the last word

Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

  • site home
  • blog home
  • galleries
  • contact
  • underwater
  • the bleeding edge
You are here: Home / GFX 100S / Fuji 250/4 vs Rodenstock 180/5.6 HR Digaron on GFX 100S

Fuji 250/4 vs Rodenstock 180/5.6 HR Digaron on GFX 100S

May 7, 2021 JimK 6 Comments

This is one in a series of posts on the Fujifilm GFX 100S. You should be able to find all the posts about that camera in the Category List on the right sidebar, below the Articles widget. There’s a drop-down menu there that you can use to get to all the posts in this series; just look for “GFX 100S”.

A few days ago I published this test of the Fujifilm 250 mm f/4 with and without the Fuji 1.4X TC. Readers expressed surprise that the Fuji lens didn’t do better without the TC. Well, I thought, it is a low-contrast target printed on matte paper. Maybe the target itself is the problem. I decided to run another test, this time with the Rodenstock HR Digaron 180 mm f/5.6, attached to the GFX 100S with a Cambo Actus. The previous test was performed at 85 feet. I shortened the distance for this one so that the target appeared the same size at the focal plane.

The scene:

Test conditions:

  • RRS carbon fiber legs
  • C1 head
  • Target distance 85 feet
  • ISO 100
  • Electronic shutter
  • 10-second self timer
  • f/5.6
  • 1/20 second
  • Manual focusing, 6 images
  • Picked sharpest one in Imatest
  • Develop in Lightroom 10.2
  • Sharpening amount 0, radius 1, detail 0
  • White balance to gray of chart
  • Same minor exposure adjustment
  • Rest of settings at default
  • Analyse in Imatest

The result:

 

Here’s the result for the Fuji 250/4 at the same f-stop:

 

The Rodenstock lens is substantially sharper. And the Fuji 250 had a big advantage here since I could use focus bracketing to nail the focus exactly, while I has to do my best with the too-twitchy Actus focusing rail and the overly sensitive focus peaking in the GFX 100S.

 

 

GFX 100S

← GFX 100S focus bracketing stops before infinity Rodenstock 180/5.6 Digaron MTFs compared →

Comments

  1. Erik Kaffehr says

    May 7, 2021 at 4:07 pm

    Jim,

    Thanks for taking the effort!

    It seems that you get around 0.25 cy/px at 50% MTF with that setup. I would be interested of seeing the GF 120/4 tested under the same circumstances.

    In my testing I tend to have up to 0.3 cy/px, looking at green channel on ‘unsharpened’ TIFFs from Lightroom. Imatest maybe uses lightness?

    I would be interested getting some of your raws, because I am interested in the differences in our testing.

    Checked the MTF plots on the HR Digaron-S, a bit better than my Sonnar 180/4 at f/8 on axis, significantly better off axis. Interesting to see that the old Zeiss still does a decent job, so it may seem.

    Reply
  2. Ilya Zakharevich says

    May 7, 2021 at 4:12 pm

    The Rodenstock has much narrower transition 20%–80% on the edge profile indeed. And this more or less matches the gist of the bottom curve plotted by Imatest.

    On the other hand, the latter plot IS NOT THE MTF GRAPH! I already explained it a couple of times here, for example, see
     https://blog.kasson.com/gfx-100s/fujifilm-gfx-100s-pixel-shift/#comment-263035

    Moreover, I took the image 1591-3 from https://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/pixel-shift-100s-gfx-110/, and manually digitized the center zone of the edge profile. Then I calculated the Fourier transform: it is about 30% at Nyquist, not 7.4%. (This does not EXACTLY match the measured value — about 37% — I gave before; but it is much closer to it!)

    BTW, with 5 steps per side of the dotted-square the digitized values are:
     [290,288,282,273,253,234,197,149,104,72,39,26,16,13,10]
    Here the 0%–100% range is 297–0 (the numbers are distances from the top edge in pixels).

