carstenw wrote:
Hehe, no, I actually meant that going slightly further out in the field of the M8 makes the lens better. There is a significant dip around 13.5mm in the MTF which recovers somewhat around 16mm. The other curves are less affected, and the smaller difference there is less likely to be visible, I would guess/think.
And to answer your question, I have had just 1 beer recently (although I did have another in the sun this afternoon), but I am in the process of test-tasting the 17-year Glenfarclas with the 1993 Glenfarclas sherry cask special edition I bought both of these only because they are sold out of the 21-year, which is a fantastic Scotch at any price, but is very affordable to boot!
You appear to have an extra 'f' in your post. Beer?
Ok, I understand what you mean, but "recovers" means, that the dip is already passed, so you will see this effect on the image and it will not make the lens any better compared to using it on a 1.x Crop camera with a corner at 13.5mm.
I just fixed the f and no, I had no beer today ;-)
Bobu wrote:
I just fixed the f and no, I had no beer today ;-)
That's fixable...
and yes, you are of course right about the dip having hit your image, but then, you were only complaining about corners, not somewhere on the way to the corner. I guess the lens might need servicing.
carstenw wrote: denoir wroteIndeed, but I don't think beer excuses work retroactively i.e "I'm sorry for doing XYZ. My only excuse is that I had a beer afterwards" In my state, I'd accept it.
Very well, then here's my formal excuse. I wasn't thinking clearly before I got my first beer. Without beer I tend to think in hyperbolic, non-euclidean geometry, but I've fixed that now
That beer looks inviting! But I have had enough for one evening and will retire to my quarters shortly.
Boris, the 17-year old is now done, and in fact was the excuse for getting the 1993 special, which is turning out to have an interesting flavour, although I am not sure that I like it more than the 17... Hmm, Scotch dilemmas.
But I am doing way too much talking in a thread which I contribute to almost not at all. Here are two M8/28 Cron shots from a trip to visit a friend in Marseille last fall:
I see the rendering of these shots and remember why I love Leica M lenses so much. I would dearly love if Leica would release an M10 soon.
The last images are from about a week ago as I need to manually update the files to include new images. I should really build something automated.. Looking at that list reminds me that when I got the M9 I promised myself not to buy more than three lenses..
These are fantastic. Thanks denoir for sharing these.
Alex and Ryan, thank you guys
Alex, very nice shots! The last two portraits are great
Carsten very nice shots with the 28 Cron. This is fast becoming one of my favourite lens
Boris, your copy of the 50 Lux Apsh does not look too bad. With different PP, the detail is there with lower contrast, may improve the perceived lack of sharpness. Or the possibility the 50 Lux, may have lens elements that are decentered, and just send it to a service centre that has a lens collimator, and the turn around can be very quick.
The 50 Lux's do vary!! My 50 Lux when it was sent down to Camera Clinic in Melbourne, an authorised Leica repairer, was compared against another 50 Lux Asph, which had less glow, appeared sharper at f/1.4, but the same at f/2.0. In essence my lens had more of a "glow" at f/1.4, detail still there, which for me is ideal. Wayne from Camera Clinic did suggest if I wanted to, the 50 Lux could be recentered, calibrated within a few days. But for now I have had no issues with my 50 Lux.
With respect to the50 Lux glow, I do quite often get this at f/1.4, as I do with the 75 Lux at f/1.4. IMO it is a unique feature of Leica lenses, that the lens can be very sharp, full of detail and yet have this glow.
I have mentioned a number of times, if in doubt do get the lenses checked and serviced by a service centre you trust and know what has been done
denoir wrote:
Thanks Charles
KL, my M9 has been to Solms twice for rangefinder calibration. What happened the first time is not entirely certain but my best guess is that it was slightly off out of the box and that I made matters worse when I tried to calibrate it myself. The second time was after I dropped the camera and thought the vertical calibration was off by a hair. Leica disagreed after checking the camera saying it was dead on.
As for the focus ring stiffness, it varies between the lenses. My 35 Lux ASPH has a slightly looser focusing ring than my 75 Cron which is looser than my 50 Lux ASPH which in turn is much looser than my 90 Cron V3. The stiffness of the 90 Cron is welcome though as it facilitates exact focusing. The 75 Cron is somewhat too loose in my opinion while my 50 Lux ASPH copy is just perfect.
One interesting thing is that the aperture ring on the 50 has a different, more dampened feel than on my other Leica lenses. I'm guessing it's the difference between the chrome (brass) and black (aluminium) versions. Charles, have you noticed this difference as well?...Show more →
Luka, yes I have noticed a difference between the chrome and black versions. The chrome versions seems more solid, marginally stiffer and yet feel more accurate to focus. IMO some of the focusing accuracy issues of lenses, I feel are due to the lens designs. In the case of the 90 Cron APO, great lens but the focusing ring has a very quick focus throw, so it is easier to have OOF shots if there are any marginal calibration issues. The 75 Lux has a beautiful focusing throw and allows for accurate focusing even with moving subjects.
KL, my 2 M9's have been down to the Camera Clinic, three times each to have the RF calibration fine tuned as well as the frame lines on the silver body. The frame lines are tied up with the RF calibration too and if you find the framing is not accurate, this may be an issue particularly with the 75 and 90 FL's. In the end I sent all my lenses and M9's, and they are all synced as per the master calibration for focusing and frame lines, and lenses are all matched now also.
carstenw wrote:
Hehe, no, I actually meant that going slightly further out in the field of the M8 makes the lens better. There is a significant dip around 13.5mm in the MTF which recovers somewhat around 16mm. The other curves are less affected, and the smaller difference there is less likely to be visible, I would guess/think.
And to answer your question, I have had just 1 beer recently (although I did have another in the sun this afternoon), but I am in the process of test-tasting the 17-year Glenfarclas with the 1993 Glenfarclas sherry cask special edition I bought both of these only because they are sold out of the 21-year, which is a fantastic Scotch at any price, but is very affordable to boot!
You appear to have an extra 'f' in your post. Beer?