Cine lenses are often desired for the their flaring characteristics...but with those, the DP/camera operator is actually viewing through the lens.
For a rangefinder lens on a rangefinder camera (one without live view) this kind of flaring can be rough. This looks good though, and doesn't obscure the subject.
It's as though Leica functions under the notion that the correct amount of AR coating is the bare minimum - like, something is lost with more flare resistance. I wish that Voigtlander gave us the option of single coating on more of their lenses...
_jim_ wrote:
Question: why does the foot of this poor hospital bed look like a large bird had stomach issues on it. What are they doing in Dutch ERs?
Also, sorry to your wife. I am sure that she didn't imagine her European vacation would be so eventful.
The EU is trying to minimize the use of plastic, so she got an old school plaster cast. On the upside, between the doctor coming to the hotel and the emergency room visit, our total cost was 600 Euros.
Paris was great and fortunately we were at a full service hotel in Amsterdam so we only had to roll down to the restaurant.
_jim_ wrote:
For a rangefinder lens on a rangefinder camera (one without live view) this kind of flaring can be rough. This looks good though, and doesn't obscure the subject.
I've shot so much on digital (Sony) with my Canon 50/1.4 LTM that I can predict pretty well where the flares will fall, so even when I'm shooting my Canon P I have fairly good luck with flare placement. And the Canon P has a metal shutter so I'm less worried about burning holes in it than I am with my Leica. I think Huss said the risk of hole-burning is greatest when the aperture is wide open but I can never remember so my solution is that I never shoot my Leica into the sun (and I keep it in a bag when not shooting to avoid it accidentally pointing toward the sun when I'm walking around with it; I don't use lens caps except for storage).
Here's the flare from the Canon 50/1.4 LTM on Canon P, Flic Film Aurora 800:
Next question for the group: when you get a new lens do you check for centering? I never did before frequenting this forum. I lived my life in blissful ignorance.
35mm is my favorite focal length. I have been searching for my ideal lens. To that end, I bought a used 35mm f/1.5 Nokton a few months back. It is a great size with nearly perfect ergonomics. Contrast is medium-ish and flare resistance is great. Then I checked centering on my sole digital camera - a Sony A7RII. The center and right side of the frame are sharp (as sharp as my Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 ZM...albeit 1/3 of a stop slower). Unfortunately, the left side of the frame is a bit softer. So...I have this knowledge now. It's in my head. I mostly shoot film. On HP5+, I have no complaints about the apparent lack of sharpness on the left side of the frame. In so far as I can tell, it's just not visible. Obviously, the Sony A7RII resolves waaaaay more detail than grainy film and that's the only time I see the softness. This 'problem' isn't really a problem as I rarely shoot digital. So why can't I just enjoy the lens? I am fairly certain that I am outside of the return period...so I tempted to buy another one and hope for better centering. Am I crazy?
_jim_ wrote:
Next question for the group: when you get a new lens do you check for centering? I never did before frequenting this forum. I lived my life in blissful ignorance.
I never do because it doesn't matter to me; I don't notice it even on digital and I think the only people who would are other photographers. But I'm planning to sell some lenses next year and should probably test them for centering just because some people want to know whether a lens is centered before they buy it. Mostly people here on the FM forum, where centering is a thing; I've never been asked about it in the past with the few lenses I've sold.
madNbad wrote:
Don’t you own $400 Voigtlander that has better flare resistance?
I fail to see your point...
Actually I do think this flare is funky cool. Problem is one expects funky cool from a $300 lens, not an FLE.
I should dust off my Zeiss Distagon 35 and start using that when the sun gets low.
bjhurley wrote:
I've shot so much on digital (Sony) with my Canon 50/1.4 LTM that I can predict pretty well where the flares will fall, so even when I'm shooting my Canon P I have fairly good luck with flare placement. And the Canon P has a metal shutter so I'm less worried about burning holes in it than I am with my Leica. I think Huss said the risk of hole-burning is greatest when the aperture is wide open but I can never remember so my solution is that I never shoot my Leica into the sun (and I keep it in a bag when not shooting to avoid it accidentally pointing toward the sun when I'm walking around with it; I don't use lens caps except for storage).
Here's the flare from the Canon 50/1.4 LTM on Canon P, Flic Film Aurora 800:
To prevent shutter burn, I always carry my camera with the lens set to min focus distance in bright sunshine as I never use a lens cap. Those just fall off, and the Leica ones cost as much as an entire TTArtisans lens... Also the lens is already stopped down to shooting aperture - again minimizing the risk as shutter burn happens wide open and at infinity.
I actually do like the flare from the FLE, but would prefer if it was a cheaper lens that did this! At least it does not have that veiling flare when the light source is in the frame - which is why I deliberately make sure it is in the frame. And it is easy to predict where the flare would be. If the light source is upper dead center, the flare is lower dead center. Upper right? Lower left etc.
_jim_ wrote:
Next question for the group: when you get a new lens do you check for centering? I never did before frequenting this forum. I lived my life in blissful ignorance.
35mm is my favorite focal length. I have been searching for my ideal lens. To that end, I bought a used 35mm f/1.5 Nokton a few months back. It is a great size with nearly perfect ergonomics. Contrast is medium-ish and flare resistance is great. Then I checked centering on my sole digital camera - a Sony A7RII. The center and right side of the frame are sharp (as sharp as my Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 ZM...albeit 1/3 of a stop slower). Unfortunately, the left side of the frame is a bit softer. So...I have this knowledge now. It's in my head. I mostly shoot film. On HP5+, I have no complaints about the apparent lack of sharpness on the left side of the frame. In so far as I can tell, it's just not visible. Obviously, the Sony A7RII resolves waaaaay more detail than grainy film and that's the only time I see the softness. This 'problem' isn't really a problem as I rarely shoot digital. So why can't I just enjoy the lens? I am fairly certain that I am outside of the return period...so I tempted to buy another one and hope for better centering. Am I crazy?
