djon
Well-known
Frank, I don't accept the validity of "viewing distances" appropriate to particular sizes. I look at everything at arm's length or closer, and also at greater distances if the image warrents. This is especially appropriate with digital prints where Genuine Fractals or other interpolation has been done: infinitely sharper up close than are optical prints.
I have a 25 CV..yes, it's very sharp... but not sharper than my Canon FD 24 2.8, and it vignettes dramatically by comparison. Like I said, it's a fun lens...but it was, after all, designed to be a cheap lens..it costs less today than my FD 24 SSC cost in 1977...fewer dollars, and not just inflation-corrected.
I have a 25 CV..yes, it's very sharp... but not sharper than my Canon FD 24 2.8, and it vignettes dramatically by comparison. Like I said, it's a fun lens...but it was, after all, designed to be a cheap lens..it costs less today than my FD 24 SSC cost in 1977...fewer dollars, and not just inflation-corrected.
Sonnar2
Well-known
How much weights your Canon FD in comparison? Of course a big lens vignettes less than one with a small front element. All I said is, a "classical design" like the Topogon is even worse!
Of course, you can look at distances whatever you want. You can also make bigger prints of the 25mm negs to keep the "natural perspective" compared with the 35 or 50mm negs. Of course, this rule of thumb is applicable only for landscape, architecture and bigger objects... not for "effect" shots...
My first superwide was the 15mm on a Bessa-L. For more than one year my solely LTM lens and camera. Simply a new world. First thing I learned with it: don't make 4x5 inch prints with it - take at least 8x12. Next: use 100 ASA film again instead of 200...
In the 60's superwides were so expensive and rare all photographers using them know how to deal with it.. nowadays some people buying a 15mm just for curiosity after a role of film wining around about "vignetting"... they don't even know about the cos4-law! Maybe Cosina should include a beginners manual with that lens..!
but this is "OT" here, anyway, have a nice day, Frank
Of course, you can look at distances whatever you want. You can also make bigger prints of the 25mm negs to keep the "natural perspective" compared with the 35 or 50mm negs. Of course, this rule of thumb is applicable only for landscape, architecture and bigger objects... not for "effect" shots...
My first superwide was the 15mm on a Bessa-L. For more than one year my solely LTM lens and camera. Simply a new world. First thing I learned with it: don't make 4x5 inch prints with it - take at least 8x12. Next: use 100 ASA film again instead of 200...
In the 60's superwides were so expensive and rare all photographers using them know how to deal with it.. nowadays some people buying a 15mm just for curiosity after a role of film wining around about "vignetting"... they don't even know about the cos4-law! Maybe Cosina should include a beginners manual with that lens..!
but this is "OT" here, anyway, have a nice day, Frank
djon
Well-known
Nobody's "wining" (don't be so nasty).
I'm the only person who's commented here on vignetting...don't twist what I said!
The 25 (and presumably 21 and 15 and 12) vignette a LOT more than better wide lenses. But are we happy with our Walmart CVs or are we ready to spend $2000 to get something better from Leica?
That lenses from the Sixties vignetted is totally irrelevant. Super Angulons, for example, have always vignetted...which is why demanding photographers use center-neutral-density filters on them.
Like I said, I like my 25...CV makes great el-cheapo lenses, but the vignetting's a reality...and 12X18 won't make it go away, no matter how hard one pretends. Photoshop will, however, if one cares
Sometime around 1970 I bought a used 21mm mirror-lock-up Nikkor to use with my Nikon F. It was a wonderful lens, ultra-sharp and even more compact than CV's 21. Great finder...WAY better than CV's. $150. It vignetted about like my 25 CV..I still have chromes. Wish I still had that camera and lens, but I traded that stuff in for Canon F1. Bought a 20 FD with the first F1...no vignetting, ultra sharp.
Voigtlander lenses are incredible bargains, considering what we get and there don't seem modern alternatives for less than 6X.
I can afford to live with Voigtlander's strong, dramatic, heavy duty, gross, bigtime vignetting
I'm the only person who's commented here on vignetting...don't twist what I said!
The 25 (and presumably 21 and 15 and 12) vignette a LOT more than better wide lenses. But are we happy with our Walmart CVs or are we ready to spend $2000 to get something better from Leica?
That lenses from the Sixties vignetted is totally irrelevant. Super Angulons, for example, have always vignetted...which is why demanding photographers use center-neutral-density filters on them.
Like I said, I like my 25...CV makes great el-cheapo lenses, but the vignetting's a reality...and 12X18 won't make it go away, no matter how hard one pretends. Photoshop will, however, if one cares
Sometime around 1970 I bought a used 21mm mirror-lock-up Nikkor to use with my Nikon F. It was a wonderful lens, ultra-sharp and even more compact than CV's 21. Great finder...WAY better than CV's. $150. It vignetted about like my 25 CV..I still have chromes. Wish I still had that camera and lens, but I traded that stuff in for Canon F1. Bought a 20 FD with the first F1...no vignetting, ultra sharp.
