PL 15/1.7 Purple Fringing and Filter Question

[slartz]

Hi,

So - I recently added the PanaLeica 15mm f/1.7 to my collection. However, unlike the PL25/1.4 - The Purple Fringing of this lens (on Olympus bodies of course) is very noticeable.

If you recall from my tests with PL25 - they are apparent at f/1.4, but negligible at f/2.0 and disappearing at f/2.8, making it very reasonable to life with without any "solutions".

HOWEVER, this is NOT the case with the PL15. It has very noticeable PF in f/1.7, and f/2, and f/2.8 and even at f/4 there's some noticeable PF (weaker, but still there even at fullscreen view). It goes away at f/5.6 but that's a bit harsh aperture to "live with". (it is otherwise, btw, a fantastic lens... so I wouldn't dismiss it over it).

So, I've been wondering about getting a 2A filter and wanted some advice:

1. What kind of impact will it have on the color? is it something AWB will fix? or will I need to manually fix it? The idea of getting the filter is to not have to postprocess (otherwise I can get rid of the PF ) - so this has to make "sense" for me. Can I do some "myset" that will have a permanent fix or something like that?

2. Assuming I go for it - should I go for a front-mount filter or for a rear gel-based filter? the area around the glass in the back is wide enough to put something sticky there... And if I do that, where/how can I get a gel-based filter?

3. Assuming I got for a front-based filter (I've normalized all my lenses to 52mm with step-up/down rings so there are options here) - should I go for the Tiffen (25$?) or the Formatt (45$?). I *think* the Formatt may be Multi Coated which is a big advantage but I wonder if there are any other reasons to chose one over the other.

Thanks!

 

[Anders W]

Hi,

So - I recently added the PanaLeica 15mm f/1.7 to my collection. However, unlike the PL25/1.4 - The Purple Fringing of this lens (on Olympus bodies of course) is very noticeable.

If you recall from my tests with PL25 - they are apparent at f/1.4, but negligible at f/2.0 and disappearing at f/2.8, making it very reasonable to life with without any "solutions".

HOWEVER, this is NOT the case with the PL15. It has very noticeable PF in f/1.7, and f/2, and f/2.8 and even at f/4 there's some noticeable PF (weaker, but still there even at fullscreen view). It goes away at f/5.6 but that's a bit harsh aperture to "live with". (it is otherwise, btw, a fantastic lens... so I wouldn't dismiss it over it).

So, I've been wondering about getting a 2A filter and wanted some advice:

1. What kind of impact will it have on the color? is it something AWB will fix? or will I need to manually fix it? The idea of getting the filter is to not have to postprocess (otherwise I can get rid of the PF ) - so this has to make "sense" for me. Can I do some "myset" that will have a permanent fix or something like that?

In my experience, the AWB will take care of the difference with regard to temp (a couple of hundred K adjustment). But you might want to adjust tint a little bit towards the magenta side manually since the filter takes the color very slightly towards the greenish side and the AWB won't take care of that in my experience.

I haven't noticed any impact on color that can't readily be adjusted via WB.

2. Assuming I go for it - should I go for a front-mount filter or for a rear gel-based filter? the area around the glass in the back is wide enough to put something sticky there... And if I do that, where/how can I get a gel-based filter?

Since this is a filter you normally wouldn't want to put on/off on a regular basis and since there are no multi-coated 2As available as far as I know, I suspect you are just as well off with gel. As to sourcing, these filters appear to be difficult to get a hold of via European channels. B&H carry them I think although I haven't checked lately. I bought my first small piece of 2A gel second-hand (although unused) via ebay and the second via Samy's in L.A. Samy's had only a few left at that point, however.

3. Assuming I got for a front-based filter (I've normalized all my lenses to 52mm with step-up/down rings so there are options here) - should I go for the Tiffen (25$?) or the Formatt (45$?). I *think* the Formatt may be Multi Coated which is a big advantage but I wonder if there are any other reasons to chose one over the other.

AFAIK, neither is multicoated but it is conceivable that Formatt is preferable from other points of view. Probably Tiffen will work well enough however.

 

[lattesweden]

I have also noticed this problem on my PL5.

Indoors I also get blueish details if I use AWB on my PL5 with the PanaLeica 15 mm but if I go over to lamp tuned WB it gets much better.

