Comparison: Two Zone Plate optics for E-Mount

[philzucker]

Here a quick comparison for those interested in Zone Plate photography (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_plate#Photography) of two Zone Plate optics that can easily be used on E-mount cameras:

1. The Skink Pinhole Zone Plate (dedicated E-mount version)

2. Lensbaby Pinhole/Zone Plate optic for use with e.g. the Lensbaby composer or other holders. This optic is only available on the used market.

There is another dedicated one for E-mount available at pinholeresource.com, and of course there should be a lot more, including those for other mounts that can be easily adapted for E-mount.

Now for those two I own - on the left the Lensbaby optic mounted in a Composer Pro for E-mount, on the right the Skink pancake with the Zone Plate installed:



Focal length of the Lensbaby is about 55mm, the Skink offers 15mm. With a Zone Plate focal length simply means the distance from the optical element - a thin film printed with concentric rings in a special pattern - to the sensor.

The Lensbaby has a tiny switch at the bottom allowing to choose between the Zone Plate (f19) or a Pinhole (f177) optic:



The Skink is also flexible, it comes - depending on the kit you choose - with different inserts than are fixed with the screw-in ring in the middle. My kit came with a Pinhole (f87), a Zone Plate (f39) and a Zone Sieve (f56):



In use these two are really very different. Here a picture of a vase with tulips, first shot with the Skink, then with the Lensbaby - for the latter the camera was moved further away due to the difference in focal length to capture roughly the same image. Both pictures were taken on a tripod and with a remote shutter release at ISO 100. They are shown here in full resolution and without cropping,





As you clearly can see the Skink vignettes heavily; it's marketed for "Sony NEX", so APS-C bodies are primarily targeted, nonetheless the vignetting is very pronounced. The Lensbaby pic is much more detailed and sharper, colors are more vibrant. If you look at the Skink picture at 100% you also see a lot of banding, probably because of the very flat angle the light has to follow as it falls on the sensor. That banding can be reduced with some blurring in PP, but it certainly is a nuisance.

Another shot with the tulips closer - again the Skink first, the Lensbaby second. For comparison look only at the right side - the left is very different due to the focal lengths and viewpoints used:





Again there is massive banding and vignetting with the Skink, and better detail and color with the Lensbaby.

But Zone Plate photography basically is not about clarity and sharpness. And vignetting can also used for good effect, and there are lots of possibilities in PP for both optics.

So if you go more for a "painting" look, the Skink might be for you; if you're going more for the "soft focus/bleeding light photography" look, the Lensbaby is definitely the better option IMO.

A real advantage of the Skink is of course its tiny size - it's very easy to have with you, taking up very little space. And it offers a wide angle view on APS-C - the Lensbaby with its longer focal length can't do that, it's better suited for detail shots.

Phil

--
GMT +1
Gallery: http://photosan.smugmug.com

 

[Martin_99]

I'm certainly not a target audience. I just want to understand why....? You can buy cheap lens, shoot with it normal sharp photos and if you want, do some blury pictures in PP. So why should I buy separate "lens" just for that?

 

[philzucker]

I'm certainly not a target audience. I just want to understand why....? You can buy cheap lens, shoot with it normal sharp photos and if you want, do some blury pictures in PP. So why should I buy separate "lens" just for that?

Glad you asked! Light is three dimensional, we capture it with photography on a two dimensional plane. How light is distributed on those three dimensional paths through the diffraction of a Zone Plate is nothing that you can simulate in PP - it's not an even blur, but a completely different distribution of light.

If you e.g. look at this crop of one of the pictures I posted you can see how the bright reds an yellows "bleed" softly into their surroundings, the darker greens do that less so. A blur in PP is something else altogether.





The same applies BTW for other forms of glassless photography or soft focus photography. Pinholes achieve an almost total DOF - this can't be simulated in PP. Dedicated Soft Focus lenses usually allow you to control the amount of spherical aberration as an overlay to a basically sharp pic; you get a 3D mix of sharp and unsharp renderings that can only be poorly simulated in 2D PP, and not with control and choice you have using a lens dedicated for that.

