Alnitak Posted March 8, 2010 Share #21 Posted March 8, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) I still consider below scenarios and haven't decided yet...A) CV 12mm + CV 15mm +24mm M CV 12mm + WATE + 24mm M C) CV 12mm + 24mm M I wonder how 15mm and WATE @16mm differ in sharpness, contrast, color, flare. Looking on MTFs - 16mm i best when closed down to f/8. 15mm is also best between 5.6 and 8. 24mm I plan to use for landscapes and architecture and inside rooms, it has lowest distortion. I wonder how frequently I would use WATE on different focals for these purposes too... I've heard complains on its distortion, here on the forum... (in past I had 14-28mm zoom and used 14mm most often) 12mm I plan to use for special effects, close ups, distortions, mostly when subject is quite close in center of the frame, and I want to show some background around too. Any comments welcome! BTW: here you can see few 12mm photos of our colleague: Depo PS: in fact I would also consider 15\16mm for landscapes. I have the CV12, the WATE and the 24 'Lux. I love the WATE for architecture and indoor shots. The 24 just isn't wide enough a lot of the time. As for distortion, the WATE really doesn't have much native distortion. What I see is a lot of people who get confused by perspective issues with superwide lenses and call it distortion. It's not, its just a fact of life with superwide lenses. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 8, 2010 Posted March 8, 2010 Hi Alnitak, Take a look here Some CV lens samples with M9. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Jerry_R Posted March 8, 2010 Share #22 Posted March 8, 2010 Thx Jeff! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thrice Posted March 8, 2010 Share #23 Posted March 8, 2010 Hi Jeff, It looks like your 21mm CV might have had decentering issues? Cheers, Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alnitak Posted March 8, 2010 Share #24 Posted March 8, 2010 Hi Jeff, It looks like your 21mm CV might have had decentering issues? Cheers, Oh yes, the first copy had pretty bad issues. I believe those images are from that copy. The second was much better. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry_R Posted March 15, 2010 Share #25 Posted March 15, 2010 Can, I have a question from my friend who saw your page. His first impression is that contrast is too big. He has the impression looking on most of M9 photos in fact. And he is used to Leica glass, he is aware, that it may be more contrast, but he said samples hew saw from M8 or X1 are not so contrasty. In fact I told him, that these samples are with Voigtlander lenses. You wrote, these are RAWs. Did you develop them in LR? Did you add contrast and\or clarity? My friend said that this one photo reminds him old analog climate of Leica: http://antrepo.org/depo/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/L1001688.jpg But his ones contain too few details in shadows to him, is too plastic like from compact camera (in terms of contrast, color), like JPG creation program: http://antrepo.org/depo/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/L1001678.jpg http://antrepo.org/depo/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/005.jpg What you think of this contrast and analog climate topic? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jahnpack Posted March 15, 2010 Author Share #26 Posted March 15, 2010 Hi Jerry, I said these are processed raws. Edited in Lightroom. Some of them also processed in Photoshop. Now the last photos titled "Asli 2" are not M9. These are canon 5d mk2 (50mm 1.8). Others are all M9. I can upload native unprocessed DNG files to an ftp if you choose one or two images. Let me know. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry_R Posted March 15, 2010 Share #27 Posted March 15, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) If you could, yes pls these two: L1001678 L1001688 Thanks in advance! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jahnpack Posted March 15, 2010 Author Share #28 Posted March 15, 2010 Here you go http://www.antrepo.org/temp/dngs.zip You are welcome. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thompsonkirk Posted March 15, 2010 Share #29 Posted March 15, 2010 "yes the bokeh is harsh at 1.4." I looked again & cme to the conclusion that the 35's bokeh is the ugliest I've seen. I wonder if the files have been sharpened? That can wreck the bokeh of a good or at least usable lens, by outlining the circles & emphasizing edges where there shouldn't be any. Kirk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry_R Posted March 15, 2010 Share #30 Posted March 15, 2010 Can, thank you for DNGs. I have opened them in LR and realised that the files is full of details in shadows. So all doubts taken away. And final effect can be achieved according to will of person developing.. Cheers! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jahnpack Posted March 15, 2010 Author Share #31 Posted March 15, 2010 Hi Jerry, I hope the files helped. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry_R Posted March 15, 2010 Share #32 Posted March 15, 2010 I hope the files helped. Yes! My old friend - who deals with photography almost as long as I am old ;-) - said, that he simply would treat the RAWs with LINEAR tone curve in LR - in order to maintain less contrast, more details, bigger dynamic range. Then, photos remind him more natural effect. He was growing in analog time, this is his background. The whole case started, when he was afraid, that M9 (or lenses) is too contrast (based on samples he saw) - as new clinical Leica vision. And he wanted to check that. But now we know, that it is matter of how someone developes RAWs, what vision someone has. He is more sensitive to this contrast, than I am for example. You can experiment next time with Linear tone curve too :-) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.