I need to test more to find out if my Tiffen 2A does help outside or not (it does not help indoors with the AWB problem).

The Tiffen 2A filters seems to flare more than for instance Hoya UVC.

 

[Anders W]

I have also noticed this problem on my PL5.
Indoors I also get blueish details if I use AWB on my PL5 with the PanaLeica 15 mm but if I go over to lamp tuned WB it gets much better.

I need to test more to find out if my Tiffen 2A does help outside or not (it does not help indoors with the AWB problem).

I wouldn't expect the filter to help with any AWB problem you might have. The filter makes the image slightly warmer than it would otherwise be but in my experience, the AWB will take care of that, i.e., give the picture the same temp as if caught without the filter. As I mentioned in my reply to slartz, however, it will additionally make the image slightly more greenish and the difference in tint is something you will probably have to correct manually.

The Tiffen 2A filters seems to flare more than for instance Hoya UVC.

Might well be. The Tiffen is not coated and the Hoya probably is. I haven't seen much of a problem with additional flare with the gel filter I have permanently mounted at the rear of my 7-14/4 (although I know it is possible to see a little bit of that if I provoke it badly). Gel filters are uncoated too but it is possible that their location at the rear makes flare less of a problem than for a filter mounted up front. That's just a possibility though and nothing I have tried to really test.

 

[lattesweden]

Quick test, probably the worst artistic pictures in a long time but from the left side there is a lamp that has a bluer color temperature than the rest so I picked this light to see what happens.



Olympus PL5:


AWB no filter.




Lamp-WB no filter.




AWB Tiffen 2A




Lamp-WB Tiffen 2A



Panasonic G6:




AWB no filter.




AWB Tiffen 2A.



--
Best regards
/Anders
----------------------------------------------------
I'm from Sweden, but my pictures are in all languages: http://500px.com/anderslattermann

 

[Anders W]

Quick test, probably the worst artistic pictures in a long time but from the left side there is a lamp that has a bluer color temperature than the rest so I picked this light to see what happens.

Well, not much changes with the filter here (which is pretty much in line with expectations; the expected differences are slight). The WB in the G6 images look pretty much right to my eyes but the images are perhaps a tad too dark. The Oly images with incandescent WB look a bit too yellowish for my taste and those with AWB a tad too cool. But I am not sure how much of the difference between the latter and those from the G6 are due to variations in brightness, those from the Oly being preferable to me in that regard.

Olympus PL5:


AWB no filter.


Lamp-WB no filter.


AWB Tiffen 2A


Lamp-WB Tiffen 2A

Panasonic G6:


AWB no filter.


AWB Tiffen 2A.

--
Best regards
/Anders
----------------------------------------------------
I'm from Sweden, but my pictures are in all languages: http://500px.com/anderslattermann

 

[slartz]

In my experience, the AWB will take care of the difference with regard to temp (a couple of hundred K adjustment). But you might want to adjust tint a little bit towards the magenta side manually since the filter takes the color very slightly towards the greenish side and the AWB won't take care of that in my experience.

Hmm... ok... I will need to learn how to do that. Do you think I can build a "myset" that will have my normal settings (i.e. Aperture priority, etc.) but with this fixed?

I haven't noticed any impact on color that can't readily be adjusted via WB.

problem is the preset whitebalance settings I guess. but I could always do one-touch WB.

2. Assuming I go for it - should I go for a front-mount filter or for a rear gel-based filter? the area around the glass in the back is wide enough to put something sticky there... And if I do that, where/how can I get a gel-based filter?

Since this is a filter you normally wouldn't want to put on/off on a regular basis and since there are no multi-coated 2As available as far as I know, I suspect you are just as well off with gel. As to sourcing, these filters appear to be difficult to get a hold of via European channels. B&H carry them I think although I haven't checked lately. I bought my first small piece of 2A gel second-hand (although unused) via ebay and the second via Samy's in L.A. Samy's had only a few left at that point, however.

That makes sense. Is this what I should be buying? While I live in Israel, I'm frequently in the US, so I can order it in one of my next trips (it's not an urgent matter ;-))

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=NavBar&A=getItemDetail&Q=&sku=503317&is=REG&si=rev#costumerReview

Getting the front-filter has a few clear advantages:

1. it can serve as a lens protecting element while solving PF. If I decide I want a lens-protecting filter, it may be kinda stupid putting a clear fliter on the front and this on the back with tape...

