p.7 #1 · Zeiss 35mm f1.4 ZM or Voigtlander 35mm f1.7 Ultron for Landscape with deep DOF for A7rM and A7rII
Steve Spencer wrote:
But if you don't want the corrections on the M lenses, just don't do the 6-Bit coding or cover up the dots. So it is easy enough to "turn them off." I don't know if there are profiles out there to get them back, but I assume that it wouldn't be too hard to make such profiles. With regard to Q and SL files, I have seen them with black corners, so there must be some way to turn them off, but you are right that with those lenses the image circle is so small that without the correction the corners are black. So, if you wanted to live without the correction you would have to crop. I'm not really interested in AF lenses, so it doesn't bother me and the M lens correction doesn't seem that bad as it doesn't deal with distortion. Still your point is well taken. Leica users should not complain about other companies doing in camera corrections. They do the same thing and at least as much as most. ...Show more →
it would be a lot nicer if they allowed you to turn the corrections on or off in LR. if i shot with the m9 or m240 i would have corrections off at all times and use the LR flat field plugin to correct color caste without correcting vignetting (i really don't like vignetting correction, it can do weird things to tonal range in part of the image and changes the "look" of the lens).
as far as the Q files go, i'm not sure but i don't think you can turn off corrections in most raw converters? i thought people had to use some nonstandard raw converters to reveal the real image circle.
sebboh wrote:
i'm curious to hear how you think the 28 cron is the most modern 28mm? it's a lens designed for film, what do you mean by modern?
uhoh7 wrote:
Well you might not like my source, since you seem to rank him with Ken Rockwell
"So a new design was created from scratch: the Summicron-M1:2/28mm ASPH., scheduled for delivery early in 2001.
The optical prescription of the lens is quite fascinating. It fits in the genealogy of the seminal Summilux ASPH, a design that decisively departs from the classical Double-Gauss formula. This design-type, now more than a 100 years old, has been stretched to the limits and a performance plateau has been reached. The new Summilux design, incorporates the negative front and back surfaces and the aspherical surface. It is probably the first lens that has been designed specifically around the use of aspherics. Retrofocus designs are a second approach to step out of the shadows of the Double-Gauss formula. More lens elements can potentially improve performance, as more parameters can be controlled. The new Summicron-M 1:2/28mm ASPH picks up design elements of both: the lens group in front of the aperture is an enhancement of the Summilux (front group) design and the lens group behind the aperture fits into the retrofocus family and is a derivative of the 2.8/28 formula."
i don't disagree with anything he says. the 28 cron was pretty cutting edge in 2000 (15 years ago!). none of those design elements he talks about are terribly rare today. i have no idea why this makes you think that the 28 cron is more modern than the OTUS or 28 lux?
as far as Puts goes, i actually like him. he is a bit of leica fanboy and i find his prose to be rather annoying, but he provides lots of valuable information (unlike steve huff ). i wish there was somebody like him for canon, nikon, and sony.
i actually quite like ken rockwell too. he has lots of good info on leica lenses and reasonable advice for beginners about not being a gear head. he's also hilarious.
uhoh7 wrote:
It seems to me whether a lens is designed for film or digital is independent of the fundamental optics and layout, and where they stand in the history of lens design. Instead it's just the adjustment of a given lens to the additional optical qualities of its "sensor", which in the case of the A7 series thick stack, is retrograde. Obviously the 28 cron has no problem whatever with digital, and I never heard anyone say: "Oh it's better on film"
Your point on corrections I take, as I have heard them say: "It's better on the M9"
I think we are being let down by both Leica and Sony in not having a easy way to adjust corrections and make our own in-body profiles for specific lenses....Show more →
i actually have heard several people say they thought the 28 cron was better on film. i've never heard anybody say the 28 cron was sharper on film though.
sony at least lets you turn on and off corrections in LR and offers an app for you to make your own color and vignetting corrections (i think it might be jpeg only though?). as far as i know, none of their lenses need so much correction they don't actually cover the frame either.
p.7 #2 · Zeiss 35mm f1.4 ZM or Voigtlander 35mm f1.7 Ultron for Landscape with deep DOF for A7rM and A7rII
sebboh wrote:
sony at least lets you turn on and off corrections in LR and offers an app for you to make your own color and vignetting corrections (i think it might be jpeg only though?). as far as i know, none of their lenses need so much correction they don't actually cover the frame either.
