This topic is in the 2009 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2009180-200mm options?
p.4 #1180-200mm options?
First of all - THANK YOU EVERYBODY RECOMMENDING LEICA 80-200!!!! This lens is really brilliant, it doesn't do 3D look like Zeiss but it has other qualities I really like. Earlier I have got my understanding what is Leica rendering of images from my Summicron-R 50mm f/2 and Elmarit-R 90mm f/2.8 which were described to give typical Leica rendering. However 80-200 is from other planet than these two - there is unbelievable brilliance and clarity in images, nothing like the two lenses mentioned.
Now shooting the lens 1 hour with 5D MarkII it has proven to be excellent from corner to corner with 21Mpix fullframe as well, ready for 50Mpix DSLRs
. The light was really boring and flat (and it was snowing), but somehow Leica managed to bring the pictures alive. Also I shoot so late that I had to use 23000K color balance (in the car pictures below), any other lens I have ever shoot would have rendered scenes shoot today very dull looking.
Also 5DmkII seems to do better than I expected, based on brainiac's thread "5D2 low ISO poor v 1Ds3" I expected pretty poor performance. Even using extreme white balance the noise level was still very low.
The problem I mentioned before not being able to focus infinity was corrected by two things: room temperature lens (not -4C like in Sunday) and new high quality adapter from Rudolf. However after shooting one hour, lens didn't focus on short end longer than about 30 meters (with non-brand low quality adapter it was 15 meters). So this lens is not very good for winter shooting.
Today with 5DmkII I found new problem with the lens. Using this lens from f/11 to f/22 I get magenta spot into center of image. I assume this is IR hot spot and 5DmkII has weaker IR filtering than 1DmkIII. I haven't confirmed this theory yet, but cannot imagine what else it could be. In practice this means that some photoshopping is needed if using small aperture - and on other hand non-converted 5DmkII is much more suitable for IR photography than 1DmkIII without conversion, which is good thing since the exposure times were ridiculous long with Hoya R72 and 1DmkIII.
Here is picture at f/22 (please also see page where this is shown as comparison to other apertures):
http://www.vahonen.com/resources/photo_articles_LeicaVarioElmar80200f4_magentadot135mm_f22.jpg
And some pictures shoot with the lens - it was really dark ISO 100, f/4 and shutter speeds were 0.5s - first about 150mm later 80mm:
http://www.vahonen.com/resources/External_FM_20090310B.jpg
http://www.vahonen.com/resources/External_FM_20090310A.jpg
Pictures with normal white balance:
http://www.vahonen.com/resources/External_FM_20090310C.jpg
I wonder if 4/35-70 is as good?
--
Samuli Vahonen
http://www.vahonen.com
Now shooting the lens 1 hour with 5D MarkII it has proven to be excellent from corner to corner with 21Mpix fullframe as well, ready for 50Mpix DSLRs
. The light was really boring and flat (and it was snowing), but somehow Leica managed to bring the pictures alive. Also I shoot so late that I had to use 23000K color balance (in the car pictures below), any other lens I have ever shoot would have rendered scenes shoot today very dull looking. Also 5DmkII seems to do better than I expected, based on brainiac's thread "5D2 low ISO poor v 1Ds3" I expected pretty poor performance. Even using extreme white balance the noise level was still very low.
The problem I mentioned before not being able to focus infinity was corrected by two things: room temperature lens (not -4C like in Sunday) and new high quality adapter from Rudolf. However after shooting one hour, lens didn't focus on short end longer than about 30 meters (with non-brand low quality adapter it was 15 meters). So this lens is not very good for winter shooting.
Today with 5DmkII I found new problem with the lens. Using this lens from f/11 to f/22 I get magenta spot into center of image. I assume this is IR hot spot and 5DmkII has weaker IR filtering than 1DmkIII. I haven't confirmed this theory yet, but cannot imagine what else it could be. In practice this means that some photoshopping is needed if using small aperture - and on other hand non-converted 5DmkII is much more suitable for IR photography than 1DmkIII without conversion, which is good thing since the exposure times were ridiculous long with Hoya R72 and 1DmkIII.
Here is picture at f/22 (please also see page where this is shown as comparison to other apertures):
http://www.vahonen.com/resources/photo_articles_LeicaVarioElmar80200f4_magentadot135mm_f22.jpg
And some pictures shoot with the lens - it was really dark ISO 100, f/4 and shutter speeds were 0.5s - first about 150mm later 80mm:
http://www.vahonen.com/resources/External_FM_20090310B.jpg
http://www.vahonen.com/resources/External_FM_20090310A.jpg
Pictures with normal white balance:
http://www.vahonen.com/resources/External_FM_20090310C.jpg
I wonder if 4/35-70 is as good?
