Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Horrible CA in Contax Sonnar 135 f/2.8
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sun Dec 07, 2008 8:55 pm    Post subject: Horrible CA in Contax Sonnar 135 f/2.8 Reply with quote
Hello to all,

After a few months of lurking in the forum I thought it be time to post something myself. I did not get round to listing my gear in the sig yet, because I am already pretty badly infected with the virus and need to make a list first Smile

Anyway, I would like to ask your opinions on one of my more recent purchases, a CZ Sonnar 135mm f/2.8 in Contax mount.

Even though the Zeiss 3D crisp is there, I was unpleasantly surprised by some horrific CA being present in some test shots I made. Coloured fringes in both red/magenta and green are very visible and are uncorrectable in Lightroom & co.

Some months ago I bought the Contax Planar 50mm, both the 1.4 and 1.7 versions and if they had shown this behaviour I would have never bothered buying more Zeiss glass.

My question: is this normal behaviour or is there something wrong?

Let me show you what I mean. I shot in RAW and made no other corrections than white balance and mild sharpening. They were made with my EOS 40D camera fitted with an happypagehk adapter chipped for my Planar 1.4 (hence the 50mm f/1.4 in the EXIF).

Reflections on wet tarmac, full picture and a detail crop:


Code:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3182/3090586714_e670655e62_o.jpg



Code:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3212/3090587180_fe0d206840_o.jpg


Sleeping bird (handheld 1/50th; can be bit blurry)

Code:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3077/3090586076_ec41a01bbc_o.jpg



Code:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3109/3089747941_f213f93258_o.jpg


Many thanks in advance!


Crispian


PostPosted: Sun Dec 07, 2008 9:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Hi Crispian

Welcome to the forum, dont know much about the lens but assure you there's many on the forum that do!
Nice bird though ! they always come and mess up my garden and are called "tarentaal" in the local language
Cheers
Daniel


PostPosted: Sun Dec 07, 2008 9:20 pm    Post subject: Re: Horrible CA in Contax Sonnar 135 f/2.8 Reply with quote
sir_c wrote:
Hello to all,

After a few months of lurking in the forum I thought it be time to post something myself. I did not get round to listing my gear in the sig yet, because I am already pretty badly infected with the virus and need to make a list first Smile

Anyway, I would like to ask your opinions on one of my more recent purchases, a CZ Sonnar 135mm f/2.8 in Contax mount.

Even though the Zeiss 3D crisp is there, I was unpleasantly surprised by some horrific CA being present in some test shots I made. Coloured fringes in both red/magenta and green are very visible and are uncorrectable in Lightroom & co.

Some months ago I bought the Contax Planar 50mm, both the 1.4 and 1.7 versions and if they had shown this behaviour I would have never bothered buying more Zeiss glass.

My question: is this normal behaviour or is there something wrong?

Let me show you what I mean. I shot in RAW and made no other corrections than white balance and mild sharpening. They were made with my EOS 40D camera fitted with an happypagehk adapter chipped for my Planar 1.4 (hence the 50mm f/1.4 in the EXIF).

Reflections on wet tarmac, full picture and a detail crop:







Sleeping bird (handheld 1/50th; can be bit blurry)






Many thanks in advance!


Crispian


PostPosted: Sun Dec 07, 2008 9:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Every lens able to produce CA in opposite sunlight I think this is too much even in opposite sunlight. I have no idea about reason why you got this result.


PostPosted: Sun Dec 07, 2008 9:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Hi Attila
This is just a wild guess, but would it maybe possible that lenscoatings has been removed or damaged maybe due to cleaning with wrong chemicals?
Daniel


PostPosted: Sun Dec 07, 2008 9:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Might be, I used strong chemical on single coated and multi coated lenses to clean them from fungus and never get such a bad result. Perhaps you have right it was cleaned with wrong chemical.


