Apo-Telyt 135mm f/3.4 ... chromatic aberration

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Wel,, given that the definition of apochromatic correction hasn't changed for over a century, i.e. Red, green and blue must focus on the same plane (three wavelengths) I don't think we need police. The definition tells us NOTHING about correction outside the plane of focus or for the infinity of other wavelengths.  

As for purple fringing, Imatest tells us that this phenomenon has nothing to do with chromatic aberration. The rest of the article is quite informative as well, and, to tell the truth, contradicts many assertions  in this thread.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[jaapv]

57 minutes ago, BastianK said:

After all, there are plenty of harder to design lenses that are cheaper and better corrected.

Could you please name a few better and cheaper 135 lenses for the M system?  I would be most interested to purchase one. 

[BastianK]

vor 56 Minuten schrieb jaapv:

Could you please name a few better and cheaper 135 lenses for the M system?  I would be most interested to purchase one. 

Sure, this one for example: https://phillipreeve.net/blog/review-ms-optics-aporis-135mm-2-4-fluorit-mc/
If I have to stop the lens down anyway to get rid of the loCA there are also plenty of cheaper options available, e.g. the old 135mm 4.0.

[jaapv]

Stopping down won't help you, it will make it worse, as purple fringing is a sensor problem, not a lens one (well, yes, on really bad lenses, not on this level). The  higher the edge microcontrast the more the fringing will be visible.  I know MS optics, nice lenses, but not on Leica level;. As soon as a reviewer starts using the term "sharpness" I stop reading - that is not a quantifiable optical term. Purple fringing is not a simple subject as one must differentiate between the plane of focus and OOF fringing which is indeed CA and is a compromise between bokeh errors and chromatic aberration which as Andy explained above is inevitable- but easily corrected and is also visible on film, and purple fringing/ blooming in the plane of focus which is a sensor/digital issue as explained by Imatest and is only increased by lens and sensor quality and resolution. So saying “I see purple this the lens is at fault” is fundamentally wrong. I suspect that your MS lens will exhibit less purple fringing in the plane of focus because of lower microcontrast (rendering more sinusoid edge transitions). 

[adan]

2 hours ago, BastianK said:

By my definition: if there is an APO tag I expect that there is no bokeh fringing (what we see in the opening post)
and also no purple fringing.

"When I use a word, it means exactly what I want it to mean, nothing more, nothing less." - Humpty-Dumpty, in the children's book Alice in Wonderland.

An object of jokes and laughter.  

 

[BastianK]

vor 51 Minuten schrieb jaapv:

Stopping down won't help you, it will make it worse, as purple fringing is a sensor problem, not a lens one (well, yes, on really bad lenses, not on this level). The  higher the edge microcontrast the more the fringing will be visible.  I know MS optics, nice lenses, but not on Leica level;. As soon as a reviewer starts using the term "sharpness" I stop reading - that is not a quantifiable optical term. Purple fringing is not a simple subject as one must differentiate between the plane of focus and OOF fringing which is indeed CA and is a compromise between bokeh errors and chromatic aberration which as Andy explained above is inevitable- but easily corrected and is also visible on film, and purple fringing/ blooming in the plane of focus which is a sensor/digital issue as explained by Imatest and is only increased by lens and sensor quality and resolution. So saying “I see purple this the lens is at fault” is fundamentally wrong. I suspect that your MS lens will exhibit less purple fringing in the plane of focus because of lower microcontrast (rendering more sinusoid edge transitions). 

You have zero idea what you are talking about and no idea about the differences between lateral and longitudinal CA, I will not continue talking with you here as it is pointless.

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

29 minutes ago, BastianK said:

You have zero idea what you are talking about and no idea about the differences between lateral and longitudinal CA, I will not continue talking with you here as it is pointless.

Indeed. No idea. I beg to differ and maybe you should read the posts in this thread, not just by me. Yet it is essential for understanding. My advice:  Just use your sliders in postprocessing. Maybe Zeiss can help you out:

https://lenspire.zeiss.com/photo/en/article/achromat-and-apochromat-what-is-the-difference

BTW if you link to your own blog (without disclosing) it is logical that it confirms your opinion. 

