[GUB]

I have just got a UV+IR cut filter and feel it is going to be a valuable addition when using good old legacy lens to help quieten CA a little.
There seem to be some debate on the forum about their usefulness but I havn't come across any objective comparisons so I thought I would upload my preliminary tests-- rough as they are.
I would love to have some input from anyone using these filters.
First up is showing that the filter is indeed doing its job at the infrared end.
Then an assembly of 200 x 200 pixel crops of the worst CA I could create with and without the filter. While the result is by no means definitive you can see some heat is taken out of the red end.
Then a couple of comparison crops (1000x 750) showing quite a significant difference through haze.
I was surprised how much the Q 01 lens responded to the filter.
Remember that the Q has no anti aliasing filter so the lens is the only barrier to the invisible end of spectrum rays.
I suspect the lens glass does a good job of stopping UV but the infrared is passing through.
That is why there is more of a response at the red end
Once more I would love some input from anyone using these filters.

Attached Images

     

[Billy Joe]

Don't mean to sound dumb, but I am not sure what I am looking at here.

But either way the PF/CA on those lenses really look bad, filter or no filter. I would never use anything that gave me that much PF to try and deal with in post production.

[GUB]

Don't mean to sound dumb, but I am not sure what I am looking at here.

But either way the PF/CA on those lenses really look bad, filter or no filter. I would never use anything that gave me that much PF to try and deal with in post production.

Remember they are small, 200pixel crops, (ie 0.003 of the sensor) taken of an image chosen to maximize CA. And the lens is wide open. So the result is intended to be about as bad as you can get so any improvement can be seen.

[cahudson42]

Interesting PF solution...

Not intending to hijack this thread, but perhaps others have made specific recommendations on legacy M42 lens that have little PF/CA on Q in the first place? Threads? URLs?

I ran an unscientific wide-open comparison on my Q with a Tak 50mm F1.4, 55mm 1.8, 55mm 2.0 and Macro Tak 50mm F4.0. The Macro Tak performed definitely best with the least PF. The other three were not far apart between them - with the 55mm F2.0 perhaps slightly better of those three.

Haven't tried it yet - but I plan to dig out my old Macro Tak 100mm F4.0 and see how well it works as a 560mm on the Q... Hopefully...

[GUB]

Interesting PF solution...

Not intending to hijack this thread, but perhaps others have made specific recommendations on legacy M42 lens that have little PF/CA on Q in the first place? Threads? URLs?

I ran an unscientific wide-open comparison on my Q with a Tak 50mm F1.4, 55mm 1.8, 55mm 2.0 and Macro Tak 50mm F4.0. The Macro Tak performed definitely best with the least PF. The other three were not far apart between them - with the 55mm F2.0 perhaps slightly better of those three.

Haven't tried it yet - but I plan to dig out my old Macro Tak 100mm F4.0 and see how well it works as a 560mm on the Q... Hopefully...

Nice one. I am just packing up for a weekend tramp and wondering which old lens to take to companion the Q and 01. The 50mm macro tak f4 it is

[Transit]

Nice display Gub
I reckon the winner for most improved is the 01 !
Will try the filter on my 1.2 tomorrow

[bdp1]

Takes care of one of my biggest concerns with the Q.

Is this the original Q? Does the Q7 do better than original/Q10 for purple fringe?

[GUB]

Takes care of one of my biggest concerns with the Q.

Is this the original Q? Does the Q7 do better than original/Q10 for purple fringe?

This is the original Q
If the Q7 doesn't have an anti aliasing filter then it is probably much the same with old glass.

[Billy Joe]

This is the original Q
If the Q7 doesn't have an anti aliasing filter then it is probably much the same with old glass.

So are saying the K5llS and K-3 - without AA filters will be this bad with all my old lenses? I was thinking of upgrading, but I shoot old glass way more than new... I certainly dont want to deal with that much PF/CA every time

[crewl1]

Interesting PF solution...

Not intending to hijack this thread, but perhaps others have made specific recommendations on legacy M42 lens that have little PF/CA on Q in the first place? Threads? URLs?

I ran an unscientific wide-open comparison on my Q with a Tak 50mm F1.4, 55mm 1.8, 55mm 2.0 and Macro Tak 50mm F4.0. The Macro Tak performed definitely best with the least PF. The other three were not far apart between them - with the 55mm F2.0 perhaps slightly better of those three.

Haven't tried it yet - but I plan to dig out my old Macro Tak 100mm F4.0 and see how well it works as a 560mm on the Q... Hopefully...

If you haven't done so already, please add your samples and observations to the adapted lenses index thread at the top of this forum.
Thanks!