2. I can easily move it to other Pana lenses (such as the PL25/1.4) which while they suffer less, still suffer somewhat of this.

3. Also, I'm afraid one day the glue will dry out and the gel filter will fall on my sensor...

On the other hand, a non MC front filter is pretty bad Flare wise.... and also the 2A needs to stay even when putting a CPL, and stacking filters is icky. So... not sure...

3. Assuming I got for a front-based filter (I've normalized all my lenses to 52mm with step-up/down rings so there are options here) - should I go for the Tiffen (25$?) or the Formatt (45$?). I *think* the Formatt may be Multi Coated which is a big advantage but I wonder if there are any other reasons to chose one over the other.

AFAIK, neither is multicoated but it is conceivable that Formatt is preferable from other points of view. Probably Tiffen will work well enough however.

On BHPhoto the Formatt is listed to be Multi Coated but that is a good question... if it is MC maybe it is the better option.... do you think I can shoot an email to BH and verify that?

My main problem with the Tiffen is that generally I find Tiffen filters to be inferior... I've had less than happy experience even with MC'ed ones.... so if I go for a front one I guess I'll do the Formatt, but really the question of MCing is kinda key here.

Anyway - thanks for the info

 

[LMNCT]

There are a couple of easy choices...sell the 15 and get something else...or buy a GM5 body and stick the 15 on it. Either way, the problem is solved. Olympus must make a lens which can replace the 15 and which will work better on your Oly body. Life is too short for frustration.

 

[slartz]

There are a couple of easy choices...sell the 15 and get something else...or buy a GM5 body and stick the 15 on it. Either way, the problem is solved. Olympus must make a lens which can replace the 15 and which will work better on your Oly body. Life is too short for frustration.

There's no frustration. I knew of this issue before buying the lens and made my choice of buying it anyway, knowing that I can choose one of several options around these types of filters - a solution that works very well for many people in the forum.

I LOVE the rendering of PL lenses, and unfortunately the closest Olympus parallel lens - the 17/1.8, does not live up to the quality of other Olympus primes nor PanaLeica primes.

Getting a GM5 is not an option - I like IBIS too much. My frustration of not having IBIS will be FAR greater than spending a few minutes on the forums contemplating and a few dozens of dollars on buying a filter.

 

[Anders W]

In my experience, the AWB will take care of the difference with regard to temp (a couple of hundred K adjustment). But you might want to adjust tint a little bit towards the magenta side manually since the filter takes the color very slightly towards the greenish side and the AWB won't take care of that in my experience.

Hmm... ok... I will need to learn how to do that. Do you think I can build a "myset" that will have my normal settings (i.e. Aperture priority, etc.) but with this fixed?

I almost always shoot RAW and therefore don't worry much about the WB setting at the shooting stage. But there is a WB compensation in custom menu G of the E-M1 called All WB whereby you can tweak all the other WB settings in one or other direction, which is what you want here (for tint). And according to the manual, you can assign that setting to a myset so that you can switch it in and out depending on whether you are using a lens with the 2A filter or not. This is nothing I have played with myself yet but worth checking out.

I haven't noticed any impact on color that can't readily be adjusted via WB.

problem is the preset whitebalance settings I guess. but I could always do one-touch WB.

See above. As far as I understand, the compensation setting applies to all WB settings except CWB (the one where you set the temp in Kelvin).

2. Assuming I go for it - should I go for a front-mount filter or for a rear gel-based filter? the area around the glass in the back is wide enough to put something sticky there... And if I do that, where/how can I get a gel-based filter?

Since this is a filter you normally wouldn't want to put on/off on a regular basis and since there are no multi-coated 2As available as far as I know, I suspect you are just as well off with gel. As to sourcing, these filters appear to be difficult to get a hold of via European channels. B&H carry them I think although I haven't checked lately. I bought my first small piece of 2A gel second-hand (although unused) via ebay and the second via Samy's in L.A. Samy's had only a few left at that point, however.

