Number of aperture blades

Lens specifications are not complete without detailing the number of aperture blades. But what does it mean in practice?

Of course, the shape of the aperture blades is important for the out of focus highlights, the bokeh. I have previously seen that the Lumix 45mm f/2.8 1:1 macro lens has somewhat more rounded aperture when stopped down than the Olympus 45mm f/1.8. When not stopped down, i.e., at the largest aperture, the diaphragm blades move out of the way, and the opening is usually perfectly round.

Adding a higher number of diaphragm blades can make the aperture opening more rounded when stopping down. However, lenses seldom go beyond nine blades, probably for the reasons of cost, complexity, and the risk of having one of them break down.

It turns out that the number of blades is also related to the rendering of flare, strong light sources inside the image frame. I'll look at that later in this article.

Samyang and Lumix fisheye lenses

There are currently two fisheye lenses available for the Micro Four Thirds system, the Samyang 7.5mm f/3.5 and the Lumix G 8mm f/3.5:



Of course, the major difference between these lenses is the price (the Samyang is the cheaper), the image quality (the Samyang is better, in my opinion), and the focus mechanism (only the Lumix lens has autofocus). But in addition: The Samyang has six aperture blades, and the Lumix has seven. These close up pictures show the rear exit pupil at f/5.6 for both lenses. The Lumix G 8mm lens has more rounded aperture blades, but you can still make out seven segments:

Samyang @ f/5.6	Lumix @ f/5.6

Here is a video showing how the aperture blades open up on the Samyang lens:



Affecting the flare

It turns out that the number of aperture blades affect the flare in a fundamental way. It is common to get a star shaped flare when using small apertures. And the number of spikes in the star is the number of diaphragm blades (when that number is even), or twice the number of diaphragm blades (when that number is odd). Hence, using the Samyang should give us stars with six spikes, and using the Lumix should give fourteen. Let's check, by taking pictures at f/22:

Samyang @ f/22	Lumix @ f/22

To see this more clearly, here are enlargements at f/22 and f/11:



It's not so easy to count the number of spikes on the Lumix image to the right, but I think it is still quite clear that it is fourteen.

Conclusion

To my experience, most lenses have an odd number of aperture diaphragm blades, which produces the most spikes on the star shaped flare around bright objects, e.g., the sun. I guess this is because a larger number makes the flare look more blurred, whereas a small number makes the flare more distracting.

A bit of trivia is that Canon has chosen an even number for most of their lenses, while Nikon is going for an odd number. Hence, it is often easy to guess what brand a photographer uses, based on an image where the sun is inside the frame. However, the aperture also needs to be fairly small to see this effect, e.g., f/16 or f/22.  So you might not be able to make this out based on any picture.

"Dances with fire", example Lumix 14mm video

This video was recorded using the Panasonic GH2 and the Lumix G 14mm f/2.5 pancake lens.



I left everything on auto, and just pushed the red video button. This gives me a 720p AVCHD video stream. Since I dislike the highest resolution 1080i mode, due to the interlace, I tend to use 720p progressive mode. I have the European version of the camera, so the frame rate is 50fps.

Sadly, the camera does not seem to record the image parameters when making video captures. So I don't know for sure what aperture, shutter speed and ISO was used. But I would guess the camera selected the largest aperture, f/2.5. And the shutter speed was probably as slow as possible for a 50 fps video, so around 1/60 second. The ISO was probably pushed up quite a lot, I would guess around 1600-3200.

Focus

I had autofocus selected (AFS). It would probably have been a good idea here to prefocus, and then select manual focus (MF) during the video capture. That is to avoid having the focus hunt during the video capture. You can see that the camera jogs the focus back and forth now and then, to verify that the image is in focus. But since the Lumix G 14mm lens focuses very fast, this is barely noticeable, even in this low light situation.

With the Lumix G 20mm f/1.7 pancake, the focus is slower, and it can wander off for some seconds when recording a video. For the 20mm lens, it is best to have some control over the focus during videos.

White Balance

The white balance was also left on auto (AWB). This gives a slightly yellow tint to the images. Perhaps I could have tweaked the white balance better. But this is hard to do when you don't have time to plan the video capture in advance. On the other hand, the yellow colours are actually true to the actual lightning conditions.

Flare

Notice that there is some flare in the video. You can see that the flames generate greenish ghosting symmetrically opposite along the optical axis. This is quite common when you have strong light sources inside the image frame.

This illustration shows the relationship between the actual light source and the flare:

A lens hood would not have helped, since the hood is only designed to keep out light which comes from outside the image frame.

Generally, flare is more of a problem the more lens elements the lens is composed out of. So generally, you would find flare to be a bigger problem for a zoom lens, which can easily have more than ten individual lens elements, than for a prime lens. The Lumix G 14mm f/2.5 pancake lens only has six lens elements. However, the optical formula and the quality of the lens elements is also important for the flare characteristics.

