Leica 35mm f1.4 FLE falut?

[Halliday]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Dear fellow users of this lens, I wish to query an effect of this lens, which is new to me. Your experience will be invaluable. Close-to the lens is sharp side to side when wide open. But, sometimes when in the hills or in general situations I will use the lens at 5.6, and add the appropriate hyperfocus (infinity mark centred on the 5.6 on the barrel etc.) to maximise my depth of field. The result is as follows: the centre is sharp, the foreground is as sharp as expected, but the middle and far distance objects to the sides are weak/blurred. If I forgo hyper focus and set to infinity, sacrificing depth of field, the sides and centre are fine. Is this a characteristic of the lens or a faulty lens? My old 35mm f2 never did this. Please advise. Best, Halliday

[k-hawinkler]

Hi Halliday,

 

Welcome to the Forum!

Could you please post images, including high resolution crops that show the effect.

TIA.

 

You might also find this post interesting.

Tim Ashley Photography | Leica M 240 with 35mm F1.4 FLE - some observations

 

According to Tim, he observed a 'tricky' field of focus.

Edited August 30, 2014 by k-hawinkler

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[adan]

The DoF markings on lenses are calculated for a specific "standard" print, usually of a rather modest size (8x10 or A4 or thereabouts, traditionally). Or put another way, they are based on an ASSUMED acceptable circle of confusion or blur circle size - which may be a poor assumption if viewing images larger.

 

The depth of field indicated "won't be there" anymore if the image is viewed at high magnifications (large prints, or at 100% pixels on a computer screen) - because the extra enlargement reveals that what appeared to be sharp points in a small print are actually still blur circles.

 

It's generally been suggested that one or two stops additional stop-down are needed when trying to use the depth of field scales for setting a hyperfocal distance - for larger prints, or if viewing digital versions of pictures at high magnification. I.E. - set your lens infinity mark to 5.6, but actually stop the lens down to f/11, in order to get sufficient real DoF to keep things looking sharp at the extremes of the DoF range.

__________

 

As to why your 35 FLE behaves differently than an older 35 f/2 - all lens designs bend light a bit differently. No lens is equally perfect at all apertures and all distances - they are optimized for certain situations, trading off performance in other situations.

 

The floating element of the FLE helps extend the optimization into the close range (where, traditionally, non-macro lenses tend to lose quality). The overall design is also optimized for stunning performance at f/1.4.

 

But your f/2 may be better optimized for distant (landscape) subjects and moderate apertures. While getting softer at close distances, or at f/2, than the FLE.

 

I have not used the 35 f/1.4 FLE extensively. I did use the non-FLE ASPH version, and it was phenomenal at f/1.4, but my 1980 35 f/2 was generally sharper at most distances and smaller apertures.

 

I also tried the 21 f/1.4, and it is unmatched as the world's only 21 f/1.4 full-frame lens - but it still got soft near the edges even at smaller apertures, when focused for "landscape" distances. It was simply optimized for low-light, fairly close-in, journalistic, wedding, or concert work, while never matching the 21 f/3.4 or 2.8 lenses for long-distance performance into the corners.

 

Now - more experienced 35 FLE users may be able to give you more concrete guidance. But what you describe is about what I'd expect from my experiences with other Leica-M wides.

[wattsy]

I've used this lens most of the time during the last three years and it would be fair to say that the DOF characteristics are a little eccentric - especially when used with the middling apertures like F 4 and F 5.6.

[Halliday]

Hi again from Halliday. Here are some images to support my point. I have not blown-up the centres as there is no difference worth arguing about, but the sides.... To remind you, the blurred enlargement is with hyper focus added, the sharp, without.

 

Thank you for the very interesting responses already posted.

[wattsy]

I'm not surprised by your examples. The shape of the DOF is so far from flat that I don't think it can be reliably used in hyperfocal mode. I use it quite a lot for landscapes and tend to focus on the feature or distance that I consider most important and take it from there.

Edited August 31, 2014 by wattsy

[keithlaban.co.uk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

...and you'll need a smaller aperture than f5.6.

[jaapv]

In general, if you want certain areas sharp in your photograph, it is wise to focus on them. DOF is all fine, but it is the area of acceptable UNsharpness at a given print size, viewing distance, subject matter and photographer acceptance. Also it is a gradual thing moving from unsharp to sharp in the plane of focus, not an on-off switch for sharpness.

[timde]

But, sometimes when in the hills or in general situations I will use the lens at 5.6, and add the appropriate hyperfocus (infinity mark centred on the 5.6 on the barrel etc.) to maximise my depth of field.

