A lot of details in that 1920x1920 photo. Its pretty much large format quality.
I wonder have you tried to shoot water without that Canon 2x? I guess thats what adds that bit of PF Im seeing (tho might be wrong, but I kinda doubt Leica APO lens have PF).
Most Leica APO lenses do have PF, outside of the plane of focus. The only lens I know of which has none is the Coastal Optics 60mm, although I guess the CV125 comes close.
A lot of details in that 1920x1920 photo. Its pretty much large format quality.
I wonder have you tried to shoot water without that Canon 2x? I guess thats what adds that bit of PF Im seeing (tho might be wrong, but I kinda doubt Leica APO lens have PF).
Not in this kind of light. Few "cliche" sunset images with 180/2.8 APO without 2x:
f/2.8 (unfortunately didn't save larger web image, but checked RAW and there is green behind focus plane and magenta in front of, but only of burn highlights)
Sun left from image area about 30-40 degrees - f/5.6, maybe hard to remember (larger)
carstenw wrote:
Most Leica APO lenses do have PF, outside of the plane of focus. The only lens I know of which has none is the Coastal Optics 60mm, although I guess the CV125 comes close.
That's true at least for the 100 Mac, 180/2.8, and 280/2.8 if you shoot them wider than f/4. At f/4, I've only been able to get the 280/2.8 to show it, and that was black fur against brightly lit snow. I haven't been able to get the 180/3.4 to show any fringing, and my brief time with the 280/4 showed it to be immune as well.
freaklikeme wrote:
I haven't been able to get the 180/3.4 to show any fringing, and my brief time with the 280/4 showed it to be immune as well.
Most likely the defocus fringing is there, but you need very strong overexposure to show it (esp. at those slow apertures). I haven't seen my Mamiya 200/2.8 APO produce any PF even at f/2.8, but it does show some mild defocus fringing (magenta in front, green behind the focal plane).
wayne seltzer wrote:
Samuli,
Very nice pano!
Shot without extender right?
5 rows of 11 shots in vertical orientation?
Stitched in CS 5?
Thanks Wayne, I really enjoy these but presenting them in internet is really difficult! These are always the images, what make the prints to really stand out; it's quite funny to see my non-photographer friends try to look these printed large like they were 3d holograms or something (they move their head to see behind subject etc. which naturally doesn't work)
Good guesses but all wrong
Shot with 2x extender - I calculated with DOF calculator (using CoC 0.03 which is "standard" even good enough only for 6" by 4") and using f/8 from 15 meters (approximate distance to the tree) the sharp area is from 14,6 to 15,4. In order to do same without extender (=180mm focal length) one would have to use aperture f/2 according to DOF calculator. I'm always drawn to wider angle shots taken with long focal length lenses - I wish that the scanning digital bags would be cheaper, I would love to shoot 5"x4" or 10"x8", but I really don't want the films and scanning and all the pain involved to those processes.
Shot without panohead (PhotoClam Multiflex allows easy accurate positioning) using horizontal frames. Don't know number of rows; that I know all rows and columns didn't have equal number of frames I shot 69 shots and due to too much overlap panorama software did throw out 14 images, leaving 55 to final image. Also I think I was shooting columns, not rows like we usually do with panoramas.
AhamB wrote:
@Samuli: The "larger" link in your previous post doesn't link to a larger size.
Ooops, sorry - fixed.
My naming schema is rather simple, if name ends "...972px.jpg" then you can see larger image (if I have uploaded it) by adding "x" in front of the pixel dimension e.g. "...x972px.jpg", naturally for vertical images the small one is "...x972px.jpg" and larger "...972px.jpg". But naturally you should not need to fix links, but instead I should post them properly.
Have to go soon shooting more picture, by posting this frequently and following my own rule "1 picture/post" I'm running out of photos soon.
Leica APO-Elmarit-R 180mm f/2.8 + 2x @ f/8, 1/200s, ISO 100, 5 horizontal images in vertical panorama - larger
Samuli,
Thanks for the response and info about your pano shot.
Reminds me I have some Yosemite pano's with my 180/2.8 APO which I need to stitch and process some time when I get some time.
I've a 80-200 and a APO Telyt 180 3.4, used on 5d mark II.
Occasionally for animal/bird shooting I use the telyt with leica (non apo) 2x extender. Obviously I'm a bit short...
I would sell the telyt for a longer lens + extender.
Are 1.4 and 2x canon extender compatible with leica lenses? In the previous posts I've seen excellent images of 180 apo combined to the canon 2x extender. But with other lenses, and in particular the 80-200?
Otherwise what alternative lens would you suggest (under 900$)? In the AF class there are canon 300 f4 or 100-400 or 400 (+1.4x eventually), which are all good, but without the pleasure the lenses I own...
lithos wrote:
Are 1.4 and 2x canon extender compatible with leica lenses? In the previous posts I've seen excellent images of 180 apo combined to the canon 2x extender. But with other lenses, and in particular the 80-200?
Canon extenders protrude to lens ~10mm, so lenses like 80-200 are definitely out of the question.
lithos wrote:
Otherwise what alternative lens would you suggest (under 900$)? In the AF class there are canon 300 f4 or 100-400 or 400 (+1.4x eventually), which are all good, but without the pleasure the lenses I own...
I have Sigma 150-500 and it's rather good lens as long as you shoot it with f/8 and 150-450mm; larger aperture (wide open) = soft because glass, smaller aperture (f/11) = softish because diffraction... I liked the rendering quite a lot; bokeh is not ultra smooth but has "character" in it, so it's not for you if you prefer butter smooth bokeh.
telyt wrote:
I haven't seen it in the 280/4 APO in the 8 years I've been using this lens.
does any of you know how the fringing is for the 105-280? Is it as good? I need a lens to use on a large Videocamera (JVC GY HD 101) for shooting birds. Now we use Nikon 80-200 ED, and it has very bad fringing at times agaings the sky (often the case with birds). The lens was ok on a Canon XL-1 on PAL but with HD now it often produces very bad results. The 105-280 would be maybe a better choice.
Have not tried the 280/4 yet which I recently aquired, but we do need the Zoom to find the bird, since this is 1400 to 2000mm (1,4 converter) on a heavy crop (7x!) - pretty much on the limit alltogether.
I would have bought a 105-280 already if I could find one. In the bay there are very few showing up, and those are considerabely more expensive than the 280/4, which is odd.
wayne seltzer wrote:
Samuli,
Thanks for the response and info about your pano shot.
Reminds me I have some Yosemite pano's with my 180/2.8 APO which I need to stitch and process some time when I get some time.
@Doug, beautiful Falcon.
@Brad, great dog.
Thanks, Wayne. He is a great dog, but quite the barker. There's a massive beast hidden somewhere in that skinny body.
telyt wrote:
I haven't seen it in the 280/4 APO in the 8 years I've been using this lens.
Doesn't surprise me in the least. Doug, I know we've talked about the bokeh smoothing out when you use the 1.4x on the 280, but do you find you pick up a little contrast and, while the color transitions are slightly less subtle, it gives a more pleasing balance overall? I know that's true for me with the 280/2.8, to the point where I don't even use the bare lens anymore, as good as it is.
_972px.jpg "2026 © Samuli Vahonen")