That makes sense. Is this what I should be buying? While I live in Israel, I'm frequently in the US, so I can order it in one of my next trips (it's not an urgent matter ;-))

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/con...il&Q=&sku=503317&is=REG&si=rev#costumerReview

Yes, that's it. This will probably be enough to make nine pieces large enough to fit the 15/1.7, perhaps the 25/1.4 too.

Getting the front-filter has a few clear advantages:

1. it can serve as a lens protecting element while solving PF. If I decide I want a lens-protecting filter, it may be kinda stupid putting a clear fliter on the front and this on the back with tape...

Yes, if you want a protection filter anyway, you may kill two birds with one stone by choosing the front solution.

2. I can easily move it to other Pana lenses (such as the PL25/1.4) which while they suffer less, still suffer somewhat of this.

Yes. On the other hand, if the 25/1.4 has a broad enough ring around its rearmost element, the piece of gel you linked will get you enough material to give it its own filter with no need to swap.

3. Also, I'm afraid one day the glue will dry out and the gel filter will fall on my sensor...

I wouldn't worry too much about that. If you get good quality self-adhesive tape, I think there is little risk that it will dry out any time soon. After all, self-adhesive tape is typically used for long-term fixture and presumably designed for it too. Furthermore, the gel is really very light so exerts virtually no tension on the glue. I also deem it likely that you'd notice any problem before it would come off completely and I think it unlikely that it would fall in such a way as to mess up the sensor or shutter if it did come off. It would probably get stuck on something before that. But these are of course just my thoughts. Regrettably, I can't give you any personal guarantees.

One other thing though: Make sure you get thin double-adhesive tape (about as thin as ordinary Scotch) since there isn't unlimited space inside the body. As long as the tape is thin, the space should be more than sufficient.

On the other hand, a non MC front filter is pretty bad Flare wise.... and also the 2A needs to stay even when putting a CPL, and stacking filters is icky. So... not sure...

3. Assuming I got for a front-based filter (I've normalized all my lenses to 52mm with step-up/down rings so there are options here) - should I go for the Tiffen (25$?) or the Formatt (45$?). I *think* the Formatt may be Multi Coated which is a big advantage but I wonder if there are any other reasons to chose one over the other.

AFAIK, neither is multicoated but it is conceivable that Formatt is preferable from other points of view. Probably Tiffen will work well enough however.

On BHPhoto the Formatt is listed to be Multi Coated but that is a good question... if it is MC maybe it is the better option.... do you think I can shoot an email to BH and verify that?

I'd rather shoot Formatt a mail. As I recall, I checked Formatt's home page and broschures about this and found no mention of MC at all. So I suspect B&H might be in error here. At any rate, Formatt themselves should be the best place to ask.

My main problem with the Tiffen is that generally I find Tiffen filters to be inferior... I've had less than happy experience even with MC'ed ones.... so if I go for a front one I guess I'll do the Formatt, but really the question of MCing is kinda key here.

Yes, I know that Tiffen doesn't have the best of reputations. I haven't found anything seriously wrong with the only Tiffen I have (a magenta filter). On the other hand, that's not a filter I regularly use. Here is a report from Sigala1 who got a Tiffen 2A for the same purpose as you. IIRC, he reported later in the thread that he hadn't experienced any negative side-effects to speak of but you'd better check that for yourself.

Anyway - thanks for the info

You are welcome! Glad to be of help.

 

[lattesweden]

I found Formatts own homepage at:

스포츠중계 킹콩티비 - 해외축구중계, EPL중계, NBA중계 무료 실시간 고화질 시청

킹콩티비는 국내 최대 스포츠중계 커뮤니티로, 해외축구중계, EPL중계, NBA중계 등 전 세계 스포츠를 실시간 고화질로 무료 시청할 수 있는 사이트입니다. 회원가입 없이 간편하게 즐기세요!

www.formatt-hitech.com

The filter that BH lists is not on their site (maybe older type) but two other ones are at listed, they are listed for 370 and 400 nm. They are multicoated. I try to Google what 2A has for wavelenght but got some different results. Anyone know?

 

[Anders W]

I found Formatts own homepage at:
https://www.formatt-hitech.com

The filter that BH lists is not on their site (maybe older type) but two other ones are at listed, they are listed for 370 and 400 nm. They are multicoated. I try to Google what 2A has for wavelenght but got some different results. Anyone know?

