• 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 / MTF testing of 70-200mm lenses

MTF testing of 70-200mm lenses

October 11, 2015 JimK 2 Comments

Imatest, the company who makes the software that I use to measure the modulation transfer function (MTF) of camera/lens combinations, expects you to fill the frame with one of their test charts, carefully align the camera so that the lens axis in perpendicular to the chart plane (or, equivalently, so the chart and sensor planes are parallel), focus accurately and make one exposure for each test condition (usually, for the kind of testing they envision, an aperture setting). The software then analyzes sharpness at several points in the image, producing a map of image sharpness across the sensor, and also measuring other lens qualities.

That’s not how I use the software. If I did use it that way, some aspects of my life as a photographic tester would be much simpler.

Why don’t I toe the line? The first, and, I am forced to admit, the most significant, reason is that I’ve got no place to make test shots that way. In order to use reflective targets with high resolution sensors such as found in the D810 and the a7RII, you need them to measure at least 44×74 inches. That’s necessary to make sure the detail on the chart isn’t limiting the measured results.

Where do you put a target that big? The obvious answer is outdoors. But then your lighting won’t be repeatable, and lighting conditions affects the results. So not only do you have to find a place for it indoors, you have to figure out a way to light it evenly, which means either a really big room and two lights, or a pretty big room and more lights.

I don’t have that kind of space.

What to do? One option is to use transmissive targets and a light box. Imatest makes photographically reproduced transmissive targets and resells lightboxes, one of which allows the illumination level to be controlled by a computer. I may end up using one of those, not the fancy computer controlled one, because its imaging area is too small, but one with a 10×18 inch imaging area. The biggest reason I’m scared of plunking down more than a thousand bucks on a lightbox and a target for it is that I’m afraid that testing lenses at distances close enough that a 10×18 inch target fills the frame will yield results that don’t apply when the lens is focused at typically distant subjects. That target size is small enough that with some wide angle lenses, you won’t be able to fill the frame with the lens set to its nearest focusing distance.

In addition, in spite of its attractiveness as a (relatively) quick and easy way to test lens/sensor systems, the “fill the frame with the test chart” method has some side effects that I consider to be drawbacks.

  • If the camera isn’t square to the target, it will look like the lens is soft in places where it may not be.
  • If you’re using an adapter, and the two faces of that adapter aren’t quite parallel, it will look like the lens is soft in places where it may not be.
  • If the lens has field curvature, it will look like the lens is soft in places where it may not be.

Shouldn’t we penalize adapters with faces that aren’t parallel? Maybe so, but I don’t use this kind of testing to test adapters, and in any event a slight bit of tilt to an adapter will almost never be a problem in the field.

Shouldn’t we penalize a lens for having field curvature? Maybe so, but we shouldn’t conflate field curvature and general fuzziness, and besides, a small amount of field curvature won’t be much of a problem in the field, and even might be an asset if the photographer understands it.

How do I do captures for MTF testing? I use a target printed on C-sized (17×22 inch) paper, and make no attempt to fill the frame with the target. In fact, I back up far enough that the target is pretty small in the image:

_8111268-2

I focus on the Siemens star. Then, after demosaicing, I feed Imatest a cropped version:

_8111268

I tell the program to analyze the edges just to the left of the star. That means that it doesn’t matter if the camera isn’t quite square to the target, because the place where I focused and the place where I measured the sharpness are so close together.

To measure the corner sharpness, I point the camera differently:

_8111368

Now the sensor and the target planes are no longer nearly parallel. They’re close enough to get accurate MTF measurements, since the Siemens star and the slanted edge used for measurement are so close to each other. With a really wide angle lens, I’d move teh camera to keep the sensor planes close to parallel, but with a 70-200 mm lens at 200 mm. I don’t need to do that — I’ve tried it both ways.

This approach “calibrates out” adapter non-parallelism and curvature of field issues.

The Last Word

← Sony 70-200/4 on an a7RII, Nikon 70-20/2.8 on a D810 Visual effects of dynamic range — a7RII →

Comments

  1. Lynn Allan says

    October 11, 2015 at 5:05 pm

    I’ve been trying to learn MtfMapper, but the same issues arise. I do have a (hopefully) flat 32″ x 40″ foam board, but that still isn’t really big enough (especially with 3:2 aspect ratio).
    Frans van den Bergh has provided a synthetic target, and I may see what happens to have a laser printer split up the target to 9 (3×3) pieces.
    I ran into similar issues making an Adobe Lens Profile for a Samyang 14mm manual lens.

    Reply
  2. JG says

    October 11, 2015 at 10:43 pm

    I’m just thinking out loud here, but what about using a wall in your garage and light the 44″x74″ target with a pair of 8′ long fluorescent light fixtures, placed horizontally above and below the camera position and a few feet out from the wall, so the camera shoots between them?

    The lights shouldn’t be too expensive and it wouldn’t be too difficult to rig some sort of framework for them so they can be stored flush against the ceiling when not in use (and/or do double-duty as garage lights), then be lowered when needed for lens testing.

    Or did you mean an even larger room than (I presume) your multi-car garage?

    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

  • bob lozano on The 16-Bit Fallacy: Why More Isn’t Always Better in Medium Format Cameras
  • 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

Archives

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

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.