Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: canon 24TS-E lenses compared with rodenstock 35HR  (Read 23262 times)
adammork
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 156


« Reply #20 on: December 08, 2009, 08:53:00 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: asf
However I've never seen that kind of flare with my 35XL


I have never seen that with my 35XL on Leaf 75/22 - could it be the IR filter on your sinar back that provide the flare here - the flare have more or less the color of an IR filter, and it reminds me of the kind of flare you could get from cc filters in front of the lens.

and if I remember correctly Hasselblad changed their IR filter due to some flare problems - I have a feeling, it's not your lens......

/adam
Logged

JonRoemer
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 131


WWW
« Reply #21 on: December 08, 2009, 09:10:03 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: JoeKitchen
Open both images and look at them side by side, look at the rafters in the roof.  In the Canon image there appears to be more depth in the rafters then in the Sinar image.  We are not dealing with reality here, but how each lens precieves reality, so yes, it is physically possible since each lens will be different.  

Look at how the chandelier is rendered in each image, notice how the oven seems further away in the Canon, the doorway seems more stretched in the Canon.

If you take the Canon image and crop it to match the Sinar image, then size the Sinar image down to the Canon's pixel dimensions -> you'll see that the perspective is slightly different for each image. The Sinar image is turned every so slightly to the right compared to the Canon.  

Is that stretching or a slightly different perspective with very wide lens?  If anything, the Sinar appears to be slightly more dragged out on the left (layer the two files below in PS,) but again, I think this is the difference in perspective exaggerated by a very wide lens.

[attachment=18480:3_24tse_stitched.jpg]

[attachment=18481:3_35HR_stitched.jpg]

--
Site | Blog
« Last Edit: December 08, 2009, 11:45:17 AM by JonRoemer » Logged

Harold Clark
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 190


« Reply #22 on: December 08, 2009, 10:20:40 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Kirk Gittings
Yes  this is the newish EF 1.4x II extender on the new 24 T/S II compared to a hand picked (best of 4 mint that I bought and tested) Olympus 35 T/S which is a tight little lens.

Thanks for posting the results of this test. I have the Olympus lens too, a Sinaron version. Mine has CA & barrel distortion, but not as much distortion as the original 24 TSE. I like the fact the the Olympus has shift as well as rise/fall, but the lack of a locking mechanism is sometime problematic.
Logged
aaronleitz
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 56


« Reply #23 on: December 08, 2009, 11:23:45 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: JoeKitchen
Open both images and look at them side by side, look at the rafters in the roof.  In the Canon image there appears to be more depth in the rafters then in the Sinar image.  We are not dealing with reality here, but how each lens precieves reality, so yes, it is physically possible since each lens will be different.  

Look at how the chandelier is rendered in each image, notice how the oven seems further away in the Canon, the doorway seems more stretched in the Canon.  

Also from reading these post, it also appears that Rodenstock's quality control and precision is much better then Canon's.

You're seeing differences in perspective because of camera position, shift amounts, and sensor size.

Regarding the myth of quality control, read this: http://www.josephholmes.com/news-medformatprecision.html
There is a section near the bottom with some 35mm HR examples.
Here's some responses to the above article: http://www.josephholmes.com/news-fellowphotographers.html
"for anyone thinking of going the MF route...You have to kiss a lot of frogs."

I wonder what people's impressions would have been of Rainier's tests had he not revealed which image was which....
Logged

asf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 506


WWW
« Reply #24 on: December 08, 2009, 11:33:24 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: aaronleitz
You're seeing differences in perspective because of camera position, shift amounts, and sensor size.

Regarding the myth of quality control, read this: http://www.josephholmes.com/news-medformatprecision.html
There is a section near the bottom with some 35mm HR examples.
Here's some responses to the above article: http://www.josephholmes.com/news-fellowphotographers.html
"for anyone thinking of going the MF route...You have to kiss a lot of frogs."

I wonder what people's impressions would have been of Rainier's tests had he not revealed which image was which....

People will see what they want to see, even those (or especially those) who have no direct experience. There are still many who believe that a lens with a longer focal length will, in and of itself and regardless of sensor size/film size/stitched virtual sensor size, show less distortion, even though this misconception is easily disproved.
Logged
ThierryH
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 409


« Reply #25 on: December 08, 2009, 11:53:08 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: asf
There are still many who believe that a lens with a longer focal length will, in and of itself and regardless of sensor size/film size/stitched virtual sensor size, show less distortion, even though this misconception is easily disproved.

oh please, don't even mention it. Am too scared this debate to start again.