--
Samuli Vahonen
http://www.vahonen.com
Mar 10, 2009 at 04:25 PM
p.4 #2180-200mm options?
Samuli:
The images look good. You shouldn't be getting the magenta blob in the middle. Did you have a filter on the lens? This could be a filter reflection where a bright spot on the images is reflected off the sensor, back out the lens and then hits the back of the filter.
In regards to focusing and the cold, the Leica lenses should be good to -20c or more. Perhaps your lens needs a CLA.
As for infinity focus, I have found with the Leica telephoto zooms, that you have to use very high quality filters on them or you loose infinity, even on a Leica body. Also, you must use E60 filters on your lens and not try using a stepping ring. This seems to mess up infinity focus too. I have even had problems with some polarizers that had wide rings.
The infinity focus problem also occurred with ND filters. In the end I has to go to glass tiffen ND filters.
In regards to the 35-70mm, yes, it is as good.
Robert
The images look good. You shouldn't be getting the magenta blob in the middle. Did you have a filter on the lens? This could be a filter reflection where a bright spot on the images is reflected off the sensor, back out the lens and then hits the back of the filter.
In regards to focusing and the cold, the Leica lenses should be good to -20c or more. Perhaps your lens needs a CLA.
As for infinity focus, I have found with the Leica telephoto zooms, that you have to use very high quality filters on them or you loose infinity, even on a Leica body. Also, you must use E60 filters on your lens and not try using a stepping ring. This seems to mess up infinity focus too. I have even had problems with some polarizers that had wide rings.
The infinity focus problem also occurred with ND filters. In the end I has to go to glass tiffen ND filters.
In regards to the 35-70mm, yes, it is as good.
Robert
Mar 10, 2009 at 04:54 PM
p.4 #3180-200mm options?
Robert, I never use any filters unless I have to (seashore etc.). Or if polarizer is needed. Most of the lenses decrease in quality when shoot with filters (just can't see with crappy Canons).
At the moment I don't even have filter for this lens, last weekend I did try to buy 60E polarizer from B&H but they sold me 55E instead. I found out this when I got back to Finland from New York - in receipt it says 60E. Well, I needed the 55E as well since I have lots of 55mm lenses (mostly Zeiss but also 50/2 and 90/2.8 Leicas).
And like mentioned, there is no hot spot with 1DmkIII. Maybe Canon forgot to install IR filter to my 5DmkII sensor
Samuli
At the moment I don't even have filter for this lens, last weekend I did try to buy 60E polarizer from B&H but they sold me 55E instead. I found out this when I got back to Finland from New York - in receipt it says 60E. Well, I needed the 55E as well since I have lots of 55mm lenses (mostly Zeiss but also 50/2 and 90/2.8 Leicas).
And like mentioned, there is no hot spot with 1DmkIII. Maybe Canon forgot to install IR filter to my 5DmkII sensor
Samuli
Mar 10, 2009 at 05:12 PM
p.4 #4180-200mm options?
Started thinking (dangerous at this time of day...) - maybe the IR hotspot is because the light was so blue. For the f/22 photo where the IR hotspot(?) can be seen correct white balance is 9000K to get the snow white. I can't test before weekend on normal daylight, unless I go to shoot at lunch break, which might be good idea since I tomorrow anyhow go to customs to fetch my Zeiss 3.4/35-70.
Mar 10, 2009 at 05:22 PM
p.4 #5180-200mm options?
In regards to your magenta spot, did you try testing where you don't have the bright snow as a possible flare source? When testing lenses for an IR hot spot, I found just shooting the side of a house or some other evenly lit surface would show the hot spot.
Also, if you lens is not focusing in the cold, you should look at returning it or having Leica look at it.
Robert
Also, if you lens is not focusing in the cold, you should look at returning it or having Leica look at it.
Robert
Mar 10, 2009 at 05:22 PM
p.4 #6180-200mm options?
Robert,
No I didn't shoot any additional "IR hotspot testshots" in addition to which can be seen in this page:
http://www.vahonen.com/photo/articles/LeicaVarioElmar80200f4/scene2/
I try to shoot at daylight without snow glowing to lens, which will be challenging since there is snow everywhere.
I didn't even see this in the 5DmkII screen (mainly because of WB the pictures were so blue) and this was not intention of the shoot, I was just enjoying my new lens and camera, not shooting for IR hotspot. And it doen't happen at all with 1DmkIII - 1D series is know of having very strong IR filter.
What comes to infinity focusing: with the high quality adapter I can focus to infinity even below freezing starting from about 120mm. During normal temperature I assume there is no problem. I paid $695 for the lens it doesn't make sense to return it or get it serviced. Based on 21Mpix images pixel peeped in 100-400% at 30" screen there isn't anything wrong in the image quality. There are too many variables - e.g. adapter thickness and crappy Canon tolerances in lens mount. Of course it's possible that the lens is faulty, but I cannot see other problems than this "below freezing won't focus to infinity at wide end". If I send the lens to service it may come back as it is and cost me another $700 or more.
