Nikon vs Pentax Macro

[ic-racer]

It is impressive to see the MTF of the modern 100/2 Makro-Planar compared to the classic, German-Made Makro-Planar 60/2.8.

I have the 60/2.8 and it is very sharp. But comparing the MTF of the two lenses (both tested with frequencies R = 10, 20 and 40 cycles/mm) the new lens seems to have come from a different planet.

How to read MTF curves.

 

[dynachrome]

I have a number of Sigma 50/2.8 manual focus lenses and some AF ones. They all go down to 1:1 without needing extra extension. The MF models, I have read, have ten elements and a much newer and better design than the older XQ model. It is true that the front element is not recessed. Some care must be taken in difficult lighting situations. I have the AF versions in Minolta A Mount and Canon EF mount. For Nikon AF (and sometimes MF) I get by with a 60/2.8 AF Nikkor.

 

[dynachrome]

Sigma made a manual focus 90/2.8 Macro which used a dedicated close-up lens to reach 1:1. My copy is in Minolta mount.

 

[gorbas]

Thank you IC-Racer for posting "How to read MTF curves" article!

 

[JParker]

It is impressive to see the MTF of the modern 100/2 Makro-Planar compared to the classic, German-Made Makro-Planar 60/2.8.

I have the 60/2.8 and it is very sharp. But comparing the MTF of the two lenses (both tested with frequencies R = 10, 20 and 40 cycles/mm) the new lens seems to have come from a different planet.

The very nice fact is, that is not only when you compare the MTF of the new Zeiss lenses to older lenses, but when you compare photos side-by-side. The real photos totally confirm the MTF results.
At first I was a bit sceptical, but some years ago my brother started using the new Zeiss ZF glass, and was absolutely happy with the results. He told me "look by yourself", gave me his lens for my own testing. And I was positively shocked. I had not expected such a big difference in comparison to my older lenses. Since then I am building up my own Zeiss Milvus 'family'.

 

[ph]

as usual, my rreply to call for cash support is that the netsite substance consists of well founded texts, and occasionally I do contribute.

p.

 

[ph]

The post above was intended to reply to the call for monetary support at the top of he page. ehere the "reply" box appears.

My comment to this thread is to remark that the Zeiss 60mm planar is optimized for copying flat A-4 size . This can be clearly seen from the published ,measured MTF curves on the Zeiss website.

p.

 

[MFstooges]

Is the Pentax 100mm prone to lens separation?

 

[Henning Serger]

Thank you IC-Racer for posting "How to read MTF curves" article!

I can really highly recommend that article. The author, Dr. Hubert Nasse, was the leading physicist and scientist at Zeiss for optical / lens testing. An excellent expert, extremely well-respected / reputable in the optic and photo industry. And a very nice, friendly and helpful / supportive person.
I've known him personally: He was so kind and supportive to help me establishing my scientific, non-MTF based standardized film and lens test. He checked and approved my test procedures, and we exchanged and checked together our results. He also liked using film (Rolleiflex user) and slide projection.
Unfortunately he passed away some years ago. Much much too early. Really sad.

By the way: The MTF graphs there for the lens+CN film combination are from Ektar 100. It proves the relatively low resolution performance of Ektar in comparison to other CN films in that sensitivity range like Fujicolor 100, Fuji Pro160, Portra 160, Superia 200 etc., which all deliver higher values in that respect. The MTF measurements are also confirming my test results in my direct photography test (we talked about that).

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Les Sarile]

I can really highly recommend that article. The author, Dr. Hubert Nasse, was the leading physicist and scientist at Zeiss for optical / lens testing. An excellent expert, extremely well-respected / reputable in the optic and photo industry. And a very nice, friendly and helpful / supportive person.
I've known him personally: He was so kind and supportive to help me establishing my scientific, non-MTF based standardized film and lens test. He checked and approved my test procedures, and we exchanged and checked together our results. He also liked using film (Rolleiflex user) and slide projection.
Unfortunately he passed away some years ago. Much much too early. Really sad.

By the way: The MTF graphs there for the lens+CN film combination are from Ektar 100. It proves the relatively low resolution performance of Ektar in comparison to other CN films in that sensitivity range like Fujicolor 100, Fuji Pro160, Portra 160, Superia 200 etc., which all deliver higher values in that respect. The MTF measurements are also confirming my test results in my direct photography test (we talked about that).

Best regards,
Henning

I would be interested in seeing these tests if available. Thanks in advance.

 

[Henning Serger]

I would be interested in seeing these tests if available. Thanks in advance.