A Wratten 2A is stronger than those (about 420 nm) and you need that strength to see any effect at all. Adding a filter with about the same strength as that already on the sensor won't help. I suggest you write Formatt and ask about availability and cost. You might want to ask about coatings too while you are at it. I have the impression that they can make a lot of things on special order and that it may not cost a fortune. I once ordered a Formatt magenta filter from B&H and it took a while to get it because Formatt first had to make it. ;-)

 

[slartz]

I almost always shoot RAW and therefore don't worry much about the WB setting at the shooting stage. But there is a WB compensation in custom menu G of the E-M1 called All WB whereby you can tweak all the other WB settings in one or other direction, which is what you want here (for tint). And according to the manual, you can assign that setting to a myset so that you can switch it in and out depending on whether you are using a lens with the 2A filter or not. This is nothing I have played with myself yet but worth checking out.

Cool. Thanks. This Camera is a wealth of customization. I wish I had more time to learn every aspect of it... I will look into it - but putting this as a MySet could really make it an easy solution.

Yes, that's it. This will probably be enough to make nine pieces large enough to fit the 15/1.7, perhaps the 25/1.4 too.

I'm sure I can make from the Gel for both of them... BUT - the 25/1.4 has noowhere to put the glue to... there's a less than 1mm ring of plastic in the rear before the metal with connectors begins (in a different height).

Getting the front-filter has a few clear advantages:

1. it can serve as a lens protecting element while solving PF. If I decide I want a lens-protecting filter, it may be kinda stupid putting a clear fliter on the front and this on the back with tape...

Yes, if you want a protection filter anyway, you may kill two birds with one stone by choosing the front solution.

Yeah. that is right, as long as it's Multi Coated.

2. I can easily move it to other Pana lenses (such as the PL25/1.4) which while they suffer less, still suffer somewhat of this.

Yes. On the other hand, if the 25/1.4 has a broad enough ring around its rearmost element, the piece of gel you linked will get you enough material to give it its own filter with no need to swap.

It's not... =/

I wouldn't worry too much about that. If you get good quality self-adhesive tape, I think there is little risk that it will dry out any time soon. After all, self-adhesive tape is typically used for long-term fixture and presumably designed for it too. Furthermore, the gel is really very light so exerts virtually no tension on the glue. I also deem it likely that you'd notice any problem before it would come off completely and I think it unlikely that it would fall in such a way as to mess up the sensor or shutter if it did come off. It would probably get stuck on something before that. But these are of course just my thoughts. Regrettably, I can't give you any personal guarantees.

One other thing though: Make sure you get thin double-adhesive tape (about as thin as ordinary Scotch) since there isn't unlimited space inside the body. As long as the tape is thin, the space should be more than sufficient.

Yeah, it's definitely doable and will probably stick. I saw the type of thin-double sided adhesive loosing its strength over years (3-4-5 years). but I see why the risk here is minimal. With that said, I'm still under the impression that a front filter is easier... also removable in situations where I don't want the WB compensation.

I'd rather shoot Formatt a mail. As I recall, I checked Formatt's home page and broschures about this and found no mention of MC at all. So I suspect B&H might be in error here. At any rate, Formatt themselves should be the best place to ask.

That's a good idea. An email has been shot. I promise to report the answers

Yes, I know that Tiffen doesn't have the best of reputations. I haven't found anything seriously wrong with the only Tiffen I have (a magenta filter). On the other hand, that's not a filter I regularly use. Here is a report from Sigala1 who got a Tiffen 2A for the same purpose as you. IIRC, he reported later in the thread that he hadn't experienced any negative side-effects to speak of but you'd better check that for yourself.

Yeah - I know this thread well - I read it before getting the PL15...

but still not convinced getting a Tiffen

Ofer.

 

[lattesweden]

Ah, with the name Wratten in Google it got easier:

Wratten number - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

But if we aim for 420 nm, then it is not a 2A but more of a 2E according to the above list. Or do I get it wrong?

 

[Anders W]

I almost always shoot RAW and therefore don't worry much about the WB setting at the shooting stage. But there is a WB compensation in custom menu G of the E-M1 called All WB whereby you can tweak all the other WB settings in one or other direction, which is what you want here (for tint). And according to the manual, you can assign that setting to a myset so that you can switch it in and out depending on whether you are using a lens with the 2A filter or not. This is nothing I have played with myself yet but worth checking out.