Now I got hungry for 35-70/4, why I have to fall in love for all Leica and Zeiss lenses, this hobby gets expensive...
Regards, Samuli
No I didn't shoot any additional "IR hotspot testshots" in addition to which can be seen in this page:
http://www.vahonen.com/photo/articles/LeicaVarioElmar80200f4/scene2/
I try to shoot at daylight without snow glowing to lens, which will be challenging since there is snow everywhere.
I didn't even see this in the 5DmkII screen (mainly because of WB the pictures were so blue) and this was not intention of the shoot, I was just enjoying my new lens and camera, not shooting for IR hotspot. And it doen't happen at all with 1DmkIII - 1D series is know of having very strong IR filter.
What comes to infinity focusing: with the high quality adapter I can focus to infinity even below freezing starting from about 120mm. During normal temperature I assume there is no problem. I paid $695 for the lens it doesn't make sense to return it or get it serviced. Based on 21Mpix images pixel peeped in 100-400% at 30" screen there isn't anything wrong in the image quality. There are too many variables - e.g. adapter thickness and crappy Canon tolerances in lens mount. Of course it's possible that the lens is faulty, but I cannot see other problems than this "below freezing won't focus to infinity at wide end". If I send the lens to service it may come back as it is and cost me another $700 or more.
Now I got hungry for 35-70/4, why I have to fall in love for all Leica and Zeiss lenses, this hobby gets expensive...
Regards, Samuli
Mar 10, 2009 at 05:38 PM
p.4 #7180-200mm options?
GWN has a 35-70/4 for sale on B&S. I used the lens for a couple of days as part of a trade we thought we might do and it is MINT (as in looks and works as new) if you're looking for a good sample of that zoom.
The magenta issue and focusing re: cold - weird. The lens should handle any expansion/contraction, etc - it's a well designed and built hunk of glass. The only way you'll be able to isolate the issue is trying lens with different body (ideally a 1 series) and/or adapter because as you say - there are just too many variables at moment using adapted glass - especially on a 5D. I've yet to come across any discussion of the (cold) issue being a problem with a properly working copy of either of Leica/Kyocera zooms.
The magenta issue and focusing re: cold - weird. The lens should handle any expansion/contraction, etc - it's a well designed and built hunk of glass. The only way you'll be able to isolate the issue is trying lens with different body (ideally a 1 series) and/or adapter because as you say - there are just too many variables at moment using adapted glass - especially on a 5D. I've yet to come across any discussion of the (cold) issue being a problem with a properly working copy of either of Leica/Kyocera zooms.
Mar 10, 2009 at 07:28 PM
p.4 #8180-200mm options?
Conner999 wrote:
...The only way you'll be able to isolate the issue is trying lens with different body (ideally a 1 series) and/or adapter because as you say...
On Sunday when I found out the issue I even yet didn't have my 5DmkII and used 1DmkIII. With 1DmkIII and no-brand adapter the issue was same as with 5DmkII and no-brand adapter. At Tuesday when I got my happypagehk adapter, 5DmkII could focus to infinity when lens was in room temperature = beginning of yesterday's shoot, and when got to freezing point or below it was still better than the no-brand adapter (30m vs 15m).
Today I will verify the magenta issue shooting at daylight (5000K). I doubt that I will get any IR hotspot, but let's see.
...The only way you'll be able to isolate the issue is trying lens with different body (ideally a 1 series) and/or adapter because as you say...
On Sunday when I found out the issue I even yet didn't have my 5DmkII and used 1DmkIII. With 1DmkIII and no-brand adapter the issue was same as with 5DmkII and no-brand adapter. At Tuesday when I got my happypagehk adapter, 5DmkII could focus to infinity when lens was in room temperature = beginning of yesterday's shoot, and when got to freezing point or below it was still better than the no-brand adapter (30m vs 15m).
Today I will verify the magenta issue shooting at daylight (5000K). I doubt that I will get any IR hotspot, but let's see.
Mar 11, 2009 at 02:26 AM
p.4 #9180-200mm options?
Samuli, it is good to hear you are getting the same fantastic optical results with the lens that I was. I bought it from an avid Leica user, who used to be a regular here. He said it was the best copy out of a couple he tried, and I believed him after using it.
Your other observations are surprising. I never had a problem getting infinity at any focal length. I always test my lenses with the adapter for infinity, and found it to be spot on, or maybe a hair before the infinity mark. Although, I never did use it in below freezing conditions, and used a different adapter on a Kodak SLR/c. I also always thought the lens to be parfocal, but I never tested extensively for that. It was used primarily for landscapes, and when shooting at 80mm I would often zoom in to 200, focus, them back out to 80 and take the pic.
