• 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 / Towards a quick, qualitative lens tilt test

Towards a quick, qualitative lens tilt test

December 18, 2016 JimK 1 Comment

In this thread on DPR, the original poster reported some creative and useful work on quantitatively measuring filed flatness and tilt. During the discussion, he made reference in passing to using the focus peaking feature of some mirrorless cameras to rapidly check for lens tilt. 

I was intrigued.

In the past, I had some success in quickly checking for decentering using a technique developed by a University of Kentucky professor and publicized on DPR. However, that method is insensitive to tilt. That’s a good thing if you wish to separate the measurement of tilt from that of decentering, but not such a great characteristic if you just want to quickly check a lens to see if it’s a good copy.

I had a new Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8E FL ED VR that I wanted to test. First, I tested for decentering.

200 mm

 

135 mm

 

105 mm

 

85 mm

 

70 mm

Well, that looks outstanding. I do see a big ugly dust spot in the 200 mm image, though — it looks a bit like a sunspot.

For my tilt test, I used a target that Horshack, another DPR contributor, had given me:

My objective was to come up with a way to detect field tilt that required no measurements or special alignment gear.

I printed out a 17×22 inch version of the target, and mounted it on door:

I set up a Sony a7RII adapted to the Nikon zoom with a Vello smart adapter, and mounted the combination of an Arca Swiss C1 cube:

I set the lens to a focal length of about 135mm, and filled the screen with the target. I set the focus peaking to low, which is very strong for this application. If the image is at all close to being in focus, the screen lights up uniformly, which is not useful:

However, by twisting the focus ring on the lens and defocusing, the setup can be made exquisitely sensitive to focus errors. Note that we’re not actually looking at an image where anything is perfectly focused, but rather one where we can measure relative blurriness of a slightly OOF image. 

How do we ling up the camera? Turns out that it’s easy. Just move the camera back and forth and up and down until everything is pretty even, then slide the tripod over to a place where the target fills the frame with the camera pointing in that direction. If there’s tilt to the lens, that won’t necessarily put the mechanical lens axis in the middle of the target, but it will turn out that that won’t matter if we’re just looking for the existence of tilt. 

Let’s say we line the lens up so the target looks like this:

Then we rotate the camera a80 degrees in the tripod collar, and look again:

 

This image is now sharper on the left side of the inverted screen. That means that there’s some tilt in the system. Since the camera’s foucs distance was short of the actual target distance in this case, we can see that the right side of the (non-inverted) image focuses a bit closer than the left. 

Note that the target is not quite square in either image. The rotational difference is not quite 180 degrees. That’s no problem because we’re looking at differences across the frame.

It works in portrait mode, too.

Now we see that the right side — as seen by the camera — focuses closer than the left. 

Some caveats:

I note that the Sony a7x focus peaking system only looks at horizontal changes. However, tilt in any direction should produce softness as measured side-to-side, so this should work for tilts in any direction. I need to test that.

There is a problem when you test adapted lenses this way. If there’s a tilt found, it’s not obvious if it’s the lens or the adapter.

There us also the possibility that this test is so sensitive that, should it become popular, that perfectly good lenses might be sent back.

It should be possible to extend this approach to testing lenses without focusing collars by using a mounting arrangement that lets the lens rotate about its optical axis. In the device that I have for performing this operation, the alignment of the lens axis with the rotational axis is manual. Fortunately, it’s easy to see how good the alignment is by rotating the lens and seeing if the central point of the target moves. If you turn on the finder grid on the a7x, that point is precisely marked. 

Testing wide angle lenses with this method will require large targets.

Testing field flatness should be pretty easy in spite of the fact that focus peaking only works in one direction, since field flatness errors should, to a first order, affect most directions equally.

I’ll do some more work and report here.

 

The Last Word

← More slit scan experiments — varied weather Refining the Q&D lens tilt test →

Trackbacks

  1. Refining the Q&D lens tilt test says:
    December 19, 2016 at 11:36 am

    […] This is part of a series about developing a quick qualitative lens tilt test. The series starts here. […]

    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.