The 16-50 doesn't cover the full aps-c sensor at 16mm
I agree with you that it is preferable to have the option to turn corrections off, I use the FE 2/28 without distortion correction all the time for my nature images and I almost never correct vignetting, usually I add some.
p.7 #3 · Zeiss 35mm f1.4 ZM or Voigtlander 35mm f1.7 Ultron for Landscape with deep DOF for A7rM and A7rII
Steve Spencer wrote:
My own view is that in camera corrections is an unintended side effect of an EVF. If you can apply the corrections to the EVF feed, then you can do a lot more in camera without people noticing. I think this gives lens designers the latitude to correct a lot less with the lens if it can be corrected in camera. I'm not sure that is a good thing, but I expect it to be the way of the future as EVFs are used more often.
That's an interesting point and unfortunately, probably the case.
p.7 #4 · Zeiss 35mm f1.4 ZM or Voigtlander 35mm f1.7 Ultron for Landscape with deep DOF for A7rM and A7rII
sebboh wrote:
...i actually have heard several people say they thought the 28 cron was better on film. i've never heard anybody say the 28 cron was sharper on film though...
I would not be surprised if the Cron 28's corners are sharper on film than on the M9/240. No one can say for sure that it's sharper though cause it would be much more involved to take the film shots, develop and scan to compare. Subjective opinions are easier to pass around.
As for the in-cam correction, ironically that both the A7s and A7RII are better at handling vignetting and color cast (the first reason for that 6-bit coding) than any M digital. I guess it's time for Leica to adopt BSI 42MP .
p.7 #5 · Zeiss 35mm f1.4 ZM or Voigtlander 35mm f1.7 Ultron for Landscape with deep DOF for A7rM and A7rII
In the past I have frequently used the corrections provided for my WATE in LR as well as vignetting on my A7r. The lens does vignette a fair amount. My A7rM just arrived back from Kolari Vision a short time ago. I will have to see if I have to use as much adjustment with the new thin sensor cover.
p.7 #6 · Zeiss 35mm f1.4 ZM or Voigtlander 35mm f1.7 Ultron for Landscape with deep DOF for A7rM and A7rII
naturephoto1 wrote:
In the past I have frequently used the corrections provided for my WATE in LR as well as vignetting on my A7r.. The lens does vignette a fair amount. My A7rM just arrived back from Kolari Vision a short time ago. I will have to see if I have to use as much adjustment with the new this sensor cover.
Rich
Rich, vignetting and color cast should be similar. I believe there is a slight Cyan cast on the A7R with the WATE.
p.7 #7 · Zeiss 35mm f1.4 ZM or Voigtlander 35mm f1.7 Ultron for Landscape with deep DOF for A7rM and A7rII
Phillip Reeve wrote:
The 16-50 doesn't cover the full aps-c sensor at 16mm
I agree with you that it is preferable to have the option to turn corrections off, I use the FE 2/28 without distortion correction all the time for my nature images and I almost never correct vignetting, usually I add some.
ah, good to know. hopefully they don't do that with any of their future higher grade lenses.
i also almost never correct the distortion (and add vignetting) on my rx1. i find the distortion more pleasing for portraits and scenic stuff.
p.7 #8 · Zeiss 35mm f1.4 ZM or Voigtlander 35mm f1.7 Ultron for Landscape with deep DOF for A7rM and A7rII
Derek, I don't disagree with your points about corrections made for the photographer without the option to turn them off. Just disagree that Leica is the worst of these. The Q and SL corrections do seem surprising, but I read a comment recently that apparently this is also the case for some Olympus m43 lenses? Can't confirm this as I have no experience with the system.