PostPosted: Sun Dec 07, 2008 9:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
It isn't correctable, because this is not common CA (lateral CA), but so-called axial-CA. This effect appears mostly slightly in front and behind the focus (focused ares are mainly CA-free). It appers mostly on short tele lenses... I'd say the newer design, the worse axial-CA. Maybe all of the optical corrections, which improves focused areas, improves MTF and decreases lateral-CA, ruines OOF areas and creates more axial-CA... (or maybe I'm wrong) Smile


PostPosted: Sun Dec 07, 2008 9:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
welcome Crispian
I don't see such CA on mine


PostPosted: Mon Dec 08, 2008 12:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have three copies of this lens (one AE and two MM), and they never shown this problem.
Maybe you have gotten a bad copy, or, what I think is more likely, this is sensor bloom caused by the high contrast between shadows and highilights.
If this is the case, then the lens is innocent, and the sensor is the culprit.

One characteristic of chromatic aberration vs. sensor bloom is, CA is detectable under all lighting conditions, whereas sensor bloom problem rises when there is high contrast.
So you should remake these pictures on a dull day, better when the sun is positioned at your back.
If you still see the problem, it's CA, else, it's sensor bloom.
Another test you can make is to shoot a roll of slide film and compare.


PostPosted: Mon Dec 08, 2008 6:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
This isn't sensor bloom, because of different colors and range. See:

http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.html#purplefringe
http://www.vanwalree.com/optics/chromatic.html


PostPosted: Mon Dec 08, 2008 9:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I had the same problem on EOS with a Distagon 2.8/25. The cheap big_is adapter was the problem. Bought Haoda's prof one, problem solved.

Take a look at this: http://www.pebbleplace.com/Personal/Contax_db_Adapters.html

Bye


PostPosted: Mon Dec 08, 2008 10:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
(...) Maybe you have gotten a bad copy, or, what I think is more likely, this is sensor bloom caused by the high contrast between shadows and highilights. (...)


If it were sensor blooming, it would occur with other lenses too, right?

Here I have another example made with my Pentacon 135 f/2.8 in Berlin. No such effect here.

http://lh5.ggpht.com/_5ZGAH5Z41qU/SPpObBj6brI/AAAAAAAAA8c/_HYBkW_Qq8Q/s912/_MG_2140.jpg

Also many other pictures I make with my EF 70-200 2.8L for example perform much better here.

Assuming the lens is at fault here, what kind of repair would one need. Can this be some lens element being dislocated? As far as I can remember the multicoating looks OK on my lens, but I will check when I'm home tonight.


PostPosted: Mon Dec 08, 2008 10:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
sir_c wrote:

Assuming the lens is at fault here, what kind of repair would one need.


Much probably, a too expensive one to be considered.
Just resell the lens or give it away to someone who needs it.


PostPosted: Mon Dec 08, 2008 11:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
csaba369 wrote:
I had the same problem on EOS with a Distagon 2.8/25. The cheap big_is adapter was the problem. Bought Haoda's prof one, problem solved.

Take a look at this: http://www.pebbleplace.com/Personal/Contax_db_Adapters.html

Bye


I guess you have trialed both under exactly the same conditions??

I don't see how the variation in thickness could possibly have any effect on CA !!!!!! The adapter thickness only serves to affect the focus of the lens. Now, that can have an effect on the infinity focus, but not on CA.

The only ways in my mind that the adapter could affect CA, is if the adapter is grossly thicker on one side than the other, throwing the axis out of the perpendicular to the sensor plane. However, it would be very difficult to even do that deliberately.
Another possibility is that it could be off axis, which could affect CA, and wouldn't be hard to do if the adapter is not a precision unit.


PostPosted: Mon Dec 08, 2008 1:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Lens can move on my bad adapter, so it is possible one side closer than the other. I'm not too much interested in what was the problem with that adapter, happy with new one and beautiful Zeiss lenses.


PostPosted: Mon Dec 08, 2008 2:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
dnas wrote:

The only ways in my mind that the adapter could affect CA, is if the adapter is grossly thicker on one side than the other


That would never create CA.
It would only create a tilt focus effect.