The magenta spot is real mystery. My Kodak SLR/c does not have an AA filter, and is very susceptible to anything like this, but I have never noticed it. In your examples, I thought it was subtle, I had to look twice to see. So I took a look at some of the pics I'd taken, but could not find anything. Must be related to the lighting, wb, sensor, lens (mc/flare), or some specific combination that needs to happen. Are you sure your sensor is completely clean?
Congrats on the Zeiss primes
Your other observations are surprising. I never had a problem getting infinity at any focal length. I always test my lenses with the adapter for infinity, and found it to be spot on, or maybe a hair before the infinity mark. Although, I never did use it in below freezing conditions, and used a different adapter on a Kodak SLR/c. I also always thought the lens to be parfocal, but I never tested extensively for that. It was used primarily for landscapes, and when shooting at 80mm I would often zoom in to 200, focus, them back out to 80 and take the pic.
The magenta spot is real mystery. My Kodak SLR/c does not have an AA filter, and is very susceptible to anything like this, but I have never noticed it. In your examples, I thought it was subtle, I had to look twice to see. So I took a look at some of the pics I'd taken, but could not find anything. Must be related to the lighting, wb, sensor, lens (mc/flare), or some specific combination that needs to happen. Are you sure your sensor is completely clean?
Congrats on the Zeiss primes
Mar 11, 2009 at 04:46 AM
p.4 #10180-200mm options?
Could anyone tell me what would be the average price for a new in box (or used) Voigtlander APO-Lanthar 180/4 on eBay? Thanks...
Mar 11, 2009 at 06:24 AM
p.4 #11180-200mm options?
Interesting. I assume the next step will be trying an IR filter on the lens to confirm your suspicion? I wonder if might be a lubricant droplet, free from Canon, etc., on sensor (as per PDM) helping the IR issue along. As we all know, there are enough variables with adapted lenses to keep you amused troubleshooting when something rears it's head.
Nice clarity to the photos. How you you find focusing re: VF pop? The MTFs for the 80-200, especially around 135mm suggest it should be very good.
Nice clarity to the photos. How you you find focusing re: VF pop? The MTFs for the 80-200, especially around 135mm suggest it should be very good.
Mar 11, 2009 at 06:52 AM
p.4 #12180-200mm options?
phuang3
Not bad now, but climbing fast - as is the case for the 75/2.5 and 90/3.5. They're following in the 125's foot steps as performance is as good (have owned the 125 as well).
A clean, with caps (no hood) CV 180's fair price should run you $500 ish. I bought my first at around $450 and my 2nd 4 mos later for $550 IIRC. I know of some folks have found cheaper ($400 ish), but they're more the exception now than the rule. I found a CV 90 for $300, so I guess it all evened-out.
Focus on little used units will be a little stiff but smooths out VERY nicely with use.
The round hood (LH-75S) is $70 from CQ. The square unit, if you find one, is in the $100 territory. I just got a round hood out of Singapore for $40 new, but that was the vendor's last unit. The same hood fits the 75, 90 and 180. However, with the nice but inconvenient screw-in front lens caps, I tend to leave the hoods on my CV glass and just cap it with the supplied hood cap.
Having had both the round and square hoods, I find the round better (albeit dorkier looking) and maybe a bit more functional (deeper and narrower). The round hood cap is also metal with a felt rub-rim which makes it easy to pull on & off hood with one hand. The square hood cap is rubber.
My pref is to check around various Nikon sites and Asian dealers vs. Ebay which I find has a tendency to become an outlet for too many speculators and delusional collectors.
Edit: As an aside, I just did a couple of 19" color test prints from my 3800 (my prior printer being a PoS) on VFA taken with the CV 90 APO and 1Ds2. I and the folks I showed them to were gob-smacked. Amazing 3D/depth, resolution, clarity, bokeh and color. PP was all but non-existent.
We have two dogs, one of whom sheds 24x7 (which is why all my gear/printers have dust covers). When I looked at the prints I initially tried to blow-off some what I thought were hairs ON the pic (image included his cushion) - they were actually IN the pic, the clarity and 3D is that nice. You feel like you can literally reach out and touch the in-focus parts of the images. the 180/4 is the same. Both are amazing hunks of glass.
Not bad now, but climbing fast - as is the case for the 75/2.5 and 90/3.5. They're following in the 125's foot steps as performance is as good (have owned the 125 as well).
A clean, with caps (no hood) CV 180's fair price should run you $500 ish. I bought my first at around $450 and my 2nd 4 mos later for $550 IIRC. I know of some folks have found cheaper ($400 ish), but they're more the exception now than the rule. I found a CV 90 for $300, so I guess it all evened-out.
