Menu
What's new
The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Experiences with the SK 240mm LS

S

Smoothjazz

Active member
On a related note; I repeated a careful test of my Phase 150mm 2.8 blue ring lens, controlling vibration as much as possible- Gitzo 5 series tripod, Area C1 cube, Phase XF camera, and Electronic shutter with mirror up. I shot a test target at about 35 feet at f8.

I did the test with and without the RRS Really Right Stuff lens stabilizer system with the Y bracket.
First, using the 150mm lens and the 2X TC, for an effective focal length of 300mm, there was marked blurriness and image degradation; at 100% the image was clearly fuzzy.

Secondly, with the RRS len stabilizer- a huge improvement; in fact the image was as sharp as the 150mm alone.

This is remarkable really; a 300mm lens as sharp as the 150mm- definitely I now know I can use the 2X TC, as long as I use the lens support.




Don Libby said:
It's been several years now since I stopped using Phase One however when I did I had the SK240 along with the TC and have very fond memories.

My first time using it was during the winter in Jackson Hole WY and was immediately in lust with the lens. I found (using a Phase XF) I could easily handhold the lens capturing buffalo hers and moose. Putting the TC on required a tripod due to the weight and loss of AF. I was disappointed with the TC as I felt it could have offered more.

This was among the last of the lenses to be sold shortly after dropping from Phase One. Overall an excellent lens for wildlife and landscape.

I'll see if I can dig up some samples later and share. By all means get one.


Don
Click to expand...
 
Bill Caulfeild-Browne

Bill Caulfeild-Browne

Well-known member
As promised here is a comparison between the 240 mm rezzed up to the same field of view as the 240 with the TC.

Of course, one cannot tell much from the 1200 px JPGs. But what I see on the screen is encouraging. The uprezzed image is sharper than the 2X image, but I found that by increasing contrast marginally and tweaking the sharpening, I can get the images to be so similar as to be indistinguishable. The main difference was contrast - the extra glass of the 2X definitely saps contrast.

Having said that, I only checked the centre of the image. I'll have to have another look at the edges.

First shot is the 240 alone, at f6.3, one stop down from wide open. The second is with the TC and an effective stop of f12.6. Both on solid Gitzo, w/cube and electronic shutter. Incidentally, it was a windy day so don't look at the leaves!

My tentative conclusion is that I will continue to use the TC for wildlife where the edges are unimportant, but for landscapes I'll probably forgo the hassle of mounting extra glass etc etc.



 
Last edited:
Don Libby

Don Libby

Well-known member
Here's a couple of samples from Jackson Hole..

OxBow Bend IQ180 240mm


Oxbow Bend IQ180 240mm


IQ160 240mm


IQ160 475mm (240+TC)


IQ160 475mm (240 + TC)


IQ160 240mm
 
M

MILESF

Member
This may be stating the obvious but I worried that my 240 (Non Blue Ring) was a bit off with the aperture wide open. But I hadn’t adjusted the focus trim which made a huge improvement.

The lens also benefits from support at the front of the lens.

Very happy with it but don’t use it so much these days, partly because of the weight and partly because of how my photography has evolved over time.
 
Wall-H

Wall-H

Active member
This is very very old thread and i don't know if this information is still needed but I'd question on similar line so instead of starting new thread, Let me put it here.
I think (even) after applying lens correction factor, there is distortion that is making it difficult for portrait ( at least for me Or my eyes are betraying me)
here is straight up comparison and please feel free to correct me if i'm wrong.

Here is Picture with Macro 120 BR. (now just to make it clear, this is not going to be perfectly aligned heads as i was shooting for black swan and not for testing of lenses)
IQ3100_Macro120BR_crop.jpg

Here is picture with 240 BR
IQ3100_Lens1_crop.jpg


Here is picture with unnamed lens that i believe most true to models face shape.
IQ3100_Lens2_crop.jpg

And in case someone is wondering what would it look like if you'll put 2x extender on 240 and you add entire set of extension rings (and stay inside studio without having to walk a mile away :LOL:) This was for different day and different look and ended (Sorry to model and facial hairs)
IQ3100_480_crop.jpg

I did one more shoot with 240 BR (unfortunately I do not have comparison with other lenses) but when i saw pictures coming out of 240 (with extension rings) I see that face is coming a bit wider than it actually is.

This is with my < 5 shoots and less than 6 months with camera and lens so it'd take me long time to learn and adjust.
I can also fix this in post but Question is, is it just me or do you see distortion making face wider in case of 240 ?
I was hoping exactly opposite would happen (while i was buying for that lens).
 
P

Paul Spinnler

Well-known member
I don't think that technically this is distortion you are seeing in the sense of the an optical design property; it is just mere physics, ie the very well known effect of going longer and longer resulting in a flattening of geometry the longer you go – in this case, the more straight on you look at the face with a longer focal length the more squeezed elements before and behind the focal plane (ie cheecks, face sides) become because the rays hit the sensor in almost parallel fashion while a wider lens these will be thinner because they are hitting the sensor in an angle.

The 240 is not a great studio lens – I'd say it is best at home outside shooting landscapes, cityscapes and headshots or people shots from a distance where it completely oblitetarates the background.

For full-size portraits in the studio 120 any day.
 
B

Ben730

Active member
I would say that the face looks with the 240 LS also a little wider because of the depth of field.
The blurred areas at the back of the lower jaw and the ears are slightly wider due to the blur.
Regards,
 
Last edited:
P

Paul Spinnler

Well-known member
The good thing about this lens is the long focal length allows you to stitch easily as long as you setup the nodal point the right way. The longer, the easier to stitch ...

Although it is less sharp than the tech cam lenses, it has this dual character whereby with AF it can serve as an excellent outside portraiture lens and on the landscape / cityscape side allows you to do these vast ultra high res panoramas easily with a good A/S tripod head.

Of course a Rodie on an Alpa is better on a per shot sharpness basis, but if you don't have the cash equivalent of a car this lens is a very good alternative and fun to use if you drive up to the hill at the side of a city.

I imagine this lens being amazing in environments like Hong Kong, New York, Chicago, etc.

In the studio 240mm is quite limiting except if you have a huge studio!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top