Mitch, the purple edges are a problem even if you set the in-camera ISO higher, but will be less obvious unless pushing in post because the automatic lens correction will be less than at lower ISOs. This is more a consideration if you're shooting with wider angle lenses that receive a fair amount of vignetting/color shift correction, such as the 28 Cron and various 21mm lenses. Another option is to turn off lens coding, but then you lose some exif information.
I still prefer to keep ISO at or below 640. If I was braver, I probably would keep it at 160. The benefit is not blowing out bright areas in scenes and being able, as you mentioned earlier, push just enough for each image.
For example, this scene from a night out with friends/colleagues at a pub:
It was shot at ISO 160 and pushed probably around 3 stops in Lightroom (on a different computer from the one I use for processing, so can't say precisely). But because I shot it at ISO 160, the lights didn't blow out (much), nor did the TV. I was able to preserve those areas of the scene while bringing up the brightness of the lower half to a pleasing level, while also being able to avoid much, if any purple edge noise (the 21 Lux vignettes a lot). Had I shot that scene at the same shutter speed but ISO 640, then the bright areas, particularly the TV, probably would have blown out beyond graceful recovery.
In the scenes Charles posted, the tonal range is within the dynamic range of the camera at that ISO, therefore no worries. My guess is that while there are measurable technical advantages of shooting at lower ISOs and pushing in post, rather than setting the camera to ISO 1250 or 2500, it may not be enough of a difference visually in real life.
Thanks guys for your comments!
Charles - great to see your street portraits again, even if recycled.
Ryan - very illustrative of how capable the Canon lenses are! Looking forward to more, especially from the 100/2.
Doug - ROM = Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto.
joe88 wrote:
Ryan, you may have just opened a can of worms for Doug on these older lenses
Well...now that Doug mentions he has a Nikon 58 f/1.2 Noct he NEEDS the M240. Imagine that beast on the M
Ron - great explanation on using lower ISO....I have always tried my hardest not to go above 640 so I haven't tested that...but may try it just to see the difference now
rsolti13 wrote:
Well...now that Doug mentions he has a Nikon 58 f/1.2 Noct he NEEDS the M240. Imagine that beast on the M
Ron - great explanation on using lower ISO....I have always tried my hardest not to go above 640 so I haven't tested that...but may try it just to see the difference now
This is the lens that I want to see mounted on the M240.
Rsolti, the b/w boat shot is surreal. Love the tonality and the spot of light on the boat.
Ron, this is normally what I do in contrasty light or when the light sources are in the photo. It's great that pushing the iso in ACR preserves the highlights.
A question for you guys. I ordered a replacement bayonet mount from Zeiss for my biogon 25 that brings up the 28mm frames, so that I don't use an external finder. Is it a do it yourself job? (noting that I am very clumsy with screwdrivers). There are 4 screws. Is it as simple as unscrewing the 4 screws, replacing the mount, and screwing back the 4 screws? Or are there any moving or springloaded parts underneath?
Ok, stop the presses. I was reading about Nikon and Canon glass, was I not I THOUGHT I was reading about Nikon and Canon glass, being used on an M, that was why I thought it was M240, because I did read that there's a adapter for these lenses for the M Type 240.
But then Ryan says he has a M9, then Ryan sends me to a article of adapting older Leica screw mount lenses to M mounts. That's all well and good, but how did Nikon and Canon ever come into discussion, comparison shots? Maybe I just need to read better.
Yes, the Noct would be suuueeeet on an M 240 I bet. Not to mention my 28mm 1.4d Yes, I own both pieces of Nikkor hand ground aspherical element lenses now. My 28mm is an import, so service would be a bitch, but at least I have one for now...
I had both those pieces of glass several years ago, like a dummy sold them, and regretted it ever since. I traded a 300mm 2.8 for the Noct, hard to do, yes, but I did it anyway. I bought the 28mm 1.4d outright.
Edward, replacing mounts can be diy and can sometimes require a tech. Depends on the lens. It may be a simple operation, but I am sort of like you, very conservative about working on glass...
nice little lens Rich, I picked up one of those at B & H last week. Getting it converted from R to M with a Leitex mount.
Doug....The Canon and Nikon lenses we (mostly...I think Joe is using a 50mm Nikon F mount lens and Gary has posted some 80-200 AF-D shots on the M240) are using were built in Leica mount several years back. See below my Canon 50 f/1.5...it is Leica screw mount, not Canon SLR mount
As mentioned, 'a few years' back (more like late 40s-60s) Canon and Nikon made lenses in Leica's screw mount, which with a simple adapter can be used on all M series cameras and retain rangefinder focusing. There were also lenses from other now lesser known brands. The Contax rangefinder was based on a different bayonet style mount system that Nikon adopted for its own line of cameras (though with very slightly different specs), and those lenses require a different kind of adapter to use on Leica and retain rangefinder focusing, which is what Joe and I have done with our Contax lenses. But the easiest by far is Leica thread mount (LTM) to M mount.
So when I've referred to my newly acquired Canon 35/2 LTM and 50/1.4 LTM, it's these lenses. Same with Ryan's 100/2.