I agree with Steve that EVF based systems allow for this kind of correction to be a design specification of the system lenses. But has been argued recently, it might be the lesser of evils if a lens with relatively strong but simple distortion allows for better correction of more complex aberrations that otherwise can't be (as easily, if at all) dealt with in software.
Also my understanding about Leica's M corrections is that the vignetting component is supposed to bring the lens back to approximately similar behaviour to what one would have experienced on film, since at least the M9's sensor is of a traditional CCD design that exaggerated peripheral light loss. The CMOS of the M240 is supposed to have quite shallow pixel wells to somewhat mitigate the problem of exaggerated vignetting. But no, it's not a BSI design. Maybe Leica should just go directly to quantum dots (InVisage's QuantumFilm)?
p.7 #9 · Zeiss 35mm f1.4 ZM or Voigtlander 35mm f1.7 Ultron for Landscape with deep DOF for A7rM and A7rII
If anything, Sony would release a camera with QuantumFilm tech first. After all, Sony is one of the partners. I don't think CMOSIS is in that consortium.
p.7 #10 · Zeiss 35mm f1.4 ZM or Voigtlander 35mm f1.7 Ultron for Landscape with deep DOF for A7rM and A7rII
Oh, oh, I sense a KR debate happening.... I actually don't mind the guy BUT that is because I know what I am getting before I enter his site. When his information at times can be 100% false (or lies if you like), one really doesn't know if he is full of crap or truly believes what he is writing. I'm not so sure he even knows. This misinformation can be a bit misleading - especially for new photographers trying to broaden their knowledge. An example is recommending all people shoot in JPG basic (not fine) because image quality won't suffer and it will save on storage space. I would know not to do so but new photographers may not.... His information is mainly for entertainment which is perfectly fine if you use it that way.
BTW - I also like that fact that Leica use minimal amount of lens corrections...
p.7 #11 · Zeiss 35mm f1.4 ZM or Voigtlander 35mm f1.7 Ultron for Landscape with deep DOF for A7rM and A7rII
rscheffler wrote:
Derek, I don't disagree with your points about corrections made for the photographer without the option to turn them off. ... I read a comment recently that apparently this is also the case for some Olympus m43 lenses? Can't confirm this as I have no experience with the system.
Olympus corrections come in the form of metadata tagging to the RAW file. The RAW itself is left alone and the metadata is then interpreted by the RAW program (e.g. ACR). Programs like DCRaw allow access to the uncorrected versions. The lenses are also overspec'ed to account for the corrections--e.g. if a lens claims to be a 12mm lens, then that specification sets the angle of view for the post-corrected image.
p.7 #12 · Zeiss 35mm f1.4 ZM or Voigtlander 35mm f1.7 Ultron for Landscape with deep DOF for A7rM and A7rII
"No free lunch".
Correcting for distortions means compressing parts of the picture that the lens has extended and extending parts that the lens has compressed.
This inevitably means throwing away pixels or inventing pixels that were not there in the first place.
Correcting for vignetting means boosting signal and noise in the periphery of the picture.
Colour corrections means taking a good, science-based guess at what should have been delivered by the optics if it had been perfect (and if the light conditions had been different).
So it is a question of what is cheapest, glass, curves and precision mechanics, or software matched to the imperfections.
Also, in a perspective of more than a few years, if the correction algorithms are not publicly available, old uncorrected glass will be less usable when the camera company goes broke, while highly corrected glass will live on with a suitable adapter. So, consumer economists can bring out their calculators and consider whether their discount rates differ from those of the manufacturers..
