gyoung143 wrote:
I used Leicas for over 50 years, still have an M3 and a III, and Nikons etc with split image, and never had the slightest trouble with focus and recompose. At normal distances the difference in distances are very small. Mind you I never had anything faster than f/2 most of the time, and put a plain screen in the nikon for closeups. And we never even thought about curvature of field!
Gerry
Of course it’s no massive deal. All those wonderful images taken over the years weren’t fluke! And the differences are only really apparent pixel peeping with wide aperture lenses. And of course as you say curvature of field is something very hard to compensate for with an RF (whereas magnified MF with a correctly positioned magnifier on mirrorless does so perfectly). nad yet that wasn’t noticed much either. Film grain compensates for a lot!
And curvature of field is probably a bigger source of error than flat field focus and recompose (and presumably some of the time exactly cancels out the recompose error when you get lucky with the field shape of your lens!)
When I go through my film archive, I find a fair few of my favourite images with wide apertures and off centre subjects have slight focus errors when I peep in at the scans. It doesn’t worry me. They look fine printed to a reasonably large size. But I’m glad not to have to deal with it anymore.
Apr 03, 2021 at 05:31 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
DavidBM wrote:
Of course it’s no massive deal. All those wonderful images taken over the years weren’t fluke! And the differences are only really apparent pixel peeping with wide aperture lenses. And of course as you say curvature of field is something very hard to compensate for with an RF (whereas magnified MF with a correctly positioned magnifier on mirrorless does so perfectly). nad yet that wasn’t noticed much either. Film grain compensates for a lot!
And curvature of field is probably a bigger source of error than flat field focus and recompose (and presumably some of the time exactly cancels out the recompose error when you get lucky with the field shape of your lens!)
When I go through my film archive, I find a fair few of my favourite images with wide apertures and off centre subjects have slight focus errors when I peep in at the scans. It doesn’t worry me. They look fine printed to a reasonably large size. But I’m glad not to have to deal with it anymore. ...Show more →
Another thing to keep in mind is what aspect ratio you want to use. When I shot Leica I typically shot in a 4 X 5 ratio. That means if you shift the crop that you only need to recompose 2mm (from 18mm in the center to 20mm out of 30mm from the far edge) to get a rule of thirds placement. In contrast if you stick with a 3 X 2 aspect ration you need to recompose 6mm (from 18mm in the centre to 24mm out of 36 from the far edge). Simple put using a 4 X 5 aspect ration with centre point focus means only a pretty small recompose, whereas if you keep the aspect ratio 3 X 2 you have to do a recompose that is three times as big. I don't find focus and recompose an issue when it is just a couple mm, but I do when it gets much bigger than that.
gyoung143 wrote:
I can think of two that are not much good at all across the frame, even at f/8, whilst being good in the middle even at full aperture. Considerable discussion about induced field curvature which ruins the sharpness across the frame at larger apertures. That is whats been lacking.
A big warm Thank you! goes to you Jonathon. I certainly appreciate the effort!
These images are the best I have seen for judging the background OOF rendering from the 35 APO lens.
Depending on distances between the subject and the background it seems as you get more or less of these bright outlines up to f/4 or thereabout. It's a pity but it is what it is. All the other APO-features seam to be at place!
As these bright outlines are visible also with yellow objects and also in less contrasty areas i simply conclude this is how the lens draws.
I'm still planning to buy the E-mount version whenever it gets available here in Sweden....Show more →
I think "pity" is a bit harsh. These test scenes were a torture test for an APO flat-field 35mm f/2 lens where they not? Most were not-really-close subjects with multiple layers of highly-detailed, highlight-filled middle ground. I've not seen this kind of bokeh with my copy, and I doubt I ever will based on what and how I normally would shoot with a 35 f/2 APO.
The designer of Leica's M APOs insists they should be shot wide open, "No reason to ever stop down" or something like that. I will stop my CV 35 and 50 APOs down to f/5.6 for landscape, but I don't see a situation where I would otherwise not have it glued to f/2.
highdesertmesa wrote:
I think "pity" is a bit harsh. These test scenes were a torture test for an APO flat-field 35mm f/2 lens where they not? Most were not-really-close subjects with multiple layers of highly-detailed, highlight-filled middle ground. I've not seen this kind of bokeh with my copy, and I doubt I ever will based on what and how I normally would shoot with a 35 f/2 APO.
