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 / Pentax 645 120/4 smc FA macro on GFX 100S at 1:1

Pentax 645 120/4 smc FA macro on GFX 100S at 1:1

September 19, 2021 JimK 7 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”. 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. I tried the CV 125/2.5 and it was a big improvement. I’d tried a Schneider 90 mm f/4.5 Apo Componon enlarging lens, and it was a disappointment at 1:1. I’d heard good things about the Pentax 645 120mm f/4 smc FA macro lens. It focuses to 1:1 natively, so I thought it might do better at 1:1 than the native GFX 120/4 macro, which needs a 45 mm tube to get to 1:1, and suffers off-axis when extended.

I adapted the Pentax lens to the GFX with a Cambo Actus.

.

 

A simple dumb adapter would have worked as well, but I had the Cambo set up already, and just needed to change lens boards

Here’s the test procedure:

  • GFX 100S
  • Foba camera stand
  • C1 head
  • Cambo Actus
  • Lens focused to get to 1:1 magnification
  • 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 100 exposures, 40 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 blue and red columns are for the Pentax lens on axis, with, respectively, a horizontal and a vertical edge.
  2. The yellow and purple columns are for the Fuji 120/4 macro lens on axis, with, respectively, a horizontal and a vertical edge.
  3. The green and light blue columns are for the Pentax lens on the right side of the 33×44 mm frame, with, respectively, a horizontal and a vertical edge.
  4. The brick red and blue columns are for the Fuji 120/4 macro lens on the right side of the 33×44 mm frame, with, respectively, a horizontal and a vertical edge.

Indicated f/8 gives the best compromise performance for both lenses. At f/8, the Fuji lens is slightly sharper in the center, and quite a bit weaker at the edge.

Looking at micro contrast, which I’m defining for this post as contrast at 0.25 cycles per pixel.

 

Again, f/8 indicated is the best compromise stop, and the Fuji lens is better on axis and worse off axis.

Comparing the Pentax lens to the CV 125mm f/2.5 Apo Lanthar:

At indicated f/8, the CV is a hair better, but there’s really not that much difference between the two lenses. This is good news, since the Pentax lens is =much cheaper and d=easier to find than the CV.

We can look at on-axis MTF50 versus defocus distance for each of the raw channels to get an idea of longitudinal chromatic aberration (LoCA).

 

 

At the right edge, for horizontal edges:

 

 

 

And, finally, a lot at the point spread function cross-section at f/8 on axis:

 

Subject distance runs from top to bottom, with the top being front-focused, and the bottom being back-focused.

At the edge for a horizontal (radial) edge:

 

 

GFX 100, GFX 100S, GFX 50S

← Schneider 90/4.5 Apo Componon on GFX 100S at 1:1 Schneider 120/5.6 0058 Makro Symmar on GFX 100S at 1:1 →

Comments

  1. Scott says

    September 22, 2021 at 12:32 pm

    Can’t stop now, Mamiya 645 120 has to be next.

    Reply
  2. Jeff Greer says

    October 10, 2021 at 1:58 pm

    I have a Mamiya 645 120mm f/4 macro so I got a Pentax 645 120 to compare with it. Just did a quick macro test today, photographing a dollar bill with the Fujifilm GFX 50R AND 100s on a copy stand. The Mamiya is slightly better. The difference seems more apparent on my 50R photos than the 100S but I still give the Mamiya the nod. Plus, the adapter for the Mamiya does not require guessing at the aperture since there is no aperture control in the adapter. On the Mamiya, f/8 and f/11 were very close as the best. On the Pentax, I’m guessing somewhere between f/8 and f/11 since the adapter control was in the middle or close to it.

    Reply
    • JimK says

      October 10, 2021 at 2:07 pm

      Did you test at 1:1?

      Reply
      • Jeff Greer says

        October 11, 2021 at 5:49 am

        I did not think of doing 1:1. I was not quite to 1:2 since my use for macro is scanning film and the magnification I used matched scanning a 6×4.5 frame. I’ll do another test later this week or the weekend with 1:1 and report back.

        Reply
  3. Jeff Greer says

    October 16, 2021 at 11:24 am

    I performed tests today at 1:1, or as close as I could get using a copy stand without a macro rail for fine adjustment. Tested on both the Fujifilm 50R and 100S with a Mamiya 645 Macro A 120mm f/4 on a Kipon adapter and a Pentax 645 FA 120mm f/4 on a Fotodiox Pro adapter. The Mamiya was best at f/11 and the Pentax in the middle of the range (the Fotodiox adapter controls aperture so I don’t know what I am using). The Mamiya and Pentax are very close. I give the Mamiya a slight edge in the corners. If I had neither, I would recommend the Mamiya since it should cost less on the used market and you control aperture on the lens itself so you know what you are using.

    Reply
  4. Bruce Jackson says

    March 1, 2022 at 6:50 pm

    Hello JIm,

    Nearly all images on my website (www.brucejackson.com) were taken with a 4×5 field camera, utilizing Fuji Velvia. My main interest is creating images using tilt, shift, and swing on a digital camera system, the same as I do on my 4×5 field camera. Will the Cambo Actus with Fuji GFX 100s and modern Pentax 645 FA lenses provide equal to, or greater quality than my 4×5 Velvia image quality?

    Or, is this simply not a good alternative solution to using 4×5 film?

    Thank you for considering my questions.

    Bruce Jackson
    http://www.brucejackson.com

    Reply
    • JimK says

      March 1, 2022 at 7:53 pm

      You’ll get far greater dynamic range. You’ll get far more accurate colors. You won’t get the same extinction resolution. Depending on your subjects, you may see aliasing.

      I think the key question is: what’s your output medium?

      If it’s looking at original chromes on a light table, stick with 4×5 Velvia.

      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 X2D and GFX 100S color accuracy with various profiles
  • ZHIHUI GAO on X2D and GFX 100S color accuracy with various profiles
  • JimK on Fujifilm GFX 100S pixel shift, visuals
  • Sarmed Mirza on Fujifilm GFX 100S pixel shift, visuals
  • lancej on Two ways to improve the Q2 handling
  • 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

Archives

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

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.