Focus on little used units will be a little stiff but smooths out VERY nicely with use.
The round hood (LH-75S) is $70 from CQ. The square unit, if you find one, is in the $100 territory. I just got a round hood out of Singapore for $40 new, but that was the vendor's last unit. The same hood fits the 75, 90 and 180. However, with the nice but inconvenient screw-in front lens caps, I tend to leave the hoods on my CV glass and just cap it with the supplied hood cap.
Having had both the round and square hoods, I find the round better (albeit dorkier looking) and maybe a bit more functional (deeper and narrower). The round hood cap is also metal with a felt rub-rim which makes it easy to pull on & off hood with one hand. The square hood cap is rubber.
My pref is to check around various Nikon sites and Asian dealers vs. Ebay which I find has a tendency to become an outlet for too many speculators and delusional collectors.
Edit: As an aside, I just did a couple of 19" color test prints from my 3800 (my prior printer being a PoS) on VFA taken with the CV 90 APO and 1Ds2. I and the folks I showed them to were gob-smacked. Amazing 3D/depth, resolution, clarity, bokeh and color. PP was all but non-existent.
We have two dogs, one of whom sheds 24x7 (which is why all my gear/printers have dust covers). When I looked at the prints I initially tried to blow-off some what I thought were hairs ON the pic (image included his cushion) - they were actually IN the pic, the clarity and 3D is that nice. You feel like you can literally reach out and touch the in-focus parts of the images. the 180/4 is the same. Both are amazing hunks of glass.
Mar 11, 2009 at 07:04 AM
p.4 #13180-200mm options?
Hello all,
At lunch break, while fetching 3.4/35-70 from customs (lens + freight=312EUR and I had to pay 96EUR custom fees!!!! That deal did turn out to be very good...), I shoot Leica 80-200 and could not believe my eyes after opening the images at computer. I set up the camera in car, then went outside put camera to tripod, focused 80mm f/4 - shot f/4, changed aperture to f/22 and shot, and change aperture to f/11 and shot. Only first photo was in focus (infinity target was sharp), but when lens got cold it was no longer sharp at f/22 and f/11 shots. Also the focal length had become few mm longer - I'm 100% sure I didn't touch zoom ring (I'm using tripod ring so accidentally I could not have done it), but I have to re-check this at weekend when I have more time to play with camera gear. Maybe it's not so great idea to use metal in lens construction...
What comes to magenta spot, on the f/22 and f/11 photo there is little visible. I shoot few other f/4 to f/22 series and at f/8 the magenta tinge in middle of picture is slightly visible, and f/11 little more and f/16-22 clearly visible. I'll have to give Eclipse cleaning to sensor and see if this happens again. However this magenta spot being exactly center of sensor I doubt that this behaviour will change. Also would like to shoot long distances in "normal" temperatures, but I'm afraid it's not possible for few months.
Also started thinking that this magenta spot cannot be IR, isn't IR on "warmer" than visible light. Maybe it's UV hotspot?
However, I would like you to take it easy, I did buy this lens since I needed 180-200mm lens - where it performs perfectly - also haven't seen any 200mm shots the magenta center spot. I'm not sending it to service or back to pdmphoto. As long as I live (or I find better lens) Carl Zeiss Makro-Planar T* 2/100 will be always with me. It can handle all 100mm cold landscape shots, so I'm not worried about 80-200 wide end performance, which however turned to be way more than I ever expected. I wonder how good this lens is when there is no freezing temperature moving all the lens elements to random positions, well that will be seen at spring and summer.
While freezing cold, I better use my Zeiss lenses they don't seem to have problems with cold weather.
Conner999 wrote:
Interesting. I assume the next step will be trying an IR filter on the lens to confirm your suspicion? I wonder if might be a lubricant droplet, free from Canon, etc., on sensor (as per PDM) helping the IR issue along. As we all know, there are enough variables with adapted lenses to keep you amused troubleshooting when something rears it's head.
Yep, did try with IR filter (Hoya R72). There was no hotspot, excellent IR performance. However there was huge reflection from snow.
Conner999 wrote:
Nice clarity to the photos. How you you find focusing re: VF pop? The MTFs for the 80-200, especially around 135mm suggest it should be very good.
Yes, clarity and brilliance is something hard to believe. And it's not just websize thumbnails I presented here, it can be seen at 30" 2560x1600 full frames and even at 100% crops. I'm impressed that they didn't ruin 5DmkII with too blurry anti-alias filter.
