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 / The Last Word / Voigtlander 65/2 Apo Lanthar 1:2 LoCA & focus shift

Voigtlander 65/2 Apo Lanthar 1:2 LoCA & focus shift

October 8, 2017 By JimK 1 Comment

This is the seventh in a series of posts about the Voigtlander 65 mm f/2 Apo-Lanthar macro lens. The series starts here. 

I’ve been asked about the Voigtlander 65 mm f/2 Apo-Lanthar’s longitudinal chromatic aberration (LoCA) and focus shift at 1:2 reproduction ratio. I made a series of exposures at each whole f-stop from f/2 through f/11, using a motorized rail and this protocol:

  • Sony a7RII
  • Double-edged razor blade backlit with Wescott LED panels aimed at white diffuser
  • ISO 100
  • Manual exposure
  • Manual focus, set at one position
  • Cognisys computer-driven focusing rail
  • 100 exposures 10 um  apart
  • Lens distance  set at 1:2 magnification mark
  • Document mode decoding with DCRAW
  • MTF50s for all the raw color planes calculated using MTF Mapper
  • Graphing in Excel

Here’s a picture of the test setup:

The camera and rail are on the right. The razor blade is mounted on the tripod in front of the camera. The two Wescott lights are on the light stands. The white diffuser, the back of a C-sized sheet of Epson Legacy Baryta, is taped to the door.

Here are the results at f/2 (I apologize for getting the captions wrong again. It’s a 65 mm lens, not a 60 mm one):

Distance in cm is plotted as the horizontal axis, with the left-hand size having the subject further from the camera than the right-hand side (The camera moves closer to the subject by 10 um after each exposure). The vertical axis is MTF50 in cycles per picture height (cy/ph), which is a good proxy for sharpness.

The first thing to notice is how sharp this lens is wide open. The red and green peaks are about 1600 cy/ph, which is very sharp indeed. However, we have lost some sharpness, especially in the blue channel, over the 1:10 case, which looked like this:

There is little LoCA, which presents as the difference measured horizontally in the peaks of the three color channels. There is even less LoCA than in the 1:10 case.

At f/2.8:

Compare that to 1:10:

Sharpness suffers a bit by comparison, but LoCA is still better. The apertures in both cases are the ones indicated on the lens. At 1:2, the effective aperture of the Apo-Lanthar will be almost a stop narrower than that at 1:10, and thus there will be more diffraction degradation. The scale of the horizontal axes are different because there is much less DOF at 1:2 than 1:10.

Now f/4:

At 1:10, it looks like this:

Not as sharp, but better LoCA, just like before.

F/5.6:

At 1:10:

Same pattern.

If we look at f/8 at 1:10 which ought to have about the same amount of diffraction, we can see that the MTF50 curves are pretty close to the same: 

Back to 1:2 at f/8:

F/11:

Now let’s plot the green channel curves for all the above apertures on one graph so we can get an idea of the amount of focus shift as you stop down:

 

Again, this is an excellent performance. F/2.8 is the sharpest aperture, as is was at 1:10. Focus shift is about the same as in that case, too:

 

 

 

← Stacked filter reflections Sony a7RII LCD lag →

Trackbacks

  1. 65/2 Apo-Lanthar 1:2 corner sharpness says:
    October 10, 2017 at 4:19 pm

    […] this test, we know that f/2.8 is the sharpest aperture at 1:2 on-axis. So I’ll start at f/2.8, with […]

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

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

January 2021
S M T W T F S
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31  
« Dec    

Articles

  • About
    • Patents and papers about color
    • Who am I?
  • 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

  • JimK on Sony a7RIV with pixel-shift vs Fujifilm GFX 100
  • Ludwig Haskins on Sony a7RIV with pixel-shift vs Fujifilm GFX 100
  • Anthony New on Camera resolution and 4K viewing — summary
  • Ilya Zakharevich on Does repeated JPEG compression ruin images?
  • JimK on Does repeated JPEG compression ruin images?
  • JimK on Does repeated JPEG compression ruin images?
  • CarVac on Does repeated JPEG compression ruin images?
  • JimK on Detectability of visual signals below the noise
  • JimK on Does repeated JPEG compression ruin images?
  • Bill Claff on Detectability of visual signals below the noise

Archives

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.