_jim_ wrote:
Next question for the group: when you get a new lens do you check for centering? I never did before frequenting this forum. I lived my life in blissful ignorance.
35mm is my favorite focal length. I have been searching for my ideal lens. To that end, I bought a used 35mm f/1.5 Nokton a few months back. It is a great size with nearly perfect ergonomics. Contrast is medium-ish and flare resistance is great. Then I checked centering on my sole digital camera - a Sony A7RII. The center and right side of the frame are sharp (as sharp as my Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 ZM...albeit 1/3 of a stop slower). Unfortunately, the left side of the frame is a bit softer. So...I have this knowledge now. It's in my head. I mostly shoot film. On HP5+, I have no complaints about the apparent lack of sharpness on the left side of the frame. In so far as I can tell, it's just not visible. Obviously, the Sony A7RII resolves waaaaay more detail than grainy film and that's the only time I see the softness. This 'problem' isn't really a problem as I rarely shoot digital. So why can't I just enjoy the lens? I am fairly certain that I am outside of the return period...so I tempted to buy another one and hope for better centering. Am I crazy?
_jim_ wrote:
Here's a question for the group: anyone had experience with getting the TSA to hand check unlabeled, bulk-loaded film cartridges? My brain says that the blank plastic cassettes will confuse them...which is not particularly generous of me. At any rate, it shouldn't be an issue, right? They'll just do their swab and hand waving and etc, right? Flying in and out of PHL (I'm less worried about PDX TSA. They are generally pretty ok).
I just stick a label over reused metal canisters for my bulk loaded film and have had zero issues with TSA.
_jim_ wrote:
Next question for the group: when you get a new lens do you check for centering? I never did before frequenting this forum. I lived my life in blissful ignorance.
35mm is my favorite focal length. I have been searching for my ideal lens. To that end, I bought a used 35mm f/1.5 Nokton a few months back. It is a great size with nearly perfect ergonomics. Contrast is medium-ish and flare resistance is great. Then I checked centering on my sole digital camera - a Sony A7RII. The center and right side of the frame are sharp (as sharp as my Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 ZM...albeit 1/3 of a stop slower). Unfortunately, the left side of the frame is a bit softer. So...I have this knowledge now. It's in my head. I mostly shoot film. On HP5+, I have no complaints about the apparent lack of sharpness on the left side of the frame. In so far as I can tell, it's just not visible. Obviously, the Sony A7RII resolves waaaaay more detail than grainy film and that's the only time I see the softness. This 'problem' isn't really a problem as I rarely shoot digital. So why can't I just enjoy the lens? I am fairly certain that I am outside of the return period...so I tempted to buy another one and hope for better centering. Am I crazy? ...Show more →
I had a 35mm Nikkor (I think it was an f2.8) with the exact same issue. I had shot a large group photo, but the left side wasn't as sharp as the center and right side. I began to disassemble the front element group when it dropped into position (after loosening it it "clunked"). Tightened everything back up and it was gone. Not sure how it had got miss-aligned and locked into the wrong position to begin with, but I am finding that people love to try and fix things themselves without benefit of knowledge or the correct tools. Since then I stupidly sold the f2.0 ai, but picked up a f1.4 ais - which I love. Only one lens out of more than I can count had a de-centered element or group.
_jim_ wrote:
Next question for the group: when you get a new lens do you check for centering? I never did before frequenting this forum. I lived my life in blissful ignorance.
35mm is my favorite focal length. I have been searching for my ideal lens. To that end, I bought a used 35mm f/1.5 Nokton a few months back. It is a great size with nearly perfect ergonomics. Contrast is medium-ish and flare resistance is great. Then I checked centering on my sole digital camera - a Sony A7RII. The center and right side of the frame are sharp (as sharp as my Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 ZM...albeit 1/3 of a stop slower). Unfortunately, the left side of the frame is a bit softer. So...I have this knowledge now. It's in my head. I mostly shoot film. On HP5+, I have no complaints about the apparent lack of sharpness on the left side of the frame. In so far as I can tell, it's just not visible. Obviously, the Sony A7RII resolves waaaaay more detail than grainy film and that's the only time I see the softness. This 'problem' isn't really a problem as I rarely shoot digital. So why can't I just enjoy the lens? I am fairly certain that I am outside of the return period...so I tempted to buy another one and hope for better centering. Am I crazy?
I've probably owned about 50 lenses, maybe more, over the years. Most of them were second hand. Normally when I get a new lens I'll test it a bit to see how it performs and whether there are any issues. I've only had two that had issues. One was a decentred Fuji 10-24mm that was soft in one corner extending fair way into the frame. Another was a Sigma 10-20mm that had an area on the right side that was a bit softer than the rest of the frame, but still quite useable for many subjects.
I think it was @RustyRus who encouraged me to take the plunge and try some film, so I picked up a Rolleiflex off the boads and just put my first roll of film through it. Mainly just testing out the light meter. Can't wait to play around some more with this thing. Do you all recommend picking up a negative scanner (scanning with a Z8) or just pay for the scans where I get them developed? I kind of lean toward the negative scanner but curious on others experiences.