What comes to focusing - I still fill that the focus ring is too loose, when getting used to the looseness it's little easier but difference to Zeiss is enormous (specially ZF). When I forget that issue I find the focusing from live view very easy, specially after setting JPG settings so that sharpening is set to full - even without 5x or 10x zoom I can focus to objects, which have fine texture (the sharpening makes the texture much lighter due to sharpening artefacts and scaling). I got today Eg-S screen for 5DmkII so viewfinder focusing is limited to crappy standard screen, which I find useless, so no comments yet about 5DmkII. On Sunday I used 1DmkIII with Ec-S screen and I was able to focus with viewfinder accurately to objects 50 meters from camera (the screen started to "live" when subject was in focus), it was really slow but I could do it. Based on my experience with Zeiss class (f/2 and f/2.8 so not really comparable) I find this lens harder to focus through viewfinder than Zeiss.
On my use this lens will be used for tripod work only, and I see no reason why I would punish myself by using viewfinder instead liveview. So for me it's OK.
--
Samuli Vahonen
http://www.vahonen.com
At lunch break, while fetching 3.4/35-70 from customs (lens + freight=312EUR and I had to pay 96EUR custom fees!!!! That deal did turn out to be very good...), I shoot Leica 80-200 and could not believe my eyes after opening the images at computer. I set up the camera in car, then went outside put camera to tripod, focused 80mm f/4 - shot f/4, changed aperture to f/22 and shot, and change aperture to f/11 and shot. Only first photo was in focus (infinity target was sharp), but when lens got cold it was no longer sharp at f/22 and f/11 shots. Also the focal length had become few mm longer - I'm 100% sure I didn't touch zoom ring (I'm using tripod ring so accidentally I could not have done it), but I have to re-check this at weekend when I have more time to play with camera gear. Maybe it's not so great idea to use metal in lens construction...
What comes to magenta spot, on the f/22 and f/11 photo there is little visible. I shoot few other f/4 to f/22 series and at f/8 the magenta tinge in middle of picture is slightly visible, and f/11 little more and f/16-22 clearly visible. I'll have to give Eclipse cleaning to sensor and see if this happens again. However this magenta spot being exactly center of sensor I doubt that this behaviour will change. Also would like to shoot long distances in "normal" temperatures, but I'm afraid it's not possible for few months.
Also started thinking that this magenta spot cannot be IR, isn't IR on "warmer" than visible light. Maybe it's UV hotspot?
However, I would like you to take it easy, I did buy this lens since I needed 180-200mm lens - where it performs perfectly - also haven't seen any 200mm shots the magenta center spot. I'm not sending it to service or back to pdmphoto. As long as I live (or I find better lens) Carl Zeiss Makro-Planar T* 2/100 will be always with me. It can handle all 100mm cold landscape shots, so I'm not worried about 80-200 wide end performance, which however turned to be way more than I ever expected. I wonder how good this lens is when there is no freezing temperature moving all the lens elements to random positions, well that will be seen at spring and summer.
While freezing cold, I better use my Zeiss lenses they don't seem to have problems with cold weather.
Conner999 wrote:
Interesting. I assume the next step will be trying an IR filter on the lens to confirm your suspicion? I wonder if might be a lubricant droplet, free from Canon, etc., on sensor (as per PDM) helping the IR issue along. As we all know, there are enough variables with adapted lenses to keep you amused troubleshooting when something rears it's head.
Yep, did try with IR filter (Hoya R72). There was no hotspot, excellent IR performance. However there was huge reflection from snow.
Conner999 wrote:
Nice clarity to the photos. How you you find focusing re: VF pop? The MTFs for the 80-200, especially around 135mm suggest it should be very good.
Yes, clarity and brilliance is something hard to believe. And it's not just websize thumbnails I presented here, it can be seen at 30" 2560x1600 full frames and even at 100% crops. I'm impressed that they didn't ruin 5DmkII with too blurry anti-alias filter.
What comes to focusing - I still fill that the focus ring is too loose, when getting used to the looseness it's little easier but difference to Zeiss is enormous (specially ZF). When I forget that issue I find the focusing from live view very easy, specially after setting JPG settings so that sharpening is set to full - even without 5x or 10x zoom I can focus to objects, which have fine texture (the sharpening makes the texture much lighter due to sharpening artefacts and scaling). I got today Eg-S screen for 5DmkII so viewfinder focusing is limited to crappy standard screen, which I find useless, so no comments yet about 5DmkII. On Sunday I used 1DmkIII with Ec-S screen and I was able to focus with viewfinder accurately to objects 50 meters from camera (the screen started to "live" when subject was in focus), it was really slow but I could do it. Based on my experience with Zeiss class (f/2 and f/2.8 so not really comparable) I find this lens harder to focus through viewfinder than Zeiss.
On my use this lens will be used for tripod work only, and I see no reason why I would punish myself by using viewfinder instead liveview. So for me it's OK.
--
Samuli Vahonen
http://www.vahonen.com
Mar 11, 2009 at 01:12 PM
p.4 #14180-200mm options?
