Relationship between LoCA and focus shift?

My point is: What Jim is measuring seems to me Chromatic Aberration or Lateral Chromatic Aberration, but no Longitudinal Chromatic Aberration.
Ok, so by mentioning CA alone or 'normal' CA you mean Lateral Chromatic Aberration?
He measures in the focal plane A small differences in distance, but for Longitudinal Chromatic Aberration is mainly the difference in B major.
I think there is an issue with terminology. Correct me if I am wrong, but In this thread we are using Longitudinal and Lateral Chromatic Aberrations as photographers are used to seeing the terms used. When talking about CA we are used to it being either Lateral (Transverse) or Longitudinal (Axial), that's it.

What do you call the aberration that causes different wavelengths to be focused on different planes parallel to the lens near the center of the field - and does change when stopping down? That's what Jim is measuring, imho.

The lens below appears to have well corrected LoCA.
bb3f06227eac40ebb497bbdedfdc37d6.jpg
On top of that there are Spherical and other aberrations which can also change as a function of wavelength.

Jack
 
Last edited:
My point is: What Jim is measuring seems to me Chromatic Aberration or Lateral Chromatic Aberration, but no Longitudinal Chromatic Aberration.
Ok, so by mentioning CA alone or 'normal' CA you mean Lateral Chromatic Aberration?
I asked that question here: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/57714148

and didn't get an answer. I suspect this discussion would achieve resolution faster if we knew the answer to that question. I encourage snellius to tell us what he means by unqualified "CA".

Jim
 
My point is: What Jim is measuring seems to me Chromatic Aberration or Lateral Chromatic Aberration, but no Longitudinal Chromatic Aberration.
Ok, so by mentioning CA alone or 'normal' CA you mean Lateral Chromatic Aberration?
I asked that question here: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/57714148

and didn't get an answer. I suspect this discussion would achieve resolution faster if we knew the answer to that question. I encourage snellius to tell us what he means by unqualified "CA".

Jim
796ddb670330402194447330cd79e949.jpg

0dd718bf7d094e6dad42721b979b0edd.jpg

No shift in the subject distance shift measurement but still a lot of Longitudinal Chromatic Aberration.

PS

To everyone and especially JimKasson. Because of my lack of knowledge of the English language are my written comments sometimes not as nice and clear like i mean. That's why I try to make clear in this way that I never want to attack. On the contrary even.

The subject focus shift has my full interest. Ten years ago I started at the DPREVIEW Nikon forum to demonstrate the relationship between Spherical Aberration, focus shift and bokeh.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/21454864

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/30440737

Also in 2005 I mentioned the influence of the glass in front of the sensor as a cause of focus shift by apperture.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/14402121

Some images are removed in the old archive but here is the missing image.

38097e1df3d64e6192a8c554c7047f47.jpg

Now it is clear why I call myself Snellius. Again, I'm no a scientist, but I repair camera’s for 30 years.

I hope to continue the discussion of any kind of focus-shift in the most interesting and pleasant way.
 
Last edited:
Is this about Longitudinal Chromatic Aberration or normal Chromatic Aberration?

As far as I understand it, you measure the focus shift between the various colors (Chart 1 and 3). This says something about the focal length for these colors. But LoCA is a color dispersion that takes place in the blur in front of and behind the focus point even if all the colors come nearly together in that focus point.

See an example here (almost below)

I'm no a authority in optics, but have tried to draw what is the difference to me.

b2d445a63c3347cd94568125eff18031.jpg

I think what you measure is not a value of Longitudinal Chromatic Aberration.
Both of these diagrams show phenomena that meet the definition of LoCA, in that they do not bring all wavelengths to a focus at the same axial distance.

Jim

--
 
There have been questions here about what I’m really measuring with my longitudinal chromatic aberration (LoCA) tests, and I’d like to deal with them as best I can in this post.

First off, a word about my test methods in general.