[crewl1]

So are saying the K5llS and K-3 - without AA filters will be this bad with all my old lenses? I was thinking of upgrading, but I shoot old glass way more than new... I certainly dont want to deal with that much PF/CA every time

The issue with the Q is that the pixels are densely packed in a tiny area, so any PF CA looks worse as it is shown on more pixels.
On the K-5 it will be easier to correct in post since the number of pixels showing the PF/CA is smaller.

[ScooterMaxi Jim]

I have just got a UV+IR cut filter and feel it is going to be a valuable addition when using good old legacy lens to help quieten CA a little.
There seem to be some debate on the forum about their usefulness but I havn't come across any objective comparisons so I thought I would upload my preliminary tests-- rough as they are.
I would love to have some input from anyone using these filters.
First up is showing that the filter is indeed doing its job at the infrared end.
Then an assembly of 200 x 200 pixel crops of the worst CA I could create with and without the filter. While the result is by no means definitive you can see some heat is taken out of the red end.
Then a couple of comparison crops (1000x 750) showing quite a significant difference through haze.
I was surprised how much the Q 01 lens responded to the filter.
Remember that the Q has no anti aliasing filter so the lens is the only barrier to the invisible end of spectrum rays.
I suspect the lens glass does a good job of stopping UV but the infrared is passing through.
That is why there is more of a response at the red end
Once more I would love some input from anyone using these filters.

Great to see that a filter can give you so much relief. However...

I have the m200 f/4 and would never ever shoot at f/4 on a regular camera, let alone tortured on the Q. The same vintage 75-150 was a much sharper lens at the same f/stop, but still requires stop down.

I sold the 40mm in the '70s - and it was an interesting novelty as a pancake, but easily the dullest tool to be found among standard primes. These really are lenses not to be mounted on a Q, but many vintage lenses do perform very well with very little need for adjustment (although RAWs need to be sharpened). Of course, the 01 is a very fine tool - so you really are exhibiting both ends of the prime spectrum here.

[GUB]

So are saying the K5llS and K-3 - without AA filters will be this bad with all my old lenses? I was thinking of upgrading, but I shoot old glass way more than new... I certainly dont want to deal with that much PF/CA every time

The Pixels of the Q are one third the size of my K30s ones but my gut feeling is that the CA is more than 3 times as bad. Maybe it is because it is the lack of an AA filter or maybe it is an optical phenomena of straining the hell out of an old lens. I have been comparing my various lens on the K30 while waiting for the Q so as to know which ones to persevere with. The strange thing is they all tended to out-perform my DAL55-300 at wider apertures but it caught up when stopped down a bit. But on the Q it seems to be winning hands down. That is what led me to think it may be a coating issue, perhaps with the later coatings having a similar effect as a cut filter.

[cahudson42]

The legacy M42 lenses I have found to give the least PF/CA on my Q are the Super-Multi-Coated Macro Takumar 50mm F4.0 (best) and now (just tried it) the 100mm version - Super-Multi-Coated Macro Takumar 100mm F4.0 (not far behind).

While F4.0 looks good to me on both lenses, F5.6 is an improvement.

Except for the original Q 5-15mm 02, I have no other 'modern' DA* or other lenses to compare with. Sorry. I shoot all manual M42s on my K-01, and same on Q (excepting the 02).

Were you able to try the 50mm Macro-Tak on your trip? Not good?? Compared to DAL 55-300?

[GUB]

The legacy M42 lenses I have found to give the least PF/CA on my Q are the Super-Multi-Coated Macro Takumar 50mm F4.0 (best) and now (just tried it) the 100mm version - Super-Multi-Coated Macro Takumar 100mm F4.0 (not far behind).

While F4.0 looks good to me on both lenses, F5.6 is an improvement.

Except for the original Q 5-15mm 02, I have no other 'modern' DA* or other lenses to compare with. Sorry. I shoot all manual M42s on my K-01, and same on Q (excepting the 02).

Were you able to try the 50mm Macro-Tak on your trip? Not good?? Compared to DAL 55-300?

Yes I tried the M42 S-M-C 50mm macro and was quite pleased with it. It looks a little soft of course running alongside the 8.5mm. But no major CA . I think the filter sharpens sunset type horizons a little. The image is jpg saved sharpness at hard and no further sharpening. ISO 800 1/250sec and probably stopped to 5.6. It is not intended to be a test image but I would expect to see some CA in the tree silhouettes if it was present.
I find the 8.5 fringes at the edges wide open.It looks like CA from the blue end of the spectrum and the filter does not do much to remove it.