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 100 / CV 125/2.5 on GFX 100 at 1:1 vs Fuji 120/4 GF

CV 125/2.5 on GFX 100 at 1:1 vs Fuji 120/4 GF

September 8, 2021 JimK Leave a Comment

This is one in a series of posts on the Fujifilm GFX 100. 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 100”. Since it’s more about the lenses than the camera, I’m also tagging it with the other Fuji GFX tags.

I’ve been posting a lot recently about the 120 mm f/4 GF macro lens for the GFX. I found it a good performer at 1:2, at minimum focusing distance (MFD) with no extension tubes, but that it had really soft edges and a lot of focus curvature at MFD with 36 mm of tubes. In this post, I tested it at 1:1 with a 45 mm tube,a and found it credible on-axis but soft on the right edge of the frame.  I reported those results numerically and visually, using the time honored sharpness target of a banknote. The 120/4 GF was soft in the corners and edges at MFD with 18mm, 36mm, and 45mm of extension by tubes.

For copy applications, and for some 3D subjects that require extension tubes, the 120/4 GF just isn’t cutting it.

So I decided to look for an alternative. The first lens I tried works much better than the 120/4 GF for close focusing, as you’ll see if you read on. My first candidate was the Cosina-Voigtlander (CV) 125 mm f/2.5 Apo-Lanthar. My copy is in a Nikon F mount. I put a FotoDiox F-to-G converter on the back of the lens, a Fuji 45 mm extension tube behind that, and mounted the stack to a GFX 100. I set the lens to indicated f/5.6. Using a Cognisys rail, I made a series of 150 exposures with an 20 micrometer (um) shift between one.

Here’s the setup:

Here’s the test procedure:

  • GFX 100
  • Foba camera stand
  • C1 head
  • 1 45mm Fuji extension tube for 120/4 GF
  • 1 18mm Fuji extension tube for CV 125/2.5
  • Lens focused to close to as near as it would focus, for the 120/4
  • Lens focused to get to 1:1 for the CV 125/2.5
  • ISO 100
  • Electronic shutter
  • 10-second self timer
  • Indicated f/4 through f/11 in whole-stop steps
  • Exposure time adjusted in M mode
  • Cognisys rail 150 exposures, 20 um step size
  • Initial focus short of target
  • Convert RAF to DNG using Adobe DNG Converter
  • Extract raw mosaics with dcraw
  • Extract slanted edge for each raw plane in a Matlab program the Jack Hogan originally wrote, and that I’ve been modifying for years.
  • Analyze the slanted edges and produce MTF curves using MTF Mapper (great program; thanks, Frans)
  • Fit curves to the MTF Mapper MTF50 values in Matlab
  • Correct for systematic GFX focus bracketing inconsistencies
  • Analyze and graph in Matlab

The results:

 

The vertical axis is MTF50 in cycles per picture height. Higher is sharper. The horizontal axis is f-stop.

  1. The leftmost blue columns in the first four-bar grouping are for the CV lens, in the center of the image, with a vertical edge.
  2. The leftmost blue columns in the second four-bar grouping are for the CV lens, at the center of the image, with a vertical edge.
  3. The red columns in the first four-bar grouping are for the CV lens, at the right edge of the image, with a horizontal edge.
  4. The red  columns in the second four-bar grouping are for the CV lens, at the right edge of the image, with a horizontal edge.
  5. The yellow columns in the first four-bar grouping are for the GF lens, in the center of the image, with a vertical edge.
  6. The yellow columns in the second four-bar grouping are for the GF lens, in the center of the image, with a vertical edge.
  7. The purple in the first four-bar grouping are for the GF lens, at the right edge of the image, with a horizontal edge.
  8. The purple columns in the second four-bar grouping are for the GF lens, at the right edge of the image, with a horizontal edge.

My conclusions:

  • In the center of the image, the GF lens is somewhat sharper.
  • At the right edge of the image, the CV lens is dramatically sharper.
  • The best f-stops for combined center and edge performance are f/5.6 and f/8 for both lenses. These are indicated f-stops. Effective f-stops will be narrower. Effective f-stop for th GF is between 1 third of a stop and two thirds of a stop wider at 1:1 than the effective f-stop for the CV lens.
  • This difference in effective f-stop is responsible for the degraded performance of the CV lens at f/11.
  • Both lenses perform worse for tangential (vertical) edges near the right edge of the image. In the case of the GF lens, much worse.

Looking at microcontrast, which I’m defining for the purpose of this post as contrast at one quarter of a cycle per pixel:

If microcontrast is important, f/5.6 is the best stop for the CV lens. Depending on the weighting of center to edge performance, you could argue for either f/5.6 or f/8 for the GF lens. At 1:1, you don’t have a lot of flexibility in aperture with either lens.

 

 

GFX 100, GFX 100S, GFX 50S

← CV, Leica, Zeiss, and Sigma macro lenses on GFX 100 Schneider 90/4.5 Apo Componon on GFX 100S at 1:1 →

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

  • 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?
  • Piotr Chylarecki on Who am I?
  • Stefan on Swebo TC-1 OOBE

Archives

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

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.