    Reply
  3. Ilya Zakharevich says

    May 7, 2021 at 4:40 pm

    CONCLUSION: it seems that the Imatest’s plots can be compared qualitatively, but are wrong quantitatively. (I suspect that they plot the square of MTF or something like this…)

    ⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜ Just in case, the calculations:

    With 5 steps per side of the dotted-square the digitized values are:
     [290,288,282,273,253,234,197,149,104,72,39,26,16,13,10]
    Here the 0%–100% range is 297–0 (the numbers are distances from the top edge in pixels). This gives the steps
     [2, 6, 9, 20, 19, 37, 48, 45, 32, 33, 13, 10, 3, 3]
    Extending the initial curve linearly to 0 in 5 positions on the left and on the right (I’m too lazy to digitize more points honestly…) gives
     crvDiffExt=[1.4,1.4,1.4,1.4,1.4,2,6,9,20,19,37,48,45,32,33,13,10,3,3,2,2,2,2,2]
    (the approximation I used above would only “smooth” the MTF curve a bit. This is only important near its apex, where it has a sharp corner as in ∧.)

    Processing with
     MTF(f)=abs(sum(j=1,#crvDiffExt,exp(2*Pi*I*j*f/10)*crvDiffExt[j]/abs(1-exp(2*Pi*I*f/10))*2*Pi*f/10)/297)
     plot(x=0.001,2.5,MTF(x))
    one can see that MTF goes down to 10% around 1.4×Nyquist.

    Reply
    • JimK says

      May 8, 2021 at 8:37 am

      See this:

      https://blog.kasson.com/gfx-100s/rodenstock-180-5-6-digaron-mtfs-compared/

      Reply
  4. John says

    May 19, 2021 at 9:02 am

    Jim – Have you considered the 5:1 geared Cambo AC-380 Focus Assembly for ACTUS to ease the focus precision issues?

    Reply
    • JimK says

      May 19, 2021 at 9:10 am

      Ordered.

      Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

March 2023
S M T W T F S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031  
« Jan    

Articles

  • About
    • Patents and papers about color
    • Who am I?
  • Good 35-70 MF lens
  • How to…
    • Backing up photographic images
    • How to change email providers
  • Lens screening testing
    • Equipment and Software
    • Examples
      • Bad and OK 200-600 at 600
      • Excellent 180-400 zoom
      • Fair 14-30mm zoom
      • Good 100-200 mm MF zoom
      • Good 100-400 zoom
      • Good 100mm lens on P1 P45+
      • Good 120mm MF lens
      • Good 18mm FF lens
      • Good 24-105 mm FF lens
      • Good 24-70 FF zoom
      • Good 35 mm FF lens
      • Good 60 mm lens on IQ3-100
      • Good 63 mm MF lens
      • Good 65 mm FF lens
      • Good 85 mm FF lens
      • Good and bad 25mm FF lenses
      • Good zoom at 24 mm
      • Marginal 18mm lens
      • Marginal 35mm FF lens
      • Mildly problematic 55 mm FF lens
      • OK 16-35mm zoom
      • OK 60mm lens on P1 P45+
      • OK Sony 600mm f/4
      • Pretty good 16-35 FF zoom
      • Pretty good 90mm FF lens
      • Problematic 400 mm FF lens
      • Tilted 20 mm f/1.8 FF lens
      • Tilted 30 mm MF lens
      • Tilted 50 mm FF lens
      • Two 15mm FF lenses
    • Found a problem – now what?
    • Goals for this test
    • Minimum target distances
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Printable Siemens Star targets
    • Target size on sensor
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Test instructions — postproduction
    • Test instructions — reading the images
    • Test instructions – capture
    • Theory of the test
    • What’s wrong with conventional lens screening?
  • Previsualization heresy
  • Privacy Policy
  • Recommended photographic web sites
  • Using in-camera histograms for ETTR
    • Acknowledgments
    • Why ETTR?
    • Normal in-camera histograms
    • Image processing for in-camera histograms
    • Making the in-camera histogram closely represent the raw histogram
    • Shortcuts to UniWB
    • Preparing for monitor-based UniWB
    • A one-step UniWB procedure
    • The math behind the one-step method
    • Iteration using Newton’s Method

Category List

Recent Comments

  • JimK on Sony 135 STF on GFX-50R, sharpness
  • K on Sony 135 STF on GFX-50R, sharpness
  • Mal Paso on Christmas tree light bokeh with the XCD 38V on the X2D
  • Sebastian on More on tilted adapters
  • JimK on On microlens size in the GFX 100 and GFX 50R/S
  • Kyle Krug on On microlens size in the GFX 100 and GFX 50R/S
  • JimK on Hasselblad X2D electronic shutter scan time
  • Jake on Hasselblad X2D electronic shutter scan time
  • Piotr Chylarecki on Who am I?
  • JimK on Who am I?

Archives

Copyright © 2023 · Daily Dish Pro On Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.