Hello Les,

no problem, your wish is my command .
I guess you are mainly interested in the results for medium speed colour films, so here we go:

First, some information about my test method: I am using several test patterns, and a resolution chart with an object contrast of 1:4 (two stops). That is an object contrast you can find in lots of details in your daily, normal photography. About in every shot you will have some details with an object contrast in that range.
With higher object contrast details you will get higher resolution values, and with lower object contrast you will get lower values.

Test camera is my F6, with MLU on, MC-30 cable release, 1/250s shutter speed, focus bracketing, Berlebach 3032 tripod.
Test lens: Zeiss Makro-Planar 2/50 ZF at f 5,6.
So the following resolution values give you the system resolution of the film and this lens in combination. With better lenses, you get higher values. And with worse lenses, you get lower values.
The first, lower value represent clearly separated linepairs per millimetre, the second, higher number is the resolution limit at which a contrast difference is still visible.

CN films:
- CineStill 50D: 105 – 115 lp/mm
- Kodak Ektar 100: 90 – 105 Lp/mm
- Kodak Farbwelt 100 (former German version of Gold 100): 105 – 115 Lp/mm
- Kodak ProImage 100: 105 – 110 Lp/mm
- Fujicolor 100: 120 – 130 Lp/mm
- Fuji Superia Reala 100: 105 – 115 Lp/mm
- Fuji Pro 160 C: 100 – 115 Lp/mm
- Kodak Portra 160 NC-2: 100 – 115 Lp/mm
- Kodak Portra 160 VC-2: 105 – 115 Lp/mm
- Kodak Portra 160 New: 105 – 115 Lp/mm
- Kodak Gold 200: 105 – 115Lp/mm
- Fuji C200: 120 – 130 Lp/mm
- Fuji Superia 200: 120 – 130 Lp/mm
- Lucky Super New 200: 105 – 115 Lp/mm
- Rollei CN 200: 75 – 90 Lp/mm

That are the system resolution values for that specific relatively low / moderate object contrast.
Fineness of grain has to be evaluated separately, it gives a bit different ranking. For example Portra 160 and Gold 200 achieve the same resolution values, but Portra 160 is finer grained, and can be enlarged more.

CR films:
- Fuji Velvia 50: 110 – 125 Lp/mm
- Kodachrome 64: 90 – 105 Lp/mm
- Fuji Sensia 100: 120 – 135 (140) Lp/mm
- Fuji Provia 100F: 120 – 135 (140) Lp/mm
- Fuji Astia 100F: 120 – 135 (140 ) Lp/mm
- Fuji Velvia 100: 120/125 – 140 Lp/mm
- Fuji Velvia 100F: 120/125 – 140 Lp/mm
- Kodak E100G: 120 – 135 Lp/mm
- Kodak Elitechrome 100: 120 – 135 Lp/mm
- Kodak Elitechrome 100 Extra Color: 115 – 125 (130) Lp/mm
- Kodak Ektachrome E100 (new): 110 – 120 Lp/mm
- AgfaPhoto CT 100 Precisa (made by Fuji): 120 – 135 Lp/mm

Modern colour positive films generally shine with their extremely fine grain (in the reversal process the first exposed image is based on the bit larger silver-halide crystals, which are then removed in the reversal step, leaving as final image a structure based mainly on the smaller crystals).
Second advantage concerning detail rendition is that at low object contrasts (1.6:1) colour positive films deliver higher values than colour negative films. Kings are here Provia 100F with about 60-65 lp/mm and espcially the Velvias with their record value of 80-85 lp/mm. No colour negative film can offer that.
If you compare a projected transparency of 1.5 meters x 1m size to a colour negative print of the same size, the transparency will show significantly better detail rendition. Scanned both with a drumscanner and printed, the difference will be less, but still visible.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[WVRidgeRunner]

Hello Les,

no problem, your wish is my command .
I guess you are mainly interested in the results for medium speed colour films, so here we go:

First, some information about my test method: I am using several test patterns, and a resolution chart with an object contrast of 1:4 (two stops). That is an object contrast you can find in lots of details in your daily, normal photography. About in every shot you will have some details with an object contrast in that range.
With higher object contrast details you will get higher resolution values, and with lower object contrast you will get lower values.

Test camera is my F6, with MLU on, MC-30 cable release, 1/250s shutter speed, focus bracketing, Berlebach 3032 tripod.
Test lens: Zeiss Makro-Planar 2/50 ZF at f 5,6.
So the following resolution values give you the system resolution of the film and this lens in combination. With better lenses, you get higher values. And with worse lenses, you get lower values.
The first, lower value represent clearly separated linepairs per millimetre, the second, higher number is the resolution limit at which a contrast difference is still visible.

