Dan, again, excellent shots. In your 35 pano it is quite blurry on the right side (tree movement) which sucks b/c I like the color, sharpness, feel of that shot better than the single 18. Excellent nontheless!
Great waterfall shots Dan, I actually like the sticthed versions best.
Charles, very cool biker shots and portrat!
carstenw wrote:
21 Lux FTW!
My 90 AA isn't coded, unfortunately, so I cannot pull out any old images to describe the look I am referring to, but I will throw it in my bag for the next few days instead of my D3 and see if I can't make a few shots to show its characteristics. I currently only have the M8, but I guess you can imagine slightly worse corners on your own
AA = APO Aspherical?
thrice wrote:
Thanks Charles
Luka, I had the 90AA on my R8 and 5D mk II, a lens without flaw. If you like your bokeh SUPER blurry, then it's not the best, as it maintains a little definition in the out of focus areas, but by no means is it harsh nor does it show bright rings or anything.
Dan, I like my bokeh lively. In terms of bokeh the Rokkor 58/1.2 and the 100 MP are my favorites. I really love this kind of thing:
or this:
I understand of course that I don't have a close focus abilit with the M9, but still I'd like to see something interesting in my bokeh, not just boring gaussian blur.
charles.K wrote:
Luka, the 21 Lux is an awesome lens !!! Just have a look at some shots on GetDPI with 21 Lux and only very recent in the last few days. The link is here. From what I perceive the rendering is amazing, and at first I thought it was the 50 Lux. If I could afford it, it would definitely be on my list
The 90AA is most definitely another gem. I love this lens, sharp enough to satisfy my needs for detail, and great rendering IMO. It is one of the best lenses I have owned together with 50 Lux Asph....Show more →
I have actually been looking at some DNGs from a 21 lux and there is no question about it - it's superb as far as technical quality goes. The problem is however the same - I don't like the rendering style. When I see a good shot with the 21 lux, I start thinking about how much better it would have looked taken with a 21 distagon. I can't help it. Although I'm extremely impressed by Leica's optical performance, I really dislike the rendering style. I'd even pick the bland Canon rendering over Leica any time. That really sucks, but I can't help it. I'd really like to like Leica drawing style but I don't. The only two exceptions that I've found are the noctilux (definitely) and the 75 cron (maybe). Fortunately when it comes to wide angles I can stick to Zeiss all the way.
For a tele lens I started to seriously consider the Zeiss 85/2 Sonnar until I realized how big and heavy it was and gave up on the idea. My requirements are the following:
1) I want to buy new
2) I want a compact lens
The first requirement gives me the following options:
90 Summicron
90 Summarit
75 Summicron
75 Summarit
85/2 Sonnar
Requiremnt 2) reduces this to:
90 Summarit
75 Summicron
75 Summarit
and the fact that the 75 Cron is impossible to find leaves me with the Summarits of which I would perhaps pick the 90.
I'm not sure I'd be happy with the choice though. My idea was to get a first rate Leica lens and not a budget alternative with poor build quality.
h00ligan wrote:
So this evening I was doing some lens testing and I realized something I had stupidly missed before. My genetic tremor is a major part of the issue ihave with sharpness. I'm very disappointed to see this is apparently quite an issue. I know it sounds like a no brainer to consider that but for most purposes my tremor is, at this point in my life, not a really invasive thing..it's very minor even when shooting at the gun range. Unfortunately I learned that trying to use the inverse focal length method is..well..not enough.
Given that I like low light people photography, this is a pretty disheartening bummer. Mft with ibis and legacy lenses won't work due to crappy iso...primes on 7d, same thing. I may simply have to go full frame for the best high iso support..or call it a day.
I shot the x1 with a timer, in low light, resting on something with a long exposure..and I get it now..I was really silly for not figuring this out earlier.
Edward, sorry to hear that but you should definitely not despair. The X1 is bloody impossible to keep steady as it's way too light. I get camera shake blur at 1/60-1/100 on a regular basis! As for the 1/FL rule it is usually too unreliable for me. If I need to be 100% sure with my 5DII I usually require between 1/(1.5xFL) and 1/(2xFL) as my hands have never been too steady. On the 7D you have to remember that you must multiply the FL by the 1.6x crop factor.
