Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
03-23-2021, 06:17 PM   #16
GUB
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
GUB's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Wanganui
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,323
I wonder if the OP has a nonstandard filter on the back?

03-23-2021, 06:43 PM   #17
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Idaho
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,266
One other thought - make sure when you compare the K-1 and your film camera, that comparisons are done at the same aperture. Vignetting is pretty dependent on aperture (generally decreasing with higher f-stop values) and it's possible that the K-1 had a larger aperture than your film camera comparison. Same lens but different apertures can lead to misleading results.

I previously mentioned that wide lenses have a wider light cone but for many modern wide angles, that isn't necessarily true. Newer wide angles use a nearly normal type lens behind a highly negative set of elements so when the light cone leaves the former, the lens can be behaving like a 50mm lens as far as the light cone is concerned. That's one reason to take another look at comparative apertures between different cameras.

Last edited by Bob 256; 03-23-2021 at 06:49 PM.
03-23-2021, 09:46 PM   #18
GUB
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
GUB's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Wanganui
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,323
QuoteOriginally posted by Bob 256 Quote
One other thought - make sure when you compare the K-1 and your film camera, that comparisons are done at the same aperture. Vignetting is pretty dependent on aperture (generally decreasing with higher f-stop values) and it's possible that the K-1 had a larger aperture than your film camera comparison. Same lens but different apertures can lead to misleading results.

I previously mentioned that wide lenses have a wider light cone but for many modern wide angles, that isn't necessarily true. Newer wide angles use a nearly normal type lens behind a highly negative set of elements so when the light cone leaves the former, the lens can be behaving like a 50mm lens as far as the light cone is concerned. That's one reason to take another look at comparative apertures between different cameras.
Ummm -m42 - aperture adjustment entirely on the lens.
03-24-2021, 04:37 AM   #19
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 16,682
For the OP if he wants to really check vignetting, or exposure fall off at the edges, there is a simple test.

Find a spot with a uniformly lit block wall, and take a shot.

Then with a photo editor capable of measuring greyscale within a selection, check the greyscale value in the middle in a small selected area, and a similar size area in the corner.

As many have mentioned, sensors do not have a uniform response at all incident light angles, and there may be exposure fall off at the edges.

Even my K50/1.4 has about 1 stop of exposure fall off on my *istD between center and the corner.

03-24-2021, 06:34 AM   #20
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Indianapolis
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 432
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
It probably vignettes on film too. What fisheye are you using? From your description (heavy with T-mount), it is not the Zenitar 16/2.8.


Steve
That's a tougher question than you think. It's all in Russian. bevomo (where the 'v' is upside down. Technically it wasn't a T mount, but I was able to thread it on.

---------- Post added 03-24-2021 at 09:35 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by GUB Quote
I wonder if the OP has a nonstandard filter on the back?
No filter on the back (but it did come with options)
03-24-2021, 09:44 AM   #21
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
Loyal Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 40,362
QuoteOriginally posted by stemked Quote
That's a tougher question than you think. It's all in Russian. bevomo (where the 'v' is upside down. Technically it wasn't a T mount, but I was able to thread it on.

The maker was Belomo in Belarus. They make the Peleng 8mm circular fisheye, but I was not able to find any other fisheyes related to that maker. The Peleng looks like the lens below...


Attribution: By Ashley Pomeroy - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, File:Peleng 8mm Fisheye 8225.jpg - Wikimedia Commons

If that is the lens and you have vignette, it might be due to it not being a 180 diagonal fisheye.


Steve
03-24-2021, 10:30 AM   #22
Senior Member




Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 193
The OP's lens is probably the Peleng 17mm f2.8 fisheye. It doesn't fully cover the full frame sensor apparently - Review of Belomo MC Peleng 17mm f2.8 Fisheye for Full Frames | Feedbacks - Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Circular Fisheye Lens for Canon, Nikon, Olympus which would explain the vignetting.
03-24-2021, 02:25 PM   #23
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
Loyal Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 40,362
QuoteOriginally posted by steephill Quote
The OP's lens is probably the Peleng 17mm f2.8 fisheye. It doesn't fully cover the full frame sensor apparently - Review of Belomo MC Peleng 17mm f2.8 Fisheye for Full Frames | Feedbacks - Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Circular Fisheye Lens for Canon, Nikon, Olympus which would explain the vignetting.
Cool! I was unaware of this lens and apparently, it is uncommon. Even so, it has its own small group on Flickr and a smattering of reviews on the Web.

Flickr: The Belomo MC Peleng 17mm f2.8 Fisheye Gallery Pool


I read a couple of forum threads and the lack of corner coverage may be a matter of orientation of the lens to the camera at the T-mount.