CN films:
- CineStill 50D: 105 – 115 lp/mm
- Kodak Ektar 100: 90 – 105 Lp/mm
- Kodak Farbwelt 100 (former German version of Gold 100): 105 – 115 Lp/mm
- Kodak ProImage 100: 105 – 110 Lp/mm
- Fujicolor 100: 120 – 130 Lp/mm
- Fuji Superia Reala 100: 105 – 115 Lp/mm
- Fuji Pro 160 C: 100 – 115 Lp/mm
- Kodak Portra 160 NC-2: 100 – 115 Lp/mm
- Kodak Portra 160 VC-2: 105 – 115 Lp/mm
- Kodak Portra 160 New: 105 – 115 Lp/mm
- Kodak Gold 200: 105 – 115Lp/mm
- Fuji C200: 120 – 130 Lp/mm
- Fuji Superia 200: 120 – 130 Lp/mm
- Lucky Super New 200: 105 – 115 Lp/mm
- Rollei CN 200: 75 – 90 Lp/mm

That are the system resolution values for that specific relatively low / moderate object contrast.
Fineness of grain has to be evaluated separately, it gives a bit different ranking. For example Portra 160 and Gold 200 achieve the same resolution values, but Portra 160 is finer grained, and can be enlarged more.

CR films:
- Fuji Velvia 50: 110 – 125 Lp/mm
- Kodachrome 64: 90 – 105 Lp/mm
- Fuji Sensia 100: 120 – 135 (140) Lp/mm
- Fuji Provia 100F: 120 – 135 (140) Lp/mm
- Fuji Astia 100F: 120 – 135 (140 ) Lp/mm
- Fuji Velvia 100: 120/125 – 140 Lp/mm
- Fuji Velvia 100F: 120/125 – 140 Lp/mm
- Kodak E100G: 120 – 135 Lp/mm
- Kodak Elitechrome 100: 120 – 135 Lp/mm
- Kodak Elitechrome 100 Extra Color: 115 – 125 (130) Lp/mm
- Kodak Ektachrome E100 (new): 110 – 120 Lp/mm
- AgfaPhoto CT 100 Precisa (made by Fuji): 120 – 135 Lp/mm

Modern colour positive films generally shine with their extremely fine grain (in the reversal process the first exposed image is based on the bit larger silver-halide crystals, which are then removed in the reversal step, leaving as final image a structure based mainly on the smaller crystals).
Second advantage concerning detail rendition is that at low object contrasts (1.6:1) colour positive films deliver higher values than colour negative films. Kings are here Provia 100F with about 60-65 lp/mm and espcially the Velvias with their record value of 80-85 lp/mm. No colour negative film can offer that.
If you compare a projected transparency of 1.5 meters x 1m size to a colour negative print of the same size, the transparency will show significantly better detail rendition. Scanned both with a drumscanner and printed, the difference will be less, but still visible.

Best regards,
Henning

The data is very interesting. Do you have an data for Black and White films? Thanks

 

[titrisol]

Is the Pentax 100mm prone to lens separation?

I have 3 of these 100mm Macros, from the 1960s (Takumar), 70s (K) and 80s (A) and havent seen or heard of sepration on these
Maybe in the newer ones (FA, etc) but the reviews in Pentax Forums dont mention any either

 

[Henning Serger]

The data is very interesting. Do you have an data for Black and White films? Thanks

Of course I have . So here we go, test method as posted in my post #36, see above. Test developer is SPUR HRX, a developer which is optimized for both extremely fine grain and excellent sharpness, resulting in high resolution. Some special films were developed with dedicated developers, as indicated / written below.

Spur Orthopan UR; ISO 5/8°; developers: Spur Nano Edge, Spur Nanospeed UR, Spur Modular UR: 240 - 260 lp/mm
Adox CMS 20 II; Adotech II: 240 – 260 Lp/mm
Agfa Copex Rapid; ISO 40/17°; Spur Modular UR New: 165 – 180 lp/mm

Rollei Ortho 25 (1. Version, made by FilmoTec); ISO 25/15°, RLC developer: 135 – 150 lp/mm
Rollei Pan 25 (1. Version, made by FilmoTec): 80 – 90 lp/mm
Rollei Retro 80S (= Agfa Aviphot Pan 80); ISO 25/15°: 135 – 145 lp/mm
Adox CHS 50: 90 – 100 lp/mm

Ilford PAN F+: 110 – 130 lp/mm
Ilford Ortho Plus 80: 80 – 90 lp/mm
Adox CHS 100: 80 – 90 lp/mm
Adox CHS 100 II : 100 – 110 lp/mm
Fomapan 100 : 75 – 90 lp/mm
Ilford FP4+: 75 – 90 lp/mm
Ilford Delta 100: 130 – 140 lp/mm
Kodak Plus-X: 80 – 100 lp/mm
Kodak T-Max 100: 135 – 150 p/mm
Fuji Acros 100 / Acros 100 II: 115 – 130 Lp/mm
Agfa APX 100 (original Leverkusen, Germany): 100 – 115 Lp/mm
Rollei Retro 100 Tonal: 80 – 95 Lp/mm
Adox Silvermax: 105 – 115 Lp/mm
Rollei Superpan 200 (= Agfa Aviphot Pan 200): 90 – 105 Lp/mm