When I was going to Stanford in the early 60s, there were two introductory physics tracks. One, which was intended for people who intended to graduate in science or engineering, assumed a knowledge of calculus. The other, intended for liberal arts majors and others (including a lot of pre-meds!) who just wanted to get a little deeper into physics than a typical high school course, danced around the physics things that needed calculus to properly explore. Everybody – not just the techies – called the non-calculus version “kitchen physics”.

What I do on this blog is analogous to kitchen physics with respect to equipment. I neither possess or know how to use the gear that camera and lens designers use for testing. I couldn’t afford a $200,000 optical bench, wouldn’t have a place to put it, and wouldn’t be able to operate it if I did. I try to do the most I can with normal photographic equipment, just like the folks in kitchen physics did with algebra and trig. I may throw in an oscilloscope and a motorized focusing rail from time to time, and do some computer programming that would be outside the comfort zone of many photographers, but my objective here is to see how much I can discover with tools that might be found around the house of a serious photographer.

So let’s call the LoCA work that I’ve been doing “kitchen optics.”

There are things in physics that are simple to explain, and even elegant, that get a bit messy when you don’t have calculus in your toolkit. “S equals ut plus half a t squared, but just trust me on the derivation of that.” Versus “S is the double integral over t of a.” Turns out that there are things in kitchen optics that aren’t as straightforward as they would be if you had an optical bench at your disposal.

So bear with me while I work through my reasoning on my LoCA test. In addition, if you happen to be an optics expert – which I am most assuredly not – and you find an error, I’d appreciate it if you’d bring it to my attention.

Let’s go back to the definition of LoCA. Wikipedia says:

“Axial aberration occurs when different wavelengths of light are focused at different distances from the lens, i.e., different points on the optical axis (focus shift).”

Axial aberration is another name for LoCA.

So, since I don’t have a real optical bench, and presumably neither do you, let’s conjure up an imaginary one and do a thought experiment.

First off, the classic version. Assume a collimator that allows perfectly parallel light to impinge upon the lens. With a lens free of LoCA, and otherwise perfect, all that light would be brought to a focus along the lens axis, at a distance of the focal length from the center of a hypothetical single element with the same focal length (feel free to ignore that last bit, which was included in a probably unwise attempt at not oversimplifying). Anyway, all the light comes to a focus at one point. If we take an on-axis energy probe on our imaginary optical bench, the ready goes up as we approach the focal point from either side, and reads the entire energy of the light beam at the focal point. If we replace the energy probe with a spectrophotometer, the spectrum at the focal point is the spectrum of the light beam itself.

Now let’s replace the perfect lens with one that is equally perfect in every way except, when 550 nm (greenish) light is focused in the nominal focal plane, 450 nm (blueish) light is focused 1 mm closer to the lens, and 650 nm (reddish) light is focused 1 mm farther away from the lens. If we move our probe along the axis of the lens, we will see three peaks, not one. If we use our spectrophotometer, we’ll see that the peak furthest away from the lens is almost all 650 nm light (with a little of each of the other wavelengths from out-of-focus blurs). The middle peak will be almost all green light, and the near one almost entirely blue light.

If we add diffraction to the lens, then the peaks get broader and less high, with the blue peak being the most affected, the green the next, and the red the least.

Now, let’s do away with the collimator, and put an on-axis point light source at twice the focal length in front of an ideal, no-LoCA, lens. When we probe behind the lens, we will find a peak at twice the focal length behind the lens, and the spectrum of the peak will be the same as the spectrum of the light source.

Now let’s put LoCA and diffraction into the lens, and use our three-wavelength light source as above. If we use the spectrophotometer, we’ll see that the peak furthest away from the lens is almost all 650 nm light (with a little of each of the other wavelengths from out-of-focus blurs. About 2mm towards the lens, we’ll find middle peak, which will be almost all green light, and 2 mm further on, we’ll see the nearest peak to the lens, which is almost entirely blue light.