Cool. Thanks. This Camera is a wealth of customization. I wish I had more time to learn every aspect of it... I will look into it - but putting this as a MySet could really make it an easy solution.

Yes, that's it. This will probably be enough to make nine pieces large enough to fit the 15/1.7, perhaps the 25/1.4 too.

I'm sure I can make from the Gel for both of them... BUT - the 25/1.4 has noowhere to put the glue to... there's a less than 1mm ring of plastic in the rear before the metal with connectors begins (in a different height).

Yes, I know it sometimes looks like this at the rear and don't know if taping will work right on a very narrow surface like that.

Getting the front-filter has a few clear advantages:

1. it can serve as a lens protecting element while solving PF. If I decide I want a lens-protecting filter, it may be kinda stupid putting a clear fliter on the front and this on the back with tape...

Yes, if you want a protection filter anyway, you may kill two birds with one stone by choosing the front solution.

Yeah. that is right, as long as it's Multi Coated.

Which unfortunately might be a problem.

2. I can easily move it to other Pana lenses (such as the PL25/1.4) which while they suffer less, still suffer somewhat of this.

Yes. On the other hand, if the 25/1.4 has a broad enough ring around its rearmost element, the piece of gel you linked will get you enough material to give it its own filter with no need to swap.

It's not... =/

I wouldn't worry too much about that. If you get good quality self-adhesive tape, I think there is little risk that it will dry out any time soon. After all, self-adhesive tape is typically used for long-term fixture and presumably designed for it too. Furthermore, the gel is really very light so exerts virtually no tension on the glue. I also deem it likely that you'd notice any problem before it would come off completely and I think it unlikely that it would fall in such a way as to mess up the sensor or shutter if it did come off. It would probably get stuck on something before that. But these are of course just my thoughts. Regrettably, I can't give you any personal guarantees.

One other thing though: Make sure you get thin double-adhesive tape (about as thin as ordinary Scotch) since there isn't unlimited space inside the body. As long as the tape is thin, the space should be more than sufficient.

Yeah, it's definitely doable and will probably stick. I saw the type of thin-double sided adhesive loosing its strength over years (3-4-5 years). but I see why the risk here is minimal. With that said, I'm still under the impression that a front filter is easier... also removable in situations where I don't want the WB compensation.

I'd rather shoot Formatt a mail. As I recall, I checked Formatt's home page and broschures about this and found no mention of MC at all. So I suspect B&H might be in error here. At any rate, Formatt themselves should be the best place to ask.

That's a good idea. An email has been shot. I promise to report the answers

Yes, please do. This is a recurrent question. Hopefully, Formatt might even be persuaded to add MC even if they didn't use to make a 2A like that. Wratten 2A were originally made for B&W photography (to increase contrast in hazy conditions) and is presumably in little demand for that purpose today. But if Formatt realizes that there is a new market here for multi-coated 2A filters, they might take advantage of the opportunity to satisfy it.

Yes, I know that Tiffen doesn't have the best of reputations. I haven't found anything seriously wrong with the only Tiffen I have (a magenta filter). On the other hand, that's not a filter I regularly use. Here is a report from Sigala1 who got a Tiffen 2A for the same purpose as you. IIRC, he reported later in the thread that he hadn't experienced any negative side-effects to speak of but you'd better check that for yourself.

Yeah - I know this thread well - I read it before getting the PL15...

but still not convinced getting a Tiffen

Ofer.

 

[Anders W]

Ah, with the name Wratten in Google it got easier:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wratten_number
But if we aim for 420 nm, then it is not a 2A but more of a 2E according to the above list. Or do I get it wrong?

The figures in that table are so-so. You find the real transmission curves/tables here, if you select 2A and 2E in the menu to the left:

http://www.newportglass.com/kdkcat.htm

But 2E (which is a little stronger) is likely to work about as well as 2A. A question to which I don't yet know the answer is if 2E would just be overkill (not accomplishing a whole lot more but costing a bit more in terms of light loss and required WB adjustment) or if it will get you even closer to the optimum. I have both 2A and 2E available to me in gel form since a while back but haven't yet got around to testing for any difference with regard to PF. What I do know is that 2E isn't available as a glass filter. At least I haven't been able to found one anywhere.