Edward, just checked a couple of my ZM lenses and the mount screw positions seem to match. I think it's just a matter of taking one off and putting on the new one. Only concern would be mount thickness variation and whether shimming might be required. But I think it would be safe to just give it a try and see if you get sharp infinity focus. If not, bring it to the tech you have looking at your 85/2. BTW, how is that progressing?
edwardkaraa wrote:
A question for you guys. I ordered a replacement bayonet mount from Zeiss for my biogon 25 that brings up the 28mm frames, so that I don't use an external finder. Is it a do it yourself job? (noting that I am very clumsy with screwdrivers). There are 4 screws. Is it as simple as unscrewing the 4 screws, replacing the mount, and screwing back the 4 screws? Or are there any moving or springloaded parts underneath?
Straightforward, remove screws and replace. Just make sure you get a correct version for your Zeiss lenses as there are 3 to 4 types of bayonet for Leica, Voigtlander, Zeiss, etc. Also these adapters have different quality, you get what you pay for and on longer lenses you might want to do some focus test.
Ron, Joe, Doug, thank you for the advice. I am ordering directly from Zeiss so I trust the thickness should be correct. I am picking up the Sonnar tomorrow afternoon. I hope the guy did a good job.
Alberto, excellent portraits, I particular love the first one.
Ron, yes, for what I need a 21mm lens the 3.4 would be 85% of the time perfect, no question about it. In a perfect world I would like to own both. I am sure we all have been in similar situations where we think back and forth. It's just for the night shots I would love to have a 1.4 lens even if they just make a small percentage of my photography. On the other Hand I can get almost a 21/3.4 and a 135/3.4 for the price of a 21Lux. Well for know I want to use what I have, get to know the lenses better, and time will tell me what I need more.
Charles, yes, I remember the first one, pretty amazing shot!
Edward, don't lough about me, but in the past I did this several times. I remember when I was in night clubs with my friends and some times, when I was bored, I left to make a tour just to see the rising sun on a summit. Well, this was 10-15 years ago, pretty crazy, I know!
Rich, holy cow what a lens.........2 000 000$ and 60kg!
rsolti13, I like that sail boat shot, but in my opinion the pretty amazing sky with it's beautiful clouds deserves a different post processing. I believe it would add a lot to the image, but of course this are just my honest, personal thoughts and don't mean really anything.
edwardkaraa wrote:
A question for you guys. I ordered a replacement bayonet mount from Zeiss for my biogon 25 that brings up the 28mm frames, so that I don't use an external finder. Is it a do it yourself job? (noting that I am very clumsy with screwdrivers). There are 4 screws. Is it as simple as unscrewing the 4 screws, replacing the mount, and screwing back the 4 screws? Or are there any moving or springloaded parts underneath?
Very easy Edward. I had sent in three lens flanges for machining of the 6bit grooves and it is very simple. Just take care not to overtighten.
The 28 Cron has nice smooth rendering in the second one Joakim.
Here are some from a downtown Hamilton walk a couple weekends ago... just getting around to processing them. Two pairs, each shot 28 Cron and 21 SEM. Not from the same point for each since it wasn't really meant to be a comparison.
Thank you for the comments and likes
Ryan, love the B&W shots! Beautiful rendering in all these shots with these classics
Doug, yes the RF is tough to focus, but easier than the AF with the RX1, in really low light. With the RX1 I end automatically using MF, and using the AEL button for AF, which is great for low light.
Ron, thanks Very nice shot! When I roam the streets in Bangkok at night, I start using ISO 640, and a shutter speed of 1/30 or 1/60s for Bangkok or Bali with the 50 Nocti f1.0 set at f1.2 which seems to be a sweet spot. I will push these files if needed about 1 to 1.5 stops, but then I will raise the ISO when the lighting drops even more. I do like to check the exposure as I set the M9P on manual.
Ron, love your geometric compositions! Excellent set.
Edward, thank you The tolerances on any bayonet mounts are very critical, and may affect the RF accuracy of the lens. Just tightening the screws can affect the calibration! The replacement of the bayonet is easy, but making sure the calibration is not affected, is not so easy.
charles.K wrote:
...Edward, thank you The tolerances on any bayonet mounts are very critical, and may affect the RF accuracy of the lens. Just tightening the screws can affect the calibration! The replacement of the bayonet is easy, but making sure the calibration is not affected, is not so easy
Care is certainly called for, but I have changed the flanges for 6-bit coding on three lenses without any difficulty or change in focus.
Guys please be so kind to let me know which picture you prefer of the following two for inclusion in the series linked under my signature below. I have posted them earlier and they were singled out among the ones people preferred from my night pictures. I usually don't have trouble choosing this sort of thing, but in these two I keep on vacillating. My preference has been for the first one because of my feeling that it has some sort of psychological tension that perhaps makes it edgier, while the second one shows three generations of a family and indicates that they a laundry service from their porch. [I don't know whether this type of post is within the accepted etiquette of this forum, considering that the pictures has already been posted in this thread.]
I THOUGHT I was reading about Nikon and Canon glass, being used on an M, that was why I thought it was M240, because I did read that there's a adapter for these lenses for the M Type 240.
Yes, I own both pieces of Nikkor hand ground aspherical element lenses now. My 28mm is an import, so service would be a bitch, but at least I have one for now...