OK, we’re done with the imaginary optical bench. Now we’ll put the lens on an imaginary digital camera, which has a Bayer color filter array (CFA). Let’s say the red part of the CFA responds mainly to 650 nm light, the green part mainly to 550 nm, and the blue to 450 nm. If we rack the lens in and out while taking pictures all the while, we’ll see the central red pixel in the CFA peak in intensity with the lens farthest from the sensor, the central green pixel in the CFA peak in intensity with the lens at a middle distance, and the central blue pixel in the CFA peak in intensity with the lens closest tp the sensor. This is almost, but not quite, what we did when we probed the on-axis behavior on our imaginary optical bench. The difference is that with the camera, moving the lens gets it farther from the sensor and closer to the subject, so the magnification changes, and the relationship of the readings won’t be quite the same as with the bench.

There’s only one more thing we need to do to our imaginary camera to reproduce the situation that I’m using for the LoCA testing. Instead of changing the focus by racking the lens back and forth, which I don’t know how to do precisely in real life, we will change the focus by moving the camera back and forth along the lens axis.

The difference in the three focusing modes: changing the position of the probe, changing the position of the lens, and changing the position of the camera, is to stretch or squeeze the distance axis somewhat, in a nonlinear, but monotonic fashion. Therefore, the curves that we get from all three ways of focusing will look similar to one another, but they won’t be identical.

In all cases, the curves from a lens with no LoCA will peak at the same place. In all cases the sharper the focus achieved, the narrower and higher the peaks. In all cases, the distance between the peaks is a measure of LoCA.

QED, right?

Not quite. In my LoCA test, I don’t measure light intensity at a single pixel as an indication of degree of focus. There would be too much noise if I did that. Instead, I used slanted edge MTF50 as a stand-in for intensity. I can get much more accuracy that way.

And, if you accept that last tweak, then, yes, QE(approximately)D.

Jim
 
Thank you.

Can you think of a consumer lens that has LoCA as good as the Otus 85/1.4 that has negligible focus shift? I'm going to assume that the list of consumer lenses that have LoCA as good as the Coastal 60/4 (which some would not call a consumer lens) is zero items long, but let me know if that's not the case, too, please.

You are always helpful on this forum, and I'm grateful for that.

Jim
 
Your test, showing differences or lack of differences in best focal plane for each color channel, in the center of the image ("paraxial") by doing through-focus sweeps - is testing for LoCA. No need to justify that, you're totally correct here.

If that test correctly calculates the MTF for each color channel even though it's taken from a Bayer-filtered raw source, the same test does also indicate the level of spherochromatism. That aberration (or at lest the image-relevant total average in visible light) can be reverse modeled from combining the differences in maximum MTF per channel (at the best value point) with the shape of the through-focus MTF (flat/sharp peak, and then symmetrical/rear-heavy or front-heavy through-focus curve shape).

And your through-focus test of different aperture values indicates the total level of spherical aberrations, and when you look at the shape of that curve you can also get at least a small indication of the distribution of orders of SA correction.

So - Yes, there is some point of confusion (pun intended...) in this conversation, but I don't think it's on your part. It's mainly a language / semantics barrier :)

........

Even with a very well corrected paraxial spectrum, meaning that the lens system focuses all wavelengths of interest at the same image focal point, you can have noticeable defocus CA. I.e - no LoCA, but still OOF chromatic errors, paraxial. This is partly due to spherochromatism, as the quoted text mentions, but it also has more convoluted reasons. The pure spherochromatism links earlier in the thread are mostly explaining the aberration as it behaves in a telescope type lens, a lens that really doesn't have a central aperture. A photographic lens is typically two combined lens sets, one before and one after the restricting aperture. It is not uncommon - in fact it's more common than not - that a photographic lens has longitudinal color errors in the front group(s) (front of aperture) that are then minimized by inverting the error in the rear group(s).

The simplified explanation for defocus CA in a lens with a well corrected LoCA is in two parts - One: the pupil magnification changes between wavelengths, even though they focus at the same distance, and Two: the spherical aberrations (especially the higher order ones) differ between wavelengths.

Both effect the defocus CA, but in different ways. Chromatic exit pupil size differences can be visualized as if different wavelengths have different numerical apertures. Spherochromatism can be visualized as differing CoC intensity distributions (bright-ring, flat, central weight) between different wavelengths.

.......

So - if the lens has:
*No LoCA, but noticeable amounts of spherochromatic errors
----all wavelengths will share the same "best focal point" - but each inspected wavelength will have a different and unique MTF curve if you test them with monochromatic light. They will also have different defocus blur discs.
*Has LoCA, but no spherochromatism
----then each inspected wavelength will focus at a different image distance - but AT that distance, they will all have identical MTFs, both max values and MTF slopes...

Clear as mud, I suppose? :)

.......

Since both of the main reasons behind defocus CA (when isolated from "pure" LoCA) are heavily dependent on relative radii (curvature of the used lens elements compared to the overall focal length of the system), longer lenses like the 300mm's, 400mm's and so on often show much better defocus CA performance. Telefocal lenses can often use much lower maximum incidence angles per lens element than short lenses, that need to "bend" light much more aggressively. This, combined with the much more flexible opportunities to correct the higher order SA lines often give the superteles their outstanding defocus "look" performace.

Personally, I do prefer to use the term "LoCA" for both the descriptory correct aberration type AND the two other parts. Getting into spherochromatism and chromatic pupil magnification differences goes way over the head of most usage scenarios and discussions. Especially since LoCA is the absolutely dominating reason for both defocus color errors and in-focus longitudinal color error in almost all normal photographic lenses,
 
Last edited:
Have a look at the Nikkor APO-EL series (for magnification 1:3-1:10), or the Printing Nikkor 105A (for magnification 1:1-1:3 )... :) (if you could consider those "consumer" lenses...).
I suupose they are -- kinda -- now, although not originally.
Due to their rarity and exclusivity they're often quite hard to get though, and much less useful in real-world scenarios since they have relatively small magnification ranges of "best performance".

Do you by any chance have through-focus results from the CO on more every-day magnifications? I still find the results strange, but as I said - I've never tested it in macro conditions.
I will run some more CO tests tomorrow. what magnification would you like me to try? 1:4? 1:10?

Thanks for all your help.

Jim
 
Your test, showing differences or lack of differences in best focal plane for each color channel, in the center of the image ("paraxial") by doing through-focus sweeps - is testing for LoCA. No need to justify that, you're totally correct here.

If that test correctly calculates the MTF for each color channel even though it's taken from a Bayer-filtered raw source, the same test does also indicate the level of spherochromatism. That aberration (or at lest the image-relevant total average in visible light) can be reverse modeled from combining the differences in maximum MTF per channel (at the best value point) with the shape of the through-focus MTF (flat/sharp peak, and then symmetrical/rear-heavy or front-heavy through-focus curve shape).

And your through-focus test of different aperture values indicates the total level of spherical aberrations, and when you look at the shape of that curve you can also get at least a small indication of the distribution of orders of SA correction.

So - Yes, there is some point of confusion (pun intended...) in this conversation, but I don't think it's on your part. It's mainly a language / semantics barrier :)

........

Even with a very well corrected paraxial spectrum, meaning that the lens system focuses all wavelengths of interest at the same image focal point, you can have noticeable defocus CA. I.e - no LoCA, but still OOF chromatic errors, paraxial. This is partly due to spherochromatism, as the quoted text mentions, but it also has more convoluted reasons. The pure spherochromatism links earlier in the thread are mostly explaining the aberration as it behaves in a telescope type lens, a lens that really doesn't have a central aperture. A photographic lens is typically two combined lens sets, one before and one after the restricting aperture. It is not uncommon - in fact it's more common than not - that a photographic lens has longitudinal color errors in the front group(s) (front of aperture) that are then minimized by inverting the error in the rear group(s).

The simplified explanation for defocus CA in a lens with a well corrected LoCA is in two parts - One: the pupil magnification changes between wavelengths, even though they focus at the same distance, and Two: the spherical aberrations (especially the higher order ones) differ between wavelengths.

