Th13X3.5BRMU

Joel Aaron · March 9th, 2006, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Weber

Since this is what I do for work, (travel and shoot). I can give you a few tips on the cheapest way to travel.

That is awesome advice! I can't say I'm going to do it tomorrow - but that's really helpful, thanks for posting it.

Tim Brown · March 9th, 2006, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Weber

Since this is what I do for work, (travel and shoot). I can give you a few tips on the cheapest way to travel.

I use www.sidestep.com as a tool to search for flight options at cheap prices. I find a flight option that works for me price wise and is on my airline of choice (United for me). I then write down the exact flight info and times and then go to the airlines direct website and use the multi-city search option. Insert all of the info that you wrote down and usually you will have a cheaper flight option than the one on on sidestep.

The best way to get through Jakarta is through Bangkok. You will arrive in Bangkok at 12:00 am and will need to get a hotel until you can catch your flight to Jakarta. The Miracle Grand is a 5 start hotel with the best breakfast you will ever find for around $55 a night. Google Asia Travel to make your reservation. They will also pick you up and take you back to the airport.

Dan Weber

Things like this is why I love being a DVinfo member!!!

Tim

Tobie Marier · March 14th, 2006, 07:06 AM

Is there someone who can tell me what size of filter is needed with the 13X 3.5, Thank you

David Cubbage · March 14th, 2006, 10:49 AM

Hi Tobie
82 mm filter size for the th13x3.5BRMU lens.

Regards
David Cubbage

Tobie Marier · March 14th, 2006, 11:12 AM

Thank you David

My question wasn't clear. I was doing reference to the filter dimension using matte box 4X4 or 4X5.6.
Tobie

Tim Dashwood · March 14th, 2006, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tobie Marier

Thank you David

My question wasn't clear. I was doing reference to the filter dimension using matte box 4X4 or 4X5.6.
Tobie

You would need a 85mm adapter ring for a clip-on matte box, the same as with the 16x stock lens.

If you were referring to filter coverage, a 4x4 seems to work fine, but a 4x5.6 would be a safer bet for the wide end.

Tip McPartland · March 14th, 2006, 12:01 PM

We tested my Petroff matte box for vignetting at Ste-Man (distributors of Petroff) with the 13x3 on the camera when I picked up the box.

Their 4x4 frames cannot be made to shadow the lens at full-wide in any rotation. So with the Petroff at least there is no reason to put yourself in the position of buying the more expensive 4x5.6 filters. Other brands may be different, so one should certainly test before buying.

I did get the 4x5 matte box though, so if a wider lens becomes available (not likely) I'll still be able to pop in the bigger frames and filters.

I love my Petroff and suggest anyone in the market for a matte box check it out. Very nice.

Tip

Panos Bournias · March 14th, 2006, 12:45 PM

I have ordered a vocas M.B. and I am planning to use 4X4 filters unless someone can give a positive info that the 4X%.6 are needed.
For the C.A. of the lens, over f8 in clear sky shots I get C.A. at the lower edges of the lens.
It is embarassing because this glass costs more than the camera.
I am thinking of many senarios, one being that there is a problem with the ccds or there is an issue with the detail as I see the CA through the fine paterns only, palm leaves, trees etc.
I hope that if we load more filters and stay under f8 it would be better.
In comparison with the 16X I think that the CA is ~30 -40% less.
We had full moon 2 days ago, I shot it and it was really nice, with the 16X it had a red bump over the circle.
As I didn't have the chance to test the lens through a real project yet, still testing it slowly in my garden and in my office, I am wondering if somebody could post his experience with it, give us a few advises and maybe ways to avoid the CA.
Bright days seem to be the enemy of the 1/3" Fujinon lenses and this makes me feel frustrated here in the tropics with a magic hour that last ~ 15min.
The guys that mount directly the nikon lenses have noticed any CA that looks like the one we get from the 16X stock lens?
I cannot download footage for the moment, an answer in words would be enough for me.
Waiting for your creative comments.
Thanks - Panos B

Ian E. Pearson · March 15th, 2006, 06:45 PM

Has there been any resolution tests comparing the 13x to the 16x? I am interested to see how sharp the 13x is with the detail off. With the detail off using the stock lens, the image is quite soft.

Tim Dashwood · March 15th, 2006, 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ian E. Pearson

Has there been any resolution tests comparing the 13x to the 16x. I am interested to see how sharp the 13x is with the detail off. With the detail off using the stock lens, the image is quite soft.

Yes. I performed that exact test on all detail settings with both lenses.
I haven't uploaded the results yet. I'm still analyzing them, but I can email you the frame grabs now if you want.

Tim

Steven Thomas · March 15th, 2006, 10:08 PM

Tim,
Does the 13X appear to have better rez?