Thanks Samuli. The 'fast' focus ring on the 80-200's baby brother (sister?) was the only issue I found with it (use to Leica R, CV, Mamiya, Zeiss, Hassy). VERY easy to over/under shoot focus point. Takes some adjustment time.
Mar 11, 2009 at 02:20 PM
p.4 #15180-200mm options?
Today was turn for Carl Zeiss Tele-Tessar T* 3.5/200.
This photo demonstrates pros and cons of this lens in same photo . f/5.6:
+ Zeiss draws image as 3D as it's possible for flattening 200mm focal length, more than Leica
- bokeh in front of the focal plane turns easily magenta, and behing the focal plane green
- also bokeh can get pretty ugly like in this case
Another sample image, f/4:
+ at large size (on my screen for example, 30" 2560x1600 or 75cm x 50cm print) nice transition from focal plane to blur, excellent separation of target and background [does not work so well in this size webthumbnail image]
- some bokeh at background shows the green cast at edges
Conclusion: I will be mostly using Leica 80-200 for tele shooting. One clearly better aspect in 3.5/200 is it's more compact size; it fitst into Tenba Medium Sling-bag, even mounted to camera. Leica has trouble fitting in the bag even by itself separated from camera.
--
Samuli Vahonen
http://www.vahonen.com
This photo demonstrates pros and cons of this lens in same photo . f/5.6:
+ Zeiss draws image as 3D as it's possible for flattening 200mm focal length, more than Leica
- bokeh in front of the focal plane turns easily magenta, and behing the focal plane green
- also bokeh can get pretty ugly like in this case
Another sample image, f/4:
+ at large size (on my screen for example, 30" 2560x1600 or 75cm x 50cm print) nice transition from focal plane to blur, excellent separation of target and background [does not work so well in this size webthumbnail image]
- some bokeh at background shows the green cast at edges
Conclusion: I will be mostly using Leica 80-200 for tele shooting. One clearly better aspect in 3.5/200 is it's more compact size; it fitst into Tenba Medium Sling-bag, even mounted to camera. Leica has trouble fitting in the bag even by itself separated from camera.
--
Samuli Vahonen
http://www.vahonen.com
Mar 14, 2009 at 12:36 PM
p.4 #16180-200mm options?
Today I found out that the magenta dot can also be problematic also at 200mm. At the time I shoot white balance was more or less normal "cloudy". The dot is really faint and small, at 200mm it can only be seen at f/16 and f/22. Below is f/16 picture, in which it is really difficult to see but on my page about the issue it can be seen more clearly, when it can be compared to other apertures by moving mouse.
Today I shoot some comparison shots at medium distances (5-15 meters/15-50 feet) against Carl Zeiss Makro-Planar T* 2/100 ZF and this Leica zoom is amazing, in practice there is VERY LITTLE difference at same apertures (if vignetting is not taken into account, it can be easily removed at post processing). At wider apertures Zeiss creates green/magenta bokeh errors so in many cases there is almost no difference, which lens to use since f/4 or smaller have to be used in any case. One of example scenes shoot (f/5.6, 100mm - the magenta dot can be faintly seen in the image):
Bokeh of 80-200 is really good, there is not even hint of green/magenta problem, even it's not APO, it's very close to being. Below few samples of close focused pictures, which were ruined ny green glow on boleh white letters with Zeiss and Canon lenses:
f/4:
f/5.6
Now I feel really tempted to buy the Vario-Elmar-R 35-70mm f/4 as well, it overlaps pretty badly with Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* 3.4/35-70 which I also have, so I have to first see how I like it.
--
Samuli Vahonen
http://www.vahonen.com
Today I shoot some comparison shots at medium distances (5-15 meters/15-50 feet) against Carl Zeiss Makro-Planar T* 2/100 ZF and this Leica zoom is amazing, in practice there is VERY LITTLE difference at same apertures (if vignetting is not taken into account, it can be easily removed at post processing). At wider apertures Zeiss creates green/magenta bokeh errors so in many cases there is almost no difference, which lens to use since f/4 or smaller have to be used in any case. One of example scenes shoot (f/5.6, 100mm - the magenta dot can be faintly seen in the image):
Bokeh of 80-200 is really good, there is not even hint of green/magenta problem, even it's not APO, it's very close to being. Below few samples of close focused pictures, which were ruined ny green glow on boleh white letters with Zeiss and Canon lenses:
f/4:
f/5.6
Now I feel really tempted to buy the Vario-Elmar-R 35-70mm f/4 as well, it overlaps pretty badly with Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* 3.4/35-70 which I also have, so I have to first see how I like it.
--
Samuli Vahonen
http://www.vahonen.com
Mar 15, 2009 at 12:50 PM
p.4 #17180-200mm options?
Samuli:
Are you sure your spot is not a flare spot from the very white snow? Have you tried testing it against an evenly lit surface, like a wall.
