xjr Posted January 26, 2007 Share #21 Posted January 26, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) The answer to this question is totally subjective and therefore meaningless to anybody else but the photographer him/her self who has to find it alone. Suffice to say that these lenses are designed to perform under apertures other manufacturers can only dream of. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 26, 2007 Posted January 26, 2007 Hi xjr, Take a look here Do you confirm.... I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Rolo Posted January 26, 2007 Share #22 Posted January 26, 2007 You guys use ND filters much? The other day I was at thousandth 8,11,16 till dusk on 100ISO. Happens quite a bit over summer here. Yes I find ND filters are essential. I don't want to be confined to f11 & f16 on a bright day so I use 3 stop grads to get back into my preferred working range. How else do you take advantage of the wide open lens characteristics of a Leica M without an ND on a camera limited to 1/1000th of a second ? Rolo Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jelderfield Posted January 26, 2007 Share #23 Posted January 26, 2007 Seems like some days you might want to shoot wide open to take advantage of the quality of the lens at that aperture - portraits or whatever, while on some days doing street photography, for instance, you might want to work at F8, 11, or 16 to shoot faster by pre-focusing and using the DOF. You use the lens where, when, and how you need to, to make the picture you want to make at that moment, no? Jonathan Elderfield Photography Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted January 26, 2007 Share #24 Posted January 26, 2007 no? Yes! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruno Frisch Posted January 26, 2007 Share #25 Posted January 26, 2007 .... The best shot with the mentioned lens can be taken at any aperture setting, it can be totally out of focus, the contrast be within any reckognizable range ..... However if you want the best possible technical shot best have a drum-scan made and adjust it until you have reached the optimum according to you'r own insight and quality values .... What is it you want to be, a photographer or a technocrat? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruno Frisch Posted January 26, 2007 Share #26 Posted January 26, 2007 Yes I find ND filters are essential. I don't want to be confined to f11 & f16 on a bright day so I use 3 stop grads to get back into my preferred working range. How else do you take advantage of the wide open lens characteristics of a Leica M without an ND on a camera limited to 1/1000th of a second ? Rolo Quite .... you take adcantage of the best lens in the world by adding another piece of glass to it..... which reduced it's quality to average levels, you must be aware of that. How about using lower ISO rate films, try Efke 25 rated at 12 that should do the trick, and if using colour, well optimum settings don't really matter in that case now do they.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted January 26, 2007 Share #27 Posted January 26, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Bruno, virtually every b&w photograph I've taken with my Leica glass has had a filter in front of it - usually yellow - to describe the resulting images as 'average' (from a technical point of view) is just plain wrong IMHO. Rolo, if you want to try a gratis roll of Efke 25 let me know, I'll bring one with me on Sunday. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolo Posted January 27, 2007 Share #28 Posted January 27, 2007 Quite .... you take adcantage of the best lens in the world by adding another piece of glass to it..... which reduced it's quality to average levels, you must be aware of that. How about using lower ISO rate films, try Efke 25 rated at 12 that should do the trick, Bruno, I use filters most of the time for effect or protection. It might well take the edge off the maximum capability, but I'm more interested in the resulting photograph than in the absolute optical quality. I've a number of images in the Photo Forum at the moment that were all made with filters. Perhaps you could advise whether these would have been substantially better in effect if I had not used a filter and relied solely on the finest optics. I've not used Efke 25 and hopefully will soon when I run out of Agfa 25. My practice with this film is to rate it at 12 iso and then add a one stop filter giving 6 iso. Look forward to your comments. Rolo Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted January 27, 2007 Share #29 Posted January 27, 2007 Guys, this idea that using a filter ruins the performance of a Leica lens? lets see some real world examples before you post such blatant statements. I really doubt you'll find any difference at all. Please, prove me wrong on this, I'd like to know. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ron110n Posted January 27, 2007 Share #30 Posted January 27, 2007 I already learned my lessons to argue about shooting at extreme condition w/o an ND. Here's a snap in summer right at the middle of the Mohave Desert in Nevada. This was the time when the only flight arrival that's available was 8 hrs. ahead of my appointment. I killed some time snapping at the desert. M7, f/16 @ 1/1000 sec., Apo Cron 75mm, Fuji Velvia. 1:30PM Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted January 27, 2007 Share #31 Posted January 27, 2007 Lovely shot Ron. The colours! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob_x2004 Posted January 27, 2007 Share #32 Posted January 27, 2007 Guys, this idea that using a filter ruins the performance of a Leica lens? James I used to be a filter in as soon as the lens comes out of the box guy. A stint in the tropics during monsoon cured me of it. Filter just fogged over, whilst sans filter didnt fog. I figured if I had payed as much for the lenses as I had they ought to be able to handle the conditions so I bit the bullet. I believe Leicas lenses and coatings are pretty good and can handle cleaning no worries so...I dont worry no more. Only filters I use now is yellow orange red and green when b&w dictates, and by the look of it I might have to find some 25iso or an ND. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ron110n Posted January 27, 2007 Share #33 Posted January 27, 2007 Thanks James, My friends said the same but I guess I'm the only one who didn't like the image. Here's worst and same location and no ND. These rocks are slippery and I got my jeans all red after slipping. M7 @ f/11 & 1/750 sec., lux 35 asph, Fuji Velvia 100, maybe about 12:00 PM I was at aperture priority that's why it's 1/750 sec. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jc_braconi Posted January 29, 2007 Share #34 Posted January 29, 2007 I personally trust in Erwin Puts tests and stats about. at least it works for me & travel with the leica book 7th ed by Hove where a digest of test is printed for any lenses. cheers jc Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wparsonsgisnet Posted January 29, 2007 Share #35 Posted January 29, 2007 I noticed recently that @ f16, my 24mm lens does not look sharp with the M8. I have to experiment with all my lenses, but the M8 doesn't like the 24mm closed down this much. If my other lenses are ok, I'll have the lens looked at. I am using 486 filters on my lenses. Perhaps one of the optical gurus here can shed some light (sorry, I'll try not to do it again) on the circle of confusion stuff, the M8, and f16. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wizard Posted January 30, 2007 Share #36 Posted January 30, 2007 Bill, why would you want to use your 24mm at f16 on an M8? With the M8's shutter speeds ranging to 1/8000s, there should not be any need to do so, contrary to film M's where one is stuck with 1/1000s as the fastest speed. With a 24mm lens, the opening at f16 is already very small, and you are thus likely to encounter diffraction effects which do spoil the achieveable image quality to some extent, as you have noticed yourself. Cheers, Andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
svenning Posted January 30, 2007 Share #37 Posted January 30, 2007 Dear Annibale Greco, Keep your F-stop @ 5.6 - and you will achieve super-pictures (!) All the best - Svenning, Denmark. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest flatfour Posted January 31, 2007 Share #38 Posted January 31, 2007 Unless i deliberately wish to have a blurred background I always use shutter priority to remove any possibility of camera shake. However I have found that on almost every camera I have had that f5.6 guarantees a sharp image. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wparsonsgisnet Posted January 31, 2007 Share #39 Posted January 31, 2007 Bill, why would you want to use your 24mm at f16 on an M8? With a 24mm lens, the opening at f16 is already very small, and you are thus likely to encounter diffraction effects which do spoil the achieveable image quality to some extent, as you have noticed yourself. Cheers, Andy Well, I didn't tell you everything. At the time I was shooting flash, so I could only get to 1/250. Yup, diffraction effects. I will be checking to see if this happens on the M8 with my other lenses, but I was hoping one of the optics gurus here would know that the 1.33 factor, etc, all conspire to defeat me at f16. Regards, Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.