[lct]

Interesting theories here but what's the point of a apo lens it it does no better than a non apo one in matter of color fringing?

[jaapv]

It is very simple. Lens design is a matter of choices. In the plane of focus: the higher resolving your digital imaging system is, the more you will see purple fringing. This is offset by higher microcontrast which is desirable for your image quality. As it is easily corrected the choice is not too hard.  In the OOF you can see CA which is bicolour but related to the path of the rays in the lens and will be a balance with bokeh quality. Again a choice. Nicer bokeh (onion rings, double contours, swirl, etc) or purple/green fringing on certain 100% contrast situations, again removable in postprocessing. 

[lct]

I don't understand anything to those loca or laca things sorry but i still don't see the point of an apo lens it it does no better than a non apo one in matter of color fringing. If i find the time i will compare the 135/3.4 apo to the T-E 135/4. I'd expect the former to be less prone to color fringing if i had less experience than knowledge of those superb theories.

[jaapv]

Well, if that is your only  criterion for lens quality that is understandable. In reality it is a minor well-correctible aspect. 

[Jipster]

On 8/20/2023 at 2:39 AM, Nitnaros said:

The pic has been taken in Vienna/Austria; the sign has no coloration at all. 
 

so whether this is CA or not, it’s an artifact of the telyt/M11 pic 

Can’t be. Sorry, but that’s not physically possible.

[BastianK]

vor 3 Stunden schrieb jaapv:

BTW if you link to your own blog (without disclosing) it is logical that it confirms your opinion. 

You ask me to tell you a 135mm lens specifically for M-mount that is better.
Instead of just dropping a name of a lens you got a complete review from me that proves the point,
further showing that I actually used the lens (the 135mm 3.4 Apo Telyt as well by the way).

You didn't ask me if I know someone else that knows a 135mm lens that is better,
in that case I might have posted a link to someone else's review 🙂
I do however prefer to talk about lenses I have actually used and not those I only know from marketing material.

Edited August 21, 2023 by BastianK

[RexGig0]

This discussion has renewed a desire to acquire a long-planned Novoflex LEM/NIK adapter, and see how my Carl Zeiss 135mm f/2 APO Sonnar ZF.2 (Nikon F-mount) would perform on my Leica M Type 246 Monochrom & M10 cameras. Of course, only the M10 would show any color fringing, and its 24MP sensor would not be the same as a 60MP M11 sensor. Obviously, I would have to support this combination mostly with my left hand, but that is already how I normally shoot, anyway.

A proper M-mount 135mm lens would be a less-burdensome traveling companion, but, adapting a 135mm SLR lens would allow an initial gauging of my level of enthusiasm for using 135mm on an M camera, before spending money for yet another M-mount or LTM lens.

[BastianK]

vor 13 Minuten schrieb RexGig0:

This discussion has renewed a desire to acquire a long-planned Novoflex LEM/NIK adapter, and see how my Carl Zeiss 135mm f/2 APO Sonnar ZF.2 (Nikon F-mount) would perform on my Leica M Type 246 Monochrom & M10 cameras. Of course, only the M10 would show any color fringing, and its 24MP sensor would not be the same as a 60MP M11 sensor. Obviously, I would have to support this combination mostly with my left hand, but that is already how I normally shoot, anyway.

A proper M-mount 135mm lens would be a less-burdensome traveling companion, but, adapting a 135mm SLR lens would allow an initial gauging of my level of enthusiasm for using 135mm on an M camera, before spending money for yet another M-mount or LTM lens.

I don't think a 135mm is any fun to focus via the rangefinder, so that might not be a bad idea.
You might even consider a cheap Samyang 135mm 2.0 which is almost as good optically as the Zeiss you mentioned.
That has come down a lot in price on the used market though, so you might want to invest that for nicer materials.

[IMAGEPOWER]

vor 20 Stunden schrieb RexGig0:

This discussion has renewed a desire to acquire a long-planned Novoflex LEM/NIK adapter, and see how my Carl Zeiss 135mm f/2 APO Sonnar ZF.2 (Nikon F-mount) would perform on my Leica M Type 246 Monochrom & M10 cameras. Of course, only the M10 would show any color fringing, and its 24MP sensor would not be the same as a 60MP M11 sensor. Obviously, I would have to support this combination mostly with my left hand, but that is already how I normally shoot, anyway.

