• 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 / More on tilted adapters

More on tilted adapters

September 17, 2018 JimK 4 Comments

This is a continuation of yesterday’s post. If you haven’t read it, you should go back and take a look.

It has been said about adapters and tilt: “They all convert a good copy of a lens optically into the equivalent of a bad copy of the lens. Or a great lens into a much cheaper lens.” I dispute that characterization. It’s not that it’s entirely bogus, but it does ignore one salient fact:

Even adapters with a slight tilt don’t affect the sharpness of a lens; they just affect the orientation of the plane of sharpest focus on both the sensor side (in the image field) and in the photographed scene (in the object field).

The relationship between those planes of focus is well-studied:

The angle between the object field focal plane and the plane orthogonal to the lens axis increases with subject distance, and in a bit of mathematical strangeness that is daunting until you think it through, becomes parallel to the lens axis at infinity, for any amount of tilt at all (yes, for 1 um of tilt, and even for 1 nm of tilt (1/400 the wavelength of blue light.) How can we make landscapes at all? The answer is depth of field (DOF). The size of the circle of confusion is not directly dependent on the tilt of the plane of best focus in the object field, but of the tilt of the plane of best focus in the image field, and that tilt angle does not change as the lens is focused (OK, OK, I’m eliding lens extension from the focusing helicoid here). But thinking about what’s going on in object space is  to be unnecessarily complex, and a waste of time. You can get the effect on image sensor blur without even thinking about the object field or dusting off your high school trig.  If you just think of the image field, the focal length of the lens doesn’t matter, you don’t have to do the Scheimpflug thing, and you can compute the circle of confusion (CoC) diameter on the sensor from only the image field focal plane and the f-stop. You get the on-sensor CoC by dividing the image field focusing distance error by the f-stop. If you’ve got a 4um error, and you’re shooting at f/4, you’ve got a CoC of 1 um diameter.

What kinds of tilts do I see on adapters? The Novoflex ones are the best, with about 10 um side to side difference. Kipons run a bit higher, at 15 um or so. Say 20 um side to side (10 um center to side) is about as bad as you’d expect to get with quality adapters. At f/4, that would give you a CoC of a bit over 2 um at the corners, assuming you focused in the center. The diameter blur circle of a BSI sensor with no AA filter by with microlenses is about 0.9 times the pitch.

Now a 1 um CoC, being substantially smaller than the pitch of a 40-50 MP FF sensor, isn’t going to be anything to worry about. You can see its effect in the lab, but in the real world, you’d never notice. What amount of blur would you notice? If you were pixel-peeping, you’d certainly notice a CoC on the order of the pixel pitch. Let’s call that 4 um. That means that at f/4 — about as open as you’d ever use if you were going for edge-to-edge sharpness — you’d see a 32 um side-to-side tilt (16 um off on each corner), which I would consider a poor adapter. At f/8, you’d notice a 64 um side-to-side tilt. I have yet to see an adapter anywhere near that bad.

When we think about all the sources of lens blur, it is a very rough, but useful way of thinking if you don’t want to convert everything to the frequency domain, that blur circles aggregate as the square root of the sum of their squares, so the largest blur circles tends to dominate (just like with read and photon noise). Once the blur circle from some source, whether it is defocusing or lens aberrations or camera motion or subject motion, gets a fair amount bigger than each of the others, then you can ignore the others. This means if the tilt-induced CoCs are small compared to sensor aperture blur, AA filter blur, camera motion blur, subject motion blur, lens aberration blur, on defocus blur, they are not going to impact image sharpness.

Let’s compare the typical 2 um CoCs and the near-worst case 4 um CoCs that I talked about above with the errors that you see from autofocusing.

The D850 errors are substantially above the kinds of adapter-tilt-generated errors we’re talking about.  The Sony a7RIII errors are not.

If we look at the Fuji GFX with a bunch of different lenses, we see errors that are in the same ballpark, but greater than most of the adapter-tilt errors I see.

Even precise, aperture by aperture focus tuning for the D850 doesn’t bring the errors down to what we can expect from adapters.

Another thing to consider is what in the image is going to be affected by tilt. Photographers spend a lot of time managing DOF, but in the end (sometimes after a lot of thought) we usually pick something and focus on it. Even if the adapter has — and the thought makes me shudder — 1 mm of side-to-side tilt, the thing we focus on is going to be just as sharp as the lens can make it, irrespective of that tilt. That’s assuming wi manually focus with live view, or autofocus using CDAF or PDAF on the sensor. We engineers say that the compensation for adapter tilt at that point in the scene is “inside the loop”.

 

The Last Word

← Lens adapters — FUD to enlightenment Does adapter tilt affect short lenses more than long ones? →

Comments

  1. Sebastian says

    March 18, 2023 at 8:30 am

    Jim,
    The most precisely made adapters in the market that I have found are rayqual. They not only have the precise length instead of being short but also they have proper baffling and blackening to reduce reflections. The baffling helps to block light reflecting off the gold contacts which can either have a significant effect on the performance of the adapted lens to virtually no effect. Of course they also don’t have tilt issues.

    Reply

Trackbacks

  1. Does adapter tilt affect short lenses more than long ones? says:
    September 20, 2018 at 4:56 pm

    […] 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. […]

    Reply
  2. A quasi-worst-case adapter test says:
    September 21, 2018 at 1:59 pm

    […] and pleasures (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 9:21 am

    […] of 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 *

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.