Jump to content

Leica M8 and Summicron 35mm 2.0 IV


tuanvo1982

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I took a picture(Pic1) with M8 and 35mm. I think f=2 or 2.8 not quite sure. I don't use any filter . The centre is very sharp and clear, but looking at the words in the top of the picture :

Muffins, Cappuchino, Pastries (the crop is in Pic2)

 

Do you know what is going on there? Is this problem with lens or camera ? Could you please explain to me.

 

I will try again when I receive UV/IR filter from the Leica.

 

Thank you

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

When you use a filter, those magenta highlights will change to blue highlights. I don't know what the technical term for it is, but when shooting with fast lenses wide-open in sunlight, this is a common artifact with highlights. Not sure if there is a physically fix or not, I tend to correct it in PP.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a bit strange... but I am far from sure that it can be identified as a lens' issue... letters seems to be very luminous, and also depicted on a highly reflective surface... I think anyway it should be better to make some tests in a "controlled" environment. I saw similar problems with my (old) Summilux 35 but they were intrinsic of the lens when much opened... and very reproducible in tests... on a Summicron V4 I wouldn't expect such issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I use a M8 with a 35 Summicron IV with the Leica filter all of the time without ever having seen this issue. I'm sure what you are seeing will go away when you use the filter. It is probably the paint or dye in the lettering reacting to a high IR mixed light source (window + spot light).

 

This is an excellent lens and camera combo. It's the "just right" mix of sharpness and Leica Glow.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway, I hope the filter will sort this issues out. I also realise that It will happen again when we have light from top or multi-lights. I found another picture here. You can see and compare the issue of "Pumpkin'" and "WHSmith". Pumpkin has a strong light from the top rather than WHSmith, so the issue is clearer then WHSmith.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Never got this with my 35/2 IV so far. I wondered if it was an IR issue at first (magenta in your first pic) but given that it is the same with both your M8 and M9 i tend to think of a lens problem as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Never got this with my 35/2 IV so far. I wondered if it was an IR issue at first (magenta in your first pic) but given that it is the same with both your M8 and M9 i tend to think of a lens problem as well.

 

Leica man asks me to try with filter. if the problem doesn't get sorted out then I need to post the lens to get free serviced because it still under warranty.

Thank everyone for your helps

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's 'blooming'. This happens where there is a bright light source or reflection in the frame but outside the metering zone so it overexposes those pixels on the sensor and cause them to 'overflow' into neighbouring pixels. The sam happens with night shots where there street lights creep into the frame.

 

In the first photo the worst blooming is where the sunlight through the window is reflecting off the white text. I note that you didn't use any exposure compensation but a number of M8 users do so that this blooming is less of a problem. If you deliberately underexpose by 1/3 or 2/3 stop then you can adjust the exposure in post-production and your highlights won't be clipped so there will be data to use.

 

Pete.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's 'blooming'. This happens where there is a bright light source or reflection in the frame but outside the metering zone so it overexposes those pixels on the sensor and cause them to 'overflow' into neighbouring pixels. The sam happens with night shots where there street lights creep into the frame.

 

In the first photo the worst blooming is where the sunlight through the window is reflecting off the white text. I note that you didn't use any exposure compensation but a number of M8 users do so that this blooming is less of a problem. If you deliberately underexpose by 1/3 or 2/3 stop then you can adjust the exposure in post-production and your highlights won't be clipped so there will be data to use.

 

Pete.

 

I used photoshop to reduce exposure of the two RAW pictures then here we go...

You are absolutely Pete... the problem is over-exposure. My lens has no problem at all.

Thank you very much everyone.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is my personal opinion, with no special insight: I think what you're seeing is just the lens' own performance. If I'm right, a filter will not help much if at all.

 

I sold my 35 Summicron version IV because I found it soft wide open. But I wish now I still had it, because it's far and away the best of the pre-aspheric 35's.

 

Your results may be showing coma or a combination of standard aberrations. When you're shooting something flat like that, stop down to f/5.6 or so, and the problem will disappear.

 

Try this: Find a menu signboard outside a restaurant; fill the frame with the sign, focus on the center, and shoot at f/2. See if you don't find that all four corners get a little smudgy like this.

 

But here's the problem: You're shooting test shots, not real-world pictures. Normally when you're shooting at full aperture, the center of interest will be nearer the center of the frame, and the edges will be of little interest photographically.

 

Suggestion: Read Erwin Puts' description of your lens in the Leica publication "Leica M-Lenses - Their Soul and Secrets" by downloading the pdf http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.leica-camera.com%2Fassets%2Ffile%2Fdownload.php%3Ffilename%3Dfile_1750.pdf&ei=CS-MTdO8EsSC0QHxuqycCw&usg=AFQjCNFAf_Jj5k566_pnD0ZS71VUEGxlTg. Discussion of the version IV lens is on p 34; MTFs are on p 41.

 

I think the reason people don't normally notice the edge softness of this lens is that they don't shoot flat walls with this type of detail near the corners. The lens is excellent for its day, but it's an older design. See the last paragraph on p 34 of the Puts pdf.

 

That's only my opinion. I had used my 35 Summicron IV for a long time before I decided it was soft. In fact, I was happy with it until I shot some walls with framed paintings at f/2 and suddenly decided it "wasn't sharp enough." It had been "sharp enough" for twenty years until I took several shots that convinced me to sell it. And now I wish I hadn't done so.

 

But I may be wrong about your sample; I may even have been wrong about my own. :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Howard, i don't find the Summicron-M 35/2 IV that soft at f/2 personally. A bit soft for sure but not significantly more than the Summicron-M 50/2 from same period or our favorite ;) Summicron-C 40/2.

Otherwise i've never noticed artefacts like the OP's so far but blooming car explain it (i guess) as i underexpose when i shoot high contrast subjects.

As for charts, depend on how they've been taken, by whom, on new or beaten lenses and other variables so i tend to read them with a pinch of salt.

Here two charts from 1982 on Summicrons 35/2 IV (left) and 50/2 (right).

FWIW.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

lct, I generally agree on every point.

 

My point is simply, "know before you go."

 

I never saw such results from my 35 Summicron either, but never shot it on digital.

 

I use Leica's and Erwin's MTF plots because of their consistency. They're also more detailed than some others. ;)

 

I suggested that the OP see whether the artifacts go away when stopping down and that he make a test on a printed subject to see whether the defect is symmetrical.

 

But just take a look at the Puts/Leica MTF chart of this highly regarded lens. It's a real surprise. (Remember, with the M8, the corners are at about 16 mm.)

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are absolutely Pete... the problem is over-exposure. My lens has no problem at all....

Tua, take a look at the letters in the words "Pastries" and "Pretzels" on the right side of the sign. They show exactly the same smearing, but because they're not overexposed, the eye is less likely to notice it. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tua, take a look at the letters in the words "Pastries" and "Pretzels" on the right side of the sign. They show exactly the same smearing, but because they're not overexposed, the eye is less likely to notice it. :)

I'm hornswoggled, Howard. Why do you think that they're not overexposed?:confused: Virtually all of the light-coloured reflecting surfaces look overexposed: for example, the angled strut, the side of the tall cabinet, the white bag to the right of the door, the wall and roof of the door seen through the window, (unsurprisingly) the down spots above the lettering in question, the side of the cabinet inside the kiosk ...

 

Pete.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...