The designer of Leica's M APOs insists they should be shot wide open, "No reason to ever stop down" or something like that. I will stop my CV 35 and 50 APOs down to f/5.6 for landscape, but I don't see a situation where I would otherwise not have it glued to f/2....Show more →
highdesertmesa wrote:
I think "pity" is a bit harsh. These test scenes were a torture test for an APO flat-field 35mm f/2 lens where they not? Most were not-really-close subjects with multiple layers of highly-detailed, highlight-filled middle ground. I've not seen this kind of bokeh with my copy, and I doubt I ever will based on what and how I normally would shoot with a 35 f/2 APO.
The designer of Leica's M APOs insists they should be shot wide open, "No reason to ever stop down" or something like that. I will stop my CV 35 and 50 APOs down to f/5.6 for landscape, but I don't see a situation where I would otherwise not have it glued to f/2....Show more →
If this one really has a flat field at f/2 on a sony sensor stack then hallelujah it will indeed be wonderful. I sold my Summicron asph because it was so poor, and even on a Fuji wasnt good enough in that respect to be much use to me.
Kept my 8 element vers 1 though, which did better in that respect although since it has goggles its not a pretty sight on an evf camera.
I'm curious to compare the CV 35 APO to my Tamron 35/2.8. The Tamron has very little LaCA and has been my landscape 35, pairing well with my CV 50 APO. They are a bit of an odd couple though as they feel dramatically different in use.
gyoung143 wrote:
If this one really has a flat field at f/2 on a sony sensor stack then hallelujah it will indeed be wonderful. I sold my Summicron asph because it was so poor, and even on a Fuji wasnt good enough in that respect to be much use to me.
Kept my 8 element vers 1 though, which did better in that respect although since it has goggles its not a pretty sight on an evf camera.
Gerry
I’m using it on the M-mount version on the M10-R, so I don’t know about Sony.
highdesertmesa wrote:
I think "pity" is a bit harsh. These test scenes were a torture test for an APO flat-field 35mm f/2 lens where they not? Most were not-really-close subjects with multiple layers of highly-detailed, highlight-filled middle ground. (...)
Why was that "harsh"? Maybe a language thing, I don't know.
Here is how I think:
A lens can be anything on a scale from bad to very good.
Here we have a lens ticking many boxes:
It seems to be very "sharp".
It seems as the APO designation holds true.
The shape of the aperture blades is novel and brilliant in my opinion.
The mechanics seems fine (judging by the absence of complaints).
The size and weight are both to my liking.
And then:
The bokeh sometimes shows bright outlines also in low contrast and middle bright areas.
When nearly everything is fine or very good it is a pity that the last but important important feature isn't as good. Or maybe it is unfortunate.
My comment may have been harsh or whatever - but so can the bokeh from the CV 35/2.0 APO also be.
Jonas B wrote:
Why was that "harsh"? Maybe a language thing, I don't know.
Here is how I think:
A lens can be anything on a scale from bad to very good.
Here we have a lens ticking many boxes:
It seems to be very "sharp".
It seems as the APO designation holds true.
The shape of the aperture blades is novel and brilliant in my opinion.
The mechanics seems fine (judging by the absence of complaints).
The size and weight are both to my liking.
And then:
The bokeh sometimes shows bright outlines also in low contrast and middle bright areas.
When nearly everything is fine or very good it is a pity that the last but important important feature isn't as good. Or maybe it is unfortunate.
My comment may have been harsh or whatever - but so can the bokeh from the CV 35/2.0 APO also be.
My opinion is that this lens doesn’t deserve a to be pitied because it’s something it’s not supposed to be. Sure it would be better if it was smoother bokeh in these situations. It would also be better if it was still APO but was f/1.2, focused to 20cm, and was a pancake lens
From some samples I've seen, rendering seems a bit harsh at transition zone. That's noticeable on the oof background when subjects are focused at 3-5m distance. This is ambivalent since rendering is subjective but for my personal taste, I prefer the CV 50/2 APO's rendering.
