chrismuc Posted October 13, 2013 Share #41 Posted October 13, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) Thx Stephen, but does this mean, the OP applied the in camera correction (via coded lens) and the white wall still shows the cast? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 13, 2013 Posted October 13, 2013 Hi chrismuc, Take a look here M240 and some wideangles. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
sfuertesb Posted October 14, 2013 Share #42 Posted October 14, 2013 Anyone try the CZ 15 2.8 for the M-mount? Does it have the same kinds of the edge rendition problems on an M240? Thinking about picking one up second-hand. Coded as 16mm TriElmar it shows slight magenta cast on borders. I've installed FW 2.xxx yesterday but not checked yet. It's easily solved inside LR5 with 2 gratuated filter or adjustment brush adding some Green Tint (magenta is blue + red, same as lack of green). I've got some presets and cast dissapears in a blink. Never could Cornerfix work ok after several whitewall trials and errors. I think that, inside LR5, corrections doesn't affect my workflow. About CZ 15 2.8 ZM: -Wonderful rendering -Amazing flare resistant -VERY sharp but in corners, solved from f8-f11 and above -VERY good distortion corrected (rest is done on LR5 where there's a preset for it) -Heavy and big. -Solid feel and construction, soft and precise focus and aperture rings. -Expensive (worth every single euro / dollar spent on it) -Center Filter to avoid vigneting (I tend to use another filter since some photos are "moody" with some vigneting...but there is it in case of architectural, interiors or another kind of target when it's needed). Let me know it you may need further information or DNGs / presets before purchasing. Coding it as TriElmar 16mm reduces cast. I'll check with new Firmware 2.xxx. Maybe cast is completely gone? I don't think so, but... Thanks Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
01af Posted October 14, 2013 Share #43 Posted October 14, 2013 Coded as Tri-Elmar-M 16 mm it shows slight magenta cast on borders. The Tri-Elmar is a particularly bad choice. Better pick any other wide-angle lens profile. Elmarit-M 21 mm is a good choice for most M non-Leica super-wides. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfuertesb Posted October 14, 2013 Share #44 Posted October 14, 2013 The Tri-Elmar is a particularly bad choice. Better pick any other wide-angle lens profile. Elmarit-M 21 mm is a good choice for most M non-Leica super-wides. I was thinking I was doing something wrong since every wide and super wide angle photo was coded at 21mm . Thank you for your advice. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arka Posted October 15, 2013 Share #45 Posted October 15, 2013 Coded as 16mm TriElmar it shows slight magenta cast on borders. I've installed FW 2.xxx yesterday but not checked yet. It's easily solved inside LR5 with 2 gratuated filter or adjustment brush adding some Green Tint (magenta is blue + red, same as lack of green). I've got some presets and cast dissapears in a blink. Never could Cornerfix work ok after several whitewall trials and errors. I think that, inside LR5, corrections doesn't affect my workflow. About CZ 15 2.8 ZM: -Wonderful rendering -Amazing flare resistant -VERY sharp but in corners, solved from f8-f11 and above -VERY good distortion corrected (rest is done on LR5 where there's a preset for it) -Heavy and big. -Solid feel and construction, soft and precise focus and aperture rings. -Expensive (worth every single euro / dollar spent on it) -Center Filter to avoid vigneting (I tend to use another filter since some photos are "moody" with some vigneting...but there is it in case of architectural, interiors or another kind of target when it's needed). Let me know it you may need further information or DNGs / presets before purchasing. Coding it as TriElmar 16mm reduces cast. I'll check with new Firmware 2.xxx. Maybe cast is completely gone? I don't think so, but... Thanks Many thanks for the feedback! I would love to see some DNGs. I am contemplating purchasing it as an ultra wide-angle landscape lens for daylight landscapes (f/8-11), and night-time landscapes. I am currently using a Nikon D800 and 14-24 for that purpose, but am intrigued by having a lens of similar quality and focal length on my M. Need the f/2.8 for the nightscape work, and I've noticed that even the Nikon mount version of this lens vignettes substantially at f/2.8. Do you use an accessory finder for it? I can use the the M's LV, but that's a pain in the neck for nightscapes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted October 16, 2013 Share #46 Posted October 16, 2013 My take on the CV15/f4.5 with the new FW is that the red edges are still there and distinctly more prominent than the same lens on the M9. I am coding the lens as a 21/2.8. The new FW is an improvement and the red edges now appear symmetrical rather than exhibiting Italian flag. However sadly still not usable without a correction template in C1. I know this is not too difficult but if you have a large batch of photographs where only the odd one is taken with the CV15 CV, it is a bit time consuming. The in camera lens profile on the M9 is sufficiently good not to need a correction template, unless you have a very pale sky. Wilson PS. I think I will sell my CV15 and get a Zeiss 18 Distagon. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
