Infinity focus aligns well on RF patch and results in focus. In real life photos of close up objects I can tell the focus plane is in front where I focused. This might be beneficial in taking photos of fast moving children where I typically aim at the ear/side of the face for quick focusing, and end up with eyes being in the plane of focus. However, I would prefer to have my lenses calibrated correctly.
spendychucky wrote:
Got my replacement lens from David for front focusing at MFD. unfortunately the replacement lens, though feeling much smoother on the focus ring, still had the same 1” front focusing issue.
Are these for the titanium or aluminum versions? And would you happen to remember the "serial" numbers of them?
This is what's holding me back with getting an MP or any rangefinder really, even though I'd like to have one without mirror slap and to use m lenses. I was thinking this might a good lens for an MP, maybe with a nokton 50/1.5 II, maybe use my simeras and distagon occassionally too... what are the chances they're all going to be in perfect calibration?
I get the impressions the odds would be like 1 in 100. I've had quite a bit of a headache with the two used fm2ns and focussing accuracy I bought - and they're SLRs.
Maybe they need to be shipping these lenses with shims and tools if they're for M mount, but that will mess up the hard stop too right. I heard Thypoch did that for a youtube reviewer. My simeras didn't come with them.
'The Thypoch Simera-C Cine 4-Lens (28, 35, 50, 75mm) and 5-Lens (21, 28, 35, 50, 75mm) kits come with a comprehensive shim set, screws, and a screwdriver for adjustment.
Purpose: These shims are designed for the interchangeable mount system (specifically for Sony E-mount and Leica M-mount versions) to ensure the lenses achieve perfect back-focus, which is crucial for cinema applications.'
You can email them or I'll do it for you, if you want. I'd like to know if the user can get inside the the rear of the lenses easily to expedite the process. It's standard practice in cine lenses, many makers now give you mounts as well, already to go (Zeiss and Cooke, etc.).
Just found what Fred says:
"My Simera 50mm f/1.4 was perfectly calibrated, but the Simera 28mm f/1.4 I received yesterday was back-focusing. As noted earlier, back-focusing can be corrected by adding shims to either the lens mount or the section of the lens where shims calibrate for the rangefinder. Fortunately, in my case, both infinity and close distances were back-focusing, so I could easily fix it by adding a shim behind the lens mount.
This required removing the rear mount. I calibrated it precisely by adding a 0.04mm shim. Now the lens focuses accurately at any distance. For front-focusing, shims need to be removed, but it's a trial and error process to determine the exact amount needed to achieve perfect focus with the rangefinder."
philip_pj wrote:
They ship the C lenses with shims.
'The Thypoch Simera-C Cine 4-Lens (28, 35, 50, 75mm) and 5-Lens (21, 28, 35, 50, 75mm) kits come with a comprehensive shim set, screws, and a screwdriver for adjustment.
Purpose: These shims are designed for the interchangeable mount system (specifically for Sony E-mount and Leica M-mount versions) to ensure the lenses achieve perfect back-focus, which is crucial for cinema applications.'
You can email them or I'll do it for you, if you want. I'd like to know if the user can get inside the the rear of the lenses easily to expedite the process. It's standard practice in cine lenses, many makers now give you mounts as well, already to go (Zeiss and Cooke, etc.).
Just found what Fred says:
"My Simera 50mm f/1.4 was perfectly calibrated, but the Simera 28mm f/1.4 I received yesterday was back-focusing. As noted earlier, back-focusing can be corrected by adding shims to either the lens mount or the section of the lens where shims calibrate for the rangefinder. Fortunately, in my case, both infinity and close distances were back-focusing, so I could easily fix it by adding a shim behind the lens mount.
This required removing the rear mount. I calibrated it precisely by adding a 0.04mm shim. Now the lens focuses accurately at any distance. For front-focusing, shims need to be removed, but it's a trial and error process to determine the exact amount needed to achieve perfect focus with the rangefinder."
Having worked at a place that rents actual cine lenses with actual cine cameras to actual production companies for the purpose of shooting commercials (which, at that time, were the big ticket jobs), I can say that lenses are collimated for infinity focus and then checked for close focus. Lenses being shipped with shims is nice, but without a collimator, you're just guessing at adjustments. I have four LLL lenses. They are all lovely, but they are still a bit away from equaling the build quality of Voigtlander. I think they'll get there soon.
Opinions are going to vary, aren't they? I don't have one on this, I was simply offering to help a fellow member with hopefully helpful information. Don't know how that led to it being about you.
Not sure how brand comparative build quality came into any of this, but people surprise you everyday. I would not want to offend Voigtlander users by pointing to the many build issues many owners have experienced over the past 20 years. It seems to happen to most brands, from my experience and reading.
On balance, I think we can do better without each other, _jim_. All the best in our divergent futures, sincerely meant. Please 'Hide Me', the button is just below the post, the rightmost one.