Best
Thierry
Logged

David Eichler
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 353


WWW
« Reply #26 on: December 08, 2009, 12:41:23 PM »
ReplyReply

Very interesting comparison.  I had always thought that, even if you could get a smaller-format setup to more or less match the resolution of a medium-format one, the larger-format image would still be able to render more tonal differentiation than the smaller one.  I don't see any marked difference in this regard with this comparison. Perhaps only with large-format digital would there start to be an appreciable difference in resolution and tonal range.
Logged

JoeKitchen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 749



« Reply #27 on: December 08, 2009, 02:31:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Okay I am going to stop with this.  

Something else that I have noticed is that that are many more points on the stars formed off of the lights in the Rod images then in the Canon images.  I have always been told that these are formed from the light refracting off of where the leaves in the aperture meet. That would mean that Rod uses 16 leaves for each of their apertures.  

Is that true?  Sounds like a little overkill if so.
Logged

Joe Kitchen
www.josephmkitchen.com

"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent moving furniture."  Arnold Newman
“Don't bother just to be better than your contemporaries or predecessors. Try to be better than yourself.”  William Faulkner
kers
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 797


WWW
« Reply #28 on: December 08, 2009, 04:52:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Very interesting.
The main difference i see is that the eMotion is half an hour slower than the 5dII.

I think i spend the rest of the money on a nice vacation.
« Last Edit: December 08, 2009, 04:52:28 PM by kers » Logged

Pieter Kers
www.beeld.nu
rainer_v
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1134


WWW
« Reply #29 on: December 08, 2009, 05:01:36 PM »
ReplyReply

i tested today the 24TS-eII outside and also together with the 1.4ext ( newer version)  against the 45digitar and the 35HR.
i will post my findings the next days in a new tread, but to anticipate it:
the extender works very very well with the 24tse together. you will see.
Logged

rainer viertlböck
architecture photographer
munich / germany

www.tangential.de
brianc1959
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 53


WWW
« Reply #30 on: December 08, 2009, 11:31:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: JoeKitchen
Okay I am going to stop with this.  

Something else that I have noticed is that that are many more points on the stars formed off of the lights in the Rod images then in the Canon images.  I have always been told that these are formed from the light refracting off of where the leaves in the aperture meet. That would mean that Rod uses 16 leaves for each of their apertures.  

Is that true?  Sounds like a little overkill if so.

The spikes are a diffraction pattern created by the flat sides of the aperture, not the corners.  Each diffraction spike extends to either side of the aperture edge.  Thus, apertures with 3, 5, or seven flat sides will have 6, 10, and 14 spikes, respectively.  Apertures with an even number of blades appear to have half the number of spikes because there are actually two spike patterns that overlay exactly.  This is why its a very bad idea to use irises with an even number of blades

In the image taken with a Rodenstock lens there are 14 spikes (not 16!), which is (two) x (seven).  In other words, the Rodenstock lens uses an ordinary Copal shutter with seven blades.
Logged
chiek
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 223



WWW
« Reply #31 on: December 09, 2009, 01:54:35 AM »
ReplyReply

Nice comparisons, Thanks for sharing.
Logged

chiek imaging, in Seoul, SOUTH-KOREA.
Sinar P2, Hasselblad H1+CF-39MS and a7/R, 5dmk2 systems
major job is products shot, especially for electronic products.
but interested in Landscapes and Portraits, however I've shot portraits sometimes.
my hobby is Designing camera...
www.chiek.co.kr
Craig Lamson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 776



WWW
« Reply #32 on: December 09, 2009, 07:58:02 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: brianc1959
The spikes are a diffraction pattern created by the flat sides of the aperture, not the corners.  Each diffraction spike extends to either side of the aperture edge.  Thus, apertures with 3, 5, or seven flat sides will have 6, 10, and 14 spikes, respectively.  Apertures with an even number of blades appear to have half the number of spikes because there are actually two spike patterns that overlay exactly.  This is why its a very bad idea to use irises with an even number of blades

In the image taken with a Rodenstock lens there are 14 spikes (not 16!), which is (two) x (seven).  In other words, the Rodenstock lens uses an ordinary Copal shutter with seven blades.


Thanks for the info but can you give me a cite?  I'm interested not in the number the the point of creation.
Logged

Craig Lamson Photo
www.craiglamson.com
brianc1959
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 53


WWW
« Reply #33 on: December 09, 2009, 09:44:55 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: infocusinc
Thanks for the info but can you give me a cite?  I'm interested not in the number the the point of creation.

