Adam, Leica service cannot calibrate framelines. They are part of the VF design. To be honest I wasn't happy with the M9 framelines because they were accurate at 1m but showed almost 1/3 more at infinity. The M240 framelines are more usable because they show like 15% less of the image at MFD and about the same extra at infinity. You have to frame loosely at MFD and tightly at infinity. Part of your problem I think is the offset finder rather than framelines calibration.
Very nice flower shot by the way. I like it even with the cut off flower.
edwardkaraa wrote:
Adam, Leica service cannot calibrate framelines. They are part of the VF design. To be honest I wasn't happy with the M9 framelines because they were accurate at 1m but showed almost 1/3 more at infinity. The M240 framelines are more usable because they show like 15% less of the image at MFD and about the same extra at infinity. You have to frame loosely at MFD and tightly at infinity. Part of your problem I think is the offset finder rather than framelines calibration.
Very nice flower shot by the way. I like it even with the cut off flower....Show more →
Hi Edward,
The frame lines are calibrated as part of the RF calibration procedure. I know on the M9/MM I had them calibrated regularly with the lenses I also sent down to be matched. Particularly the 50 Lux and 75 Lux. A number of times, coming from Solms, they were off by about a 1/4 to 1/3 of a frame, so it only took a day to be readjusted, and they were accurate, at least for portrait work at 1 to 2m.
The problem with the M240, is that no local Leica repairer is authorized to do the calibration. The offset finder, should not be too much of an issue, if lines are accurate, or least you can then compensate for close, medium and far. I have had one M240 sent back for re calibration, as it drifted a lot, not long after I had purchased it, and RF calibration was fine, but the frame lines were further out.
Adam, nice shot BTW I think the 75 Cron Apo is a very under rated lens.
Ok, I see. I was talking about the frame size being accurate at 1m for the M9 vs 2m for the M240. This I believe cannot be changed.
You're talking about the parallax correction and frame offset and that certainly can and should be calibrated, and is very often off on the M240 as the statistics show (mine, yours and Adam's).
To my suprice the 50 APO cron really stands out instead of the otus.
The 50 cron has equal sharpness across the frame (1200 from center to edge) which gives it an edge over the ZM planar. Especially at the edges.
The Sigma, for 900 dollar, seem like a steal untill you see the size of it compared to the leica's.
That looks like a very flawed comparison. Already from the start, they claim the Planar is 51mm while the C-Sonnar is 50.3mm. In reality the Planar is more like a 45mm while the C-Sonnar is around 55mm.
Also the results contradict everything we know about the lenses and even are against the published MTF.
edwardkaraa wrote:
That looks like a very flawed comparison. Already from the start, they claim the Planar is 51mm while the C-Sonnar is 50.3mm. In reality the Planar is more like a 45mm while the C-Sonnar is around 55mm.
Also the results contradict everything we know about the lenses and even are against the published MTF.
They test with their own optical bench which means testing all lenses on the same machine and no differences because of different camera's. I don't see why this method should be flawed.
Further, I think it was pretty clear al ready from the start how these M lenses would compare. The planar very close to the cron, the lux above and the APO cron the best of all.
What is intressting is the comparrising to the Otus and sigma. I would not have expect the 50 APO to do so much better.
Robert - thanks for posting that link. I really like how Roger presents his data. He explains things well which helps people like me who don't know a lot about analyzing and interpreting test data. Also - I am so happy I bought a 50lux. Didn't know it outperformed the OTUS....
Charles - Honestly I feel the same about the 75APO, I think that it does have a design flaw (veiling flare) which can cause it to seem less then stellar. That said, I'm still VERY tempted to purchase a 75 Summilux.. Especially after your recent post
I have the utmost respect for Roger and his strict methodology but I have to be skeptical about some results.
For instance, if you look at the official Leica measured MTF of the 50 cron, with all due respect, they look like a roller coaster. There is no way it could produce such consistent high results at center, mid frame and edge. The Leica MTF are confirmed in every review I have read and by actual users. The mid frame dip is well documented.
I have also seen comparisons of different scenes with the Nocti, Lux, Cron, Cron AA and Planar, and clearly the worst of the bunch are the Nocti and Cron, with the Lux and Planar being quite competitive, and the AA light years ahead. Such results are not seen in Roger's measurements.
The Otus has been shown to be equal or slightly better than the AA too, nowhere have I seen the AA so clearly outperform the Otus.
I have no idea about the reason of this discrepancy, but I know something is not quite right there.
Gary Clennan wrote:
Edward - I see what you are saying.... Would it have anything to do with Rogers tests being done at infinity?
Leica uses a Zeiss optical bench for their measured MTF, the same one used by Zeiss. The measurements are also at infinity, so that can't be the reason.
To my suprice the 50 APO cron really stands out instead of the otus.
The 50 cron has equal sharpness across the frame (1200 from center to edge) which gives it an edge over the ZM planar. Especially at the edges.
The Sigma, for 900 dollar, seem like a steal untill you see the size of it compared to the leica's.
