Tim Ashley M(240) Review

[tashley]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

yes but it's buried in another post. Thanks Rick for the link in another thread!

 

Surprised he hasn't found any of the Zeiss primes satisfying on the D800E. I find my 21mm Zeiss ZF.2 quite remarkable. The RX1 is a very nice camera I picked one up in a trade and the sensor lens combo is quite remarkable. Probably the best 35mm f/2 setup one can currently get. AF is a bit slow in the dark but faster than the Fuji XE1 I tried. Image quality on all these is outstanding. I find myself liking my M9/MM combo unless I need to shoot high ISO color shots

 

Hiya,

 

Actually I reviewed that lens in depth on the D800E here and concluded that it is a bit tricky, not quite sharp enough to the corners and edges and getting a bit long in the tooth for a 36mp sensor. It is also, however, gorgeous, has great micro contrast and a really nice look! But if you want 'sharp to the edges' then either the RX-1 or the cheap as hell Samyang 14mm F2.8 are better, if not strictly comparable in terms of focal length. All, of course, IMHO....

[tashley]

Tim, thank you for a very thoughtful review full of useful information for shooters and without the burden of too much technical detail. I really like your compositions very much... Hmm, the corners of your 18mm shots look awfully good to me (a lens I love); the images are a bit less than FF, right? It looks like you do not shoot 24 much, but I would be surprised if you found the 24 Elmar less than totally satisfying (given that you appreciate its wider sibling). My comment relates to your disappointment with wide angles, and I presume sensitivity to the frustrations of field curvature.

 

I also write to kibitz with you on a couple of points-- I love your conclusion that the M240 offers the opportunity to use Leica M glass (surely the best, IMHO) without the usual Leica body handicap. This is so true. I often wonder how the organizational hierarchy plays out in Solms... the lens group under Peter Karbe probably has their choice of lagers at the cafeteria, while the body people get water?

 

You write about getting back to your beloved M lenses. Give the 50 AA a shot too. My hope is that this incredible lens foretells the direction of the Leica lens group to surpass the challenge of higher and higher resolution sensors. So Leica bodies will again lag Leica lenses. It is hard to understand why a group that can engineer such intriguing designs as the fancy wide-angle lens shades on newer Leica M lenses can make such a glaring and limiting error as the front button/exposure compensation design. Maybe the lens engineers and body engineers do really sit in separate areas in the Solms cafeteria and tradition prohibits them from engaging in product roundtables?

 

I look forward to your further review of the M240.

 

Peter

 

LOL on so many counts...it must be like having a really handsome brother who is good at sport and goes to business school.

 

Regarding the corners on the 18mm - some of the shots are pretty much full frame, some have lens corrections and some don't but I think that the M-240 might be squeezing more resolution from the edges, a bit.

 

I tend to want good rectilinearity in images, so, because wides are very very sensitive to camera angle, I end up cropping and straightening (and even sometimes perspective correction) files from the 18 more than I do files from other lenses. But I have now noticed that the 'extra' field of view given in the M240 versus what shows in the EVF approximates quite well to the amount that gets chopped off in lens distortion correcting the output, though it is overkill for the other lenses I have.

[markowich]

here is an 18mm SEM shot on the M9 (from one of my previous posts). all the lines should be straight. leica said the lens is not faulty....

peter

 

 

 

LOL on so many counts...it must be like having a really handsome brother who is good at sport and goes to business school.

 

Regarding the corners on the 18mm - some of the shots are pretty much full frame, some have lens corrections and some don't but I think that the M-240 might be squeezing more resolution from the edges, a bit.

 

I tend to want good rectilinearity in images, so, because wides are very very sensitive to camera angle, I end up cropping and straightening (and even sometimes perspective correction) files from the 18 more than I do files from other lenses. But I have now noticed that the 'extra' field of view given in the M240 versus what shows in the EVF approximates quite well to the amount that gets chopped off in lens distortion correcting the output, though it is overkill for the other lenses I have.

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!

[rirakuma]

here is an 18mm SEM shot on the M9 (from one of my previous posts). all the lines should be straight. leica said the lens is not faulty....

peter

 

wow that distortion is horrible ....

[Rick]

Peter -

 

I remember when you posted that a couple years back. That was the lens with mustache distortion which can't really be removed in PP. Leica technical paper shows pretty uniform pincushion distortion of about 2% for that lens which would be easy to remove in PP, not that terrible mustache stuff you show in that picture. Regardless that Leica said it was normal, did you ever try a different copy? It would be interesting to see if it is just your copy.

