Forgive me if this question has been asked and answered in this long thread (thread length divided by time-since-start must be a good indication of excitement about a new lens or camera), but given how deeply the lens is recessed in the barrel, is it possible to mount a filter, protective or for other purposes, on this lens without having the filter interfere with the image?
chiron wrote:
Forgive me if this question has been asked and answered in this long thread (thread length divided by time-since-start must be a good indication of excitement about a new lens or camera), but given how deeply the lens is recessed in the barrel, is it possible to mount a filter, protective or for other purposes, on this lens without having the filter interfere with the image?
I have used a polarizing filter with no issue. I would be surprised if a ND filter was not fine too. I don't use UV filters though.
chiron wrote:
Forgive me if this question has been asked and answered in this long thread (thread length divided by time-since-start must be a good indication of excitement about a new lens or camera), but given how deeply the lens is recessed in the barrel, is it possible to mount a filter, protective or for other purposes, on this lens without having the filter interfere with the image?
It should not be a problem because of the focal length. I have tested my NDs on it without any issues.
Fred Miranda wrote:
It should not be a problem because of the focal length. I have tested my NDs on it without any issues.
Thanks Fred; I was vaguely wondering whether to put a clear B+W on it (I'm of that religious sect that usually puts a decent clear filter on lenses, so that I don't panic if I have no mcrofiber and can use my shirt to clean the front...). I haven't put one on the FE 2.8/50 macro I use hiking because it is so far forward; maybe that'd be fine too...
Macro image with both Kenko extension tubes.
It's very good at around 1:1; but you can tell from the amount of peaking that it's not quite as sharp as the 90 macro, or even the FE 2.8/50, at 1:1. LoCA is better though. Yet around 1:2 it's at least as sharp. I guess it just isn't optimised for life-size (and obviously the floating elements don't float any further just because you have tubes on.)
I don't think it's a difference that is likely visible in many actual images though (especially as when working with natural light and macro the main determiner of small visible sharpness differences is breeze, vibrations in the ground from cars going past, not having waited for quite long enough after adjusting the rail etc...)
Having said that it's still excellent with tubes, and likely better than most legacy macros..
This was not meant as a comparison, but figured they were close enough to give an idea of rendering differences. Three lenses--one is the CV 65. Any guesses as to what lenses these are? Hint, all are wide open (I think). Also, which one do you like the best?
Luvwine wrote:
This was not meant as a comparison, but figured they were close enough to give an idea of rendering differences. Three lenses--one is the CV 65. Any guesses as to what lenses these are? Hint, all are wide open (I think). Also, which one do you like the best?
The middle lens is the 100STF, no?
And I just don't know: I either like it the best or the least, depending on my current attitude to the Gaussian blur...
DavidBM wrote:
The middle lens is the 100STF, no?
And I just don't know: I either like it the best or the least, depending on my current attitude to the Gaussian blur...
I'm with David. middle image definitely STF effect in the background. The last looks like VC 65 bokeh balls vignetting at the corner.
DavidBM wrote:
The middle lens is the 100STF, no?
And I just don't know: I either like it the best or the least, depending on my current attitude to the Gaussian blur...
---------------------------------------------
Fred Miranda wrote:
I'm with David. middle image definitely STF effect in the background. The last looks like VC 65 bokeh balls vignetting at the corner.
You guys are good! Did not think this would be too hard though. Yes, #2 is the STF--pretty hard to mistake that bokeh. Fred is correct also that #3 is the Voigtlander 65. The first one is much tougher, so I will just say it is the Leica 280/4 apo. All three are really good lenses, but render the scene very differently. All are sharp sharp sharp and are well corrected for CA.
You guys are good! Did not think this would be too hard though. Yes, #2 is the STF--pretty hard to mistake that bokeh. Fred is correct also that #3 is the Voigtlander 65. The first one is much tougher, so I will just say it is the Leica 280/4 apo. All three are really good lenses, but render the scene very differently. All are sharp sharp sharp and are well corrected for CA.
I figured the last was the CV; but unlike Fred who got it on the signature mechanical vignetting I "cheated": I could tell the middle was the STF, and the first was obviously longer - so it couldn't the CV!
How does the Lox 85 compare to this lens? I'm intrigued by this lens but would hate selling my Loxia 85 for it unless there were enough differentiators. Thanks.
