Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Question ... Sony FE 100mm f/2.8 GM OSS STF
#1
As already hinted it is next in line ... and the MTF graph is weird (vignetting as well).

 

You may be aware that it is a T/5.6 @ f/2.8. Now I thought that the aperture is still the guiding aspect as far as diffraction is concerned. That seems to be -sort of- true for f/2.8 (T/5.6), also for f/4 (T/8). However, at f/11 (T/22) the data is way, way in diffraction land. Subjectively the figures resemble almost f/22 here. f/8 is a bit like f/13 or f/16. It seem as if diffraction "over-accelerates" the more you stop down. 

The aperture ring does also range from T/5.6 to T/22 but not beyond.

 

Thoughts?

#2
The STF acts as a gradual aperture. Lets assume (for ease) the lens is an ideal T2.8 lens without the STF element. It loses a whole 2 stops over the entire "frame". To get to T5.6, Some of the "gradual" aperture must be smaller than f5.6. So you get a percentage of light that acts as if it is diffracted through an f8 or smaller aperture (maybe even f22?), all the way up to f2.8.

 

The STF or apodization element sits comfortably far away from the aperture:

[Image: Sony-FE-100mm-STF-GM-Construction.jpg]

This will mean even stopped down this element will act as "gradual aperture" and add extra diffraction softening to the image.

 

Also, since this "gradual aperture" sits further away than an aperture normally would for a normal 100mm f2.8 lens (I am assuming that the actual aperture sits in the open gap between the 4th and 5th element, from the right), the diffracted light travels further and spreads out more at the image plane than you are used to. "Gradual aperture" distance-wise it is as if you test a longer lens (say 135mm, 2.8 / 100 * 135 = f3.78), and then you still need to add the gradual part. So lets say 5.6 / 100 * 135 = f7.56 on average for the light that passes through the STF element .

#3
So the effect is not noticeable on the Laowa and Fujinon because the aperture is closer to the APD elements on those lenses?

#4
Not sure where the Loawa 105mm STF's aperture is placed.

[Image: Optical-Structure.jpg]

The STF element is not that extreme (T3.2 says your review, so 1 1/3rd stop difference compared to the 2 stop of the Sony). Possibly the Loawa has a dark edge from f2 to f2.8, going to no "ND" very fast, where the Sony's transition to "no ND" is much slower? I have not seen, so not looked into, either of the 3 lenses. 

#5
Not sure how this would help, but have you double checked with a 24MP body?

#6
Wikipedia has some nice animated GIF showing diffraction.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffraction
#7
When I think about this a bit further, this is probably due to the heavy STF element. 

 

Thought about it like this:

 

There is a manual way to simulate a STF element by making multiple exposures, using different apertures every single time. You can also slowly close the aperture during a single exposure to end up with the same effect. The movement (and therefore the exposure times at different apertures) however, is not linear. You have to stay (and therefore expose) at the smaller apertures much longer. So the majority of the end exposure comes from that smaller apertures. Minolta 7 (film) had this feature built in but you can simulate it if you have an aperture ring or multiple-exposure capable camera. Or simply in Photoshop.

 

So, that's what the STF element is doing. So it's actually quite natural you hit the diffraction limit rather early and this is not due to the distance between the STF element and aperture, but due to the (rather) heavy STF element.

 

Also below is a quote from a guy who did that STF Simulation in the Lensrentals Photo Geek Contest 2013:

 

Quote: 

 

I don’t have a great Bokehlicious lens, but I can turn a normal lens into one! The Olympus OM 50mm f/3.5 Macro lens has a 6-bladed aperture with non-rounded blades, giving a relatively uniform bokeh shape. However, a Gaussian is often considered the ideal bokeh shape. To make a more Gaussian blur, I used an exposure time of 30 seconds and closed down the aperture slowly from f/3.5 to 22 during the exposure. This has the effect of exposing the inner area of the bokeh longer than the outer areas, making it brighter in the center. The lens itself has aperture click-stops at f/3.5, 5.6, 8, 11, 16, and 22. I used values from Pascal’s triangle to determine the exposure time at each click stop, which respectively were 0.03, 0.3, 1.6, 4.8, 9.7, and 13.5 seconds. The first two steps I just did as quickly as possible. The approximately Gaussian bokeh is clearly much smoother than when using the constant aperture, and in my opinion quite beautiful.
 

 

Sadly the photo is gone but Roger Cicala probably has it stored somewhere.

 

Also having a heavier transition at that 2.0EV effect would make it worse.

#8
Quote:Not sure how this would help, but have you double checked with a 24MP body?
 

Nah, that's not related. It's also not a defect - as mentioned the aperture ring just goes from f/2.8 (T/5.6) to f/11 (T/22) so there has to be a reason for the "limitation".
#9
Quote:When I think about this a bit further, this is probably due to the heavy STF element. 

 

Thought about it like this:

 

There is a manual way to simulate a STF element by making multiple exposures, using different apertures every single time. You can also slowly close the aperture during a single exposure to end up with the same effect. The movement (and therefore the exposure times at different apertures) however, is not linear. You have to stay (and therefore expose) at the smaller apertures much longer. So the majority of the end exposure comes from that smaller apertures. Minolta 7 (film) had this feature built in but you can simulate it if you have an aperture ring or multiple-exposure capable camera. Or simply in Photoshop.

 

So, that's what the STF element is doing. So it's actually quite natural you hit the diffraction limit rather early and this is not due to the distance between the STF element and aperture, but due to the (rather) heavy STF element.

 

Also below is a quote from a guy who did that STF Simulation in the Lensrentals Photo Geek Contest 2013:

 

 

 

Sadly the photo is gone but Roger Cicala probably has it stored somewhere.

 

Also having a heavier transition at that 2.0EV effect would make it worse.
 

That doesn't explain why the effect is not present on the Laowa and Fujinon.
#10
Quote:That doesn't explain why the effect is not present on the Laowa and Fujinon.
 

Maybe because they both have rather weak STF elements at almost around 1 stop for both while Sony is at 2 stops.

 

But you are saying Fuji and Laowa don't show that diffraction effect at all?

  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)