens isn't capable; i.e. only very good and perfectly corrected lenses should be used in combination with converters as otherwise all failures will be magnified as well.
2. Original converters usually perform better than cheap third party ones, although there are some exceptions.
3. 1.4X converters are less critical than 2X converters.
I cannot comment on your Canon 300/4 lens but I've done pictures with my high quality Minolta AF 300/4 APO G lens plus 2X Kenko MC7 DGX converter and these pictures have been better than the Tele-Tokina 600/8 lens. On the other hand all my other 300mm prime and zoom lenses in combination with 2X converters have been worse, just to give you some ideas. _________________ Thomas Bernardy
Manual focus lenses mainly from Minolta, Pentax, Voigtlaender, Leitz, Topcon and from Russia (too many to be listed here). |
|
Back to top |
|
|
stevemark
Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 3754 Location: Switzerland
|
Posted: Mon Jun 01, 2020 1:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
stevemark wrote:
sergun wrote: |
Is not the topic. There is someone to check the Canon extender FD 1.4 x-A optical characteristics ?. (best in conjunction with Canon nFD 300 F4 non L) |
See here:
http://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic,p,1537227.html#1537227
S _________________ www.artaphot.ch |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|