Voigtlander lenses are incredible bargains, considering what we get and there don't seem modern alternatives for less than 6X.
I can afford to live with Voigtlander's strong, dramatic, heavy duty, gross, bigtime vignetting
My 35 Summicron 4th version vignettes.
Last edited:
John Shriver
Well-known
Leica provides specs on how all their lenses vignette, and they ALL vignette wide open. Most over a stop, some two stops.
Sonnar2
Well-known
About the Canon RF 2/35 (on-topic) - this lens shows natural light falloff (not vignetting) at higher apertures. Just what could be expected for a compact highspeed wideangle lens of non-Retrofocus type with a small entrance-pupil.
So only a hint for people who think they can use it at f/2-2.8 for critical applications like landscape or architecture.
djon (btw. I hate discussing with people who avoiding to leave without ending with their name, a greating or similar sign of courtesy) - I'm not "nasty", nor personal. I'm talking about physics which applies to every kind of people, lenses, or companies. Just that. Probably your pictures are better than mine. OK?
I'm tired to repeat things to "vignetting", light falloff, persepective and stuff again and again in mutiple forums. Any person is invited to read some basics at
http://www.taunusreiter.de/Cameras/vignettes.html
and pelase correct me if I'm wrong. Sorry for spelling mistakes, I'm tired now and will correct it during the next days. I'm sorry that some basics, or maybe physics are necessary - but we are talking about lenses here, therefore optics, and physics. Without using the same language, or same terms in the same way, discussion isn't fruitfully.
If we agree upon, whatsoever, it will be worth the time spend for all of us.
Thanks and goodnight, Frank
So only a hint for people who think they can use it at f/2-2.8 for critical applications like landscape or architecture.
djon (btw. I hate discussing with people who avoiding to leave without ending with their name, a greating or similar sign of courtesy) - I'm not "nasty", nor personal. I'm talking about physics which applies to every kind of people, lenses, or companies. Just that. Probably your pictures are better than mine. OK?
I'm tired to repeat things to "vignetting", light falloff, persepective and stuff again and again in mutiple forums. Any person is invited to read some basics at
http://www.taunusreiter.de/Cameras/vignettes.html
and pelase correct me if I'm wrong. Sorry for spelling mistakes, I'm tired now and will correct it during the next days. I'm sorry that some basics, or maybe physics are necessary - but we are talking about lenses here, therefore optics, and physics. Without using the same language, or same terms in the same way, discussion isn't fruitfully.
If we agree upon, whatsoever, it will be worth the time spend for all of us.
Thanks and goodnight, Frank
djon
Well-known
Frank, before you went to sleep you were speaking about optical science. You know aspects of that science to a degree, but you were speaking from ignorance about photography, a different discipline.
You clearly have limited experience with photographic printing, where "vignetting" is a commonly used term when describing outcomes.
I've supervised thousands (literally) of custom color enlargements for professional photographers and exhibit designers for one of the best color labs in the country. That makes me right and you absolutely wrong.
Spelling errors from people who misuse common photographic terms specifically in order to be nasty are not acceptable.
Good night Frank.
You clearly have limited experience with photographic printing, where "vignetting" is a commonly used term when describing outcomes.
I've supervised thousands (literally) of custom color enlargements for professional photographers and exhibit designers for one of the best color labs in the country. That makes me right and you absolutely wrong.
Spelling errors from people who misuse common photographic terms specifically in order to be nasty are not acceptable.
Good night Frank.
Sonnar2
Well-known
"djon" I don't wanna discuss in circles. Some "commonly used terms" are just wrong the way they were used as far as phyiscs are concerned. Second, "aspects of photography" and optical science cannot be discussed seperate in themes like ultra wide angle lenses and occurences like light-falloff (or, as you prefer, "vignetting"). The reasons why lenses of a certain type, i.e. Voigtlander RFs, vignettes are pretty good illuminated in my article. If you don't agree you are invited to prove me wrong there, since I will not continue this OT discussion here. At a given type of wideangle lens one can pretty good predict how it vignettes. Simple optical considerations. No rocket science, nor crystal ball gazing.
hope my spelling will not incense you over again ;-)
hope my spelling will not incense you over again ;-)
thmk
Well-known
Sonnar2 said:
Cool. Thx for this explanation. I also did not make a difference between vignetting and light falloff so far. Now I know
Cheers
Thomas-Michael
djon
Well-known
Frank, it's not necessary to "prove you wrong." You are simply another person with a particular point of view who posts online. Spelling and attitude correlate positively with credibility.
Your "phyiscs" is not some ultimate discipline, and not nearly as important as the study of perception...especially in photography.
As it happens, my traditional usage of "vignette" trumps your narrow usage of the term. Webster makes specific reference to prints that fade in corners. Look it up.
Nighty-night
John Kelly
Albuquerque
Your "phyiscs" is not some ultimate discipline, and not nearly as important as the study of perception...especially in photography.
As it happens, my traditional usage of "vignette" trumps your narrow usage of the term. Webster makes specific reference to prints that fade in corners. Look it up.
Nighty-night
John Kelly
Albuquerque