nunnzzzz Posted August 17, 2011 Share #1 Posted August 17, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) I recently purchased a Leica M9-P and noticed that for some of my Leica Lens that when i focus on infinity on the lens barrel for images very long distances that the image is not 100% focused in the Rnagefinder. You have to back off infinity somewhat. Should i continue to keep the focus on infinity or should i trust the image in the rangefinder? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted August 17, 2011 Posted August 17, 2011 Hi nunnzzzz, Take a look here Infinity Focusing/rangefinder accuracy (merged). I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
jaapv Posted August 17, 2011 Share #2 Posted August 17, 2011 Are your photos in focus? Disregard. Are they not ? Have it adjusted. And the lenses. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colonel Posted August 17, 2011 Share #3 Posted August 17, 2011 I recently purchased a Leica M9-P and noticed that for some of my Leica Lens that when i focus on infinity on the lens barrel for images very long distances that the image is not 100% focused in the Rnagefinder. You have to back off infinity somewhat. Should i continue to keep the focus on infinity or should i trust the image in the rangefinder? This is a tricky question. I thought the same about my M9, although its very difficult to tell with the human eye at infinity unles you have 20/20 vision. I had a different problem, mine didn't overshoot, I thought, at the time, that it didn't quite achieve focus at inifinity. I had it tested at my local Leica shop and it was focusing spot on. Slightly front focused but well within the DOF for f1.4 (tested with a 50mm f1.4 ASPH) The key question is what your pictures look like and not what you appear to see through the eye piece. Zoom in to the pictures you have taken, at the pixel level, compare: 1. focusing at what appears to be infinity in the rangefinder, to 2. the infinity position on the lens. What does that show you ? If the ones where you back peddled from infinity look sharper then you might need it adjusted. Personally I would either send it to Leica (wait for Solms) or find a local dealer that has a proper laser adjustment system. I would prefer Solms myself but in the UK there are a few recommended dealers for this. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted August 20, 2011 Share #4 Posted August 20, 2011 Whilst I can find rational and sensible excuses for letting Leica off the hook about many aspects of the M9 and its idiosyncracies, this is one are where I am beginning to get annoyed....... Yet again (with a second M9) I have focussing issues ..... OK, so they are only really apparent with f2 and below lenses wide open, but if they are designed to be used at this aperture then they should be spot on. Camera ditto. My feeling is that Leica is not calibrating the M9 rangefinder mechanism or their lenses to the tolerances required for this camera/lens pairing. I have just done an afternoons 'real world' testing of 13 lenses at infinity, 5m and 1.5m and have a nice matrix of results that would give any analyst a headache. I have a 28/2, 50/1.4 that are so far off that it is a joke. My 75/2, 18/3.8, 50/2 are very iffy (considering the results from the rest of the others) and all the rest fall into a clear pattern indicating back focussing at mid/longer distances and front focussing at 1.5m, which is presumably a rangefinder calibration issue. Quite how anyone can achieve satisfactory results in adjustment when there is this mixture of lens and rangefinder mis-calibration eludes me....... and the worst offenders are actually recently purchased lenses.... ..... and before anyone suggests it .... I am not sending 13 lenses and my camera back to Solms for adjustment ..... I will do the rangefinder bit myself and the remaining recalcitrant lenses can go to Malcolm Taylor ..... I can't see the point of returning optics to a manufacturer that clearly accepts tolerances that are inappropriate to my requirements (there are numerous tales on this forum of multiple return trips till finally corrected). Reading the posts, it is a common problem and one that probably goes un-noticed by many users who just put down poorly focussed images to user error/inexperience... The issue is, why should I be put to this inconvenience, trouble and expense in the first place? This is 30k worth of allegedly precision optical equipment and I would expect better for that amount of outlay.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted August 20, 2011 Share #5 Posted August 20, 2011 Umm - did Leica adjust these lenses to the new " digital" tolerances or are those " film" lenses that still need attention because of the wider tolerance span on film? First get your body spot-on, and you will probably find that there is not much wrong with lenses after 2008. (that is when Leica got their new calibration rig) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted August 20, 2011 Share #6 Posted August 20, 2011 Just send the lenses. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianv Posted August 21, 2011 Share #7 Posted August 21, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Manufacturers have to make assumptions matching lenses to cameras, one of which is film flatness in their cameras. Whatever assumtions that Nikon made 60 years ago with the LTM Nikkor 8.5cm F2, 10.5cm F2.5, and 13.5cm F3.5: They are perfect on my M9 used wide-open. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