To me it looks like an internal sensor reflection. Is the rear baffle still on the lens? It has been a while since I had the 80-200mm, but most Leica zooms have a big rear baffle.
Robert
Are you sure your spot is not a flare spot from the very white snow? Have you tried testing it against an evenly lit surface, like a wall.
To me it looks like an internal sensor reflection. Is the rear baffle still on the lens? It has been a while since I had the 80-200mm, but most Leica zooms have a big rear baffle.
Robert
Mar 15, 2009 at 04:41 PM
p.4 #18180-200mm options?
From my use of the 35-70/4 and from your pics and description of it's bigger brother, I think you'll find the 35-70/4 very similar in all regards.
The magenta spot issue is still weird. I saw nothing like it on my 1DS2 shooting the 35-70/4 (HPHK adapter) but I was nowhere near that stopped down.
The magenta spot issue is still weird. I saw nothing like it on my 1DS2 shooting the 35-70/4 (HPHK adapter) but I was nowhere near that stopped down.
Mar 15, 2009 at 05:02 PM
p.4 #19180-200mm options?
robsteve wrote:
Samuli:
Are you sure your spot is not a flare spot from the very white snow? Have you tried testing it against an evenly lit surface, like a wall.
To me it looks like an internal sensor reflection. Is the rear baffle still on the lens? It has been a while since I had the 80-200mm, but most Leica zooms have a big rear baffle.
Robert
Robert, I haven't tested against evenly lit surface, also finding outdoor scene without snow is next to impossible at the moment. However these represent real conditions I'm shooting every year, not just lens testing, we have here snow every year and in summertime I often find myself from mountains (Norway, Smoky mountains etc.) where snow can be found also. I don't want to test this indoors since I think this is UV reflection. I have however tested that it's specific to this lens, either Canon 200mm or Zeiss 200mm won't create this magenta spot.
I don't know what is rear baffle but I doubt it would have any effect since this spot is dead on center, it looks more like the reflection between rear lens and sensor on wavelength which is not blocked by the coatings of lens or sensor. Now I wish I would own even ONE skylight filter, I may have some 49mm from Canon G1 unless I sold it with G1, I'm not using filters much...
Best Regards,
Samuli
Samuli:
Are you sure your spot is not a flare spot from the very white snow? Have you tried testing it against an evenly lit surface, like a wall.
To me it looks like an internal sensor reflection. Is the rear baffle still on the lens? It has been a while since I had the 80-200mm, but most Leica zooms have a big rear baffle.
Robert
Robert, I haven't tested against evenly lit surface, also finding outdoor scene without snow is next to impossible at the moment. However these represent real conditions I'm shooting every year, not just lens testing, we have here snow every year and in summertime I often find myself from mountains (Norway, Smoky mountains etc.) where snow can be found also. I don't want to test this indoors since I think this is UV reflection. I have however tested that it's specific to this lens, either Canon 200mm or Zeiss 200mm won't create this magenta spot.
I don't know what is rear baffle but I doubt it would have any effect since this spot is dead on center, it looks more like the reflection between rear lens and sensor on wavelength which is not blocked by the coatings of lens or sensor. Now I wish I would own even ONE skylight filter, I may have some 49mm from Canon G1 unless I sold it with G1, I'm not using filters much...
Best Regards,
Samuli
Mar 16, 2009 at 12:43 AM
p.4 #20180-200mm options?
Conner999 wrote:
From my use of the 35-70/4 and from your pics and description of it's bigger brother, I think you'll find the 35-70/4 very similar in all regards.
Damn I'm tempted to get this lens, specially since there are few new with Leica warranty available due to shutting down Leica R-line. I haven't had much opportunity to shoot with Zeiss 3.4/35-70 so I don't want to make the decision yet. Really difficult to find any subject this time of year for 35-70mm shooting, I had the lens with me on both days on weekend but did only shoot one photo at 70mm.
Is Leica 35-70 also free from green/magenta errors in bokeh (white highlights are typically problem with many lenses in this regards, also Makro-Planar 2/100 for example)?
Best Regards, Samuli
From my use of the 35-70/4 and from your pics and description of it's bigger brother, I think you'll find the 35-70/4 very similar in all regards.
Damn I'm tempted to get this lens, specially since there are few new with Leica warranty available due to shutting down Leica R-line. I haven't had much opportunity to shoot with Zeiss 3.4/35-70 so I don't want to make the decision yet. Really difficult to find any subject this time of year for 35-70mm shooting, I had the lens with me on both days on weekend but did only shoot one photo at 70mm.
Is Leica 35-70 also free from green/magenta errors in bokeh (white highlights are typically problem with many lenses in this regards, also Makro-Planar 2/100 for example)?
Best Regards, Samuli
Mar 16, 2009 at 12:48 AM