Ilford Delta 400 : 75 – 85 lp/mm
Ilford HP5+: 60 – 75 lp/mm
Ilford XP2 Super: 80 – 90 lp/mm
Kodak Tri-X: 65 – 75 lp/mm
Kodak T-Max 400 (TMY-2): 90 – 105 Lp/mm
Kodak BW 400 CN: 100 – 115 Lp/mm
Bergger BRF 400 Plus / Orwo N74 Plus: 65 – 75 lp/mm
Fuji Neopan 400: 70 – 80 lp/mm

Delta 3200 @ ISO 1600/33°; DD-X: 50 – 60 lp/mm
Delta 3200 @ ISO 3200/36°; DD-X: 45 – 55 lp/mm
Kodak TMZ @ ISO 1600/33°; DD-X: 75 – 85 lp/mm
Kodak TMZ @ ISO 3200/36°; DD-X: 70 – 80 lp/mm

Best regards,
Henning

 

[DREW WILEY]

Henning, I wonder how you arrived at a lower resolution for Ektar than other CN films? My own experience is completely contradictory to that. For one thing, Ektar is inherently higher contrast. For another, I've done a lot of big optical enlargements where the distinction is obvious.

But I guess the point of this whole thread is comparing specific lenses, and not necessarily films themselves.

 

[lobitar]

Of course I have . So here we go, test method as posted in my post #36, see above. Test developer is SPUR HRX, a developer which is optimized for both extremely fine grain and excellent sharpness, resulting in high resolution. Some special films were developed with dedicated developers, as indicated / written below.

Spur Orthopan UR; ISO 5/8°; developers: Spur Nano Edge, Spur Nanospeed UR, Spur Modular UR: 240 - 260 lp/mm
Adox CMS 20 II; Adotech II: 240 – 260 Lp/mm
Agfa Copex Rapid; ISO 40/17°; Spur Modular UR New: 165 – 180 lp/mm

Rollei Ortho 25 (1. Version, made by FilmoTec); ISO 25/15°, RLC developer: 135 – 150 lp/mm
Rollei Pan 25 (1. Version, made by FilmoTec): 80 – 90 lp/mm
Rollei Retro 80S (= Agfa Aviphot Pan 80); ISO 25/15°: 135 – 145 lp/mm
Adox CHS 50: 90 – 100 lp/mm

Ilford PAN F+: 110 – 130 lp/mm
Ilford Ortho Plus 80: 80 – 90 lp/mm
Adox CHS 100: 80 – 90 lp/mm
Adox CHS 100 II : 100 – 110 lp/mm
Fomapan 100 : 75 – 90 lp/mm
Ilford FP4+: 75 – 90 lp/mm
Ilford Delta 100: 130 – 140 lp/mm
Kodak Plus-X: 80 – 100 lp/mm
Kodak T-Max 100: 135 – 150 p/mm
Fuji Acros 100 / Acros 100 II: 115 – 130 Lp/mm
Agfa APX 100 (original Leverkusen, Germany): 100 – 115 Lp/mm
Rollei Retro 100 Tonal: 80 – 95 Lp/mm
Adox Silvermax: 105 – 115 Lp/mm
Rollei Superpan 200 (= Agfa Aviphot Pan 200): 90 – 105 Lp/mm

Ilford Delta 400 : 75 – 85 lp/mm
Ilford HP5+: 60 – 75 lp/mm
Ilford XP2 Super: 80 – 90 lp/mm
Kodak Tri-X: 65 – 75 lp/mm
Kodak T-Max 400 (TMY-2): 90 – 105 Lp/mm
Kodak BW 400 CN: 100 – 115 Lp/mm
Bergger BRF 400 Plus / Orwo N74 Plus: 65 – 75 lp/mm
Fuji Neopan 400: 70 – 80 lp/mm

Delta 3200 @ ISO 1600/33°; DD-X: 50 – 60 lp/mm
Delta 3200 @ ISO 3200/36°; DD-X: 45 – 55 lp/mm
Kodak TMZ @ ISO 1600/33°; DD-X: 75 – 85 lp/mm
Kodak TMZ @ ISO 3200/36°; DD-X: 70 – 80 lp/mm

Best regards,
Henning

High praise for providing us with all these hard won results. Thank you very much!