charles-k Posted August 21, 2011 Share #8 Posted August 21, 2011 Very valid points being raised. I have now 2 M9;s, both which have had to be sent a local authorised Leica repairer/service centre to adjust the RF calibration, with average turn around of 3 days. Even with the RF being within the tolerances of the Leica mastercal, there may be still an offset of 15mm front or back focus, particularly critical with the 50 Lux, 75 Lux and 90 Cron AA. I have ended sending all my lenses and M9's, to be finely sync'd. My M9's are well within the Leica RF specifications, but the tolerances are so fine. Another interesting point raised by Leica centre, is that they have all my calibration records on file, for the M9's and all my lenses. There is another calibration factor that is also included is called a "friendly offset". This is specifically relating to the user of the camera, and how we as photographers have biases when we focus. I am curious how bad my offset bias is Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted August 21, 2011 Share #9 Posted August 21, 2011 I have just done an afternoons 'real world' testing of 13 lenses at infinity, 5m and 1.5m and have a nice matrix of results that would give any analyst a headache. ..... and before anyone suggests it .... I am not sending 13 lenses and my camera back to Solms for adjustment ..... I get a headache just thinking about how to use 13 lenses. Three suit me fine, with one getting most of the use, and one not so much. Been that way for 30+ years. Not a critique...different strokes is all. But, if you have a few favorites, those are the ones I'd give priority, and only then if your prints suffered. Do they? Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidbaddley Posted August 21, 2011 Share #10 Posted August 21, 2011 It seems like most of the time I see a picture of an M in recent Leica literature, it has the 50mm 1.4 ASPH on it. Looks like this is the "image" lens for Leica. This is the lens I've used more that any other on my M9. Up close, it focuses about 4 or 5mm behind what I see in the rangefinder. I've gotten used to using it that way, but I'd love it if it was spot-on. I agree that it would be great to not have to go to the trouble of having it specially adjusted to get this level of performance. I just watched that great video showing the assembly of the M9 again, and noticed that the rangefinder is calibrated using a 50mm 2.0. Since the 1.4 has shallower DOF when open, and this seems to be the lens they're featuring, shouldn't they be calibrating the viewfinder to this tolerance? - David Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidbaddley Posted August 21, 2011 Share #11 Posted August 21, 2011 It seems like most of the time I see a picture of an M in recent Leica literature, it has the 50mm 1.4 ASPH on it. Looks like this is the "image" lens for Leica. This is the lens I've used more that any other on my M9. Up close, it focuses about 4 or 5mm behind what I see in the rangefinder. I've gotten used to using it that way, but I'd love it if it was spot-on. I agree that it would be great to not have to go to the trouble of having it specially adjusted to get this level of performance. I just watched that great video showing the assembly of the M9 again, and noticed that the rangefinder is calibrated using a 50mm 2.0. Since the 1.4 has shallower DOF when open, and this seems to be the lens they're featuring, shouldn't they be calibrating the viewfinder to this tolerance? - David Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
shard Posted August 21, 2011 Share #12 Posted August 21, 2011 Just my experience. I just bought a Sigma SD-1 with 6 lenses. 30, 50, 85mm f/1.4, 20, 24, 28mm f/1.8 and every single lens had to be sent back with the body for calibration. In comparison, all new Leica lenses I bought to date (21, 24, 35, 50 Summilux, 28, 50, 75, 90 Summicron) have been spot on, the only ones that needed adjustments are lenses that I bought used. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted August 21, 2011 Share #13 Posted August 21, 2011 It seems like most of the time I see a picture of an M in recent Leica literature, it has the 50mm 1.4 ASPH on it. Looks like this is the "image" lens for Leica. This is the lens I've used more that any other on my M9. Up close, it focuses about 4 or 5mm behind what I see in the rangefinder. I've gotten used to using it that way, but I'd love it if it was spot-on. I agree that it would be great to not have to go to the trouble of having it specially adjusted to get this level of performance. I just watched that great video showing the assembly of the M9 again, and noticed that the rangefinder is calibrated using a 50mm 2.0. Since the 1.4 has shallower DOF when open, and this seems to be the lens they're featuring, shouldn't they be calibrating the viewfinder to this tolerance? - David It does not make a difference, as long as the lens is spot-on. Otherwise they would need a Noctilux or Summicron 90. Or even Apo-Telyt. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hydeca Posted August 21, 2011 Share #14 Posted August 21, 2011 Send the body and lenses to Solms for calibration and you will be pleased Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bocaburger Posted August 21, 2011 Share #15 Posted August 21, 2011 I had similar issues, but was somewhat luckier. All my lenses (about a dozen of varying age, but none newer than 1994) except one were front-focusing, only being sharp at infinity when set at their infinity stops (the rangefinder images were coinciding correctly at infinity). At any closer distance, they became progressively worse. So I had great confidence the problem was with the rangefinder close-distance adjustment. I DIY'd it, and everything was good, except the one lens that had been spot-on was now backfocusing the same amount the rest of them used to be front focusing. That lens I sent off and when it was returned, is now perfect. Had I found an admixture of front-, back-, and good focus among my lenses, I could not have determined by myself where the problem lay. Recently I acquired a 135mm lens which was front focusing. Knowing that my rangefinder is spot-on, I was confident the lens needed adjustment. First I measured how much the optical cell traveled axially when I deviated from the rangefinder-indicated point of focus to where the lens was actually focusing. Then I unscrewed the lens head (comes off for Visoflex use) and milled down the landing where it seats against the focusing mount when fully threaded, by the measured amount. At that point the head was threading a little farther into the mount than before, so I then had to loosen and rotate the female threaded component so the aperture index was back at 12 o'clock. Now it is tack-sharp at all distances when the rangefinder images coincide. The focus-by-proxy nature of a rangefinder definitely adds a layer of complexity vs reflex focusing. That older lenses may be off with a digital sensor isn't something I can get too upset over, because clearly it's not something Leica could have anticipated so many years ago. The fact my rangefinder came from the factory grossly misadjusted is something that did upset me, as did the prospect of having to send the camera back for an unknown time period to get it adjusted, and still not be certain it would come back properly adjusted. That has been an issue with Leicas for me for a long time, which is what prompted me to gain the ability to DIY. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted August 21, 2011 Share #16 Posted August 21, 2011 What I don't understand when talk is of the very tight lens tolerances necessary for digital sensors, is why every one of my LTM lenses, used on a variety of cheap and expensive adapters all focus perfectly on my M9? These LTM lenses include non-Leica lenses, such as a 35mm Jupiter 12, a 50mm Canon f1.8, a 75mm CV f2.5 Heliar, amongst others. Additionally I have some M mount lenses, a 40mm CV F1.4, a 35mm Perar, a 21mm ZM Biogon that also focus perfectly. So, a wide variety of lenses none of which has been close to a Leica test bench. Luck? Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted August 21, 2011 Share #17 Posted August 21, 2011 I wouldn't be so cheeky as to offer another explanation than a combination of luck and skill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted August 21, 2011 Share #18 Posted August 21, 2011 Very valid points being raised. I have now 2 M9;s, both which have had to be sent a local authorised Leica repairer/service centre to adjust the RF calibration, with average turn around of 3 days. Even with the RF being within the tolerances of the Leica mastercal, there may be still an offset of 15mm front or back focus, [...] That is such a mystery to me! I was pleasantly surprised to find my lenses spot-on, even the 75mm Summilux wide-open! Could it be because Leica New Jersey rebuilt the camera from the ground-up after I smashed it in an accident? It's better than new! Whatever, I'd love to have another like this one. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted August 21, 2011 Share #19 Posted August 21, 2011 The very worst offenders are my 28/2, 75/2 and 50/1.4, all of which are less than 18 months old. None are in focus when set on the infinity stop on the lens. My 18/3.8 is similar but the aperture and wide angle mitigates the problem substantially .... although when infinity is set correctly on the rangefinder anf the close focus adjusted I suspect this will be well adrift too.... The point is that the only reason I can come to these conclusions is BECAUSE I have 13 lenses !! Otherwise it would be impossible to tell if I was dealing with a rangefinder problem, lens problem or a bit of both. Whatever, I don't see why I should be acting as Leicas Optics Quality Control. As I have said before, they need a sensible and astute old man with a perfectly adjusted M9 to actually take pictures with each lens wide open at infinity, some mid distance and 1m to see if they are ok.... and vice versa with a perfectly calibrated 50/1.4 for rangefinder testing. The rejects can be sent back to be calibrated again. At the moment the 'sensible and astute old man' is me....... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted August 21, 2011 Share #20 Posted August 21, 2011 I have just looked at the M9 assembly video and focus is checked and multiple close distances and the furthest seem to be 3.5 and 7m(? ... hard to hear). Presumably they assume if there is no error trend at these progressive distances then the arm length is ok and if correct at 0.7m then infinity should be fine. Hard to fault the logic or the process...... how does it all go wrong..... sloppy testers ?.... too wide a tolerance range ? Beats me.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.