So using a Zone Plate, a Pinhole, a Soft Focus lens or whatever else out there is not about just creating unsharp, blurry pics - but to work differently with light than it is possible with a standard lens, even when PP is added.

I hope that answers you question at least a bit? Feel free to ask more!

Phil

--
GMT +1
Gallery: http://photosan.smugmug.com

 

[REDunnLev]

This is a very interesting subject. I decided to do some research on it after you posted your last pictures to see what you were going for. However, I must ask, how does one get into zone plate photography? Also, what is the market for such photography? This is just something I have never considered but I would like to compare it to blurry pictures to see the difference in the light patterns.

--
- Rebecca
https://becksstadiumpizza.wordpress.com/a-few-good-pics/
https://becksstadiumpizza.wordpress.com
https://becksbestbreakfast.com

 

[philzucker]

This is a very interesting subject. I decided to do some research on it after you posted your last pictures to see what you were going for. However, I must ask, how does one get into zone plate photography? Also, what is the market for such photography? This is just something I have never considered but I would like to compare it to blurry pictures to see the difference in the light patterns.

Fair point! I created a quick studio scene for you to illustrate the differences. Here the comparison at one glance. All pictures taken with the a6000, ISO 100, tripod, remote shutter.

• Top left: normal sharp pic, taken with the SEL50F18 at f8.0
• Top right: manual defocused pic, same lens/aperture as above.
• Bottom left: Lensbaby Velvet 56, f1.6
• Bottom right: Lensbaby Zone Plate

All pictures were focused on the stem of the glass in the middle; the Zone Plate doesn't need focusing.

If you look closely you can see that the defocused picture does what you expect - you get a uniform blur; smaller specular highlights get the shape of the aperture, and there are no sharp details visible anywhere (of course ..).

With the Soft Focus lens on the bottom left this is different. There clearly are fine and sharp details visible, but they have an overlay of soft diffused light that is strongest where the contrast is the most pronounced; see e.g. also for the hand of the figurine on the left of the picture. On the skin of the pineapple on the left the effect is less pronounced - detail is clearly visible here too, but colors and contrasts are muted. The nice thing about this diffused overlay is that you can control it very good - it get's less and less at f2.0 and f2.8, at f4.0 it's almost, at f5.6 completely gone in the center of the pic.

The Zone Plate picture on the bottom right takes the light distribution of the Soft Focus lens a step further; here it also effects the colors. The light bleeding is much more pronounced, and at borders with hard contrasts (see again the hand of the figurine on the left) there also is a separation of different wavelengths, resulting in color fringes. But look again at the skin of the pineapple on the right without hard contrasts: here you don't get those massive color shifts, and some detail of the texture is retained.

So what's the market for Zone Plate photography? Depends. On the pictures you take with it, for one. That glow and light bleeding is most interesting to observe in the wild, and with some patience you'll capture very nice scenes IMO.

I can only say that good Soft Focus pictures, created with care, do get an audience; the Zone Plate is the most extreme variant and the most difficult to handle, I have to say, but if you have fun experimenting it sure adds to your photographic possibilities.

Let's finish with two flower samples. First one of my favorite Zone Plate pics, taken approx. two years ago on a different camera, but with the same Lensbaby optics:





Second taken with a Soft Focus lens (with just a tad of this soft glow added) at around the same time:





Your mileage may vary of course, but I like both of them!

Phil

--
GMT +1
Gallery: http://photosan.smugmug.com

 

[REDunnLev]

Thank you for the detailed response. I prefer the Lensbaby velvet. I have purchased a Tokina catadioptric lens recently to explore the donut shaped bokeh so I too like experimenting with photography. I also really liked the images with the flowers.

Its nice to see people trying to expand their craft and understanding the different opportunities with photography.

 

[philzucker]

Thank you for the detailed response.

You're welcome!

I prefer the Lensbaby velvet.

Everyone to his or her taste!

I have purchased a Tokina catadioptric lens recently to explore the donut shaped bokeh so I too like experimenting with photography.

It's fun - and sometimes even rewarding, isn't it?

I also really liked the images with the flowers.

Thanks very much!

Its nice to see people trying to expand their craft and understanding the different opportunities with photography.

It really is. I often get inspired by other people on forums like this one.

Phil