don daniel Posted October 16, 2013 Share #47 Posted October 16, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) Has anybody tried a ZM C-Biogon T 21mm F/4.5? This lens is so compact and has no distortion it would be a joy to use on a M. On a M9 there is a heavy colour cast. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrp Posted October 16, 2013 Share #48 Posted October 16, 2013 Hopefully within a couple of weeks, Italian flag will be an ex-problem, when the new FW arrives. I don't know how far the new firmward helps, but the new Sony full frame cameras seem to have sensors designed to obviate the need for such sticking plaster (in the same way that newer cameras don't need the UV/IR filters required by the M8). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted October 16, 2013 Share #49 Posted October 16, 2013 I don't know how far the new firmward helps, but the new Sony full frame cameras seem to have sensors designed to obviate the need for such sticking plaster (in the same way that newer cameras don't need the UV/IR filters required by the M8). The only full frame short focal distance Sony we have seen to date is the non-interchangeable lens RX1 with a fixed 35/2 lens, which is far from a stern test of lens to sensor compatibility. I certainly have seen no independent reviews as yet for the A7 and A7R full frame compact interchangeable lens cameras, so I don't think it is possible to say at the moment, to what extent Sony have solved the Italian flag issue for wide lenses with short exit pupil to sensor distances. My guess is that they may solve it in a similar fashion to other Zeiss solutions for RF ultra wide lenses, by using a retro focal design. These are not an issue on the M digital cameras either. Wilson Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfuertesb Posted October 16, 2013 Share #50 Posted October 16, 2013 The Tri-Elmar is a particularly bad choice. Better pick any other wide-angle lens profile. Elmarit-M 21 mm is a good choice for most M non-Leica super-wides. Hello again. Quick test with CZ 15 2.8 ZM and new firmware: -Coded (to compare with similar conditions on previous shots) as TriElmar 16, it shows LESS magenta cast. -Coded as 21 2.8, cast is not noticeable unless you full slide magenta saturation on LR5 (or any other software). I must remark that magenta cast has always been very subtle even with lens uncoded, increased on the side of the image where light was coming from. Nice improvement with new software, HUGE improvement coding as 21 2.8. Thank you all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfuertesb Posted October 16, 2013 Share #51 Posted October 16, 2013 Many thanks for the feedback! I would love to see some DNGs. I am contemplating purchasing it as an ultra wide-angle landscape lens for daylight landscapes (f/8-11), and night-time landscapes. I am currently using a Nikon D800 and 14-24 for that purpose, but am intrigued by having a lens of similar quality and focal length on my M. Need the f/2.8 for the nightscape work, and I've noticed that even the Nikon mount version of this lens vignettes substantially at f/2.8. Do you use an accessory finder for it? I can use the the M's LV, but that's a pain in the neck for nightscapes. Hello again. The lens vignettes without center filter. With filter on, you will lose light gathering (can't remember exact EV number) and you'll have about f4 vs 2.8 (with almost no vignette at all). If you don't want vignettes you'll lose light and maybe need a tripod at nights. I think every wide angle and super wide angle vignettes, at least you can use center filter on this if needed. Anyway, this lens is much smaller than nikon 14-24 and has half its weight. On M240 I may use Oly VF2, which is not very good, has HORRIBLE delay but is nice under the sun when camera screen LV isn't a choice. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