Using a protective lens filter on the front of the lens can give you more lens problems, especially for low quality lens filters.

Audio

I used the onboard microphone, and left the levels on auto. It sounds like the sound is clipped some times. But I would guess this is actually due to the sound system being run to loud, and not due to the microphone.

Using an external microphone probably has the potential to give better sound in the video recording. But it makes the setup look much more professional, which might scare some people, and hence negatively affect the video. Using the GH2 with the 14mm pancake lens gives a very compact and non-obtrusive package, which is handy for recording everyday life.

Lumix 14mm as a video lens.

The very fast autofocus and the inaudible focus action make the Lumix G 14mm f/2.5 an ideal video lens.

It has a generously wide field of view, which is useful when video recording a group of people. The wide field of view also makes it easy to handhold the camera without the hand shake affecting the video stream too much.

The small size and unobtrusive looks also makes it easy to get close to people without scaring them, which is a big plus if you intend to video record people.

On the other hand, a zoom also comes handy for video use. For some more flexibility, I would recommend the Lumix G 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6 basic kit zoom. It is light, very fast focusing, and pretty good quality.

Using protective filters on lenses

A topic of much debate is whether or not to use clear glass filters on the front of lenses, for protection. Some would argue that putting on a clear filter protects the lens against objects touching it, and against water, dust, and so on. If something hits the front of the lens, they would say, it breaks the filter and not the lens itself.

Others argue that the front lens element typically is strong, and does not need extra protection. Some would even say that adding a filter may be negative, that it breaks more easily, and that the glass shards could add more to the damage of the front lens element.

Another argument is that an extra glass filter deteriorates the optical properties of the lens.

Now, I wouldn't want to drop my lens on the pavement to examine if using a filter helps protect it or not. Besides, as all lens accidents are different, one drop would not prove much anyway.

But to look at the resulting images when using a filter, as opposed to not using a filter, is possible. To examine the effect of using a clear glass protective filter, I took the same picture with and without a filter.

Example @ 200mm

Here is an example picture taken using the Panasonic GH2 with the Lumix G 45-200mm f/4-5.6 lens at 200mm f/5.6.

without filter	with filter

This is an image with fairly low contrast, and on first glance, the two images are pretty similar. Let's look at an enlargement:



So is there any difference? Not really, I would say. Perhaps one could say that there is a tad bit more contrast in the left image, without the filter.

Example @ 14mm

Another example taken using the Panasonic GH2 with the Lumix G 14mm f/2.5 lens at f/5.6.

without filter	with filter

In this case, we barely need to look at an enlargement to see the differences. Clearly, there is more flare when using a filter. The right image also has some odd "phantom lights" in the frame, from light reflections between the filter and the lens. Here is one example in the centre of the frame:



Beyond the flare, it's hard to argue that the right image is worse in terms of sharpness, for example.

Example @ 45mm

Finally an example picture taken using the Panasonic GH2 with the Lumix G 45-200mm f/4-5.6 lens at 45mm f/4.

without filter	with filter

In this case, it is very clear that the presence of the filter deteriorates the image. Not only is there much more flare, there is also a severe reduction in the contrast and sharpness across the whole frame.

Here is an enlargement which demonstrates this:



Conclusion

In low contrast situations, it is hard to find much evidence of negative impact from using a filter. However, when there is more contrast, e.g., a strong light source in front of the camera, the presence of a filter generates significantly more flare, and potentially also less contrast.

People who are proponents of using clear protective filters may still not agree with me. They could argue that if I had used higher quality multi coated filters, I would not have gotten these negative impacts. And perhaps they are right.

Since I don't believe in using filters for protection myself, I haven't invested in the most expensive filters. So it could be that higher quality filters would have reduced the deterioration.

Still, I believe it is fair to say that adding a filter will generate some deterioration of the image quality. But if using a protective filter gives you more peace of mind when using your expensive lens, perhaps that is an acceptable cost to you.

Personally, I prefer using hoods for basic protection of the front lens element.

Appendix

The filters used were: "Kenko Digital Filter UV" (52mm) for the Lumix G 45-200mm f/4-5.6 lens, and "Green Digital Filter UV" (46mm) for the Lumix G 14mm f/2.5 lens. Both filters are littered with terms like "High Quality" and "Premium Quality", but I would take that with a grain of salt.

Comparison @ 14mm

There's a number of Micro Four Thirds lenses which include the 14mm focal length. So it's natural to compare their properties at this focal length. I've compared these:

Lumix G 14mm f/2.5 pancake

Lumix G 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6 Mega O.I.S.

Lumix G HD 14-140mm f/4-5.8 Mega O.I.S.

I did the comparison by taking the same photo with all three lenses, at various apertures. The pictures were taken with the Panasonic Lumix GH2 camera on a tripod, at ISO 200. I used the self timer to avoid camera shake during the exposure, and disabled image stabilization. The pictures below were rescaled and sharpened. Here they are: