Fred Miranda wrote:
Have you checked your copy for centering? Could you share a sample image that shows the softness you're describing?
I'll get a a couple together. I also need to do a decentering test. I need to test more to be thorough before I blame the copy of the lens and not some other factor (like me, or the M10M).
The other hazard, I realize, is that the Q3 has completely spoiled me and my expectations for sharpness.
Pindy wrote:
I'll get a a couple together. I also need to do a decentering test. I need to test more to be thorough before I blame the copy of the lens and not some other factor (like me, or the M10M).
The other hazard, I realize, is that the Q3 has completely spoiled me and my expectations for sharpness.
Another factor could be that the lens isn't perfectly calibrated to your rangefinder, which might indicate a misalignment in either the camera or the lens. It's best to test using LiveView to confirm.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Another factor could be that the lens isn't perfectly calibrated to your rangefinder, which might indicate a misalignment in either the camera or the lens. It's best to test using LiveView to confirm.
Good advice. I've been using LV for the tests, but RF initially and that may have something to do with it. Unfortunate if so, because the camera was serviced in August. I am hoping to borrow another lens from a friend this weekend to test against.
I just did a centering test and that aspect seems ok:
It's not the lens. The lens is fine. It's a combination of a RF alignment issue (not sure the lens, the camera or just a bad match) and me getting used to a new and tricky camera body. But I'm not sure that I like the way it renders wide open, so the testing continues.
If I focus using live view, it's ok (left: f/1.5, right: f/2.8):
Jan 18, 2025 at 07:17 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Pindy wrote:
It's not the lens. The lens is fine. It's a combination of a RF alignment issue (not sure the lens, the camera or just a bad match) and me getting used to a new and tricky camera body. But I'm not sure that I like the way it renders wide open, so the testing continues.
If I focus using live view, it's ok (left: f/1.5, right: f/2.8):
It is good news that your lens seems to be a decent copy--perhaps not the best copy but a good one. I don't have the lens, but will be getting it soon. In deciding to get the lens, my evaluation is that it is a very much what I call a dual character lens. Wide open it has quite a few aberrations notably some spherical aberrations, a fair bit of axial chromatic aberrations, and quite a bit of coma. All of these aberrations, however, are ones that reduce a lot as you stop down the aperture. By f/4 the lens is very sharp and mostly free of these aberrations that are quite evident at f/1.5.
What I think this means in practice is that when I want a relatively aberration free image I have to stop down, but that is available with this lens. When I want an image with more character I can open up the aperture. For me personally, however, that means that at wider apertures, I am going to want to be aware of the aberrations and use the lens opened up only where I think they will enhance the image not detract from it. That means for me I will only use it at wider aperture in less challenging light, and when the light is more challenging I will stop it down. Personally, I wouldn't like the image you posted wide open, but I wouldn't want to shoot that image wide open and I like the performance stopped down to f/2.8, so I would not be bothered by your example.
Said another way, this is not a lens I plan to shoot wide open all the time. I will typically shoot it stopped down, but I appreciate that it has a wide aperture and that when the light is right and that wider aperture fits my vision for the shot I can open up that aperture and get a shot I could not get with a slower lens.
I have had the Leica 28 lux Asph and that is exactly how I used that lens and was quite happy with it. I also had the Zeiss Otis 28 f/1.4 and that is the only lens I know of that is this wide and can regularly be shot at f/1.4 with low aberrations, but even that lens as huge as it is was not completely free of aberrations at f/1.4. It was notably better than the Leica 28 lux Asph, but I used the Leica way more because for me the smaller size trumped the better performance. This lens provides performance almost as good as the Leica wide open and I think as good performance stopped down in an even smaller package.
Steve Spencer wrote:
It is good news that your lens seems to be a decent copy--perhaps not the best copy but a good one. I don't have the lens, but will be getting it soon. In deciding to get the lens, my evaluation is that it is a very much what I call a dual character lens. Wide open it has quite a few aberrations notably some spherical aberrations, a fair bit of axial chromatic aberrations, and quite a bit of coma. All of these aberrations, however, are ones that reduce a lot as you stop down the aperture. By f/4 the lens is very sharp and mostly free of these aberrations that are quite evident at f/1.5.
What I think this means in practice is that when I want a relatively aberration free image I have to stop down, but that is available with this lens. When I want an image with more character I can open up the aperture. For me personally, however, that means that at wider apertures, I am going to want to be aware of the aberrations and use the lens opened up only where I think they will enhance the image not detract from it. That means for me I will only use it at wider aperture in less challenging light, and when the light is more challenging I will stop it down. Personally, I wouldn't like the image you posted wide open, but I wouldn't want to shoot that image wide open and I like the performance stopped down to f/2.8, so I would not be bothered by your example.
Said another way, this is not a lens I plan to shoot wide open all the time. I will typically shoot it stopped down, but I appreciate that it has a wide aperture and that when the light is right and that wider aperture fits my vision for the shot I can open up that aperture and get a shot I could not get with a slower lens.
I have had the Leica 28 lux Asph and that is exactly how I used that lens and was quite happy with it. I also had the Zeiss Otis 28 f/1.4 and that is the only lens I know of that is this wide and can regularly be shot at f/1.4 with low aberrations, but even that lens as huge as it is was not completely free of aberrations at f/1.4. It was notably better than the Leica 28 lux Asph, but I used the Leica way more because for me the smaller size trumped the better performance. This lens provides performance almost as good as the Leica wide open and I think as good performance stopped down in an even smaller package. ...Show more →
Unfortunately in my case, I have the dual problem of my copy not aligning with my rangefinder and though it is only slight, it shows me the OOF rendering when the RF doesn't nail focus, and I don't like what I see. I'm not sure that I like what I see wide open when LV does nail it. Maybe it's just my copy, but the margin between "in focus" and "out of focus and objectionable" is on a razor's edge. My old Summilux 35mm ASPH was far more forgiving.
Either I swap this one for another copy and hope for the best, or I find something else, even an f/2.0 lens with better rendering. Having tried the Elmarit 28 ASPH, I would be happy with that but I need that extra stop.
Pindy wrote:
It's not the lens. The lens is fine. It's a combination of a RF alignment issue (not sure the lens, the camera or just a bad match) and me getting used to a new and tricky camera body. But I'm not sure that I like the way it renders wide open, so the testing continues.
If I focus using live view, it's ok (left: f/1.5, right: f/2.8):
I'm glad you were able to figure it out, Pindy. These issues can sometimes be tricky to diagnose, as they could originate from various factors, such as a misalignment in the camera mount or rangefinder adjustment, a lens that isn't perfectly centered, or a lens that hasn't been properly calibrated for optimal rangefinder accuracy.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I'm glad you were able to figure it out, Pindy. These issues can sometimes be tricky to diagnose, as they could originate from various factors, such as a misalignment in the camera mount or rangefinder adjustment, a lens that isn't perfectly centered, or a lens that hasn't been properly calibrated for optimal rangefinder accuracy.
--------------------------------------------- RustyBug wrote:
In what regard is it that you are about ?
Well my comments might be meaningless cause I may have had a softer-than-usual copy, or it was another set of circumstances entirely (not ruling out my own incompetence). Foliage in general looked wrong; leaves had this gossamer, spider-web-like blur, unlike anything I've ever seen, even at fast shutter speeds. Regardless, I have to accept that the lens not being matched properly to my camera was spoiling my potential enjoyment of it in a way that put me off. Rather than dig deeper about what I disliked, I'm going to reserve judgment for the replacement I should hopefully see by the end of the week. If the replacement still does what I was bothered by, I'll post, but nobody else's example shots demonstrated it, and I wasn't making art while testing it. But I get the feeling I will have a different experience the second time around. There's always the Thypoch if I want to go that route.
Additionally, I found that the camera (a new-to-me M10 Monochrom) has a learning curve that surprised even a long time M film shooter like me. I noticed that over the first 6 days of ownership, my focus was actually improving, though it didn't solve the problem of the lens coupling itself. RF focusing is second nature to me. Perhaps the difference of 35mm film and a 41MP sensor, or my nearly year-long break from M cameras.
To Fred's point, the IQ problems seemed multi-factorial, but I tested the camera with other lenses and it's fine. Let's see what the future holds. I also have a Summilux-M 35mm Steel Rim reissue coming on rental tomorrow which should certainly re-calibrate my feelings on what softness and aberration really is.
Mine arrived. Extreme corners (at infinity) are still a bit soft at f/5.6, but fine at f/8.
(Although I didn't do a formal, FM Forums approved centering test, all corners look fine at f/8.)
Infinity focus is between the infinity mark and the hard stop. Sharpness drops if you miss.
Images look real nice (still only looking at the A7RV's LCD) at closer distances even wide open.
For comparison, on my 40/1.2, corners are fine at f/5.6 and infinity is at the hard stop (which is marked as infinity on the lens.). Ditto for the 21/1.4. (The 75/1.5 is focus-beyond infinity lens.)
(The 21/1.4 and the 75/1.5 are the stars for corner sharpness at wider apertures.)
Oh, well. It's an f/8 and be there lens for images without a subject, and a character Nokton for images with a subject. In real life, it'll work for what I do/need. (The 40/1.2 is just a tad tight much of the time (backstreet Tokyo photos).)
(I'll probably print up enlargements of corners at f/5.6 and f/8.0 and politely ask Map Camera if I should complain.)
Fred Miranda wrote:
Any induced vignetting with this hood?
I wish they made one in glossy black paint to match the Type II better.
Yes, some vignetting when wide open -- beyond f1.5 not really noticeable (and no encroachment at f16 as I have seem with some other wide angle hoods). Below is a comparison -- left is hood on the lens, right no hood.
I thought I was going mad. The replacement copy is functioning as expected, and is pretty sharp wide open with far better contrast at f/1.5 than previous. Focus is good now and is behaving like a better copy in rendering. I also have a borrowed Summicron 28 ASPH III close focus version to play with it against. About to get interesting.
Pindy wrote:
I thought I was going mad. The replacement copy is functioning as expected, and is pretty sharp wide open with far better contrast at f/1.5 than previous. Focus is good now and is behaving like a better copy in rendering. I also have a borrowed Summilux 28 ASPH III close focus version to play with it against. About to get interesting.
You meant to say Summicron? I have the 28 Cron III CF and prefer it over the CV 1.5, especially for use on non-M bodies.
So for M
Leica 28 Lux - well documented standard
CV 28 1.5 - smaller, affordable lux
Thypoch 1.4 - smoother bokeh, better fc
Then the CV 28 2.8 CS and the Leica 28 CF are also best compact options.
I like the Thypoch's bokeh the best but I'm wondering if the thinner stack on M11 makes any difference for the CV vs M10? Bastian's comment on handling and Bob's samples on the M11 are convincing me that the CV 28 1.5 is the best choice atm given all the factors.
about ?
