View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Laurentiu Cristofor
Joined: 23 Oct 2010 Posts: 524 Location: WA, USA
|
Posted: Tue May 14, 2013 6:21 am Post subject: Using long lenses (200mm+) on MFT |
|
|
Laurentiu Cristofor wrote:
Over the past few weeks, I tried a bunch of lenses on my E-M5, to see how they fared. They actually worked pretty well - the in-body image stabilization feature was very useful. The main issues that most of the refractive designs have are LoCA and a lack of resolution wide open. Being able to check the image in the EVF using the magnification feature made it easy to both focus these lenses and to realize that what I had thought to be purple fringing was just the red component of LoCA.
Here is a sample from each lens as well as some quick comments:
200mm
Jupiter 21M 200/4
Very nice lens, well controlled CA, sharpness is good wide open, nice microcontrast, vulnerable to frontal light.
@f/4:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/laurentiucristofor/8737735830
Tamron SP 80-200/2.8
Nice lens, some LoCA, but a bit less than other long adaptall-2 lenses. Good sharpness wide open, improves significantly at f/4. Microcontrast is a bit low wide open, but resolution is good. Heavy lens.
@f/2.8:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/laurentiucristofor/8732686603
Pentax DA 55-200/4-5.6
Ok, not a MF lens, but cannot be used otherwise when adapted. This lens suffers from spherical aberration, which reduces its capacity of capturing details even when stopped down to f/8. Otherwise, it is nice and has very little LoCA.
@f/8:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/laurentiucristofor/8729914285
250mm
Vivitar 250/4.5
This is the Norita lens that I discovered via this forum. This lens has a bit of a soft glow wide open and resolution does not improve much on stopping down. LoCA is not an issue. Vulnerable to frontal light. Very nice if used within its limitations.
@f/4.5:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/laurentiucristofor/8726930135
300mm
Tamron SP 300/5.6
Very nicely built lens, great handling. LoCA is the worst among my adaptall-2 lenses. Nice minimum focusing distance compared to other legacy lenses. Resolution improves significantly when used at f/8, so that is my regular setting:
@f/8:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/laurentiucristofor/8725359374
Tamron SP 60-300/3.8-5.4
This lens is just too long and the creeping push-pull zoom makes it difficult to use other focal lengths than the extremes of its zoom range. Harder to stabilize too. I found resolution to be on par with the 300/5.6 and has less LoCA too, but the prime is just much nicer to use. The example I got is not as inspiring as the other samples, but I have nicer examples on APS-C - just didn't catch something interesting that day and then I moved to another lens.
@f/8:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/laurentiucristofor/8725359460
Tamron 70-300/4-5.6
I also played with this modern AF lens, but its performance at 300mm is the weakest of the bunch. It works great at 180mm though, where the close focusing distance makes it a nice pseudo-macro. Since I did not use it at 300mm, I am not including any sample.
Pentax FA 100-300/4.7-5.8
This is the best of the legacy lenses I have. Again, I know this is AF, but I thought it is interesting to include it here for comparison. This seems to be sharpest of the bunch and LoCA is present but not as much as in the other 300mm lenses. As with the other 300mm lenses, performance is at its best at f/8.
@f/8:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/laurentiucristofor/8715819691
Tokina 300/6.3 mirror
This is a modern mirror lens designed for MFT. It is the most compact 300mm around. Very good resolution. Microcontrast is lower, as for all mirror lenses, but details are easily brought up with a bit of sharpening. Also focuses very close, down to 80cm, far closer than any other 300mm listed here. I am very happy with it.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/laurentiucristofor/8642094094
500mm
Tokina 500/8 mirror
This is my old, reliable mirror lens. I thought it would be very challenging to use handheld on MFT, but I actually managed to get some decent shots that way. It seems about the perfect focal length for birds on MFT. I am impressed that it still manages to resolve fine detail on the MFT sensor.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/laurentiucristofor/8684310471
If you want to see more examples from any of these lenses, click on the url under the sample image and then on the tag with the lens name.
Overall, modern lenses show the improvement made in this area over time. I recently acquired the Olympus 75-300 and it is truly stellar at 300mm, even when used wide open. No LoCA, no weaknesses. When it comes to mirror lens designs, I was surprised how well the old Tokina fared against the younger one despite not being designed to resolve a sensor with such pixel pitch, but even here, the new Tokina offers much better resolution when focused at closer distances.