The M9 has been a very pleasant surprise in that respect - it's heavy enough to counteract smaller vibrations and it has no mirror. With a 35mm lens I get as high as 50-70% keepers at 1/12! On my 5D2 I usually like to have at least 1/50 and on the X1 at least 1/60.
Dan, love the larger format bench shot and new waterfall shots you posted above. Also enjoy the commentary you provided. Thanks for sharing. Beautiful
Luka, I like the 50 Sonnar and 35 Biagon shots you posted above. I think the imperfections on the Sonnar (or any other older Leica glass) imparts its own characteristics on the pics. Your Zeiss pics on FM have probably helped Zeiss move a few more of their lenses.
Swoop, welcome to the thread. Very nice PJ series with the 50Cron. Keep sharing
Thanks Luka, maybe it's not as bad as I thought. I was under the impression people were hand holding the x1 down to 1/15 with sharp results. I'm going to do some really basic testing with a few different cameras and try to find 'my own equation'. Interesting about the m9 being the right weight for lower speed hand holding. I don't profess to have surgically steady hands, but man, yesterday I was shocked at how bad such a minor tremor could be. I'll take some basic shots today, and see what turns out sharp.. what the cutoff is. I can say that I feel Leica made a serious mistake by only offering two minimum shutter speeds of 1/15 or 1/30, the latter not even meeting the inverse rule - why restrict it. Also on the pseudo IS.. why is that even there? Since May I have yet to find a time when it was useful.
Another thing I try to do is use aperture priority mode and then kick up the ss a notch or two with a -ev compensation..then pull back in post. Conditions aren't always perfect for that though. Is there another way to do something similar you all can think of?
I'll be very interested to see what the firmware brings - I really hope the increase the 'intelligence' of the camera, because it's not all that bright in any kind of priority mode..
Thrice, you're right, I have been meaning to make that for a long time, but never get around do it.. I'll change that now.
Luka, the Rokkor shots are crazy!
Charles, great Biker shots!
Swoop - good reportage shots, I really like the one over the ff shoulder.
h00ligan wrote:
Thanks Luka, maybe it's not as bad as I thought. I was under the impression people were hand holding the x1 down to 1/15 with sharp results. I'm going to do some really basic testing with a few different cameras and try to find 'my own equation'. Interesting about the m9 being the right weight for lower speed hand holding. I don't profess to have surgically steady hands, but man, yesterday I was shocked at how bad such a minor tremor could be. I'll take some basic shots today, and see what turns out sharp.. what the cutoff is. I can say that I feel Leica made a serious mistake by only offering two minimum shutter speeds of 1/15 or 1/30, the latter not even meeting the inverse rule - why restrict it. Also on the pseudo IS.. why is that even there? Since May I have yet to find a time when it was useful....Show more →
Leica made a bunch of serious mistakes with the X1. I'll wait and see if I get tired of carrying around the M9 but if I don't, I'm definitely getting rid of the X1. Good lens & sensor but the rest is just awful.
I thought that getting the M9 would simplify things as I would have more to choose from when picking which camera to use. In fact it complicated things. The X1 was a choice when my 5DII or 7D was no option due to size. The M9 is much smaller than a DSLR and at the same time infinitely better and easier to get good shots from than the X1 that I don't know if I'm going to ever turn to the X1. Perhaps when the novelty of the M9 wears off I'll be able to find a good balance between DSLR, rangefinder and compact..
joe88 wrote:
Luka, I like the 50 Sonnar and 35 Biagon shots you posted above. I think the imperfections on the Sonnar (or any other older Leica glass) imparts its own characteristics on the pics. Your Zeiss pics on FM have probably helped Zeiss move a few more of their lenses.
Thanks Joe
Yes, part of the charm of the 50 Sonnar is its classic and imperfect rendering at wide apertures. It makes the images less sterile and cold.
I sent Zeiss an email about my suspicions about something being wrong with my Sonnar (the weird field curvature) and I got a response almost right away (Zeiss customer support rules). I had two questions, one was the calibration (i.e. focus dead on at f/2.8 instead of f/1.5). I had put together a web page demonstrating the issues: http://www.peltarion.eu/img/tests/sonnar/sonnar.html
The Zeiss response was:
Thank you for your inquiry to Carl Zeiss.