I appreciate both comments, from what I can tell the collimator makes it easier to check infinity focus indoors. And by calibrating for infinity, you're hoping it works at close focus - and adjusting the camera if not I assume - though I don't know if it's actually possible just to adjust just the close focus yourself, I know there are two screws on the camera body but I thought it's just for horizontal and vertical alignment. Maybe it's a balancing act.
My main concern is say you've got some shims from the manufacturer and adjusted for infinity focus.
But the close focus is still off...but on lens 2 it's spot on, on lens 3 it's inbetween.... if that's even possible. Adjusting the screw on the camera body for one lens, messes it up for a different one.
It sounds like it would be doable to adjust things for a one camera one lens matchup (or sending the pair in), but I got no idea what the ideal lens would be. Something with minimal focus shift I imagine would save some additional frustration and there's not a tonne that wouldn't look too close to digital. This one doesn't have that issue from what I've read here.
I can contribute in a small way for film camera folks - I used 2 small bits of 40x50x1mm glass, sliced a bit off so it's closer to 35mm and won't sit on the outer guiding railings, sanded edges, some carbide powder of medium grit inbeteen and a smidge of water turns them into ground glass after 10mins of circular motions on a flat surface.
I found it much nicer to check the focus with than using tape. It'll be much flatter and closer to correct position and quite clear with a loupe and bright subject (used my phone torch on a pen with some text).
With the tape for me it was inconsistent depending on how tight, where I taped it etc. Whereas with the glass you just place it on the inner railings and tape it down.
And I appreciate this is a nice lens to use on digital too and some workarounds there and that it's something not really specific to a lens or brand but rangefinders in general. A user here recently shared his frustrations with a brand new 35mm noctilux and focussing issue. I'm just trying to figure out what I'd be getting myself into
This one I wanted also as a character alternative 35mm for digital. But it's not cheap for that, and maybe some vintage lens would do as I won't care about focus shift as much on digital - and I know it would have held up in terms of build but the bokeh likely wouldn't be as nice. And 35mm tend to be bigger than the 50s so when you adapt it on sony from something other than m mount it gets quite long. So I'm interested regardless but not in a rush. Though the titanium looks quite nice.
_jim_ wrote:
Having worked at a place that rents actual cine lenses with actual cine cameras to actual production companies for the purpose of shooting commercials (which, at that time, were the big ticket jobs), I can say that lenses are collimated for infinity focus and then checked for close focus. Lenses being shipped with shims is nice, but without a collimator, you're just guessing at adjustments. I have four LLL lenses. They are all lovely, but they are still a bit away from equaling the build quality of Voigtlander. I think they'll get there soon.
I agree. LLL lenses are very well built, but they don't quite match the tight tolerances of modern Cosina lenses. That shows up in things like RF calibration, focus ring smoothness, and sometimes a bit of play in the rotation. Most LLL lenses are perfectly fine in real use, but consistency is where I wish they were stronger. To be fair, that was a long and difficult road for Cosina too, and over time they have clearly proven it with much tighter quality control and production tolerances in recent years.
I do wish all lenses included rear shims, but as you mentioned, I know it's not a perfect solution. Shims can be tuned for RF accuracy at close and mid distances, and in some cases they even bring the whole focus range into alignment (I've seen this many times). That said, depending on the helicoid design, they can also throw off infinity focus. They are also less effective on complex or FLE designs, where internal timing matters more than overall registration. Since infinity isn't my most used distance, I would still rather have a lens that is spot on at close and mid distances, even if infinity ends up slightly less precise (not at hard stop). For the way I shoot, that tradeoff makes sense, so I do wish shims were part of the calibration process and included for fine tuning if needed.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I agree. LLL lenses are very well built, but they don't quite match the tight tolerances of modern Cosina lenses. That shows up in things like RF calibration, focus ring smoothness, and sometimes a bit of play in the rotation. Most LLL lenses are perfectly fine in real use, but consistency is where I wish they were stronger. To be fair, that was a long and difficult road for Cosina too, and over time they have clearly proven it with much tighter quality control and production tolerances in recent years.
I do wish all lenses included rear shims, but as you mentioned, I know it's not a perfect solution. Shims can be tuned for RF accuracy at close and mid distances, and in some cases they even bring the whole focus range into alignment (I've seen this many times). That said, depending on the helicoid design, they can also throw off infinity focus. They are also less effective on complex or FLE designs, where internal timing matters more than overall registration. Since infinity isn't my most used distance, I would still rather have a lens that is spot on at close and mid distances, even if infinity ends up slightly less precise (not at hard stop). For the way I shoot, that tradeoff makes sense, so I do wish shims were part of the calibration process and included for fine tuning if needed....Show more →
Fred, how do you and others feel about 7 Artisans and other manufactures who's M mount lenses (some models) come with an adjustable rear mount (screw driver supplied, that shifts the focusing point of the lens forwards or rearwards. I had one of their lenses and it took only a couple of minutes to adjust.