The cron is more simple and to the point. Wonderful opening with the negative. No FLE true, but that is an old trick In terms of materials, I concede the Lux is more "modern", but as for the layout the cron seems more "new" school, to me.
The cron has beautiful even "Zeiss" lines compared to the lux's contorted hysterics
For close up work and obviously low light the Lux is a wonderful thing. I'll take one But the cron, all things considered, is the masterpiece, I say At least on my camera.
For M240 the Lux is probably going to please more, but that's back to your other point on correction.
For modern Leica lenses in this context there seem to be two camps. The 50 Lux ASPH/28 cron camp, and the 35 FLE/ 28 Lux (also FLE) camp. In truth I'm a fan of them both, but the 240 is a bit overcorrected for the former, to my taste.
p.7 #14 · Zeiss 35mm f1.4 ZM or Voigtlander 35mm f1.7 Ultron for Landscape with deep DOF for A7rM and A7rII
Continuing a bit OT with the 28 Cron... Leica Rumors posted a rumor about it being next for an update. Puzzles me a bit. OK, as it is now, maybe it's not the greatest in the corners until stopped down a couple stops. But I expected the wavy 35 Cron to get a serious makeover before the 28....
p.7 #15 · Zeiss 35mm f1.4 ZM or Voigtlander 35mm f1.7 Ultron for Landscape with deep DOF for A7rM and A7rII
rscheffler wrote:
Derek, I don't disagree with your points about corrections made for the photographer without the option to turn them off. Just disagree that Leica is the worst of these. The Q and SL corrections do seem surprising, but I read a comment recently that apparently this is also the case for some Olympus m43 lenses? Can't confirm this as I have no experience with the system.
i was only thinking of canikony (the FF competitors) when i said that leica was the worst. fuji and µ4/3 are probably worse. judging by the Q and SL it seems that leica is planning on following their µ4/3 brethren when it comes to AF EVF based systems though, so they might still be in the running.
personally the baked in color and vignetting corrections bother me much more than a little CA or distortion correction baked in, but obviously your mileage may vary. leica has an excuse for the need for correction – the lenses don't need correction on film (though it seems to me with the m240 they are trying to correct more of the vignetting than what i see on film), that doesn't make it bug me any less though in use.
i actually am generally in favor of new lenses being designed to be corrected both optically and digitally as i think that is a better way to achieve maximal performance at minimum size and cost. i'm kinda a hypocrite about that though since i have no intention of buying most of those lenses. i like my old manual focus aberration full lenses.
The cron is more simple and to the point. Wonderful opening with the negative. No FLE true, but that is an old trick In terms of materials, I concede the Lux is more "modern", but as for the layout the cron seems more "new" school, to me.
The cron has beautiful even "Zeiss" lines compared to the lux's contorted hysterics
For close up work and obviously low light the Lux is a wonderful thing. I'll take one But the cron, all things considered, is the masterpiece, I say At least on my camera.
For M240 the Lux is probably going to please more, but that's back to your other point on correction.
For modern Leica lenses in this context there seem to be two camps. The 50 Lux ASPH/28 cron camp, and the 35 FLE/ 28 Lux (also FLE) camp. In truth I'm a fan of them both, but the 240 is a bit overcorrected for the former, to my taste....Show more →
charlie, the cron and lux designs are derivatives of each other with the lux being more complex (extra element and FLE). the front element on the cron is replaced by two elements in the lux for added control of aberrations (necessary with the extra stop). i'm positive those two front elements taken as a system create a "negative". convex front elements have been around for a long time.
i agree that the the cron is a fantastic lens and preferable for me to the otus and lux (i believe i may have helped convince you to buy it). the mtfs are, i guess, more traditionally zeiss like than leica. not sure that makes it more modern (which company is older ), just different philosophies. i would say the zm lineup (35/1.4 excepted) is considerably less modern (old designs, old techniques) than the current leica m lineup.