Steve

03-24-2021, 07:24 PM   #24
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Indianapolis
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 432
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by steephill Quote
The OP's lens is probably the Peleng 17mm f2.8 fisheye. It doesn't fully cover the full frame sensor apparently - Review of Belomo MC Peleng 17mm f2.8 Fisheye for Full Frames | Feedbacks - Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Circular Fisheye Lens for Canon, Nikon, Olympus which would explain the vignetting.
That seems to be the lens. 17mm f2.8 Peleng

Last edited by stemked; 03-24-2021 at 07:25 PM. Reason: No Photo
04-16-2021, 08:26 AM - 1 Like   #25
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: midwest, United States
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,334
QuoteOriginally posted by stemked Quote
That seems to be the lens. 17mm f2.8 Peleng
Many lenses with rear mounted filters require a filter to always be mounted. The filter is one of the optical elements. Doubt it will affect vignetting, but it sure affects sharpness of the Arsat 30 fisheye on my Pentax 645. I remember the Peleng. Always wanted one.
Thanks,
barondla
04-16-2021, 08:59 AM - 1 Like   #26
Pentaxian
photoptimist's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2016
Photos: Albums
Posts: 4,596
QuoteOriginally posted by barondla Quote
Many lenses with rear mounted filters require a filter to always be mounted. The filter is one of the optical elements. Doubt it will affect vignetting, but it sure affects sharpness of the Arsat 30 fisheye on my Pentax 645. I remember the Peleng. Always wanted one.
Thanks,
barondla
Very true!

Not only would the absence of a required filter cause a loss of sharpness, it might even prevent infinity focus. A curious (and essential) property of light traveling in a dense medium such as glass is that refraction makes the effective distance travelled by the light less than the thickness of the glass.

For purposes of flange focal distances, a 2mm thick rear filter acts like it's only 1.33mm thick (assuming it's ordinary glass with an index of refraction of 1.5). Remove that filter and the point of focus shifts 0.67mm further from the lens which might be too far for the focusing mechanism at infinity.
04-16-2021, 09:13 AM   #27
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: midwest, United States
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,334
QuoteOriginally posted by photoptimist Quote
Very true!

Not only would the absence of a required filter cause a loss of sharpness, it might even prevent infinity focus. A curious (and essential) property of light traveling in a dense medium such as glass is that refraction makes the effective distance travelled by the light less than the thickness of the glass.

For purposes of flange focal distances, a 2mm thick rear filter acts like it's only 1.33mm thick (assuming it's ordinary glass with an index of refraction of 1.5). Remove that filter and the point of focus shifts 0.67mm further from the lens which might be too far for the focusing mechanism at infinity.
Is there a reason to make filters with lower refraction glass?

Thanks,
barondla
04-16-2021, 09:43 AM - 1 Like   #28
Pentaxian
photoptimist's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2016
Photos: Albums
Posts: 4,596
QuoteOriginally posted by barondla Quote
Is there a reason to make filters with lower refraction glass?

Thanks,
barondla
Alas, the only decently hard/strong materials offered by our universe have high refraction. There are some clever ways to make thin films with an index of refection near that of air (great for making anti-reflective coatings) but I don't think they scale up to make a nice solid disk. And there are some clever ways to make thick disks with an index of refection near that of air (aerogels!) but they are quite fragile.

One can reduce the problem with thinner filters. A gorilla glass filter could be only a fraction of mm thick without being too fragile.
06-10-2021, 06:08 PM   #29
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Savannah, GA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 139
QuoteOriginally posted by photoptimist Quote
The FOVs of the K1 and LX are virtually the same* but the photosensitive surfaces are not. Film and silicon sensors have very different optical properties that affect performance in the corners.

For film, the matte surface of emulsion can readily absorb light coming from all angles.

For digital, the microlens-studded surface of a silicon sensor cannot readily absorb light coming from all angles. The microlenses int he corners are optimized for certain angles that assume the exit pupil of the lens is a certain distance from the film plane. Older ultra-wide angle lenses may have exit pupil distances that are too close to the film plane and that cause vignetting.

*The exception to this occurs when shake reduction, composition adjustment, or astrotracer are used. These features shift the sensor up to 1.5mm in both directions which puts one or two of the sensor corners further into the extremities of the lens's image circle.

P.S. This fact about silicon sensors is one of the reasons that the short mount distance of MILC cameras doesn't really enable lenses as small as proponents of MILC might think. MILC still require retrofocus designs (or heavy vignette correction) with wider lenses.
This is interesting to me. Although I've yet to be fitted for my dunce cap, intuitively what you wrote makes sense. However, I have not been able to find similar information concerning the large diameter/short flange distance of the latest MILC offerings (Nikon for instance, but they are not alone). I was interested in the Z series cameras.

Does this help explain the 645Z appeal/performance with 'old' tech? Because a MF mirrorless (Fuji, H-blad) could be in a similar boat as the new FF ILCs. Of course, I just assumed (due to lack of other sources indicating this) that it is a technicality that doesn't affect the image as much as one might construe.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
24x36mm, camera, field of view, film, filter, full-frame, k1, lens, m42, pentax
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pentax verses Godox wooly11 Flashes, Lighting, and Studio 26 11-03-2019 03:07 AM
08 Zoom verses 01 Prime CWRailman Pentax Q 3 10-16-2014 12:44 PM
Pentax SMC P FA J - Telephoto zoom lens - 75 mm - 300 mm - f/4.5-5.8 AL verses Pentax SA Photo Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 11 02-14-2009 02:27 PM
DA 55-300/F4-5.8 verses DA* 300mm F4 SA Photo Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 8 02-02-2009 11:06 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:44 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top