Both effect the defocus CA, but in different ways. Chromatic exit pupil size differences can be visualized as if different wavelengths have different numerical apertures. Spherochromatism can be visualized as differing CoC intensity distributions (bright-ring, flat, central weight) between different wavelengths.

.......

So - if the lens has:
*No LoCA, but noticeable amounts of spherochromatic errors
----all wavelengths will share the same "best focal point" - but each inspected wavelength will have a different and unique MTF curve if you test them with monochromatic light. They will also have different defocus blur discs.
*Has LoCA, but no spherochromatism
----then each inspected wavelength will focus at a different image distance - but AT that distance, they will all have identical MTFs, both max values and MTF slopes...

Clear as mud, I suppose? :)

.......

Since both of the main reasons behind defocus CA (when isolated from "pure" LoCA) are heavily dependent on relative radii (curvature of the used lens elements compared to the overall focal length of the system), longer lenses like the 300mm's, 400mm's and so on often show much better defocus CA performance. Telefocal lenses can often use much lower maximum incidence angles per lens element than short lenses, that need to "bend" light much more aggressively. This, combined with the much more flexible opportunities to correct the higher order SA lines often give the superteles their outstanding defocus "look" performace.

Personally, I do prefer to use the term "LoCA" for both the descriptory correct aberration type AND the two other parts. Getting into spherochromatism and chromatic pupil magnification differences goes way over the head of most usage scenarios and discussions. Especially since LoCA is the absolutely dominating reason for both defocus color errors and in-focus longitudinal color error in almost all normal photographic lenses,
This is very helpful. Thank you.

Jim
 
Have a look at the Nikkor APO-EL series (for magnification 1:3-1:10), or the Printing Nikkor 105A (for magnification 1:1-1:3 )... :) (if you could consider those "consumer" lenses...).
I suupose they are -- kinda -- now, although not originally.
Due to their rarity and exclusivity they're often quite hard to get though, and much less useful in real-world scenarios since they have relatively small magnification ranges of "best performance".

Do you by any chance have through-focus results from the CO on more every-day magnifications? I still find the results strange, but as I said - I've never tested it in macro conditions.
I will run some more CO tests tomorrow. what magnification would you like me to try? 1:4? 1:10?

Thanks for all your help.

Jim
 
I redid the LoCA and focus shift tests with the Coastal 60/4 at 1:10 magnification. The lens is much sharper there, but has a bit more LoCA. The focus shift goes in the opposite direction from 1:2.

93cd6ff18ebb49b684a512e866a629fd.jpg.png

6c80f79f42af4516b9908db41c0ed3a1.jpg.png

Details here: http://blog.kasson.com/?p=14892

Jim

--
http://blog.kasson.com
Its true that design difficulty in the Coastal lens was dominated by axial color and transparency over a huge waveband. As a result, half of the ten lens elements are CaF2, and all but one of the remainder are either silica or S-FSL5. All of these materials have a very low index, which makes it a challenge to correct spherical aberration. Only one element in the design has a high refractive index, and its a very thin negative element made of lanthanum crown (S-LAL18). The primary role of this element is to improve axial color correction in the near infrared.

However, even though much effort went into color correction and broadband transmission, the spherical aberration correction is actually very good. In fact, on-axis in green light the Coastal 60mm lens design is fully diffraction-limited (in the sense that the RMS wavefront error < 0.07 waves) at all apertures without having to re-focus to account for focus shift. And this is true both at infinity and at 1:2. I'm not saying that focus shift is zero, but I am saying that it should be small enough that it *should* be difficult to detect in practice.

In addition, if you do re-focus for each aperture you get maximum MTF at f/4 for all spatial frequencies. Again, this is for green light (546nm) on-axis. As you stop down and re-focus the MTF drops for all frequencies. So the curves you show where f/8 has a significantly higher peak than other apertures doesn't appear to match the design.

It would be interesting to do a knife edge test - or even better an interferometric scan - of your lens to see how close it approaches to the nominal design values.

--
Brian Caldwell
 
I redid the LoCA and focus shift tests with the Coastal 60/4 at 1:10 magnification. The lens is much sharper there, but has a bit more LoCA. The focus shift goes in the opposite direction from 1:2.

