Pau,
I did more tests I don't keep, and to me, without a diaphragm there is less resolution/detail resolved, worse coverage (as is to be expected) and a pretty awful glare/fogginess.
100% center crops after adjusting levels.
Without diaphragm:
https://images2.imgbox.com/0e/da/vrczffq6_o.jpg
With diaphragm:
https://images2.imgbox.com/a2/1c/KWI8O3Rd_o.jpg
Also, coverage without diaphragm is worse at 2.1X than at 1.25X with diaphragm. At around 1X it is much worse.
But hey, I don't mind taking the lens back to the repair shop and get it with the diaphragm removed again When I have some free time I will make a proper comparison.
- Macrero
Minolta 5400 Scanner Lens and Laowa 25mm f/2.8 Comparison
Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau
https://500px.com/macrero - Amateurs worry about equipment, Pros worry about money, Masters worry about Light
I wouldn't dismount the lens again, the glare shown is enough argument against doing it.
An interesting test will be to shoot the same subject at the same magnification with the stop in its place (I still see higher resolution at the subject in the higher magnification image, although comparing different magnifications is not a fair test)
An interesting test will be to shoot the same subject at the same magnification with the stop in its place (I still see higher resolution at the subject in the higher magnification image, although comparing different magnifications is not a fair test)
Pau
Will do a test matching the M of the one without diaphragm. That will be a fair comparison.
https://500px.com/macrero - Amateurs worry about equipment, Pros worry about money, Masters worry about Light
Here is the test with the lens with the diaphragm re-inserted:
https://images2.imgbox.com/a9/a4/LmzsJbfj_o.jpg
100% crop without diaphragm:
https://images2.imgbox.com/90/4b/K0JBY3qG_o.jpg
100% crop with:
https://images2.imgbox.com/22/0e/eKoivKa1_o.jpg
I think it is pretty clear that designers have done well with putting that tiny ring between elements Wider aperture not necessarily translates to higher resolution. Not to mention the horrible glare and worse coverage.
https://images2.imgbox.com/a9/a4/LmzsJbfj_o.jpg
100% crop without diaphragm:
https://images2.imgbox.com/90/4b/K0JBY3qG_o.jpg
100% crop with:
https://images2.imgbox.com/22/0e/eKoivKa1_o.jpg
I think it is pretty clear that designers have done well with putting that tiny ring between elements Wider aperture not necessarily translates to higher resolution. Not to mention the horrible glare and worse coverage.
https://500px.com/macrero - Amateurs worry about equipment, Pros worry about money, Masters worry about Light
My pleasure. I was curious to see how removing the diaphragm would affect performance. It was logical to expect a negative impact, although I had the "remote hope" of getting a higher resolution. I had no luck, but hey, at least I tried...
https://500px.com/macrero - Amateurs worry about equipment, Pros worry about money, Masters worry about Light