[markowich]

no, i did not try another copy after herr daniel himself had convinced me that the lens was ok. apparently they tested it and found it to be ......leica-perfect.

meanwhile i habe bought the 21mm SEM and it does very well distorsion-wise (and in general as well).

peter

 

 

Peter -

 

I remember when you posted that a couple years back. That was the lens with mustache distortion which can't really be removed in PP. Leica technical paper shows pretty uniform pincushion distortion of about 2% for that lens which would be easy to remove in PP, not that terrible mustache stuff you show in that picture. Regardless that Leica said it was normal, did you ever try a different copy? It would be interesting to see if it is just your copy.

[macjonny1]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

 

Hiya' date='

 

Actually I reviewed that lens in depth on the D800E here and concluded that it is a bit tricky, not quite sharp enough to the corners and edges and getting a bit long in the tooth for a 36mp sensor. It is also, however, gorgeous, has great micro contrast and a really nice look! But if you want 'sharp to the edges' then either the RX-1 or the cheap as hell Samyang 14mm F2.8 are better, if not strictly comparable in terms of focal length. All, of course, IMHO....

 

Wow thanks for the link Tim!

[tashley]

here is an 18mm SEM shot on the M9 (from one of my previous posts). all the lines should be straight. leica said the lens is not faulty....

peter

 

That looks like a combination of slightly not being exactly levelled to the target (which is almost impossible to achieve with a lens this wide) and moustache distortion. Have you tried correcting it with the profile built into LR 4.4?

[markowich]

That looks like a combination of slightly not being exactly levelled to the target (which is almost impossible to achieve with a lens this wide) and moustache distortion. Have you tried correcting it with the profile built into LR 4.4?

 

yes, tried to run it through LR and PS. looks bad whatever you do with it. i doubt that leveling it perfectly would have saved the shot (or the lens, whichever way you look at it).

peter

[tashley]

Interesting because I don't think mine distorts that much ... Ad I have a Samyang 14mm f2.8 which is at leat s distorted 'naturally, and has no profile in LR but PTLens does an excellent job with it, so you might try that as part of your case with Leica?

[markowich]

Interesting because I don't think mine distorts that much ... Ad I have a Samyang 14mm f2.8 which is at leat s distorted 'naturally, and has no profile in LR but PTLens does an excellent job with it, so you might try that as part of your case with Leica?

 

hmmm, M-mount?

[tashley]

hmmm, M-mount?

No, the Samyang is Nikon mount, but PTLens does very nice corrections for a huge array of lenses.

[markowich]

No, the Samyang is Nikon mount, but PTLens does very nice corrections for a huge array of lenses.

 

get it thanks.

p

ps: hilarious that on the leica webpage 'architecture' was (or still is) mentioned as main area of application of the SEM 18mm---)))

[tashley]

get it thanks.

p

ps: hilarious that on the leica webpage 'architecture' was (or still is) mentioned as main area of application of the SEM 18mm---)))

 

Must be Zaha Hadid buildings

[rscheffler]

Peter -

 

I remember when you posted that a couple years back. That was the lens with mustache distortion which can't really be removed in PP. Leica technical paper shows pretty uniform pincushion distortion of about 2% for that lens which would be easy to remove in PP, not that terrible mustache stuff you show in that picture. Regardless that Leica said it was normal, did you ever try a different copy? It would be interesting to see if it is just your copy.

 

The Leica technical paper shows pincushion distortion of 2% until about the 15mm point, where it then curves back towards zero. In other words: mustache distortion. This is also visualized in the 'Effective Distortion' graph.

[markowich]

The Leica technical paper shows pincushion distortion of 2% until about the 15mm point, where it then curves back towards zero. In other words: mustache distortion. This is also visualized in the 'Effective Distortion' graph.

 

thanks for pointing this out, i have seen it as well (after i bought the lens, stupid me). on the graphs it looked much better than in real life though. as tim says, good for zaha hadid buildings, detrimental for any other architecture shooting.

anyway, i did not want to hijack the thread which is on tim's excellent review. i am totally d'accord with his findings.

i hope that the beta testers take a more critical stance at the next leica release. but maybe they already had to work hard to bring the M240 up to the (insert adjective of your choice) level where it is now.

i am discussing with myself whether to buy the MM or sell all my leica M stuff.

peter

ps: in another thread i compared leica to porsche, but the comparison is flawed. porsche can use the audi/VW platform. if leica could use nikon parts, design and engineering then they would certainly turn out better camera bodies.