I found this:  http://dptnt.com/2007/12/what-causes-the-s...n-night-photos/ , but its no better than taking my word for it.  If you really want to understand the phenomenon in detail you need to study Fourier optics, which is usually a graduate level course.  Basically, the image formed by a lens is the Fourier transform of the aperture function.
Logged
gwhitf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 820


« Reply #34 on: December 18, 2009, 11:39:14 AM »
ReplyReply

Unrelated, but do you think you could make a case for a set of Canon lenses that were Shift-only? I just wonder, with the tiny tolerances we have now for focus, and everybody viewing at 100%, if the fact that the lens tilt and shift might sacrifice quality. On a job, I rarely tilt, but I shift a LOT, and I stitch. Even when I've got that 24 or 45 set to "zero tilt", there still seems to be a tad amount of leeway, as in "Am in really at zero?", even when locked down in the detente setting. If Canon offered a Shift only set of lenses I'd buy those in addition to the regular T/S.
Logged
JonRoemer
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 131


WWW
« Reply #35 on: December 18, 2009, 11:52:32 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: gwhitf
Unrelated, but do you think you could make a case for a set of Canon lenses that were Shift-only? I just wonder, with the tiny tolerances we have now for focus, and everybody viewing at 100%, if the fact that the lens tilt and shift might sacrifice quality. On a job, I rarely tilt, but I shift a LOT, and I stitch. Even when I've got that 24 or 45 set to "zero tilt", there still seems to be a tad amount of leeway, as in "Am in really at zero?", even when locked down in the detente setting. If Canon offered a Shift only set of lenses I'd buy those in addition to the regular T/S.

The new Canon tilt/shifts are great in that they lock down the tilt completely.  There's no leeway, there's no question you are at zero, and if you want to use the tilt you have to unlock a second button to do it (before you even deal with tilt control.)  

It's not like the old lenses where you could be shooting slightly tilted and not realize it and then kick yourself because you forgot to check.

--
Site | Blog
Logged

Kirk Gittings
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1553


WWW
« Reply #36 on: December 18, 2009, 11:58:18 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: JonRoemer
The new Canon tilt/shifts are great in that they lock down the tilt completely.  There's no leeway, there's no question you are at zero, and if you want to use the tilt you have to unlock a second button to do it (before you even deal with tilt control.)  

It's not like the old lenses where you could be shooting slightly tilted and not realize it and then kick yourself because you forgot to check.

--
Site | Blog

I rarely use the tilt too, but appreciate that it is there occasionally. As a 30+ year view camera user, a camera wouldn't feel complete without tilt. Now with the version II T/S lenses, after carrying your camera on a tripod over your shoulder, you now don't have to check to make sure the tilt didn't slip off 0. The lockout is dead secure. A great upgrade.
Logged

Thanks,
Kirk

Kirk Gittings
Architecture and Landscape Photography
WWW.GITTINGSPHOTO.COM

LIGHT+SPACE+STRUCTURE (blog)
David Eichler
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 353


WWW
« Reply #37 on: December 18, 2009, 11:58:19 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: GBPhoto
Remember the 5DII shot is stitched (as is the Sinar).  There's not that much difference between frame sizes (not like 35mm vs 6x7 or 4x5).  Also, Rainer said the stitched resolutions are 47MP & 53MP.  

Here are the rough frame sizes:
[attachment=18487:FrameSizes.jpg]
Brown: stitched Sinar size (48x60mm)
Blue: stitched 5D size (36x49mm)
White: 35mm for reference


Oops. I missed that.  But he says he did a stitch with the medium format too,  with a shift to the limit of the lens's coverage.  Wouldn't that have yielded a much larger file than 53mp?
Logged

rainer_v
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1134


WWW
« Reply #38 on: December 18, 2009, 02:14:54 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: ZAZ
Oops. I missed that.  But he says he did a stitch with the medium format too,  with a shift to the limit of the lens's coverage.  Wouldn't that have yielded a much larger file than 53mp?

sensorsize :

36mm(v) x 48(h) mm is 33mp on the e75,- equ. to 0,9166mp each mm(v)

add the shift:
36mm + 2x 12mm shift

this results in  a sensor size of

60mm(v) x 0,9166mp = 55mp.

calculate now a bit cropping after the stitching at the sides and you may end up with such number.
« Last Edit: December 18, 2009, 02:15:04 PM by rainer_v » Logged

rainer viertlböck
architecture photographer
munich / germany

www.tangential.de
gwhitf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 820


« Reply #39 on: December 18, 2009, 02:20:18 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Kirk Gittings
I rarely use the tilt too, but appreciate that it is there occasionally. As a 30+ year view camera user, a camera wouldn't feel complete without tilt. Now with the version II T/S lenses, after carrying your camera on a tripod over your shoulder, you now don't have to check to make sure the tilt didn't slip off 0. The lockout is dead secure. A great upgrade.

Thanks Jon and Kirk.

Sounds like it's time to upgrade to Version II.

Great feature to lock down the tilt.
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad