Needs a recommendation for a good lens for testing

[Jamie Roberts]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

As for eyeball photography, the M8 with fast lenses has *more* DOF because of the 1.33 crop.

 

I found it remarkably easy to focus at f1.0 with a Noctilux on mine--close up or far away. There is way more than millimetres of field there even just past close focus.

 

On a full frame sensor / film camera, this would be an entirely different experience. After having shot 4GB of f1.0 shots, at night--some guessed from the hip, no less--I'm pretty sure this is the case

 

So when I'm shooting portraits more normally, with fast lenses, I can actually open them up to ensure a faster shutter without worrying about razor-thin DOF at f2 or 2.8. I'd have to be shooting at f4 or higher to get the same effect with my 1ds2 or 5d (which is why I still know pros who prefer the 1.3 or even 1.6 crop for use with a lens like the Canon 85 1.2L)

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[tashley]

 

So enough of the "it's your eyes and/or technique" advice. A bit patronising to some of us.

 

I absolutely second that Charles. I am constantly amazed at how easily a certain forum member assumes that the rest of us have little theory and less technique. I don't mind, beyond minor irritation, for my own sake but helping Jen is the aim here...

 

Tim

[tashley]

Tim--forgive my brevity please!

 

I didn't mean to mis-characterize what you believe, honestly, and I think we're in total agreement about what Jennifer should do (check the body and lens) and not do (don't send the lens into Leica US, mainly because they're apparently pretty busy )

 

So Jennifer--you need to get this stuff checked by someone who knows M8 bodies and lenses.

 

Tim--the gist of our dilemma is that you have two Leica 35s that won't focus properly on either M8 at f4, and out by several feet at that point. No? Others have had problems with the 35 too (more the Lux than the Cron), and everyone reports a focus shift as you stop down, though to date I haven't heard many people say the focus point actually goes out as the field shifts.

 

And I (and others) have a 35 Lux (used, mine is chrome, for whatever that's worth) that don't exhibit this behaviour at all; the focal center is sharp through wide open to diffraction limit.

 

As for tests, Tim--I can't remember honestly what I was going to test at this point, since I've been too busy taking pictures (for fun, no less). But remind me again--I thought what I needed to do was increase the angle on my test shots?

 

And all of this is said with affectionate perplexity as well. If we both drank enough, the sharpness of our shots would equal out no matter what lens we used

 

There was nothing to forgive! I was grinning throughout... but I would love to see you repeat the test you did in which you said the tripod/bouncy carpet/ricocheting toddler combo might have not helped! I do understand that you're busy though...

 

I was very struck by how Mark originally thought his lens didn't 'do it' but when he tested carefully it did. Sergio's lens seemed to be perfect, which is how your sounds, but a re-shot 'ruler at 1 metre with tripod at 1.4 thru 11' test would be fascinating. THEN we can get drunk!

 

;0

 

Tim

[charlesphoto99]

Jaap,

 

My post was actually leveled at "the old man of whatever it is this time." Yes, focusing technique is a good place to start, but it's not really that difficult even for beginners, esp on a non-moving target and/or the camera placed on a tripod. One will know right away. My local dealer (Glazers in Seattle though not who I bought the camera from) has said that he's had a half dozen plus go back to Leica for rangefinder adjustments - he can't really afford to "replace" that many. The DOA's out of the box of course he did replace immediately (he said two so far). I think many other dealers are in the same boat.

[tashley]

Jaap,

 

My post was actually leveled at "the old man of whatever it is this time." Yes, focusing technique is a good place to start, but it's not really that difficult even for beginners, esp on a non-moving target and/or the camera placed on a tripod. One will know right away. My local dealer (Glazers in Seattle though not who I bought the camera from) has said that he's had a half dozen plus go back to Leica for rangefinder adjustments - he can't really afford to "replace" that many. The DOA's out of the box of course he did replace immediately (he said two so far). I think many other dealers are in the same boat.

 

 

My dealer is getting around 1/3rd misadjusted RF's out of all he sells... and I know some of the people involved well enough to know that they can tell when a RF is obviously out of whack.

 

The Old Man Who Can Focus and Test A Lens

 

;-)

[glenerrolrd]

I've been shooting M's professionally for over 12 years now - .58 bodies mostly at that. My last book of photos was featured in "Leicaview" next to Eliot Erwitt's. I know how to focus - and I also knew that my M8 was off right away. It's been a known issue. Not sure why - probably Leica does but isn't telling. Maybe their jig was out for a period of time or they hired somebody new or any number of explanations. But it is happening. I opted to give adjustment a go myself but wouldn't recommend to others. I figured I want to give the camera a work out first to se if death syndrome, etc would happen - then I'd be without for weeks. So far only a near death yesterday - removing battery reset the problem.

 

Yes, some people new to rangefinders might be having a hard time. But in my opinion, M's are easier than slr's to focus, particuarly in low light and on a stationary subject. Way easier than my Nikon D200 which I only have manual focus lenses for and find the wider ones impossible. I'll usually rent AF if need be because of that.

 

So enough of the "it's your eyes and/or technique" advice. A bit patronising to some of us.

Charles This thread is about a recommendation for a good lens for testing. Maybe I am wrong but I assumed that this included a sort of "Best Practices" on how to test your M8/lens for focus accuracy. One of the methods recommended on this forum and others has been to use Tim Jackson Test Chart ( focustestchart.com) .....while this is designed to be a test of close focusing (one meter) ..it has the advantage of providing a measured error . Using this method at one meter my M8/50mm summicron backfocuses 10cm..for example. I have found this method when coupled with a test of infinity ( a building about 1/2 mile away or the Moon , star etc) to provide the foundation for reasonable testing. Two things have bothered me about this testing methodology .....(1) how accurate do you expect the rangefinder to be ...this isn t off by 2 ft at 4 meter stuff..its less than 20mm at 4 ft . I can get it down to about 10mm-15mm with just the infinity adjustment. Now without some standard way of measuring accuracy and acceptable norms ...we are doomed to endless bickering over ...what "spot on" means . (2) when I set up the testing I found nailing the focus on a line of text smaller than this line of type (looks less than 1mm) that my eyesight was challenged . By most standards I have very good eyesight..never had glasses ..always better than 20/20 ...slight trend towards reading glasses 1.5 for my computer. I used the 1.25 magnifier and after testing settled on a 1.0 diopter. My first few tests were all over the place (off by 20mm or more) ...and traced to my focus error. Once I got the hang of it and I could hit the same point of focus consistently. (3) this is all academic if you can not deliver an accurate focal point in real life situations... if you are a working pro and use M s daily .. you will of course develop skill level that makes this second nature. My 3rd and final set of tests where all real life targets .. the eye of a doll at 4 ft in low light, the books on a shelf , the line of dominos each 5mm apart . What I learned from this was ....understanding and correcting the limts of your eyesight and your technique can be an important and sometimes prerequisites to self testing of your M8/lens focus accuracy. ..............Now I have three specific questions (1) how accurate is your M8 ...are all your lens within 10mm at 4ft (2) how accurate do they need to be to meet your standards (3) do you know of a better testing methodology or have suggestions for improvement.

[charlesphoto99]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi Glenn,

 

I've got dueling posts going here (see 35 backfocus thread) so I'm gonna try and be brief (and then get some work done!).

 

I think it is essential that the near far adjustment also be made in relationship to the allen key infinity adjustment. And then the two danced together at near, middle and far. The infinity adjustment is just that, and if not correlated with the near/far (the screw and elliptical washer underneath at the end of the rf arm) then you will only get good focus at one or the other (infinity or closest).

 

I would say I'm within 5mm up close on a tripod/5-10mm off - gets harder to focus at farther distances esp depending on the subject. I use a correction diopter/ tried the 1.25x mag but found it clumsy as I switch lenses a lot. The 90 APO smacks you in the face when it's sharp (one tends to yell "snap!") so I used that as my test lens to calibrate the rangefinder - also the depth of field is more finite so can fine tune easier.

 

Here's my results:

 

90mm right on near to infinity

 

24mm right on throughout

 

35 asph summilux perfect at f1.4 starts to backfocus at around f4. Apparantly a problem with this lens - see other thread.

 

28 Summicron: unsharp racked at infinity so I know there's a problem from past repair with this lens (our pals at Solms thank you). I never noticed a problem with M7 so repair is now out of warranty and It's off to DAG. Uniformly unsharp all the way through but worse at infinity (I think inherent depth of fild makes up for closer unsharpness).

 

50mm pre-asph summilux (2nd version): backfocuses wide open about an inch plus throughout the range so I know it's the lens. Off to DAG it goes.

 

21mm pre-asph: good throughout but once again depth of field would make up for any small disparity.

 

135mm tele-elmar last version: sharp throughout though the smallest movement wide open can throw focus off.

 

Of course the insane sharpness of the M8 is both a blessing and a curse. I think without auto-focus we will be sometimes forced to add filters etc to make the image look more filmlike in order to mask mis-focus, shake, etc - things that we all took for granted when shooting film. The small mechanical linkage disparities between different lenses and the film rangefinders were probably more masked by the qualities of film than digital, esp with it's narrowed circle of confusion due to the crop factor. The M8 isn't a medium format camera nor does it have high tech auto-focus though we may all want it to be both those things.

 

I went on a trip to Japan this past fall and took my M7 and a Rollei 2.8 Tlr. It was only after getting my film back did I realise the Rollei had major focusing issues - and this is a camera that's trotted around the world with me. Somewhere something went off - that last bumpy jeep ride? A too hard throw into the overhead bin? Who knows. It's not a common problem with them - usually it's parrallelism (ie sharpness off edge to edge). But in this case ie the focus guide on the knob said 10 ft and the camera was actually at 12 when measured! Ruined a lot of nice shots to say the least.

 

So this stuff does happen and it is important. I work in a lot of low light so expect the rangefinder to be close. The shot I've attached is with the 90 APO at f2, TMZ rated at 6400 with the M7 (scanned with Imacon). No focusing problem here.

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!

[ho_co]

Jennifer--

Thanks for the disappointing information that your nearest dealer is folding; but he was apparently not that well informed about Leica anyway.

 

You should check the M8 manual and be sure you are holding the camera correctly. Since you've worked with the camera this long, I'm sure you are, but not holding the M properly can lead to getting fingers in the way of attempting to focus.

 

You ask for a good choice of lens to test the camera. All lenses should be good, but unless you get a lens *known* to be good, no lens can be used to test the camera.

 

One way to do that is to find someone else shooting Leica and ask them if you might borrow the lens they're using. (Obviously they're happy with it, else they wouldn't be using it.) At the same time, of course, you loan them your lens and let them use it. It's a three-minute switch. You'll see how their lens works, and they'll tell you either "Wow, your lens is sharp as a tack!" or "Something's wrong with the shots I made with that lens."

 

The best way to find someone else shooting Leica in your neighborhood is to go to a street fair where everyone with a camera turns up. You'll see them if they're shooting Leica, and likely they'll see you if you're shooting M8. It's normally easy to strike up a conversation with another Leica user.

 

Of course, that won't work if you're the only Leica user within 75 miles.

 

In that case, if you're thinking of traveling, consider contacting someone on the forum in the city you're going to be visiting; buy them lunch in exchange for their help.

 

Failing direct contact with another Leica user, the only other way I know is to send or take the equipment to a competent repair shop which knows Leica and has the equipment to deal with lenses.

 

If you ship the camera and Summilux to Leica, they will check them and send you an estimate. There are only three possible outcomes:

 

1) The lens is fine but the camera needs adjustment. Upshot: warranty, no charge; everything fixed.

 

2) The body is fine but the lens needs adjustment. Upshot: You now know where the problem is, and can decide whether you want to pay to have the lens repaired.

 

3) Both camera and lens need adjustment. Upshot: Camera is done at no charge and returned to you working; you choose whether you want to pay the repair charge for the lens.

 

There's a lot of noise on the thread, but also a lot of good recommendations on how to check yourself and your equipment. I think we all need to remember that our theories are not important to you; we need to give answers that will help get you working with the camera.

 

FWIW, it has always been my experience that the Leica M is much easier to focus than any SLR in manual mode. You should not be having this problem.

 

With respect and wishing you good luck,

--HC

[tashley]

Hi Glenn,

 

I've got dueling posts going here (see 35 backfocus thread) so I'm gonna try and be brief (and then get some work done!).

 

I think it is essential that the near far adjustment also be made in relationship to the allen key infinity adjustment. And then the two danced together at near, middle and far. The infinity adjustment is just that, and if not correlated with the near/far (the screw and elliptical washer underneath at the end of the rf arm) then you will only get good focus at one or the other (infinity or closest).

 

I would say I'm within 5mm up close on a tripod/5-10mm off - gets harder to focus at farther distances esp depending on the subject. I use a correction diopter/ tried the 1.25x mag but found it clumsy as I switch lenses a lot. The 90 APO smacks you in the face when it's sharp (one tends to yell "snap!") so I used that as my test lens to calibrate the rangefinder - also the depth of field is more finite so can fine tune easier.

 

Here's my results:

 

90mm right on near to infinity

 

24mm right on throughout

 

35 asph summilux perfect at f1.4 starts to backfocus at around f4. Apparantly a problem with this lens - see other thread.

 

28 Summicron: unsharp racked at infinity so I know there's a problem from past repair with this lens (our pals at Solms thank you). I never noticed a problem with M7 so repair is now out of warranty and It's off to DAG. Uniformly unsharp all the way through but worse at infinity (I think inherent depth of fild makes up for closer unsharpness).

 

50mm pre-asph summilux (2nd version): backfocuses wide open about an inch plus throughout the range so I know it's the lens. Off to DAG it goes.

 

21mm pre-asph: good throughout but once again depth of field would make up for any small disparity.

 

135mm tele-elmar last version: sharp throughout though the smallest movement wide open can throw focus off.

 

Of course the insane sharpness of the M8 is both a blessing and a curse. I think without auto-focus we will be sometimes forced to add filters etc to make the image look more filmlike in order to mask mis-focus, shake, etc - things that we all took for granted when shooting film. The small mechanical linkage disparities between different lenses and the film rangefinders were probably more masked by the qualities of film than digital, esp with it's narrowed circle of confusion due to the crop factor. The M8 isn't a medium format camera nor does it have high tech auto-focus though we may all want it to be both those things.

 

I went on a trip to Japan this past fall and took my M7 and a Rollei 2.8 Tlr. It was only after getting my film back did I realise the Rollei had major focusing issues - and this is a camera that's trotted around the world with me. Somewhere something went off - that last bumpy jeep ride? A too hard throw into the overhead bin? Who knows. It's not a common problem with them - usually it's parrallelism (ie sharpness off edge to edge). But in this case ie the focus guide on the knob said 10 ft and the camera was actually at 12 when measured! Ruined a lot of nice shots to say the least.

 

So this stuff does happen and it is important. I work in a lot of low light so expect the rangefinder to be close. The shot I've attached is with the 90 APO at f2, TMZ rated at 6400 with the M7 (scanned with Imacon). No focusing problem here.

 

Charles, thank you for that intelligent, well-informed and thoughtful post. A lot of information to digest there but I think the upshot is: test and know your lenses.

 

We are on the extreme frontier of pickiness here but that is the sort of fine definition of quality we're after, because we know it to be possible.

 

Best

 

Tim

 

ps GREAT shot... and seems to be well focussed to say the least ;-)

[glenerrolrd]

Charles Thanks for you reply...I think having appropriate expectations are half the problem. The threads on rangefinder adjustments are pretty clear that you have to be either lucky or willing to accept a compromise ..to get away with only adjusting infinity. I made significant improvement with my M8 but its still not spot on . Roger

[charlesphoto99]

Hi Roger, Tim, etc,

 

Well, after all that looks like my camera's going back anyway due to just now noticed line of deadpixels visible only at higher iso's. In a very short time I've really come to love/hate this camera. Rangefinder problems, a near death the other day, filters, coding, blah, blah, and now this. Sometimes I look at my much better made (imo) M7 and think - I sure could run a lot of film through you for $5k! But the files are impressive from the M8 and clients want/need digital so would much prefer to shoot with M8 then my D200 (which I'll hang onto until I'm sure I have a body that's gonna work). I also like the higher shutter speeds and not having to scan.

 

Yeah, that pic of the jazz player was with the .58 body as well. I love the way M's focus, and I also use Mamiya 6/7 cameras which have great viewfinders, even better than the M imo.

 

Charles