Out of factory, the C-Sonnar always comes with an adjustment to be the best compromise regarding focus shift at all f-stops. If you´d really like to use this lens mainly for pictures at close distances at full aperture like those of the lens´manual, you can send us the lens for FFD adjustment. Please be aware that at f/2.8 the focus will be behind the expected point in this case.
The pictures on your website show the typical kind of field curvature in 3-dimensionality of this lens type. Near the edges of a full-frame camera the sharpness will be far behind the focussed point in the centre. The MTF chart of the C-Sonnar gives some hints for this kind of behavior:
(See attached file: CSonnar_1.5_50_ZM.EN.pdf)
In our picture taken with the C-Sonnar at f/1.5 and the M9 you will find that the building in the background is quite unsharp in the centre of the image, whereas the sharpness of the houses on the right edge is better, although they are further away (the lens was focused to the number plate of the car):
(See attached file: C-Sonnar.jpg.zip)
So there seems to be nothing wrong with your C-Sonnar, except the unavoidable focus shift caused by its optical design.
The image they sent showed exactly the things I had seen in my shots. So it looks like my Sonnar is OK after all. I'll have to decide if I should send it in or not.
The guy seems to like the Wehrmacht for some reason. Strange.
I don't think he has any direct affinity for them, as he is an ex British Naval officer.
Thank you Luka and Edward
Excellent shots Luka! My favourite is the #4. I do like how you are getting the most out of the 50 Sonnar.
Great information and feedback about the 50/1.5 Sonnar. This is so helpful ...! Nevertheless an excellent lens. I really like the rendering with the 50/1.2 Rokkor
Joe, I have resent the 90 Summicron APO, to be recalibrated. This time Camera Clinic have found the issue. There are two 6mm bushes that are lubricated, and one of the bushes, is ever so slightly out of alignment, and will explain why the lens can be marginally back focusing in one direction. It is not a costly repair, just about a week. This maybe an inherent design issue, and would explain why there many threads on the getting the calibration right with the 90AA. I personally think it is worth it. With the 90 Elmarit, the lens is spot on focus and very easy to get it right 95% of the time. Probably a better mechanical design. I would compare it to the Canon work horse, 135L.
Argh, decision time for me. A store here has the 75 Cron in stock so that option has opened up. So this is what I'm looking at:
1) 75 Cron
Pro: I actually like the rendering. Excellent optical performance.
Cons: 75mm. Expensive.
2) 90 Summarit
Pro: Light, cheap. 90mm
Con: Not quite as good as the 75 Summarit.
3) 75 Summarit
Pro: Excellent optical performance (better than the 75 Cron according to Sean Reid's tests). Cheap.
Con: 75mm.
If I was set on 75mm, I'd probably take the Cron AA and suffer the cost. I'm not entirely sold on the 90 Summarit. It is very light and compact, which is great. Performance is supposed to be better than the 90 Elmarit but worse than the 90 Cron AA (which is too big for me). If the 90 Summarit was as good as the 75 Summarit, then it would have been ok as well.
A comparison of MTF charts for a lens that I know (ignore the top line pair on the Leica chart as Zeiss doesn't measure 5 lines/mm)
In short the 100 MP plays in a different league. The 90 AA is closer to the Zeiss. At the same time the Summarit is very compact, the optical performance is decent, it's 90mm and it's cheap.
On the other hand if 75mm wasn't so damn close to 50mm...both the 75mm choices are very good optically speaking.
Luka, if it is any consolation, I have just purchased the 75 Cron APO, second hand almost new. This is the backup to the 90AA, as I take a lot of portraits. I was considering the 75 Lux, but decided that the 75 Cron APO is very much in the style of the 50 Lux Asph which is my favourite. For some the 50 Lux, it is too clinical and sharp, but for me I love the rendering and its style. I had to also consider the useability factor, and that I would pick up the lens as use it. As much as I like the rendering of the 75 Lux, it is bit like the 50/1.1 Nokton it is hard work to get the shots as unique as they may be. So for a 50 FL, I now use the 50 Lux and have the 50/2 Planar as backup.
If the store has the 75 Cron, go try it out I like the fact that it has a MFD of 0.7m too. This option has not be the case here in Australia, as everyone seems to out of stock.
If the store has the 90 Cron AA also, try it out as you may be suprised how it feels
Charles, is there any lens you don't have? Your M9 kit must now weigh about five times your 5D2 kit
Congrats on the 75 AA - looking forward to some pictures!