One final comment and advice: at the size I share these images (800x600), all lenses look good unless you look closely. The differences I mentioned are easily noticeable at 100% and matter when you need to crop or print/display large. Never assume a lens is amazing just because you see nice photos from it. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
parabellumfoto
Joined: 06 Apr 2013 Posts: 413 Location: Sydney, Australia
|
Posted: Tue May 14, 2013 10:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
parabellumfoto wrote:
Thanks for the pictures and run down.
A quick question. I know what CA means but what does LoCA mean? I'm assuming it is something about chromatic aberration at a lower end?
Also, the rabbit photo looks very nice but there's a green blotch just underneath the rabbit's nose. It's in the grass but it stands out. Is it some sort of lens flair? _________________ Minolta MC Rokkor f1.4 50mm
Minolta MD Zoom Macro 35-105mm f3.5-4.5
Nikon Nikkor 50mm F2
Nippon Kogaku Japan Nikkor-S Auto 5cm F2
Nippon Kogaku Japan Nikkor-Q Auto 135mm F2.8
Nikon AF-S Nikkor 35mm F1.8G
http://www.parabellumfoto.com/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
diddy
Joined: 28 Mar 2012 Posts: 288
|
Posted: Tue May 14, 2013 1:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
diddy wrote:
Some very impressive pictures! I just recently got the Tamron 60-300mm as well and so far I have to agree with you that it is not that easy to focus with this lens. I have a tripod ring coming and will reevaluate the lens then.
What was your setup with all those lenses? Did you use them all handheld? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
nurkov
Joined: 21 Feb 2013 Posts: 711 Location: United Kingdom
Expire: 2014-03-09
|
Posted: Tue May 14, 2013 3:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
nurkov wrote:
great test superb pictures _________________ http://www.flickr.com/photos/34787419@N08/
Minolta and Canon user |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Laurentiu Cristofor
Joined: 23 Oct 2010 Posts: 524 Location: WA, USA
|
Posted: Tue May 14, 2013 6:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Laurentiu Cristofor wrote:
Thank you for the nice words!
parabellumfoto wrote: |
A quick question. I know what CA means but what does LoCA mean? |
Sorry, I borrowed this acronym from photozone and I didn't realize I didn't explain it in here. It stands for longitudinal chromatic aberrations. These are those aberrations that appear with respect to focal plane - red fringing in front, green fringing behind. You can see them with almost any fast lens. photozone takes photographs of a marked scale and the scale markings get the fringing in a very noticeable way.
I have a post where I talk about chromatic aberrations - it links at the end to another post on this forum where I had started a discussion in an effort to understand the different types of CA - I just updated that post and it has some 100% crop examples of the aberrations I was seeing as well as other samples from other users. At this point, these LoCA and the lateral chromatic aberrations (LaCA) are the only ones I am aware of, having seen them in my results. LaCA mainly show in wide angles - LoCA mainly in fast lenses and in telephotos. I thought PF was distinct, but now it looks like it's not or if it is, it is rare and it just gets confused with LoCA. PF and other blooming issues may also just have been an issue with older digital sensor generations.
diddy wrote: |
What was your setup with all those lenses? Did you use them all handheld? |
Yes, all of these were taken handheld. Having an EVF that allowed me to keep the camera on my face helped with stabilization at the longer focal lengths. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Attila
Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 57865 Location: Hungary
Expire: 2025-11-18
|
Posted: Tue May 14, 2013 6:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Attila wrote:
Great series with useful notes, many thanks! _________________ -------------------------------
Items on sale on Ebay
Sony NEX-7 Carl Zeiss Planar 85mm f1.4, Minolta MD 35mm f1.8, Konica 135mm f2.5, Minolta MD 50mm f1.2, Minolta MD 250mm f5.6, Carl Zeiss Sonnar 180mm f2.8
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Laurentiu Cristofor
Joined: 23 Oct 2010 Posts: 524 Location: WA, USA
|
Posted: Sat May 18, 2013 4:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
Laurentiu Cristofor wrote:
And here is a sample from the:
Olympus 75-300/4.8-6.7 II
Excellent lens, have not seen any CA from it so far, slower zoom range, but more usable wide open than other lenses at f/8.
