rscheffler
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.687 #14 · Leica M/X/T/S/Q/CL/SL Picture Thread | |
edwardkaraa wrote:
I think I'm done with range finders. Got my 85/2 back from CLA today, wobble is gone, but back focusing has increased. Not blaming Zeiss service or Leica RF calibration, it's just that range finders are not accurate as a system. The lens is already with a local technician for another 10 days 
Anyhow, what in your opinion is the best current mirrorless body to use with the ZM glass? The GXR-M is not on the list because it has only 10 mp and is discontinued. How about the Fuji XE-1? Anyone has experience with this camera?
Edward, from my understanding, if there is consistent back focus at all distances, adding a shim to the lens should resolve the problem.
I think a factor working against you is it's a wide aperture telephoto lens compounded by the fact it's a Zeiss on a Leica body. As has been discussed/rumored before, the Zeiss Ikon flange distance was or may have been slightly different from Leica's. When I tried Andrew G's ZM85/2 on my M9 I was very surprised to find it focused accurately. Unfortunately this focus lottery seems to be part of the RF experience, and not saying this to make excuses for it... Of my lens collection right now, most don't focus perfectly on my M9 and each of those needs slight RF tweaks. Mental microfocusadjustment if you will... Curious now whether or not that would be much different with the M240.
rscheffler wrote:
Hey guys, I was going to write up something but then realized with a bag full of 50mm LTM and M mount lenses, might as well just shoot something.
While it's nothing special, hopefully it gives some idea about the various lenses and their renderings. I shot a leafy backlit scene at 1m (images below) and also 1.5m, as well as an open shade scene at 1m.
I've posted images and download links to the full-rez files on my blog: http://www.ronscheffler.com/techtalk/?p=217
Naturally this isn't near to being definitive and lacks a number of current 50mm lenses, such as the various Crons, Summarit, Nocti, Sonnar, etc. It's just what I happen to have available.
1m backlit wide open, lens info is in the watermark:
\
...Show more →
eninety wrote:
i kind of like the bokeh of the CV 50 1.5 vm. it seems less busy. the lux is obviously the best, but the planar just seems a bit harsh. but the color of the zeiss being slightly warmer lends its hand to this particular setting.
adamdewilde wrote:
I honestly find it really depends on the shooting distance. Wide open and close, I don't mind the CV 1.5 at all.. I just feel for an overall walk around lens in various situations, for various reasons the 50/2 planar is where I'd spend my money if I was in the market for a 50 and the 50lux was not an option.
Although in Ron's review shots, there is really nothing wrong with the CV 1.5, in fact if that's all you were using it for (close up, wide open), it's no slouch against the 50lux.
Totally agree with Adam that my images only cover a very narrow usage style for these lenses. What I was going to write up earlier before doing the comparison shots, was it really depends on how the lens is used. I love the ZM50/2 for stuff where I'm not going for so much subject/background separation, like urban/natural landscapes. It has a great snap to it, great micro contrast and is overall very well behaved. The CV50/1.5 at such distances needs to be stopped down a lot for across-frame sharpness, IIRC, and has a gentler rendering. You can add contrast in post but typically it's not possible to introduce the micro contrast inherent in lenses like the Planar. It's not a bad lens, just not as 'technical' a lens like the Lux ASPH.
Ryan, great series with your daughter! The Canon 50/1.5 looks very familiar. From my little shootout, it was pretty obvious the Zeiss-Opton Sonnar and the Nikon 50/1.4, also a Sonnar, are very similar. Therefore I expect the Canon to be much the same. It's a fun kind of lens, but as you pointed out, not technically great for across-frame sharpness, especially at greater distances. Also there's focus shift to deal with...
Joakim - fabulous! Love the first one in particular!
Michael - excellent look from those, particularly the third.
Joe - wow, Nocti looks really nice. I'm losing track now, this is a lens you've had for some time, or new?  Yes, f/16! Natural anti aliasing. Roger Cicala at lensrentals has pointed out in a number of his lens tests that f/16 performance is usually about on par with near wide open performance, just the depth of field is much deeper. I've found that at times, shooting with the 21 or 28 on the M9, that f/16 gives just that much more depth of field to help scenes with very deep focus, typically a problem when the subject is fairly close, like 1-1.5m. Some of the diffraction can be offset with sharpening in post. It really depends on what you need out of the shot.
Gary - yes, I agree with you about the Canon. It's quite predictable and easy to use. I was at first kind of 'meh' about it, but it has subtle qualities that, as Joe pointed out, put it somewhere between the vintage Sonnars and the Lux pre-ASPH. Great set!
Kind of losing track of what I have and haven't posted...
One with the Zeiss-Opton 50/1.5 Sonnar:
|
Agree with Michael!
Jokes aside, M(240) seems to be more accurate with focusing across all focal lengths for me. The RF patch contrast still looks the same to me, and I align focusing on the longer lenses as I did on my M9 and bingo, on the M240 it seems to hit focus more often with my 90Cron @f/2, although on my Nikkor 10.5cm and 135 Elmar (without magnifier), my hit rate is still less than 50% with RF. I prefer live view on the 105/135 where it is 100% accurate. The best part with M(240) live view is that we can immediately compare RF focus patch with live view/EVF to see if the lenses or camera is out of calibration.