Mike Marriage · March 16th, 2006, 05:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim Dashwood

Yes. I performed that exact test on all detail settings with both lenses.
I haven't uploaded the results yet. I'm still analyzing them, but I can email you the frame grabs now if you want.

Tim

Can you email them to me aswell please Tim. Many thanks!

Warren Shultz · March 16th, 2006, 11:24 AM

Tim, why not post them since we're all interested?

Tim Dashwood · March 17th, 2006, 03:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warren Shultz

Tim, why not post them since we're all interested?

I haven't had a chance to carefully scrutinize the results in order to quantify the resolution difference, but when comparing the frame grabs it is clearly obvious that the 13x is much sharper.

These were originally exported as uncompressed TIFF, but I did these versions as Jpeg to make them smaller for download. However, the file size is still 23Mb.

These were all shot statically at F4, with the same camera body locked in the same position with both lenses at the same focal length (around 15mm.)
Using 15mm at F4 is probably the best possible scenario for the stock lens.

http://homepage.mac.com/timdashwood/..._rez_tests.zip

Warren Shultz · March 17th, 2006, 11:21 AM

Thanks Tim.

I'm not sure how you'd quantify it but you can sure see there is a clear difference in sharpness.

On my stock, I get progressive vignetting after 40 and wide open in low light I have an awful gradient of green to magenta through the whole image. Anything like that on the wide angle?

March 14th, 2006, 10:49 AM	#19
David Cubbage New Boot Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 9	Filter size Hi Tobie 82 mm filter size for the th13x3.5BRMU lens. Regards David Cubbage

March 14th, 2006, 12:01 PM	#22
Tip McPartland Major Player Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Crestline, California Posts: 351	Filter size We tested my Petroff matte box for vignetting at Ste-Man (distributors of Petroff) with the 13x3 on the camera when I picked up the box. Their 4x4 frames cannot be made to shadow the lens at full-wide in any rotation. So with the Petroff at least there is no reason to put yourself in the position of buying the more expensive 4x5.6 filters. Other brands may be different, so one should certainly test before buying. I did get the 4x5 matte box though, so if a wider lens becomes available (not likely) I'll still be able to pop in the bigger frames and filters. I love my Petroff and suggest anyone in the market for a matte box check it out. Very nice. Tip

March 14th, 2006, 12:45 PM	#23
Panos Bournias Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 109	matte box I have ordered a vocas M.B. and I am planning to use 4X4 filters unless someone can give a positive info that the 4X%.6 are needed. For the C.A. of the lens, over f8 in clear sky shots I get C.A. at the lower edges of the lens. It is embarassing because this glass costs more than the camera. I am thinking of many senarios, one being that there is a problem with the ccds or there is an issue with the detail as I see the CA through the fine paterns only, palm leaves, trees etc. I hope that if we load more filters and stay under f8 it would be better. In comparison with the 16X I think that the CA is ~30 -40% less. We had full moon 2 days ago, I shot it and it was really nice, with the 16X it had a red bump over the circle. As I didn't have the chance to test the lens through a real project yet, still testing it slowly in my garden and in my office, I am wondering if somebody could post his experience with it, give us a few advises and maybe ways to avoid the CA. Bright days seem to be the enemy of the 1/3" Fujinon lenses and this makes me feel frustrated here in the tropics with a magic hour that last ~ 15min. The guys that mount directly the nikon lenses have noticed any CA that looks like the one we get from the 16X stock lens? I cannot download footage for the moment, an answer in words would be enough for me. Waiting for your creative comments. Thanks - Panos B

March 14th, 2006, 07:06 AM	#18
Tobie Marier New Boot Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 7	Is there someone who can tell me what size of filter is needed with the 13X 3.5, Thank you

March 14th, 2006, 11:12 AM	#20
Tobie Marier New Boot Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 7	Thank you David My question wasn't clear. I was doing reference to the filter dimension using matte box 4X4 or 4X5.6. Tobie

March 15th, 2006, 06:45 PM	#24
Ian E. Pearson Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Greeley, CO Posts: 52	Has there been any resolution tests comparing the 13x to the 16x? I am interested to see how sharp the 13x is with the detail off. With the detail off using the stock lens, the image is quite soft.

March 15th, 2006, 10:08 PM	#26
Steven Thomas Trustee Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Gilbert, AZ Posts: 1,896	Tim, Does the 13X appear to have better rez?

March 16th, 2006, 11:24 AM	#28
Warren Shultz Major Player Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 248	Tim, why not post them since we're all interested?

March 17th, 2006, 11:21 AM	#30
Warren Shultz Major Player Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 248	Thanks Tim. I'm not sure how you'd quantify it but you can sure see there is a clear difference in sharpness. On my stock, I get progressive vignetting after 40 and wide open in low light I have an awful gradient of green to magenta through the whole image. Anything like that on the wide angle?