However, I don't know the processing being applied to these images. Extra clarity, texture or unmasked sharpening can sometimes amplify these things, so it's still a question mark for me.
I will try it on my new M10-P next week an post more samples.
Fred
Fred Miranda wrote:
From some samples I've seen, rendering seems a bit harsh at transition zone. That's noticeable on the oof background when subjects are focused at 3-5m distance. This is ambivalent since rendering is subjective but for my personal taste, I prefer the CV 50/2 APO's rendering.
However, I don't know the processing being applied to these images. Extra clarity, texture or unmasked sharpening can sometimes amplify these things, so it's still a question mark for me.
I will try it on my new M10-P next week an post more samples.
Fred
Those samples are much harsher than the 50 APO for sure, but honestly it’s not what I’m seeing with my 35 APO, either. My results are different enough I was wondering if they’d used the wrong lens. I didn’t think about the processing — even added contrast can change the character quite a bit. I look forward to your test results.
Fred Miranda wrote:
However, I don't know the processing being applied to these images. Extra clarity, texture or unmasked sharpening can sometimes amplify these things, so it's still a question mark for me.
---------------------------------------------
highdesertmesa wrote:
Those samples are much harsher than the 50 APO for sure, but honestly it’s not what I’m seeing with my 35 APO, either. My results are different enough I was wondering if they’d used the wrong lens. I didn’t think about the processing — even added contrast can change the character quite a bit. I look forward to your test results.
Are you both referring to the test images I posted?
Fred Miranda wrote:
Not specifically to your images Jonathon. I've meant images posted everywhere including this thread.
About your samples though: Would you mind to sharing your post-processing? Thanks in advance.
There was no post-processing as such. As I wrote in the post containing the first eight images: “The Leica DNG files were imported into Lightroom and immediately exported without any adjustments.”
Environmental factors will play a part here as well. Few outsiders know what the Australian mainland light is like and the havoc it regularly causes in imaging. But having said so and looked over genji's excellent presentations - I see nothing but what I expected and wanted, and certainly looking forward to getting my copy later this month.
A lot of this is taste, pure and simple. Some dislike seeing much background content and prefer fast fade to smooth blur, others do not. A lot of what is disliked can be worked around in post or shooting technique.
One thing is certain - stay tuned for some spectacular images from this one. Experienced photographers don't take long to figure out what their lenses can do, and what they cannot do. These results differ markedly from standardised torture tests of twigs etc., which by their nature are useful but unrepresentative. Unless you shoot that stuff for pleasure or work, of course.
Are you both referring to the test images I posted?
I was. I haven't seen bokeh like this with my CV 35 APO, but:
*The detailed backgrounds I've shot have not had the bright highlights yours have
*I'm using the M10-R, which has lower contrast default output, at least in C1
Also looks like some of the shots were overexposed. I see missing detail in a lot of the white areas. Looks like how my M10-P shot bright subjects if I didn't dial in enough negative exposure comp. Overexposed highlights on the M10 completely lose their rolloff/character, so IMO it makes the results look a littler harsher than they might have been if they were properly exposed.
philip_pj wrote:
Environmental factors will play a part here as well. Few outsiders know what the Australian mainland light is like and the havoc it regularly causes in imaging. But having said so and looked over genji's excellent presentations - I see nothing but what I expected and wanted, and certainly looking forward to getting my copy later this month.
A lot of this is taste, pure and simple. Some dislike seeing much background content and prefer fast fade to smooth blur, others do not. A lot of what is disliked can be worked around in post or shooting technique.
One thing is certain - stay tuned for some spectacular images from this one. Experienced photographers don't take long to figure out what their lenses can do, and what they cannot do. These results differ markedly from standardised torture tests of twigs etc., which by their nature are useful but unrepresentative. Unless you shoot that stuff for pleasure or work, of course....Show more →
Well said! Jonas B said that he would “appreciate some images with difficult background stuff taken at f/2” and I was happy to assist. But never in a million years would I ever take pictures like the ones I posted—with any lens—since the light is so harsh and the subject matter of little interest to me. I wanted a 35mm f/2 lens which would improve on my Biogon ZM and the APO Lanthar fills that role admirably.
