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 / Nikon Z6/7 / Does adapter tilt affect short lenses more than long ones?

Does adapter tilt affect short lenses more than long ones?

September 20, 2018 JimK 6 Comments

This is a continuation of a series of posts about adapter pitfalls and pleasures (I promise that I’ll get to the pleasures). The first two posts are here and here.

It has been stated by many that adapter tilt affects focus blur more for short lenses than long ones. It’s become conventional wisdom, but it has never sat right with me.

I constructed an actual physical experiment. I took a Linhof Master Technika, and two lenses, a Nikkor SW 65 mm f/4 and a Nikkor AM-ED 120 mm f/5.6. I printed out a checkerboard target and applied a boatload of tilt — I almost used another term, but this is a family-friendly blog. This picture will give you a rough idea, even if the tilt wasn’t quite the same for the checkerboard shots:

I set the camera up with all the movements but tilt centered, and square on to the target. I slipped a Betterlight Super 6K back into the film holder, and lit the target like this:

Then I spent 2 hours trying to get the back to run under Windows 10 — the last time I’d used it was about 3 years ago, and I was using an XP laptop, since sold. I couldn’t find a USB driver that worked and gave up; I’m going to sell the back.

But I didn’t give up and ended up taking pictures of the ground glass. It ain’t pretty, but I think it proves the point.

Here’s the 120 at indicated f/5.6. The effective aperture is maybe a third of a stop narrower than that because of bellows extension.

As expected, both the top and the bottom are out of focus, and the center is sharp.

Here’s the 65 at the same f-stop, the same reproduction ratio, and therefore the same effective f-stop:

Because it’s such a short lens, there’s a lot of light fall-off. I tried to even it out:

Now you can see clearly that there is more blur at the top and bottom of the image made with the shorter lens. It’s possible that at the same distance the two lenses would have similar blur, but I think the right way to look at the situation is to hold the magnification constant.

Score: one for reality, one for conventional wisdom, and zip for my intuition.

Nikon Z6/7

← More on tilted adapters How tilt errors add up →

Comments

  1. jeroenp says

    September 21, 2018 at 1:12 pm

    FWIW: A trick that helped me once with an old scanner driver was to run Windows XP on Virtualbox on my Mac. The old software got its hardware access again, just like it used to ten years earlier. The virtues of virtualization…

    Reply
    • JimK says

      September 21, 2018 at 1:20 pm

      Yes, I could try that, but I think life’s too short, and the Betterlight was getting to be something that was more trouble than it was worth now that we have such great area capture devices. I think there’s a Cambo Actus in my future.

      Reply
  2. Andrew Zariffis says

    September 28, 2018 at 3:20 am

    Love that 120mm AM ED. From 5:1 to 5:1 it can’t be beat. Also suprisingly resistant to flare. Supposedly at 1:1 its symetrical design completely eliminates lateral chromatic aberration.

    Reply

Trackbacks

  1. How tilt errors add up says:
    September 21, 2018 at 9:32 am

    […] This is a continuation of a series of posts about adapter pitfalls and pleasures (I promise that I’ll get to the pleasures). The first two posts are here and here. A third is here. […]

    Reply
  2. A quasi-worst-case adapter test says:
    September 21, 2018 at 2:00 pm

    […] (I promise that I’ll get to the pleasures). The first four posts are here, here,  here, and […]

    Reply
  3. Adapted lens upsides says:
    September 22, 2018 at 9:22 am

    […] a series of posts about adapter pitfalls and pleasures. The first five posts are here, here,  here, here, and […]

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

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

February 2023
S M T W T F S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728  
« 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

  • Brian Olson on Fuji GFX 100S exposure strategy, M and A modes
  • JimK on Picking a macro lens
  • JimK on Picking a macro lens
  • Glenn Whorrall on Picking a macro lens
  • JimK on What pitch do you need to scan 6×6 TMax 100?
  • Hatzipavlis Peter on What pitch do you need to scan 6×6 TMax 100?
  • JeyB on Internal focusing 100ish macro lenses
  • JimK on How focus-bracketing systems work
  • Garry George on How focus-bracketing systems work
  • Rhonald on Format size and image quality

Archives

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

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.