A proper M-mount 135mm lens would be a less-burdensome traveling companion, but, adapting a 135mm SLR lens would allow an initial gauging of my level of enthusiasm for using 135mm on an M camera, before spending money for yet another M-mount or LTM lens.

I have the Carl Zeiss 135mm f/2 ZF.2 and it shines on my Nikon D850 and Z9 bodies. In fact, this is one of the best telephoto lenses on my Nikons (I can compare to the AF-S 120-300/2.8 FL, the AF-S 400/2.8 FL, the AF-S 600/4 FL, the AF-S 200/2, the 105/1.4 and a lot more F lenses. That's why I bought the Novoflex adapter to use the Carl Zeiss on my M10-R and M11 respectively. However, after 3 years of using the adapted Carl Zeiss version, I finally bought the APO-Telyt M 135/3.4 new in a Leica Store. For 2 reasons.

1. The Carl Zeiss proved too heavy and bulky. I usually work with 3-4 lenses when I travel, and the Carl Zeiss 13572 too often had to stay at home. Then my longest focal length was the APO Summicron-M 90/2...

2. On my M11 the Carl Zeiss produced much more CAs than expected, not only wide open, but - and this is kind of weird - also stopped down. I have absolutely no explanation for that, I am no technician. I do a lot of landscape and architecture where CAs are all but welcome.

Fact is, I am more than happy with the APO-Telyt. It is lightweight enough to carry it together with 3-4 lenses in my bag. The optical quality is simply outstanding, I have zero complaints. CAs are very well controlled, very similar to my APO 50 Summicron, better than my APO 90 Summicron. Concerning the build quality the focus throw could be a bit longer for my taste. And the hood should be lockable, such as with the APO Summicron-M 75/2 for example. There are sample variations concerning mechanical quality, as in the the Leica Store I could choose between 2 samples, one with a very smooth focus ring and one with a stiffer focus ring. I opted for the stiffer version because due to my experience Leica M lenses do not get stiffer but smoother if you use them on a regular basis.

Now I am even thinking of selling my Carl Zeiss 135mm f/2 which has always been one my best lenses...well, not as long as I use my D850 and Z9 bodies, really...

Hope that helps...

[adan]

A follow-up note.

Nitnaros' example shot in post #1 is a "best case" (or maybe "worst-case") scenario for a bench-test of OOF color fringing. A uniform neutral grayish subject, which easily shows off even the slightest color shift.

But from the point of view of "real" photographs, it just doen't apply. If someone's actual photographic portfolio consists only of pictures like Nitnaros' "lab experiment" (Sorry!  ), they have my deepest sympathy.

Here is a "real-world" photo with the 135 APO at f/3.4 - complex and colorful.

Anyone see any out-of-focus green fringing not attributable to the actual colors of the subjects? Nope - it disappears outside of the "laboratory."

Click through to the magnifying glass for full resolution

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited August 22, 2023 by adan

[BastianK]

vor 9 Stunden schrieb IMAGEPOWER:

2. On my M11 the Carl Zeiss produced much more CAs than expected, not only wide open, but - and this is kind of weird - also stopped down. I have absolutely no explanation for that, I am no technician. I do a lot of landscape and architecture where CAs are all but welcome.

What kind of CA, lateral or longitudinal?

The amount of lateral CA does not change on stopping down (except for extremely rare cases) but your Nikon cameras will automatically correct these in-camera for Jpegs whereas your Leica camera doesn't.
Longitudinal CA should be very well corrected with this lens (way better than what the 135mm 3.4 has to offer).
The Zeiss lens is however one with a floating elements design, where the correct flange focal distance is crucial for optimal performance.
If your Nikon -> Leica adapter is too short (or even worse: too long) you can encounter (vastly) decreased image quality and more CAs.

How to check if your adapter is too short?
Focus at something located at infinity (e.g. the moon) and check what the distance scale reads. My guess: something closer than infinity.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[BastianK]

vor 3 Stunden schrieb adan:

Here is a "real-world" photo with the 135 APO at f/3.4 - complex and colorful.