 

I can't speak of that lens, however on my 28mm Elmarit if I set the 5.6 mark to infinity then the focal point is at about 4 meters, that is where the image will be sharpest, and everything from 2 meters to infinity will be acceptably sharp if printing 10x15 and using film (IIRC that is the basis of the scale).

 

For digital you need to stop down twice, 5.6 to 11, for the scale to make any sense. However, if you subject is at 10 meters or beyond then focus at 10 meters and not 4. This article gives a good explanation of infinity focus: Digital Focusing Part Two

[CheshireCat]

I never use hyperfocal.

Must read:

 

http://www.trenholm.org/hmmerk/SHBG01.pdf

 

Increment the number in the filename to read subsequent parts.

[Halliday]

Many thanks for the many useful replies. No lens can do everything, and while my 35/f2 was fine with the hyperfocal adjustment discussed, this one isn't. But I am particularly keen on experiences with this lens in order to determine if my performance is atypical, and hence that I have a duffer. No doubt I can work around the issue. But has anyone had this 'curved plane of focus' when set-up as I have described?

[jaapv]

I never use hyperfocal.

Must read:

 

http://www.trenholm.org/hmmerk/SHBG01.pdf

 

Increment the number in the filename to read subsequent parts.

 

And that article dates back to 1991. Since then lenses have become considerably better corrected and higher resolving and we have high resolution sensors that are absolutely flat and far more precise than film can ever be. The conclusion must be that DOF and hyper focal do not exist any more today.....

[Bill W]

Not knowing what your f stop was on the photos you attached, I would try a smaller one. Remember the old saying "f8 and be there". I cannot speak for a particular lens but if I am shooting for maximum depth, I am usually on a tripod and using a very small f stop. FWIW

[apertur]

Hi, I had similar issues. First my sample was decentered quite a bit. Next one was soft in middle (only at f4) and the corners were sharp:confused:. Next one was the opposite:confused:. After another replacement all is fine:). There was an article about weird field couverture with this lens but there is quite a difference between samples. Once all is fine this lens is a dream.

[tobey bilek]

The more I see, the more I like my 35 2.0 Summicron version 4.

 

The old 24 2.8 R did the same thing. That is the reason I sold mine. Floating elements were the root cause.

[CheshireCat]

Next one was soft in middle (only at f4)

 

I find it hard to believe that a lens can be soft in the center at f/4 and not at f/1.4.

 

The f/1.4 FLE has a very complex field of focus that varies with aperture and focusing distance. This accounts for unexpected results in some shots.

 

User error usually explains most of the other mysteries

[wattsy]

You should believe it.

[250swb]

But, sometimes when in the hills or in general situations I will use the lens at 5.6, and add the appropriate hyperfocus (infinity mark centred on the 5.6 on the barrel etc.) to maximise my depth of field.

 

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but there is something in the way you say that which worries me.

 

And it is this, is this a case of 'I bought a fast lens and I'm going to use it as wide open as possible all the time'? Because it sounds a bit like you use f/5.6 as your smallest aperture in exceptional circumstances, such as when you are out in the countryside. As mainly a landscape photographer who often wants front to back sharpness I wouldn't dream of using a 35mm lens at f/5.6, mostly it would be f/8 or f/11, and f/16 is fine if the image requires it (a good photo outweighs a bit of diffraction). So use the apertures you bought with the lens, they are there for a reason, f/8 and f/11 are great.

 

As for f/5.6 that is also a good f/stop, but in a wide landscape the relatively shallow DOF can draw attention to the jump between in focus and out of focus areas, and this can be an awkward sensation if it is random and governed solely by the DOF scale . So as Jaap says, focus on the important thing in the image and the eye will recognise this and 'accept' the out of focus areas as being intentional.

 

Steve

[CheshireCat]

You should believe it.

 

I am ready to believe it as soon as someone provides a logical explanation.

Maybe he/she meant "until f/4" ?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[dugby]

...I will use the lens at 5.6, and add the appropriate hyperfocus (infinity mark centred on the 5.6 on the barrel etc.) to maximise my depth of field....If I forgo hyper focus and set to infinity, sacrificing depth of field, the sides and centre are fine. Is this a characteristic of the lens or a faulty lens? My old 35mm f2 never did this. Please advise. Best, Halliday

 

Hi , I have the 35mm FLE LUX lens that I believe you are referring to, and I am confused with your above references to "hyper focus". What is this ?