The cron is more simple and to the point. Wonderful opening with the negative. No FLE true, but that is an old trick In terms of materials, I concede the Lux is more "modern", but as for the layout the cron seems more "new" school, to me.
The cron has beautiful even "Zeiss" lines compared to the lux's contorted hysterics
For close up work and obviously low light the Lux is a wonderful thing. I'll take one But the cron, all things considered, is the masterpiece, I say At least on my camera.
For M240 the Lux is probably going to please more, but that's back to your other point on correction.
For modern Leica lenses in this context there seem to be two camps. The 50 Lux ASPH/28 cron camp, and the 35 FLE/ 28 Lux (also FLE) camp. In truth I'm a fan of them both, but the 240 is a bit overcorrected for the former, to my taste....Show more →
With regard to the MTF's, one thing I'm curious about, particularly given that the 28 cron is pre-digital, is if the MTF's were generated under different conditions vs newer Leica lenses. That is, was the 28 cron MTF a "straight" MTF with no glass plate used when measured and was the current 28 Lux generated using the glass plate of the M240? Does Leica reveal this information somewhere? This question will become even more important with Leica and their current SL given that the Lux on the M240 performs noticeably worse off axis (and even in the center a bit) vs how that lens performs on the SL (with it's thicker glass plate). To a great degree, without knowing the methodology used in generating MTF's, they become less and less useful.
Nov 17, 2015 at 07:58 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.7 #17 · Zeiss 35mm f1.4 ZM or Voigtlander 35mm f1.7 Ultron for Landscape with deep DOF for A7rM and A7rII
Tariq Gibran wrote:
With regard to the MTF's, one thing I'm curious about, particularly given that the 28 cron is pre-digital, is if the MTF's were generated under different conditions vs newer Leica lenses. That is, was the 28 cron MTF a "straight" MTF with no glass plate used when measured and was the current 28 Lux generated using the glass plate of the M240? Does Leica reveal this information somewhere? This question will become even more important with Leica and their current SL given that the Lux on the M240 performs noticeably worse off axis (and even in the center a bit) vs how that lens performs on the SL (with it's thicker glass plate). To a great degree, without knowing the methodology used in generating MTF's, they become less and less useful. ...Show more →
It is not clear the SL has a thicker glass plate or if the differences with the M240 are caused by other factors--like micro lenses, or the nature of the glass in the plate rather than its thickness, or the dust shaker, etc. I don't think Leica actually measures their MTFs either and even Zeiss that does measure them doesn't specify the methodololgy. So, I don' t think this is anything new. MTF charts are helpful, but can be misleading at times. In my view, they always need to be compared with real world experience. I do like them as a guide and they do generally map onto my real world experience with a lens, but they often offer more precision than can be seen in my images. I think the cron and lux 28 look quite good and the waviness of the lux is mostly at a high level, so I think they both look good and I wouldn't make too much about the differences.
p.7 #18 · Zeiss 35mm f1.4 ZM or Voigtlander 35mm f1.7 Ultron for Landscape with deep DOF for A7rM and A7rII
Steve Spencer wrote:
I don't think Leica actually measures their MTFs either and even Zeiss that does measure them doesn't specify the methodololgy. So, I don' t think this is anything new. MTF charts are helpful, but can be misleading at times. In my view, they always need to be compared with real world experience. I do like them as a guide and they do generally map onto my real world experience with a lens, but they often offer more precision than can be seen in my images. I think the cron and lux 28 look quite good and the waviness of the lux is mostly at a high level, so I think they both look good and I wouldn't make too much about the differences....Show more →
"Zeiss and Leica publish MTF charts that are measured from a real lens."
Zeiss have generated comparative MTF's based on the use of different camera systems. For instance, they supplied Digilloyd with the ZM 351.4 MTF based on use with Sony mirrorless and it's thicker cover glass. Conversely, the MTF Zeiss publish for the ZM 35/1.4 is generated using .8mm cover glass (to simulate Leica M digital) This is strong evidence that indeed (as is logical), when we look at the MTF's for Zeiss Batis or Loxia, that MTF does in fact represent use on Sony mirrorless and it's thicker cover glass.