93cd6ff18ebb49b684a512e866a629fd.jpg.png

6c80f79f42af4516b9908db41c0ed3a1.jpg.png

Details here: http://blog.kasson.com/?p=14892

Jim

--
http://blog.kasson.com
Its true that design difficulty in the Coastal lens was dominated by axial color and transparency over a huge waveband. As a result, half of the ten lens elements are CaF2, and all but one of the remainder are either silica or S-FSL5. All of these materials have a very low index, which makes it a challenge to correct spherical aberration. Only one element in the design has a high refractive index, and its a very thin negative element made of lanthanum crown (S-LAL18). The primary role of this element is to improve axial color correction in the near infrared.

However, even though much effort went into color correction and broadband transmission, the spherical aberration correction is actually very good. In fact, on-axis in green light the Coastal 60mm lens design is fully diffraction-limited (in the sense that the RMS wavefront error < 0.07 waves) at all apertures without having to re-focus to account for focus shift. And this is true both at infinity and at 1:2. I'm not saying that focus shift is zero, but I am saying that it should be small enough that it *should* be difficult to detect in practice.

In addition, if you do re-focus for each aperture you get maximum MTF at f/4 for all spatial frequencies. Again, this is for green light (546nm) on-axis. As you stop down and re-focus the MTF drops for all frequencies. So the curves you show where f/8 has a significantly higher peak than other apertures doesn't appear to match the design.

It would be interesting to do a knife edge test - or even better an interferometric scan - of your lens to see how close it approaches to the nominal design values.
Thank you, Brian. So, if I understand you correctly, my lens appears to be anomalous in the following ways:

It should be sharpest wide open on axis. I am using a broad-spectrum illuminant, and the only color separation I am using is that of the camera's CFA, but that shouldn't explain the difference between what I'm seeing and your spectral data.

As a corollary to the above, I am seeing lower on-axis MTF50 than I should be seeing at f/4 and f/5.6.

I am seeing more focus shift than I should be seeing, and it shifts in one direction at 1:2 and in the other at 1:10.

And, although I didn't post these here, it's strange that the Sony FE 90/2.8 has less focus shift and is sharper at the wider apertures, even though it's got more LoCA and performs worse at f/8 and f/11.



a6bb119f05de446c8121f088d64abfbf.jpg.png



ab1c4cd60f714071ab3eb9778c1604f6.jpg.png

So it looks like my lens may be out of spec. Would that be your conclusion?

I don't have the ability to do a knife-edge test. The last -- and only -- one I did was in the 60s on a 6 inch mirror.

I could do defocused point source images or defocused Siemens star images if that would help.

Do you think Jenoptik would be interested in testing the lens? I hesitate to contact them, as just buying the lens in the first place was difficult.

Jim

--
 
I am curious. Why did you buy such an exotic lens? Not many people need good performance over such a wide band of wavelengths. (UV through infrared)

Usually such a lens would be used with a camera without a Bayer color filter array but doing so does make a nice way to test over red/green/blue bands of course.
 
Last edited:
I am curious. Why did you buy such an exotic lens? Not many people need good performance over such a wide band of wavelengths. (UV through infrared)

Usually such a lens would be used with a camera without a Bayer color filter array but doing so does make a nice way to test over red/green/blue bands of course.
I got it mostly for IR use (and that's how I use it now, when I'm not testing), but also to educate myself on the benefits of almost complete visible color correction. On that point, I'm still learning.

Jim
 
I redid the LoCA and focus shift tests with the Coastal 60/4 at 1:10 magnification. The lens is much sharper there, but has a bit more LoCA. The focus shift goes in the opposite direction from 1:2.