PostPosted: Mon Dec 08, 2008 2:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
This is classic sensor bloom, not chromatic aberration. (Bloom comes in all colors).

Chromatic aberration is actually fairly rare these days and almost non-existent in Zeiss achromatic lenses.

CA occurs on every object in a picture regardless of the contrast.

The color aberrations in these shots are occurring in exactly where bloom happens, high contrast areas, tree limbs and twigs against the sky, and wet-surface bright reflections.

Take the same lens and repeat the shots using a film camera. You will see no color fringing.

Take the same lens and repeat the shots using a different digital body. You will see color fringing.

It's the bane of digital photography. All sensors fringe in certain instances from Leica to Canons to Nikons to Contax.

Use Film!

Cheers

Jules


PostPosted: Mon Dec 08, 2008 3:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
lulalake wrote:
This is classic sensor bloom, not chromatic aberration. (Bloom comes in all colors).

The color aberrations in these shots are occurring in exactly where bloom happens, high contrast areas, tree limbs and twigs against the sky, and wet-surface bright reflections.


Thanks!
I was beginning to feel like a complete idiot after the reply. That seemed absolutely sensor bloom to me.


PostPosted: Mon Dec 08, 2008 3:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
lulalake: so please explain to us, why the reflections between lens and focus are purple and the reflections between focus and infinity are green, if you say, that the lens is not the cause of this (d)effect Wink


PostPosted: Mon Dec 08, 2008 5:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
lulalake wrote:
This is classic sensor bloom, not chromatic aberration. (Bloom comes in all colors).

Chromatic aberration is actually fairly rare these days and almost non-existent in Zeiss achromatic lenses.

CA occurs on every object in a picture regardless of the contrast.

The color aberrations in these shots are occurring in exactly where bloom happens, high contrast areas, tree limbs and twigs against the sky, and wet-surface bright reflections.

Take the same lens and repeat the shots using a film camera. You will see no color fringing.

Take the same lens and repeat the shots using a different digital body. You will see color fringing.

It's the bane of digital photography. All sensors fringe in certain instances from Leica to Canons to Nikons to Contax.

Use Film!

Cheers

Jules


Hi,
I'm new to this forum so once again "Hi!" to everyone Wink
To be more specific: AFAIK, sensor sensor fringing, IS the effect of chromatic aberration, but in micro scale (CCD sensors incorporates matrix of microlenses).
The other thing to consider is "sensor blooming" - when one sensor element feels really full, his nearest neighbours are readily affected too - this phenomenon is the main reason of magnification of existing CA effects, and that's the main reason why CA of the same lens is more prominent on digital camera than on the photographic film.
What we can see on the pictures is both transverse and longitudinal chromatic aberration, and virtually ANY refractor type lens ever produced (including Canon "Luxury" series) will produce some - more or less - it can be reduced, but it can not be completely eliminated as long as light dispersion happens.
In such extreme contrast conditions CA is just easier to notice. Wink
Following no-X :" why the reflections between lens and focus are purple and the reflections between focus and infinity are green" - that's the point - every lens is designed to have CA as much reduced as possible for subject which is IN the focus, and what's why these nice colours appears on OOF objects.

Old achromatic doublet was designed to bring two wavelengths in focus point - red and blue.
Modern apochromatic lenses those - with "APO" in name - are designed to collect together three wavelengths as tight as possible in focus point - usually red, green, and blue. So being not very specific we have still cyan, magenta and yellow to play Wink
CA explanation
At the moments one and only readily available CA - free optics is reflective optics only - try Newtonian and Cassegrain telescopes...


PostPosted: Mon Dec 08, 2008 7:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Hi, thank you for detailed explanation, very interesting reading.


PostPosted: Mon Dec 08, 2008 9:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
wariag wrote:
lulalake wrote:
This is classic sensor bloom, not chromatic aberration. (Bloom comes in all colors).

Chromatic aberration is actually fairly rare these days and almost non-existent in Zeiss achromatic lenses.

CA occurs on every object in a picture regardless of the contrast.

