ho_co Posted March 25, 2011 Share #21 Posted March 25, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) They may be, Pete. No objection. Didn't mean to hornswoggle. You're right, I don't know whether the sign parts on the right are overexposed; and I guess in digital, there's no such thing as "less overexposed." The effect is worse on the left than on the right, but the pattern is the same. Overexposure certainly highlights the problem in part due to digital effects. But I think in this case, it just highlights something in the lens design. I have no problem with the overexposure contention. But the smearing is symmetrical on left and right sides. I said above that I don't have any special insight, and that this is just opinion. I didn't mean to set it up as a counter-proposal to yours, but as a possible additional point for consideration. IMHO, if it were simply overexposure and bleeding, the smearing should extend about equally to both sides of the overexposed sections. Since the pattern seems symmetrical around the lens axis, I think the effect stems partially from the lens, probably from coma. It's not a defective lens that needs repair; it's just a superseded design. Taking care not to overexpose is always important, particularly with digital; this lens may benefit more from proper exposure than others. Tua already thanked you for your enlightenment in regard to exposure; you've solved his problem. Perhaps I shouldn't have stepped in with another idea after the fact. I certainly didn't mean to confuse or annoy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 25, 2011 Posted March 25, 2011 Hi ho_co, Take a look here Leica M8 and Summicron 35mm 2.0 IV. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
farnz Posted March 25, 2011 Share #22 Posted March 25, 2011 Howard, my apologies if I sounded like I was irritated; I wasn't, I was genuinely curious. You, of course, have every right to express an opinion that differs with mine and I graciously accept your reasoned argument. Perhaps it is coma in this instance but I recall similar blooming in M8 pictures with a 50 Summilux asph, which is so well corrected that I wouldn't expect coma to be visible. What's clear to me is that there is evidence of classic overspill into neighbouring pixels but as you point out it may be worsened by the older lens design's inherent coma. Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted March 25, 2011 Share #23 Posted March 25, 2011 Thanks, Pete. I got a bit defensive because your post reminded me that I had got myself off track. Now if someone could shoot some Christmas tree lights with the 35/2 IV and M8, we could see whether the lens or I am comatose. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted March 26, 2011 Share #24 Posted March 26, 2011 There is some coma at f/2 of course as with 35/1.4 and 40/2 from same period. I would expect it farther from the center though. Easy to ckeck if you have some blinds around you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted March 26, 2011 Share #25 Posted March 26, 2011 No tripod here so don't take this as a distorsion test please but it shows coma in the 1rst pic (35/2 IV) compared to the Summicron-M 50/2 from same period (2nd pic). No M8 sorry, Epson R-D1 (1.5x crop factor). 3rd pic is the Summicron-C 40/2. 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 Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/146893-leica-m8-and-summicron-35mm-20-iv/?do=findComment&comment=1625958'>More sharing options...
ho_co Posted March 26, 2011 Share #26 Posted March 26, 2011 lct, I think that demonstrates my point. (Or let me say it demonstrates what I wanted to say, since I wasn't as clear as I had hoped. ) Overexposure will increase the visibility of the effect, both on film and (for additional reasons) in digital. Thanks for taking the time to test it. What's the subject? A slatted roof? Looks like a great test pattern! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted March 26, 2011 Share #27 Posted March 26, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) A mere roller shutter. The OP just reduced exposure in PP and there is no problem any more. So let's say blooming plus a bit of coma if you wish. 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 Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/146893-leica-m8-and-summicron-35mm-20-iv/?do=findComment&comment=1626377'>More sharing options...
tuanvo1982 Posted March 27, 2011 Author Share #28 Posted March 27, 2011 Yesterday, I took all picture with -2/3EV. The problem didn't come to me again. Thank everyone very much. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tuanvo1982 Posted March 27, 2011 Author Share #29 Posted March 27, 2011 any difference if you adjust -2/3EV in the Photoshop RAW or Capture One.... and in Camera when you take picture? IMO, I think yes, because the M8 produces pictures at 16bits then they are compressed to 8bits RAW. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
farnz Posted March 27, 2011 Share #30 Posted March 27, 2011 any difference if you adjust -2/3EV in the Photoshop RAW or Capture One.... and in Camera when you take picture? IMO, I think yes, because the M8 produces pictures at 16bits then they are compressed to 8bits RAW. Yes, partly for the reason that you mention but also because if you don't record the (highlight) detail in the camera then you can't adjust it in the raw processing software because it doesn't exist. Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philinflash Posted March 28, 2011 Share #31 Posted March 28, 2011 I have had the same problem with the same lens plus ruinous flare from bright light sources just out of the image frame. Call it bloom or flare or something else but there it is. I do not know what filter you are expecting but I have not found the UV-cut filter to be of any use in this regard, nor did I expect any help. The only thing I was able to do to minimize off-image flare was to fashion a lens hood with a substantially reduced aperature. Otherwise, I try to shoot around this problem now that I know it is there or adjust in post as a last resort. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted March 28, 2011 Share #32 Posted March 28, 2011 Remember that it is a lens from the seventees. Flare wise the Summilux 35 from same period was worst by far. Both of them have a character that more modern and aseptic lenses cannot approach though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tuanvo1982 Posted March 28, 2011 Author Share #33 Posted March 28, 2011 Remember that it is a lens from the seventees. Flare wise the Summilux 35 from same period was worst by far. Both of them have a character that more modern and aseptic lenses cannot approach though. what is the character? I am quite curious. Thanks Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted March 28, 2011 Share #34 Posted March 28, 2011 You know it as the "king of bokeh" i guess which is true in most circumstances but the Summilux 35/1.4 pre-asph is no slouch either from this viewpoint. Otherwise the 35/2 IV is a Mandler lens which will match perfectly little gems like Elmarit 21/2.8, Elmarit 28/2.8, Summicron 50/2 with tab, Summilux 50/1.4 pre-asph, Summilux 75/1.4, Elmarit and Tele-Emarit 90/2.8, Elmarit 135/2.8, Tele-Elmar 135/4 as well as R lenses from the same period. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.