 

[kbouk]

I manage to find a 2E filter for my Pany 7-14, I think it has some effect on colour reproduction and I will try to make a colour profile with EM1 and a reference Macbeth colour card with Adobe software and after tweak WB point if needed.--

Cheers
Costas

 

[Anders W]

I manage to find a 2E filter for my Pany 7-14,

It's no problem finding 2E as a gel filter (which is what you want for the 7-14). What I said is that I haven't been been able to find a 2E as a glass filter (for those who want that for the purpose of reducing purple fringing with lenses other than the 7-14).

I think it has some effect on colour reproduction and I will try to make a colour profile with EM1 and a reference Macbeth colour card with Adobe software and after tweak WB point if needed.--

Yes, as I pointed out, it will have a slight effect on color by reducing the temp slightly (which AWB takes care of by itself in my experience) and changing the tint slightly towards green (which you need to adjust manually in my experience). It is conceivable that you can see some very minor differences in color apart from that. But I have so far seen no need to make a special color profile for it. There is of course nothing wrong with doing that though.

 

[bs1946]

Hi,

So - I recently added the PanaLeica 15mm f/1.7 to my collection. However, unlike the PL25/1.4 - The Purple Fringing of this lens (on Olympus bodies of course) is very noticeable.

If you recall from my tests with PL25 - they are apparent at f/1.4, but negligible at f/2.0 and disappearing at f/2.8, making it very reasonable to life with without any "solutions".

HOWEVER, this is NOT the case with the PL15. It has very noticeable PF in f/1.7, and f/2, and f/2.8 and even at f/4 there's some noticeable PF (weaker, but still there even at fullscreen view). It goes away at f/5.6 but that's a bit harsh aperture to "live with". (it is otherwise, btw, a fantastic lens... so I wouldn't dismiss it over it).

So, I've been wondering about getting a 2A filter and wanted some advice:

1. What kind of impact will it have on the color? is it something AWB will fix? or will I need to manually fix it? The idea of getting the filter is to not have to postprocess (otherwise I can get rid of the PF ) - so this has to make "sense" for me. Can I do some "myset" that will have a permanent fix or something like that?

2. Assuming I go for it - should I go for a front-mount filter or for a rear gel-based filter? the area around the glass in the back is wide enough to put something sticky there... And if I do that, where/how can I get a gel-based filter?

3. Assuming I got for a front-based filter (I've normalized all my lenses to 52mm with step-up/down rings so there are options here) - should I go for the Tiffen (25$?) or the Formatt (45$?). I *think* the Formatt may be Multi Coated which is a big advantage but I wonder if there are any other reasons to chose one over the other.

Thanks!

I just got an E-PL5 and wanted to get a good small lens for it. Right now I have my 12mm f/2.0 on it and can just get the camera and lens into my coat pocket. I have no interest in small pancake zooms and by all reports the Olympus 17mm f/2.8 is a dog. I also have no interest in the 14mm f/2.5 because I have never like the 28mm FOV. So, to get a smaller high quality lens than my 12mm, my choice is either the 35mm f/1.8 which I gave to my son but could get back, or the 20mm f/1.7. The 20mm image quality and sharpness reported by most users and reviewers is outstanding. But, even if I ignore the comments on the slow and noisy autofocus because that won't matter much to me, there is still the problem with the excessive CA when the 20mm is used with Olympus bodies.

Thanks to Anders W and a few others, we know that a 2A UV filter will solve the CA problem. We also know that the 20mm, 14mm, and 15mm all take a 46mm circular filter and nobody makes a 2A UV 46mm filter. However Formatt makes a 48mm version and Tiffen makes a 49mm version. Just need a step-up ring to mount them. I was ready to look for a good used copy of the 20mm which seem to be everywhere and get the 48mm Formatt with a step-up ring when I discovered that B+W makes a 46mm 415 Strong UV Haze filter that sounds like it is B+Ws version of the 2A. I'm wondering if anyone here has used this filter or may know if it is the same as the 2A. I do know that if you want a B+W 1A Skylight filter you need to order a KR 1.5 filter. So, they don't always use the same numbers or names that the other filter makers do.

 

[Anders W]

Hi,

So - I recently added the PanaLeica 15mm f/1.7 to my collection. However, unlike the PL25/1.4 - The Purple Fringing of this lens (on Olympus bodies of course) is very noticeable.

