wda Posted August 21, 2011 Share #21 Posted August 21, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Not all old lenses misbehave when working with a digital rangefinder camera. This afternoon I was shooting some harvesting scenes with my M9, 90 Elmarit-M and old 135mm lenses. All performed impeccably despite the Elmar's age (1960s) and no recent calibration. In contrast, a younger 135mm Tele-Elmar has been with Leica since June for recalibration. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted August 21, 2011 Posted August 21, 2011 Hi wda, Take a look here Infinity Focusing/rangefinder accuracy (merged). I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
FlashGordonPhotography Posted August 21, 2011 Share #22 Posted August 21, 2011 My M9 was out when I got it. It's certainly very frustrating, but I'm exceptionally grateful to this forum where I discovered a) it wasn't me and how to fix the problem. However, I don't think it's necessarily a calibration problem. Since I calibrated my M9 for infinity and minimum distance I have had to adjust the infinity focus once since then. I presume this was simply from the rangefinder getting knocked around during use and transport. I actually have a 2mm Allen key in my bag now in case it happens again. So it may be a case of the stock getting a rough time in transport to the dealers. I must say that it would do Leica some good to have the importers and distributors more able to check each body prior to sending out to the dealers. I certainly had the same feeling of disappointment when first using my new camera. And it was only a week or so later after finding how to calibrate the RF that I saw something special. I would think many wouldn't do that and just return or sell off the camera, and tahrs a shame. Gordon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted August 21, 2011 Share #23 Posted August 21, 2011 [...]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....... So submit a resume, samples, your citizenship documents and post a bond to cover your f*ckups, and an address where we can find you when you screw up. You must realize that many focus errors are human error. Want to be responsible for that? Good luck. Perhaps US TV can make a reality TV show of your venture, however I think it would look like a loop of incompetent persons vs the 'expert'. Not very interesting. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted August 22, 2011 Share #24 Posted August 22, 2011 Ahem... Let's not get too ad hominem, gentlemen. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidbaddley Posted August 22, 2011 Share #25 Posted August 22, 2011 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. It can make a difference, since a slight error that would be hidden by the greater depth of field at f2 might still be apparent at f1.4. Maybe they should be using a spot-on Noctilux (or the other you've mentioned) for calibration. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted August 22, 2011 Share #26 Posted August 22, 2011 I don't know about Leica, but I do know Will van Manen uses some huge magnifier for adjusting, making the actual lens quite irrelevant. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom0511 Posted August 22, 2011 Share #27 Posted August 22, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) I have been in the same mood as you and I agree that for some reason the Leica M products seem to not allways been checked for the tollerances needed. IHowever I can only encourage you to send your body together with your most important and fast lenses to Leica for calibration. They did a very good job on my camera and lenses. I assume the M-system to be quite difficult to calibrate (specially some lenses) but once they work they are just sooo good. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bocaburger Posted August 22, 2011 Share #28 Posted August 22, 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 Interestingly I have the exact experience with five Leica LTM and four rangefinder-coupled CV LTM lenses (although all my M adaptors are OEM Leitz). That said, only 3 of my dozen M lenses were not spot-on once I corrected the factory's misadjustment of the rangefinder arm-sweep gain. Those lenses are an early-80s 50 Summilux, a Canadian 11819 "tabbed" 50 Summicron, and an early-70s 135 Tele-Elmar. The Summicron was fixed by an independent repair guy, I milled the 135 myself, and the 50 Summilux is so close to OK I'm still hemming and hawing whether to send it or not. According to the repair guy, it's luck of the draw with lenses made before digital. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdriceman Posted August 22, 2011 Share #29 Posted August 22, 2011 This is an interesting thread... my new 35 Summicron had a back-focus issue from day 1. I sent it in to New Jersey and they took care of it quickly and painlessly. My Summarit 50 was spot on from the day it was new. My 25 year old Tele-Elmarit 90 is also spot on. Even my Zeiss 50mm f/1.5 Sonnar is spot on wide open although it has an almost imperceptible shift as I stop down (a known characteristic of this lens). I do wonder if Leica should be calibrating their lenses better from the factory.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dabow Posted August 22, 2011 Share #30 Posted August 22, 2011 May as well add myself to this. My Noct .95 and 35mm Summilux ASPH are spot on. The new 75mm Cron I picked up the other day is off, and by quite a bit. Having to now send my gear back to Leica just to have this sorted is a huge pain. Not happy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted August 22, 2011 Share #31 Posted August 22, 2011 Just send off the lens, nothing else, they do not need the camera to adjust it. If you are in a hurry, let Will van Manen do it, it is not expensive. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted August 22, 2011 Share #32 Posted August 22, 2011 So submit a resume, samples, your citizenship documents and post a bond to cover your f*ckups, and an address where we can find you when you screw up. You must realize that many focus errors are human error. Want to be responsible for that? Good luck. Perhaps US TV can make a reality TV show of your venture, however I think it would look like a loop of incompetent persons vs the 'expert'. Not very interesting. ??? I would hardly call this an attractive job opportunity........ I am certainly not volunteering... I meant LEICA should be employing a real human being to do real world testing of both lenses and rangefinder calibration rather than relying on gizmos and gadgets.... At the moment the user seems to be the most accurate QC employed by Leica.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dabow Posted August 22, 2011 Share #33 Posted August 22, 2011 Just send off the lens, nothing else, they do not need the camera to adjust it. If you are in a hurry, let Will van Manen do it, it is not expensive. Noted. The latter suggestion is more convenient for me. Thanks Jaap. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted August 22, 2011 Share #34 Posted August 22, 2011 I meant LEICA should be employing a real human being to do real world testing of both lenses and rangefinder calibration rather than relying on gizmos and gadgets.... I think you'll find that real humans operate the gizmos and gadgets... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bocaburger Posted August 23, 2011 Share #35 Posted August 23, 2011 Nikon had a nightmare with this very problem and had to finally address it with the fine focus feature on the latest DSLR's. In the menu you dial a plus or minus value in and then assign it to a particular lens - each time the lens is mounted on that body then the adjustment is taken into account. Prior to this being added it was very common for the camera to "perfectly" focus the lens but for the image to be soft due to front or back focus. I don't understand how that's a solution for a lens that front-focuses. It will be unsharp with a subject at infinity unless the lens' helix can travel farther than the infinity mark. That's typically only the case with some super telephoto lenses. on balance I think that Leica do a great job with just the mechanical/optical rangefinder. I politely disagree. Given their decades-long experience with rangefinders, given today's technology and instrumentation, given their low-volume labor-intensive assembly process which they tout in part to justify the stratospheric pricing, I would think that of all things, 100% of the rangefinders should be perfectly calibrated when the cameras leave the factory. A point in fact, the close-range adjustment is secured by a very strong locking screw and is not subject to drift as a result of transit vibration or any reasonable shock that could propagate through the packaging. I fully understand that no QC can pick up on electronic components with latent defects, and don't expect Leica to produce miracles. The rangefinder adjustment is a different story. My 50mm 1.4 is a bit off wide open but I just focus it and then manually back focus by rotating then ring towards infinity by about 1mm and then the image is perfect. It's good you have that option. Others who count on being able to focus as quickly as humanly possible so as to capture fleeting moments, might not. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted August 23, 2011 Share #36 Posted August 23, 2011 But it may involve a bit of tweaking - I had few problems, but it does happen. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bocaburger Posted August 23, 2011 Share #37 Posted August 23, 2011 Equally a plus setting can also be used for a lens that is focusing in front of the intended plane of focus. This Nikon stuff is off-topic so I'll keep it brief. If lens is front-focusing, it means the AF needs to be "taught" to set the lens a bit closer to the sensor plane than it "thinks" it should. But when the lens is at it's infinity stop, the lens' optical cell can't be moved any closer to the sensor plane. Similarly, a lens that is back-focusing needs to be racked out a bit further than the AF thinks it should...an impossibility if the lens it at it's furthest extension. I'm sure the Nikon system works beautifully in all other circumstances, but it can't possibly overcome those physical limitations unless the system has the capability of moving the sensor. Do you know if that's what it does? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick in CO Posted August 23, 2011 Share #38 Posted August 23, 2011 It is for all of the reasons stated above that Linhof would custom cut a cam, with the lens serial number inscribed, for each of the lenses sold for its rangefinder cameras. Read Erwin Put's column about manufacturing tolerances and its consequences. Most lenses for any camera system will be fine, but try enough lenses and you will certainly find some that front or back focus. This causes a lot of internet chatter about "bad" lenses that others users swear by and is why Canon & Nikon provided the fine focus adjustment. Set up your camera on a tripod and focus on a target, preferably a USAF or other test pattern. If you don not get a reasonable result, try moving the focus slightly forward or back and see if it improves. Basically, if you like the lens enough, send it to Leica or another competent lens repairer and get it properly calibrated. Or, try another lens. My 25 & 35 ZM Biogons, 75 Summarit and 50 Summitar (with a sm->M adapter calibrated by Leica for a 50 Summicron) all work fine with my M9. A 50 f1.5 Nokton needed adjustment. That's life, no other camera system, other than a ground glass focusing view camera, is any different. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erik Gunst Lund Posted August 23, 2011 Share #39 Posted August 23, 2011 This Nikon stuff is off-topic so I'll keep it brief. If lens is front-focusing, it means the AF needs to be "taught" to set the lens a bit closer to the sensor plane than it "thinks" it should. But when the lens is at it's infinity stop, the lens' optical cell can't be moved any closer to the sensor plane. Similarly, a lens that is back-focusing needs to be racked out a bit further than the AF thinks it should...an impossibility if the lens it at it's furthest extension. I'm sure the Nikon system works beautifully in all other circumstances, but it can't possibly overcome those physical limitations unless the system has the capability of moving the sensor. Do you know if that's what it does? The AF lenses doesent do AF focus right to the near limit of the focus throw. It's always stated as two near limits. Also the tele lenses focus beyond infinity, on wide and std FL this is not relevant... If I may; do ask on NikonGear.com instead of here... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bocaburger Posted August 24, 2011 Share #40 Posted August 24, 2011 The AF lenses doesent do AF focus right to the near limit of the focus throw. My Nikons all did AF right to the limits. Could even hear the lenses bang into the stops. That was up to the F5, when I switched to Canon. If Nikons don't AF to the near limit now, I wouldn't know. Also the tele lenses focus beyond infinity, on wide and std FL this is not relevant... Not relevant unless the micro adjuster needs to focus the lens past infinity so a subject at infinity is sharp. That was my point. If I may; do ask on NikonGear.com instead of here... Agreed. I suspect there I would at least get a sensible answer. If you read my previous post, I acknowledged that this discussion is off-topic, although it is tangential to the topic, so there was no need to spank 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.