@f/6.7:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/laurentiucristofor/8749902854 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
david_b
Joined: 02 Oct 2012 Posts: 108 Location: Europe
|
Posted: Sat May 18, 2013 2:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
david_b wrote:
Pentacon 200mm/f4 with Olympus OM-D @ f4, 1/40s, ISO2000
For me handheld manual focus is very difficult, but is possible on OM-D. But I need a lot of time before I'm sure I have focus. _________________
M42 Helios 44M-4 58mm f2; Helios 44M-6 58mm f2; Pentacon 200mm f4; Jupiter 37AM 135mm f3.5; Industar 50-2 50mm f3.5; Tair 3Phs 300mm f4,5
Konica AR Hexanon 50mm f1.4; Konica AR Hexanon 50mm f1.7; Konica AR Hexanon 28mm f3.5 2x; Konica AR Hexanon 135mm f2.5
M39 Jupiter 8 50mm f2 3x; Industar 50mm f3.5
...
https://www.flickr.com/photos/david_db/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Laurentiu Cristofor
Joined: 23 Oct 2010 Posts: 524 Location: WA, USA
|
Posted: Sat May 18, 2013 4:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Laurentiu Cristofor wrote:
david_b wrote: |
For me handheld manual focus is very difficult, but is possible on OM-D. But I need a lot of time before I'm sure I have focus. |
How you set up controls can help here. I use the Fn2 button to control magnification and I set LV Close Up Mode to mode2 in D menu, to prevent half pressing the shutter from getting back to the full frame - this allows me to focus accurately while keeping the shutter half pressed to engage IS.
Very nice shot, btw. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
bruzzo
Joined: 05 Jul 2012 Posts: 153
|
Posted: Tue May 28, 2013 12:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
bruzzo wrote:
Great series! I use the 200mm+ range a lot so, great to see some 200mm+ enthusiast posts here.
Btw nice to see some use of the Tokina 500/8. I also find it reliable and very usable for birds especially with modern day CMOS which performs well even with high ISO. The reach you get in such small package makes it very usable on mirrorless.
Some more from the Tokina 500/8 but with NEX:
Not bad when resized to 800x600/1024x768. Btw my copy has a little fungus (not sure if this is why it looks a little hazy i didn't use a haze filter). |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Phenix jc
Joined: 19 Dec 2009 Posts: 398 Location: France
|
Posted: Tue May 28, 2013 11:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Phenix jc wrote:
Laurentiu Cristofor wrote: |
(...)
Tokina 300/6.3 mirror
This is a modern mirror lens designed for MFT. It is the most compact 300mm around. Very good resolution. Microcontrast is lower, as for all mirror lenses, but details are easily brought up with a bit of sharpening. Also focuses very close, down to 80cm, far closer than any other 300mm listed here. I am very happy with it.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/laurentiucristofor/8642094094
(...)
Overall, modern lenses show the improvement made in this area over time. I recently acquired the Olympus 75-300 and it is truly stellar at 300mm, even when used wide open. No LoCA, no weaknesses. When it comes to mirror lens designs, I was surprised how well the old Tokina fared against the younger one despite not being designed to resolve a sensor with such pixel pitch, but even here, the new Tokina offers much better resolution when focused at closer distances.
One final comment and advice: at the size I share these images (800x600), all lenses look good unless you look closely. The differences I mentioned are easily noticeable at 100% and matter when you need to crop or print/display large. Never assume a lens is amazing just because you see nice photos from it. |
Very interesting, thanks !
Yesterday, 3 examples with a Nikkor 200mm Micro (=Macro) OMD
#1
#2
#3
_________________ "Plonger les choses dans la lumière, c'est les plonger dans l'infini" Léonard De Vinci
f/1.2 club Zuiko : 50/1.2, 55/1.2 Rokkor : 50/1.2, 58/1.2 Nikkor : 50/1.2, 55/1.2 Third Party : Porst(Fujinon-X) 50/1.2, Porst 55/1.2 Canon : S 50/1.2, nFD 50/1.2, FL 55/1.2, R 58/1.2, nFD 85/1.2 Hexanon : 57/1.2 Nokton : 50/1.1 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Laurentiu Cristofor
Joined: 23 Oct 2010 Posts: 524 Location: WA, USA
|
Posted: Wed May 29, 2013 8:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Laurentiu Cristofor wrote:
Very nice samples from the Tokina mirror and Nikkor micro! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
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
|