Lloyd's ZM 35/1.4 page showing MTF, supplied by Zeiss, as used on Sony mirrorless:
Obviously, MTF's are just one data point and real world results matter the most but that MTF datapoint is much, much less useful if we do not have an idea of how it is measured. I think with Zeiss we do know this with current lenses (older lenses were based on color negative film I believe, based on the Zeiss MTF papers below). With Leica, I'm not sure. Perhaps the facts are behind Lloyd's paywall. With the introduction of the SL though, I'm sure we will know soon...and it will be very important when considering that MTF datapoint.
Zeiss have generated comparative MTF's based on the use of different camera systems. For instance, they supplied Digilloyd with the ZM 351.4 MTF based on use with Sony mirrorless and it's thicker cover glass. Conversely, the MTF Zeiss publish for the ZM 35/1.4 is generated using .8mm cover glass (to simulate Leica M digital) This is strong evidence that indeed (as is logical), when we look at the MTF's for Zeiss Batis or Loxia, that MTF does in fact represent use on Sony mirrorless and it's thicker cover glass.
Lloyd's ZM 35/1.4 page showing MTF, supplied by Zeiss, as used on Sony mirrorless:
Obviously, MTF's are just one data point and real world results matter the most but that MTF datapoint is much, much less useful if we do not have an idea of how it is measured. I think with Zeiss we conclusively know that with current lenses. With Leica, I'm not sure. Perhaps the facts are behind Lloyd's paywall. With the introduction of the SL though, I'm sure we will know soon...and it will be very important when considering that MTF datapoint.
Tariq thanks for the very helpful information. I do think that we know a lot with Zeiss MTFs. The published tests of real lenses on their K9 optical bench. But even here I am struggling to understand the discrepancy between some lenses and the results from Lens Rentals. The majority of the lenses show very similar results between Zeiss' published MTF charts and Lens Rentals measured charts based on a sample of ten lenses, but a few lenses are strikingly different. I'm not sure why. Toothwalker made one comment about a difference in methodology that I didn't understand that may explain the differences, but I am still a bit confused. Still Zeiss let's us know a lot about their methodology and apparently they let Lloyd Chambers know even more.
With regard to Leica lenses and the published MTFs, however, I know Lloyd says they are measured, but if you have followed theSuede's comments over the last few years, he seems to question that. I'm not sure who is right. I generally have never seen theSuede post anything that I didn't totally trust and he seems to have measured lenses on his own optical bench. I also have never seen Leica claim their MTF charts are measured. So, I still have some doubts as to whether they are measured or just corrected for diffraction. In any event, even if they are measured it would be a lot more helpful if the methodology was described and we knew things like if they adjusted them for cover glass thickness.
All this is not to say that MTF charts aren't useful. I definitely think they are, but I do think we have to be careful when we make too much of small differences in MTF charts. A 5 or 10 percent drop or curve probably isn't going to matter much (and probably individual lenses vary this much anyways). A 20 or especially a 40 percent drop or curve will definitely matter, however, but you are absolutely right we need to know more about how the tests are done to draw the most useful conclusions.
p.7 #20 · Zeiss 35mm f1.4 ZM or Voigtlander 35mm f1.7 Ultron for Landscape with deep DOF for A7rM and A7rII
Steve Spencer wrote:
A 5 or 10 percent drop or curve probably isn't going to matter much (and probably individual lenses vary this much anyways). A 20 or especially a 40 percent drop or curve will definitely matter, however, but you are absolutely right we need to know more about how the tests are done to draw the most useful conclusions.
I agree with this Steve. A small variation really won't amount to much difference in real world shooting...
). i wish there was somebody like him for canon, nikon, and sony.