93cd6ff18ebb49b684a512e866a629fd.jpg.png

6c80f79f42af4516b9908db41c0ed3a1.jpg.png

Details here: http://blog.kasson.com/?p=14892

Jim

--
http://blog.kasson.com
Its true that design difficulty in the Coastal lens was dominated by axial color and transparency over a huge waveband. As a result, half of the ten lens elements are CaF2, and all but one of the remainder are either silica or S-FSL5. All of these materials have a very low index, which makes it a challenge to correct spherical aberration. Only one element in the design has a high refractive index, and its a very thin negative element made of lanthanum crown (S-LAL18). The primary role of this element is to improve axial color correction in the near infrared.

However, even though much effort went into color correction and broadband transmission, the spherical aberration correction is actually very good. In fact, on-axis in green light the Coastal 60mm lens design is fully diffraction-limited (in the sense that the RMS wavefront error < 0.07 waves) at all apertures without having to re-focus to account for focus shift. And this is true both at infinity and at 1:2. I'm not saying that focus shift is zero, but I am saying that it should be small enough that it *should* be difficult to detect in practice.

In addition, if you do re-focus for each aperture you get maximum MTF at f/4 for all spatial frequencies. Again, this is for green light (546nm) on-axis. As you stop down and re-focus the MTF drops for all frequencies. So the curves you show where f/8 has a significantly higher peak than other apertures doesn't appear to match the design.

It would be interesting to do a knife edge test - or even better an interferometric scan - of your lens to see how close it approaches to the nominal design values.
Thank you, Brian. So, if I understand you correctly, my lens appears to be anomalous in the following ways:

It should be sharpest wide open on axis. I am using a broad-spectrum illuminant, and the only color separation I am using is that of the camera's CFA, but that shouldn't explain the difference between what I'm seeing and your spectral data.

As a corollary to the above, I am seeing lower on-axis MTF50 than I should be seeing at f/4 and f/5.6.

I am seeing more focus shift than I should be seeing, and it shifts in one direction at 1:2 and in the other at 1:10.

And, although I didn't post these here, it's strange that the Sony FE 90/2.8 has less focus shift and is sharper at the wider apertures, even though it's got more LoCA and performs worse at f/8 and f/11.

a6bb119f05de446c8121f088d64abfbf.jpg.png

ab1c4cd60f714071ab3eb9778c1604f6.jpg.png

So it looks like my lens may be out of spec. Would that be your conclusion?

I don't have the ability to do a knife-edge test. The last -- and only -- one I did was in the 60s on a 6 inch mirror.

I could do defocused point source images or defocused Siemens star images if that would help.

Do you think Jenoptik would be interested in testing the lens? I hesitate to contact them, as just buying the lens in the first place was difficult.

Jim

--
http://blog.kasson.com
I wasn't looking at spectral data - just MTF at various apertures in green light (546nm), since your curves specify green light. To be honest, its hard to say whether the results are due to real differences in the lenses or whether they are some sort of measurement artifacts. The fact that you get low results for the Sony lens at f/8 and f/11 is a bit perplexing, for instance.

--
Brian Caldwell
 
I wasn't looking at spectral data - just MTF at various apertures in green light (546nm), since your curves specify green light. To be honest, its hard to say whether the results are due to real differences in the lenses or whether they are some sort of measurement artifacts. The fact that you get low results for the Sony lens at f/8 and f/11 is a bit perplexing, for instance.
Hi Brian,

The Coastal did seem to show an anomaly, peaking at f/8. However I wonder why the Sony would be perplexing: doing rough back-of-the-envelope calculations it seems to me that the f/8 and f/11 peaks are pretty well where we would expect them to be just varying aperture aotbe.

Jack
 
I wasn't looking at spectral data - just MTF at various apertures in green light (546nm), since your curves specify green light. To be honest, its hard to say whether the results are due to real differences in the lenses or whether they are some sort of measurement artifacts. The fact that you get low results for the Sony lens at f/8 and f/11 is a bit perplexing, for instance.
Hi Brian,

The Coastal did seem to show an anomaly, peaking at f/8. However I wonder why the Sony would be perplexing: doing rough back-of-the-envelope calculations it seems to me that the f/8 and f/11 peaks are pretty well where we would expect them to be just varying aperture aotbe.