[Rick]

The Leica technical paper shows pincushion distortion of 2% until about the 15mm point, where it then curves back towards zero. In other words: mustache distortion. This is also visualized in the 'Effective Distortion' graph.

 

You're right... went back and looked at the Leica graph again. Sorry for the misinformation.

[ptomsu]

After reading all this great review and the other opinions and shooting a D800E over one year now and trying many other systems like Fuji I am still looking forward to receive my M.

 

I think Leica covered almost all of the issues I had with the M8 and the M9 and finally there is CMOS which improved IQ a lot, especially in areas where the other digital Ms could not be used so far. ETTR used wisely will result in pretty good images from the M as is also the case with D800E - I am meanwhile almost every time using ETTR.

 

Also the improved RF will hopefully work with all my calibrated M lenses, especially the fast ones :-)

 

Having said that I believe we are only short time away from other vendors, mainly Sony, to bring an interchangeable lens RXyz system, which with integrated EVF (hopefully) and Zeiss lenses will outperform finally Leica M and Fuji X. Will the resulting images have the cahracter of Leica M? Not sure and obviously everyone will have to decide separately, but I think it will set another big milestone in modern digital photography.

[tashley]

After reading all this great review and the other opinions and shooting a D800E over one year now and trying many other systems like Fuji I am still looking forward to receive my M.

 

I think Leica covered almost all of the issues I had with the M8 and the M9 and finally there is CMOS which improved IQ a lot, especially in areas where the other digital Ms could not be used so far. ETTR used wisely will result in pretty good images from the M as is also the case with D800E - I am meanwhile almost every time using ETTR.

 

Also the improved RF will hopefully work with all my calibrated M lenses, especially the fast ones :-)

 

Having said that I believe we are only short time away from other vendors, mainly Sony, to bring an interchangeable lens RXyz system, which with integrated EVF (hopefully) and Zeiss lenses will outperform finally Leica M and Fuji X. Will the resulting images have the cahracter of Leica M? Not sure and obviously everyone will have to decide separately, but I think it will set another big milestone in modern digital photography.

 

Thank you Peter. I think there's actually not a lot to stop people buying the M (apart from price!). They tend to hold their value reasonably well, especially whilst current, and MM aside the 240 is still the best way of using M glass. It is also pretty usable despite the quirks. The question for me, to be tested in my upcoming M 'system' reviews, is whether the M glass is as good as we think it is once sensor resolutions get to the 25mp class and possibly higher.

 

A word on ETTR. I am pretty familiar, as are you, with the math of it but I do have a feeling that some of these Sony sensors don't obey the rules as much as we think. I think that pushing exposure so far to the right as to just avoid clipping important areas, thereby creating a file that needs significant adjustment in RAW conversion to look like a JPEG of the scene would have looked if metered normally, might acutally lose some mid-tone detail. I haven't tried to prove this but I wonder if these chips and their associated in-camera processing are somehow re-allocating the bits of data across the tone curve. I intuitively feel that I get better results with both RX-1 and D800E in most normal lighting conditions if I "Expose With A Right Bias" (EWARB to coin a nasty acronym) rather than if I fully ETTR.

 

What do other people think?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[k-hawinkler]

Thank you Peter. I think there's actually not a lot to stop people buying the M (apart from price!). They tend to hold their value reasonably well, especially whilst current, and MM aside the 240 is still the best way of using M glass. It is also pretty usable despite the quirks. The question for me, to be tested in my upcoming M 'system' reviews, is whether the M glass is as good as we think it is once sensor resolutions get to the 25mp class and possibly higher.

 

A word on ETTR. I am pretty familiar, as are you, with the math of it but I do have a feeling that some of these Sony sensors don't obey the rules as much as we think. I think that pushing exposure so far to the right as to just avoid clipping important areas, thereby creating a file that needs significant adjustment in RAW conversion to look like a JPEG of the scene would have looked if metered normally, might acutally lose some mid-tone detail. I haven't tried to prove this but I wonder if these chips and their associated in-camera processing are somehow re-allocating the bits of data across the tone curve. I intuitively feel that I get better results with both RX-1 and D800E in most normal lighting conditions if I "Expose With A Right Bias" (EWARB to coin a nasty acronym) rather than if I fully ETTR.

 

What do other people think?

 

 

 

Hi Tim,

 

I agree. In addition to the M9 I have NEX-5N, NEX-7, and D800E.

There also is not much point applying ETTR to the M9 as one can easily recover 3 stops underexposure in base ISO but not clipped highlights.