Anyone see any out-of-focus green fringing not attributable to the actual colors of the subjects? Nope - it disappears outside of the "laboratory."

Only because you can show one picture with no areas of high contrast and therefore no CA doesn't mean the lens is free of CA.
It merely means you took a picture of a scene where they don't show up.

I also wonder about your underlying tone, trying to make Nitnaros appear as a subpar photographer because he shows a picture with no artistic value to you,
which he merely did to show an optical aberration he encountered. Picture also doesn't look like he took it in a laboratory.
How are such comments helpful to the discussion?
It reminds me of a child being sour because someone said his toy isn't as great as he thinks it is himself.

Edited August 22, 2023 by BastianK

[RexGig0]

10 hours ago, IMAGEPOWER said:

I have the Carl Zeiss 135mm f/2 ZF.2 and it shines on my Nikon D850 and Z9 bodies. In fact, this is one of the best telephoto lenses on my Nikons (I can compare to the AF-S 120-300/2.8 FL, the AF-S 400/2.8 FL, the AF-S 600/4 FL, the AF-S 200/2, the 105/1.4 and a lot more F lenses. That's why I bought the Novoflex adapter to use the Carl Zeiss on my M10-R and M11 respectively. However, after 3 years of using the adapted Carl Zeiss version, I finally bought the APO-Telyt M 135/3.4 new in a Leica Store. For 2 reasons.

1. The Carl Zeiss proved too heavy and bulky. I usually work with 3-4 lenses when I travel, and the Carl Zeiss 13572 too often had to stay at home. Then my longest focal length was the APO Summicron-M 90/2...

2. On my M11 the Carl Zeiss produced much more CAs than expected, not only wide open, but - and this is kind of weird - also stopped down. I have absolutely no explanation for that, I am no technician. I do a lot of landscape and architecture where CAs are all but welcome.

Fact is, I am more than happy with the APO-Telyt. It is lightweight enough to carry it together with 3-4 lenses in my bag. The optical quality is simply outstanding, I have zero complaints. CAs are very well controlled, very similar to my APO 50 Summicron, better than my APO 90 Summicron. Concerning the build quality the focus throw could be a bit longer for my taste. And the hood should be lockable, such as with the APO Summicron-M 75/2 for example. There are sample variations concerning mechanical quality, as in the the Leica Store I could choose between 2 samples, one with a very smooth focus ring and one with a stiffer focus ring. I opted for the stiffer version because due to my experience Leica M lenses do not get stiffer but smoother if you use them on a regular basis.

Now I am even thinking of selling my Carl Zeiss 135mm f/2 which has always been one my best lenses...well, not as long as I use my D850 and Z9 bodies, really...

Hope that helps...

Thanks! I am keeping my Zeiss 135mm f/2 APO Sonnar ZF.2 lens. 🙂 My wife is a dedicated Nikon shooter, so, it makes financial sense to use one common, complete system. We are not quitting Nikon; she was the mentor who guided my early path into SLR/DSLR photography, and I seem to have had major influence on her becoming interested in nature, bird, and wildlife photography, to the extent that she has become a Texas Master Naturalist. Notably, she made certain that I was comfortable using manual-focus, during those early lessons, because she was preparing me to shoot macro and close-range subjects, in low light, for the evidentiary/forensic/crime scene “genre,” during a time when low-light AF capability was not nearly what it has become, today. (I worked for a large police department, and she worked for the office of the Medical Examiner, as a Forensic Death Scene Investigator/Photographer, before we retired.)

Yes, it would make sense to acquire an M-mount 135mm lens, unless I decide that 85mm* or 90mm is sufficiently long, or that it is worth the effort to simply pack a D850 or D5, in order to use a 135mm lens. We usually travel by personal motor vehicle, and my wife’s health keeps us relatively near civilized roadways, so, the necessity to “pack light” is rare.

*My sharp, compact, light-weight, short-telephoto M lens is the under-appreciated Zeiss Tele Tessar 85mm f/4 ZM. My 90mm is the very optically different Thambar-M, which is neither compact nor light.