IMO, a flaw in how Roger presented the data was that he took the highest value for a given point, whether it was sagittal or tangential, rather than just sagittal or tangential. This IMO skews the results, giving more favorable numerical results. He said he did this to keep things simple, but I would have preferred to have seen the values for each. What is also easy to overlook, and at least he does mention, is the 'astigmatism value', as he calls it, which is the difference between sagittal and tangential values. As you can see, the Otus has very low sagittal/tangential value variations, while the Leica lenses are higher. How much this affects overall perceived image quality, I'm not so sure, but from my experience with the 50 Lux and 21 Lux, when there is a large sagittal/tangential difference in certain zones, it seems to adversely affect the impression of image quality/sharpness (the Lux mid zone dip).
At least what the numbers reveal is that these lenses have a fair amount of resolution in reserve and will be very usable on future higher resolution sensors. I was very curious to know how the 50AA stacks up against the Otus, and at least based on simple MTF values for 'sharpness', it holds its own. Of course what these numbers don't really tell us very easily is how each lens renders, degree of CA, tendency for flare, etc... I think the 50AA has been criticized for being only partially APO while the Otus is 'fully' APO corrected...? How much that matters is another issue entirely.
I was also surprised by his ZM50/2 focal length value as I know from the 50mm tests I've done that it's noticeably wider than most other 50s. It probably isn't 45mm, but maybe most other RF 50s are slightly longer than 50mm. My Lux ASPH is apparently 51.4mm...
rscheffler wrote:
I was also surprised by his ZM50/2 focal length value as I know from the 50mm tests I've done that it's noticeably wider than most other 50s. It probably isn't 45mm, but maybe most other RF 50s are slightly longer than 50mm. My Lux ASPH is apparently 51.4mm...
perhaps the focal length values for the zm 50/2 and zm 50/1.5 got mixed up?
zeiss lists the contax g 45/2 as having an actual focal length of 46.9mm and it seemed a little wider than the zm 50/2 to me. i would guess it's around 49-50mm. most "50mm" lenses are around 51-53mm so if your used thinking of those as 50mm lenses a real 50mm will seem noticeably wider.
In my experience there is a substantial difference in AOV between the 50 planar and c-Sonnar. I would say at least 5mm but probably around 8mm. The c-Sonnar behaviour tends towards a moderate telephoto lens.
edwardkaraa wrote:
In my experience there is a substantial difference in AOV between the 50 planar and c-Sonnar. I would say at least 5mm but probably around 8mm. The c-Sonnar behaviour tends towards a moderate telephoto lens.
any idea compared to your old contax or sony lenses?
Regarding the Konica Hex lenses.... I think Joe has had some experience with them, and seemed to like the 35/2. I seem to recall somewhat mixed opinions about the 50/2 as maybe being nothing exceptional. Could be wrong about that...
Was at a friend's 40th birthday party on the weekend. Ended up shooting primarily the M240 with 21 Lux or CV35/1.2 II, with some 50 Lux ASPH sprinkled in. After a spell of over a year not shooting the CV, I've been bringing it along more often and at least here found that the 21/35 combo was a good one. I guess I could have used the 28 Cron in its place, but there were some instances where faster than f/2 was a benefit, considering I'm limiting myself to ISO 1000 for the fps and deeper buffer on the M240...
Curious too about the 28 Lux, but guess it will be in the $6-7k price range. Apparently Sean Reid has had a prototype copy and may have posted something on his site about it (if anyone has a subscription and can confirm)? I can appreciate what f/1.4 will bring, but have to say I find the Cron to be very versatile, as it's usually fast enough and it has a nice, predictable character to it in respect to placing subjects off center in the frame and field curvature... Will be interesting to see the 28 Lux MTF values and whether there is the typical mid zone dip present...
OK, some photos...
These were all with the 21 Lux:
First two were cropped somewhat.
Also had a single black frame during this sequence. There is a very slight non-black area in the frame, so am wondering if maybe the shutter misfired at something like 1/4000 instead of what it was set to (though EXIF doesn't note a change in shutter speed). This is beginning to concern me in conjunction with the one incident of higher than expected fps rate resulting in the loss of those images.... Something to keep an eye on.
sebboh wrote:
perhaps the focal length values for the zm 50/2 and zm 50/1.5 got mixed up?
sebboh wrote:
any idea compared to your old contax or sony lenses?
Unfortunately not. I owned the planar and c-Sonnar simultaneously and did some comparisons at the time that's why I know the AOV difference is not negligible. I have owned the Zeiss c/y and ZE 50/1.4 and the Sony 50/1.4 but can't really tell for sure.
Ron, great BD shots. I'm sure your friends are elated with them.
I was browsing the lensrental page again and took a closer look at the bottom of the page where Roger compares the MTF of the cron vs lux and planar vs c-Sonnar. I think these graphs are very telling especially if you look at planar vs cron vs lux. The performance seems more logical and more in line with the official MTF, though there are still some major differences that may be due to sample variations.
I think the 75 Cron Apo is a very under rated lens.
