F828 in 560nm + a request for some help

[VideoJohn]

Bought a cheapie 560 filter off ebay and I'm just putting it through some paces. Kinda love these colors. Very rustic/fall feeling. 

"What's with the side blurring?" - There was a specialty wide angle adapter built specifically for the f828. Something about bad vignetting on other wide angle adapters according to the decade old threads I was reading. It was discontinued over a decade ago. Miracle of miracles, I came across one on ebay. Works great for the crazy stuff I make, but under normal conditions, the flaws are much more noticeable as seen here.

My request for help - I'm working on a review for the 828, but my technical terminology for the spectrum stuff is still a struggle. I don't want to mislead anyone with the wrong terms. Would someone mind giving a once over and making suggestions for terminology corrections? Thanks.

[Marc del Piro]

My first thought would be that the lenses are not good for NIR. It happens to me with my Fuji 10-24mm, the edges lack detail and are quite blurry. Did you try your lenses with some other IR filter?

[VideoJohn]

2 hours ago, Marc del Piro said:

My first thought would be that the lenses are not good for NIR. It happens to me with my Fuji 10-24mm, the edges lack detail and are quite blurry. Did you try your lenses with some other IR filter?

This setup goes, lens, 560, adapter. The normal lens is fine.

[Marc del Piro]

I asked a question, and you just answered something completely different, which makes me think I didn't transmit my question correctly. Or I might not have understood what you need. Let me know if I am wrong: Do you want to know why the edges of your photos are blurry?

 

If so, let's go part by part.

 

It's always good to have the following info: lenses and diaphragm used (speed and ISO but at a lower degree).

What is the adapter you are talking about? When talking about filters + adapters to control vignetting, normally it refers to the vignette that appears due to the filter clipping the edges of the photo. It should not be related to the diffraction and blurriness

 

Did you try this lens with any other filter? Do more restrictive filters show Hot Spot? Hot Spots are a sign of bad lenses for IR. I am asking this because in some of the photos, there is a bit of a Hot Spot, lightly but there is I think.  Also, are you sure this lens doesn't show similar distortion in ViS light?

 

IMHO, this lens might not be adequate for IR photography, that is why I am asking you all these questions. It seems they cause a lot of diffraction on the edges, but without more info than the one you are giving, it's impossible to assist.

 

[VideoJohn]

32 minutes ago, Marc del Piro said:

Do you want to know why the edges of your photos are blurry?

 

 

 

I know why - It's the huge wide angle adapter I have attached to it for these photos. The Raynox DCR7900zd. Without the adapter, the f828 is nowhere near that bad in terms of edge blurriness. The camera comes with its zeiss zoom lens. The Raynox turns 28mm into 22mm, but boy does it make those edges blurry.

 

This is what it looks like.
http://www.raynox.co.jp/comparison/images/digital/f828/f828-dcr7900zd2s.jpg

I had the quotes around the question to suggest what people might be thinking when looking at the image. I was trying to explain why with the statement. I am sorry if that wasn't clear.

 

[Marc del Piro]

1 hour ago, VideoJohn said:

I had the quotes around the question to suggest what people might be thinking when looking at the image. I was trying to explain why with the statement. I am sorry if that wasn't clear.

 

Ah, no worries. Talking to a screen has these things :D.

 

2 hours ago, VideoJohn said:

The Raynox turns 28mm into 22mm, but boy does it make those edges blurry.

Adapters tend to be a bad choice for IR photography Too many lenses, coatings and other stuff packed in such a small space

[ulf]

Most optical adapters degrade the quality, also in VIS.
Designing wide angle lenses has historically been difficult and wide adapters are even more difficult and rarely, if ever work well.

Dedicated modern tele extenders sometimes are OK as they mainly magnifies the central part of the image. If the lens is good enough and the extender is well designed that will be OK.

 

[dabateman]

Also even really good optical adapters,  like the Metabones speed boosters have horrible hot spots in IR.

I tested mine for EF to m43rds mount and was not impressed. 

[VideoJohn]

On 12/4/2023 at 1:11 PM, dabateman said:

Also even really good optical adapters,  like the Metabones speed boosters have horrible hot spots in IR.

I tested mine for EF to m43rds mount and was not impressed. 

 

That is super disappointing to read after discovering first hand Viltrox has the exact same issue with the Ef-M one.

 

On 12/4/2023 at 11:42 AM, ulf said:

Most optical adapters degrade the quality, also in VIS.

 

Yeah, I didn't buy it for the quality reasons. It was more of a rabbit hole, leading to one thing, which led to another, which led to learning there's only one possible accessory for this camera that might or might not work as intended...and it was out of print for a decade or more. Still, I stumbled across one. It was cheap, and it makes the setup look even more comical, so sure. It does serve a purpose for certain art needs, unfortunately, the f828 isn't the best tool for those needs, but I can still use it if I want to.

 

[Andrea B.]

My request for help - I'm working on a review for the 828, but my technical terminology for the spectrum stuff is still a struggle. I don't want to mislead anyone with the wrong terms. Would someone mind giving a once over and making suggestions for terminology corrections? Thanks.

 

John, where is the write-up which you want to have reviewed? If you are going to post the review here on UVP, then the best thing to do is probably to post it with a note at the top that "This is a work in progress" or "This review is still under edit". Then we can all pitch in and make terminology suggestions. I use that method with writing Stickies.