If you recall from my tests with PL25 - they are apparent at f/1.4, but negligible at f/2.0 and disappearing at f/2.8, making it very reasonable to life with without any "solutions".

HOWEVER, this is NOT the case with the PL15. It has very noticeable PF in f/1.7, and f/2, and f/2.8 and even at f/4 there's some noticeable PF (weaker, but still there even at fullscreen view). It goes away at f/5.6 but that's a bit harsh aperture to "live with". (it is otherwise, btw, a fantastic lens... so I wouldn't dismiss it over it).

So, I've been wondering about getting a 2A filter and wanted some advice:

1. What kind of impact will it have on the color? is it something AWB will fix? or will I need to manually fix it? The idea of getting the filter is to not have to postprocess (otherwise I can get rid of the PF ) - so this has to make "sense" for me. Can I do some "myset" that will have a permanent fix or something like that?

2. Assuming I go for it - should I go for a front-mount filter or for a rear gel-based filter? the area around the glass in the back is wide enough to put something sticky there... And if I do that, where/how can I get a gel-based filter?

3. Assuming I got for a front-based filter (I've normalized all my lenses to 52mm with step-up/down rings so there are options here) - should I go for the Tiffen (25$?) or the Formatt (45$?). I *think* the Formatt may be Multi Coated which is a big advantage but I wonder if there are any other reasons to chose one over the other.

Thanks!

I just got an E-PL5 and wanted to get a good small lens for it. Right now I have my 12mm f/2.0 on it and can just get the camera and lens into my coat pocket. I have no interest in small pancake zooms and by all reports the Olympus 17mm f/2.8 is a dog. I also have no interest in the 14mm f/2.5 because I have never like the 28mm FOV. So, to get a smaller high quality lens than my 12mm, my choice is either the 35mm f/1.8 which I gave to my son but could get back, or the 20mm f/1.7. The 20mm image quality and sharpness reported by most users and reviewers is outstanding. But, even if I ignore the comments on the slow and noisy autofocus because that won't matter much to me, there is still the problem with the excessive CA when the 20mm is used with Olympus bodies.

Thanks to Anders W and a few others, we know that a 2A UV filter will solve the CA problem. We also know that the 20mm, 14mm, and 15mm all take a 46mm circular filter and nobody makes a 2A UV 46mm filter. However Formatt makes a 48mm version and Tiffen makes a 49mm version. Just need a step-up ring to mount them. I was ready to look for a good used copy of the 20mm which seem to be everywhere and get the 48mm Formatt with a step-up ring when I discovered that B+W makes a 46mm 415 Strong UV Haze filter that sounds like it is B+Ws version of the 2A. I'm wondering if anyone here has used this filter or may know if it is the same as the 2A. I do know that if you want a B+W 1A Skylight filter you need to order a KR 1.5 filter. So, they don't always use the same numbers or names that the other filter makers do.

Regrettably, B+W 415 is in all likelihood too weak. See here:

Purple Fringing on Oly and Pany Bodies: Causes and Remedies

Detail Man wrote: Anders W wrote: Laszlo13 wrote: Well - without the original file, DXO struggled a bit. The exif information is missing the lens information, plus it's a low res image. The lens info is in the EXIF all right. However, DxO most likely doesn't have a lens profile for this...

www.dpreview.com

With the 20/1.7, one option is to tape a 2A gel on the pretty broad rim of the ring surrounding the rearmost lens element using thin (not thick) double-adhesive tape. As you point out, there are, as far as we know, regrettably no 46 mm 2A screw-in filters (although I think you might possibly be able to get one from Formatt, special-order, at a price that may still be reasonably payable).

The primary alternative I would think of is a step-down ring and a smaller filter rather than a step-up ring with larger filter. The reason is that the 20/1.7 has a special start-up cycle where it moves its internal barrel, to which the step-ring would be attached, in and out, and in so doing pulls it in slightly more than the outer barrel extends. With a step-up ring, this movement might be partly blocked, which wouldn't seem to be all that healthy for the mechanism. You can get around that problem by using a 46-46 mm extension ring and then fit the step-up ring on top of that. However, a step-down ring and a smaller filter might be a simpler solution.