I'll hear tomorrow if they have the 75 in the actual store or if it is in their central stock. It's an online retailer that happens to have a physical store but chances are pretty good that the lens is not in the actual store.
An argument for getting the 75 Cron is that my 50mm, the Sonnar is a rather special lens and not precisely a top performer wide open. Still, 90mm makes much more sense from a focal length point of view. I'm not getting both as I'm determined to keep my M9 kit small and light. My initial idea was four lenses but I'm forced to accept five (tele + UWA in addition to my current three). I may have to flip a coin
Edit: Freudian slip - I'm forced to accept five lenses not six.
Most of the lenses I have moved on. I now finally figuring which lenses, I really like the rendering and feel. Most of the lenses, I have purchased are second hand, so there is very little lost, if any, and I know what I want now... I think
The 75 APO is a great lens. I've got the 50 ASPH - the two share a lot in terms of design and look. Personally, even if I had the money (which I don't), I think 75 and 50 are too close to own both. 50 fits my vision a lot more and is a stop faster to boot. I say go for the 90.
Yes, part of the charm of the 50 Sonnar is its classic and imperfect rendering at wide apertures. It makes the images less sterile and cold.
I sent Zeiss an email about my suspicions about something being wrong with my Sonnar (the weird field curvature) and I got a response almost right away (Zeiss customer support rules). I had two questions, one was the calibration (i.e. focus dead on at f/2.8 instead of f/1.5). I had put together a web page demonstrating the issues: http://www.peltarion.eu/img/tests/sonnar/sonnar.html
The Zeiss response was:
The image they sent showed exactly the things I had seen in my shots. So it looks like my Sonnar is OK after all. I'll have to decide if I should send it in or not.
That's interesting to read about the Sonnar. I noticed similar field curvature, though perhaps not as severe, in Steve Huff's 35mm Summarit review. This image of his, at the top left shows the effect : stevehuffphoto.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/fencenotresp.jpg (please add http://www. to the beginning of the link - I don't want to hot link it here without his permission)
Personally I find it somewhat distracting/annoying that distant objects at the edge of the image will be in focus when focused on something closer in the centre of the frame. It disappoints me somewhat that the Sonnar exhibits this characteristic. It's the opposite of what I'm used to seeing when field curvature is evident in my Canon lenses, where items along the edge of the image that are physically closer to the camera might be in focus. To me it feels more natural this way... I wonder if it has something to do with the overall differences in optical design between rangefinder lenses and those for SLRs?
As for the debate about what lens to get next... My impression is that your priority is always for rendering over sharpness and the 75 Cron's rendering is most to your liking of the three... Perhaps the 75 Cron is a bit too close in focal length to the Sonnar, but for selfish reasons I'd like to see you get it. When/if I ever get an M9, I'm quite certain I'd get the Sonnar (because it seems to be similar to the current 50L that I like very much) and one of the 75s, leaning towards the Cron. So I would like to see what you can do with a 75 and how it might compliment the Sonnar.
Thanks Dan! Another really nice shot of the waterfall.
kidtexas: Yes, 75 is very close to 50. There is another thing I'm not sure about the 90 and that's how difficult it is to focus. As I'm using a diopter correction lens I don't want to use a viewfinder magnifier (or I would have to take off the diopter each time and it's small and I'll lose it). Rangefinders really are not optimal tools for tele lenses. I don't do portraits a lot and my subjects are bound to be at a bit of a distance making precise focus more difficult.
Ron, regarding field curvature, I don't think that type is specific to rangefinder lenses. The Sonnar is a rather special design where they have tried to emulate the rendering style of the original Sonnar 50 from the 1930's when wide open and a modern high contrast lens when stopped down. The MTF chart is very weird and shows the field curvature/corner issue:
The tangential curve at 10 lines/mm is just weird going off in a completely different direction. By f/4 it looks completely different:
I've had the 50L and I would not readily compare it to the Sonnar 50 - they are quite different in rendering style, both in colors, contrast, and OOF rendering. I think the closest you'll get to the 50L (although much more interesting) is the f/1 noctilux when stopped down a bit.
As for the 75 Cron, yes I prefer rendering style over raw optical performance. I also however prefer a longer FL. Incidentally, for some reason I'm also finding myself preferring the price of the Summarits