Jack
Its a surprise to me that the Sony would be significantly worse than the Coastal at f/11 in monochromatic green light.

--
Brian Caldwell
 
I redid the LoCA and focus shift tests with the Coastal 60/4 at 1:10 magnification. The lens is much sharper there, but has a bit more LoCA. The focus shift goes in the opposite direction from 1:2.

93cd6ff18ebb49b684a512e866a629fd.jpg.png
Its true that design difficulty in the Coastal lens was dominated by axial color and transparency over a huge waveband. As a result, half of the ten lens elements are CaF2, and all but one of the remainder are either silica or S-FSL5. All of these materials have a very low index, which makes it a challenge to correct spherical aberration. Only one element in the design has a high refractive index, and its a very thin negative element made of lanthanum crown (S-LAL18). The primary role of this element is to improve axial color correction in the near infrared.

However, even though much effort went into color correction and broadband transmission, the spherical aberration correction is actually very good. In fact, on-axis in green light the Coastal 60mm lens design is fully diffraction-limited (in the sense that the RMS wavefront error < 0.07 waves) at all apertures without having to re-focus to account for focus shift. And this is true both at infinity and at 1:2. I'm not saying that focus shift is zero, but I am saying that it should be small enough that it *should* be difficult to detect in practice.

In addition, if you do re-focus for each aperture you get maximum MTF at f/4 for all spatial frequencies. Again, this is for green light (546nm) on-axis. As you stop down and re-focus the MTF drops for all frequencies. So the curves you show where f/8 has a significantly higher peak than other apertures doesn't appear to match the design.

It would be interesting to do a knife edge test - or even better an interferometric scan - of your lens to see how close it approaches to the nominal design values.
What I find strange is that the focus shift goes increasing towards f/11. I would expect that as you approach the paraxial regime, there should be decreasing changes to the focal distance. And, As Brian already explained peak resolution is expected to go downhill from f/5.6 to f/8 to f11.

Quite some time ago, I did similar tests with a modest Nikkor 35mm f/1.8 DX lens using Frans vd Bergh 's profile target,. It shows the expected behavior for focus shift, DoF and peak sharpness. As the aperture gets closed, DoF increases, peak sharpness increases from is value at f/1.8 (f/2 not shown) till about f/4 and focus shift is mostly gone by f/5.6. (closer focus is to the right if, I recall correctly)




AFS 35mm f/1.8 DX on D7000, MTF50 profiles a f/1.8 red to f/16 green, FvdBergh profile target near 15x focal length, green channel raw
 
I wasn't looking at spectral data - just MTF at various apertures in green light (546nm), since your curves specify green light. To be honest, its hard to say whether the results are due to real differences in the lenses or whether they are some sort of measurement artifacts. The fact that you get low results for the Sony lens at f/8 and f/11 is a bit perplexing, for instance.
Hi Brian,

The Coastal did seem to show an anomaly, peaking at f/8. However I wonder why the Sony would be perplexing: doing rough back-of-the-envelope calculations it seems to me that the f/8 and f/11 peaks are pretty well where we would expect them to be just varying aperture aotbe.

Jack
Its a surprise to me that the Sony would be significantly worse than the Coastal at f/11 in monochromatic green light.
Brian, when you say "monochromatic" light, I'm assuming that you mean what this former color scientist calls "spectral" light, that is, composed of only one wavelength, although it could be incoherent.

If I got that right, the illumination is not monochromatic for my test protocol. I illuminate the backlight with a pair of Westcott LED panels with the color temperature set to 5000K. The front side of the razor blade is not illuminated.

The "green" in the chart title refers to the green channel of the raw file. So the spectrum of the light hitting the sensor is the illuminant spectrum times the green CFA transmission spectrum.

That said, I was surprised, too, when I first saw the results at f/8 and f/11, but I now believe that the reason the CO lens does so much better at these wavelengths is that it has much lower LoCA than the Sony, so the Sony lens is unable to focus all the light at the same axial distance. I believe that was suggested above by The Suede.

Does that make sense to you?

Thanks for helping out here.

Jim

--
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top