DandA123 wrote:
Fred, how do you and others feel about 7 Artisans and other manufactures who's M mount lenses (some models) come with an adjustable rear mount (screw driver supplied, that shifts the focusing point of the lens forwards or rearwards. I had one of their lenses and it took only a couple of minutes to adjust.
I love it, and it's one of the reasons I'm never worried about buying these lenses used. It works much like shims, so what I wrote still applies. It is not a perfect solution, and in some cases not all focus distances will line up perfectly. My latest TTA was the 100mm f/2.8 and it only needed a small adjustment to be spot on. Now I can shoot it with the rangefinder and get accurate results wide open. In this case, infinity also lined up with the hard stop, so sometimes you really do get to eat the cake too.
This is a great comparison and it lines up well with what many people here have been saying here. The Light Lens Lab 35mm f/1.4 Aspherical is closer in rendering to the Leica 35mm f/1.4 Lux "Pre-FLE", with smoother, more diffuse highlights, less outlining, and slight lower contrast compared to the original AA.
The current Leica 35mm f/1.4 Lux "FLE", which wasn't part of this comparison, is in my view the closest modern equivalent to the original Leica 35mm f/1.4 Aspherical AA. It preserves the overall look but with a much cleaner inner structure in specular highlights due to modern aspherical manufacturing, which means far less onion ring effect and slightly higher contrast. If someone is after the character of the original 35mm f/1.4 AA, the FLE, both version I and II, has always been the most faithful choice. In many ways, it's actually an improvement over the original AA. The onion ring pattern is largely gone, and the higher resolution, especially at close distances due to the floating element design, makes it hard to complain.
I suspect Leica thought they had nailed the best possible option for anyone chasing that classic look, yet the original AA remains highly sought after mainly because of its rarity.
Fred Miranda wrote:
This is a great comparison and it lines up well with what many people here have been saying here. The Light Lens Lab 35mm f/1.4 Aspherical is closer in rendering to the Leica 35mm f/1.4 Lux "Pre-FLE", with smoother, more diffuse highlights, less outlining, and slight lower contrast compared to the original AA.
The current Leica 35mm f/1.4 Lux "FLE", which wasn't part of this comparison, is in my view the closest modern equivalent to the original Leica 35mm f/1.4 Aspherical AA. It preserves the overall look but with a much cleaner inner structure in specular highlights due to modern aspherical manufacturing, which means far less onion ring effect and slightly higher contrast. If someone is after the character of the original 35mm f/1.4 AA, the FLE, both version I and II, has always been the most faithful choice. In many ways, it's actually an improvement over the original AA. The onion ring pattern is largely gone, and the higher resolution, especially at close distances due to the floating element design, makes it hard to complain.
I suspect Leica thought they had nailed the best possible option for anyone chasing that classic look, yet the original AA remains highly sought after mainly because of its rarity....Show more →
I agree when I tried the original AA my first thought was how amazingly similar the output was to the FLE (very impressive given its age).
Another reason why someone may choose the original AA is if they enjoy the more vintage handling haptics. I vaguely remember the helicoid feeling uniquely pleasant like a classic supercar. Different from the LLL approach as well.
It's this computer translated quote and the adjoining image in the article that has me really curious:
"As a side note, during local testing in China, some units were found to have [unusual patterns] in the bokeh (light circles), so it is necessary to check for this. This is due to contamination on a portion of the lens elements, and it can be completely removed through a cleaning process, so you do not need to worry much. I speculate that during the storage process after manufacturing, some liquid spray or similar substance may have hardened on the lens surface. When I first discovered it, I was shocked because I thought something had gone wrong with the glass processing/grinding method (haha)."
The image that is shown demonstrates the fuzzy bokeh balls (vs his comparison above where they look much cleaner).
Well, got my copy and it front-focuses to an unacceptable degree. Mine reads 091/800, but my order was VERY late, so I suspect I received someone's return.
Off to DAG, I guess...
This, plus the Funleader nonsense - sloppy focusing rings - I think I'm done with Chinese lenses UNLESS I'm buying them from B&M retail in the US. Had I bought this from Leica SF, it'd be an immediate return/exchange.
Yep, I had two copies both front focusing about an inch at MFD. still waiting on David to see if his technician confirmed the issue. It seems like majority of people here don’t have this problem.
mkuredjian wrote:
Well, got my copy and it front-focuses to an unacceptable degree. Mine reads 091/800, but my order was VERY late, so I suspect I received someone's return.
Off to DAG, I guess...
This, plus the Funleader nonsense - sloppy focusing rings - I think I'm done with Chinese lenses UNLESS I'm buying them from B&M retail in the US. Had I bought this from Leica SF, it'd be an immediate return/exchange.