The color aberrations in these shots are occurring in exactly where bloom happens, high contrast areas, tree limbs and twigs against the sky, and wet-surface bright reflections.

Take the same lens and repeat the shots using a film camera. You will see no color fringing.

Take the same lens and repeat the shots using a different digital body. You will see color fringing.

It's the bane of digital photography. All sensors fringe in certain instances from Leica to Canons to Nikons to Contax.

Use Film!

Cheers

Jules


Hi,
I'm new to this forum so once again "Hi!" to everyone Wink
To be more specific: AFAIK, sensor sensor fringing, IS the effect of chromatic aberration, but in micro scale (CCD sensors incorporates matrix of microlenses).
The other thing to consider is "sensor blooming" - when one sensor element feels really full, his nearest neighbours are readily affected too - this phenomenon is the main reason of magnification of existing CA effects, and that's the main reason why CA of the same lens is more prominent on digital camera than on the photographic film.
What we can see on the pictures is both transverse and longitudinal chromatic aberration, and virtually ANY refractor type lens ever produced (including Canon "Luxury" series) will produce some - more or less - it can be reduced, but it can not be completely eliminated as long as light dispersion happens.
In such extreme contrast conditions CA is just easier to notice. Wink
Following no-X :" why the reflections between lens and focus are purple and the reflections between focus and infinity are green" - that's the point - every lens is designed to have CA as much reduced as possible for subject which is IN the focus, and what's why these nice colours appears on OOF objects.

Old achromatic doublet was designed to bring two wavelengths in focus point - red and blue.
Modern apochromatic lenses those - with "APO" in name - are designed to collect together three wavelengths as tight as possible in focus point - usually red, green, and blue. So being not very specific we have still cyan, magenta and yellow to play Wink
CA explanation
At the moments one and only readily available CA - free optics is reflective optics only - try Newtonian and Cassegrain telescopes...




Hi, Wariag,

I respectfully disagree with parts of your statement. (and agree wholeheartedly with others)

First, "bloom" can be considered a "chromatic aberration" as it involves color and color errors however the "chromatic aberration" of which you and I are speaking is that which you accurately described; the inability of a lens or lens system to focus different colors of light at the same point.

The problem here is that the sensor bloom is not that at all . .but the result of a miscommunication, overloading, and inability do handle high contrast of signal in and between individual photosensors, not completely unlike noise in a sensors.

A great lens on a digital camera will cause no less blooming than a poor lens under the same circumstances. You are correct, all digital systems have some bloom, from the best Canon L Glass, to the best Leica glass, to adapting ones camera to a great Cassagrain telescope.

Again, there is NO bloom using film, only the type of chromatic aberration that comes with no achromatic adjustments.

Cheers

Jules


PostPosted: Mon Dec 08, 2008 9:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
no-X wrote:
lulalake: so please explain to us, why the reflections between lens and focus are purple and the reflections between focus and infinity are green, if you say, that the lens is not the cause of this (d)effect Wink


The color green should be a clue in this issue. Chromatic Aberration, which I studied in optical theory (way back in the day) involves red and blue light not focusing on the same point. There is no green involved.

Thank your local sensor for a bit of creativity with the colors. Wink

Cheers

Jules


PostPosted: Mon Dec 08, 2008 9:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
lulalake wrote:
There is no green involved.


...



PostPosted: Tue Dec 09, 2008 2:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Disregarding all replies before my own (hehe... Smile ), I will simply voice an observation:
In the 100% magnification crops of the birds, look at the twigs behind the plane of focus. They show both green (on the side towards the picture edge) and magenta (towards the picture center) fringes... This just screams lateral CA to me. This, combined with the bad LoCA would make me think that at least one of the lenses in the optic is out of alignment. I've never seen lateral or longitudinal CA this bad in a C/Y 135.... I've studied more than a few example photo's taken with this lens before buying my own first copy... (which is waiting for the delivery of a new lens-mount right now, sitting on my workbench! Very Happy )
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2