• site home
  • blog home
  • galleries
  • contact
  • underwater
  • the bleeding edge

the last word

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

You are here: Home / The Last Word / Bad copy of the CO 60/4?

Bad copy of the CO 60/4?

May 26, 2016 JimK 4 Comments

This is a continuation of testing of  the following macro lenses :

  • Sony 90mm f/2.8 FE Macro
  • Leica 100mm f/2.8 Apo Macro-Elmarit-R
  • Zeiss 100mm f/2 Makro-Planar ZF
  • Nikon 105mm f/2.8 Micro-Nikkor G VR
  • Coastal Optical 60mm f/4 UV-VIS-IR

Focus shift and LoCA in the Leica-R 100/2.8 Apo Macro

Earlier I reported on more focus shift that seemed right in the Coastal 60mm f/4 Macro lens:

Focus shift and LoCA in the Coastal 60/4 at 1:10

I got a copy of the CO 60/4 from LensRentals yesterday to see if it measured differently than my copy.

The answer?

Not by much.

The LoCA curves are excellent, and I won’t bore you with them.

Here’s the white balanced focus shift curve:

LR CO 60 focus shift wb

You’ll note that the f/4 and the f/5.6 curves are right on top of each other. The exposure was the same for those to runs, too. It looks like the diaphragm blades aren’t moving much between those settings. My very own CO 60 only shows a third stop drop in light when you move the aperture ring from f/4 to f/5.6, and the focus shift curves for those two stops were very close.

It’s now looking like either the focus shift is designed into the lens (based on a sample space of two, which isn’t really enough for any kind of certainty), or there is a systematic manufacturing problem.

By the way, I find it odd that the f/11 numbers are better than the f/8 numbers, and I put this down to the lens really being at f/8 when it’s set at f/11 and f/5.6 when it’s set at f/8. I also think my labled aperture values in the curves for the CO lens that I previously presented were off for the same reason, just not as far.

Measuring the entrance pupils with dial calipers — thanks Frans! — yields this:

co fstops vs indicated

That should be pretty self explanatory, but just in case it isn’t, the first column is the indicated f/stop. The next two are my (necessarily imprecise, considering my method) entrance pupil measurements in inches, the next two convert those to mm, and the last two are the calculated f-stops assuming the focal length is 60mm.

Those numbers jibe with the exposure meter readings.

Kinda weird. At least it doesn’t appear that I have a bad copy of the lens.

The Last Word

← Off-axis MTF results with the Sony 90/2.8 LensRentals and my CO 60/4 head to head →

Comments

  1. Lynn Allan says

    May 27, 2016 at 5:06 pm

    I’m curious what the application[s] you have for the Coastal f/4. Macro? Repro-graphics?

    Is it an option to return the Coastal, or been too long, or it’s still worth owning, and you know its character to avoid issues?

    Reply
    • Jim says

      May 27, 2016 at 5:15 pm

      My application is infrared photography. It turns out to be a good copy; at least better than the LR copy. I’ll post new curves tomorrow. Sorry this is short. I’m in a rush.

      Jim

      Reply
  2. Jack Hogan says

    May 28, 2016 at 6:52 am

    Jim, interesting measurement of the f-number, I’ve never checked that before. May I ask exactly what it is that you measured with the calipers? Should one check the entrance or the exit pupil? I would have guessed the latter.

    Jack

    Reply
    • Jim says

      May 28, 2016 at 7:12 am

      I measured the apparent size of the entrance pupil, as seen with my eye at .75 meters from the lens, and the calipers as near to the front element as I could safely place them.

      Jim

      Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

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

May 2025
S M T W T F S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031
« Apr    

Articles

  • About
    • Patents and papers about color
    • Who am I?
  • How to…
    • Backing up photographic images
    • How to change email providers
    • How to shoot slanted edge images for me
  • 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 35-70 MF 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 Goldilocks and the three flashes
  • DC Wedding Photographer on Goldilocks and the three flashes
  • Wedding Photographer in DC on The 16-Bit Fallacy: Why More Isn’t Always Better in Medium Format Cameras
  • JimK on Fujifilm GFX 100S II precision
  • Renjie Zhu on Fujifilm GFX 100S II precision
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • Ivo de Man on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • Ivo de Man on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF

Archives

Copyright © 2025 · Daily Dish Pro On Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.