algrove Posted October 17, 2013 Share #52 Posted October 17, 2013 The only full frame short focal distance Sony we have seen to date is the non-interchangeable lens RX1 with a fixed 35/2 lens, which is far from a stern test of lens to sensor compatibility. I certainly have seen no independent reviews as yet for the A7 and A7R full frame compact interchangeable lens cameras, so I don't think it is possible to say at the moment, to what extent Sony have solved the Italian flag issue for wide lenses with short exit pupil to sensor distances. My guess is that they may solve it in a similar fashion to other Zeiss solutions for RF ultra wide lenses, by using a retro focal design. These are not an issue on the M digital cameras either. Wilson Wilson Not sure what you mean by "independent reviews as yet", but do note LL has a write up and on another thread there exists a video review using an M lens as well as other lenses. Trouble is that so far no RAW examples a la Sony. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted October 17, 2013 Share #53 Posted October 17, 2013 Lou, All that I found was introductory "first hands on" of pre-production models of the new Sony's and they were not capable of taking images. There is no ultra wide on the initial list of lenses, although it is said that the list of EF lenses will be greatly expanded in due course. If Sony have totally cured the Italian flag issue, I suspect it will be due to clever in camera processing, rather than a sensor solution. There is only so much you can do with a Bayer sensor and the far from apochromatic micro lenses. My guess is that the next clever solution we will see will be angled photo-receptor pits on the Bayer array. Wilson Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted October 17, 2013 Share #54 Posted October 17, 2013 Has anybody tried a ZM C-Biogon T 21mm F/4.5? This lens is so compact and has no distortion it would be a joy to use on a M. On a M9 there is a heavy colour cast. It is the same with the M240: heavy colour cast. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
don daniel Posted October 17, 2013 Share #55 Posted October 17, 2013 It is the same with the M240: heavy colour cast. Also with the new firmware a chosen profile? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gpwhite Posted October 19, 2013 Share #56 Posted October 19, 2013 I am slow to start reading this thread, so I apologize for a scattered set of comments. Both my 24 Elmar and 25 Biogon are fringe-free on the M240. I looked carefully after a PM request from a forum member who was struggling with their 25 Biogon (it is such a very lovely lens!), and I cannot find a fault with my gear. My 18 SEM, however, does show a red fringe on the bottom right corner. It is so pronounced in shadows that I plan now to step back a bit in order to crop (I shoot the 18 at either f/3.8 or 5.6 at smallest). Algrove's water shots are more than stunning. WOW ! Lou, do you have a couple of these 15 R lenses (apparently made by Zeiss to Leica spec's), or were all of those spectacular photos taken with the same lens, ? Your work is delightful. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
algrove Posted October 21, 2013 Share #57 Posted October 21, 2013 gpwhite Thanks for your encouragement. Funny thing was that these are the very first images I had ever processed in LR. I am getting 5 images printed 20x30 which was included in with the workshop price by Dale FL. No, I have but one 15/2.8 which I snagged on a whim-- nearly unused with all original boxes, papers, leather case, etc. I found this guy who had health issues and wanted to unload all his R lenses which numbered a dozen. I took the majority of them from him. He later sold his remaining R 1.4/50 and R 35/2 elsewhere. He also was selling his Modular R setup, but that was just too large for me. Every lens was ROM. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
algrove Posted October 21, 2013 Share #58 Posted October 21, 2013 Lou, All that I found was introductory "first hands on" of pre-production models of the new Sony's and they were not capable of taking images. There is no ultra wide on the initial list of lenses, although it is said that the list of EF lenses will be greatly expanded in due course. If Sony have totally cured the Italian flag issue, I suspect it will be due to clever in camera processing, rather than a sensor solution. There is only so much you can do with a Bayer sensor and the far from apochromatic micro lenses. My guess is that the next clever solution we will see will be angled photo-receptor pits on the Bayer array. Wilson Wilson I do recall that MR of LuLa uses the Tri-Elmar 16-18-21 so I assume he might have been talking about that lens as vignetting during his short test. Am I correct in thinking that the R lens throat will throw a way wider image than the a7R sensor so that any R lens vignetting might occur outside the a7R sensor area? Or is this just wishful thinking? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
algrove Posted October 21, 2013 Share #59 Posted October 21, 2013 I commented before when you posted this in the M240 photographs thread. These are spectacular photos. Do you know how the 15-R compares with the 16-WATE? Mark Sorry I missed your question. I just had some fairly serious organ surgery and my mind has not been so clear of late, not to mention eye. To your question, frankly, since getting the R 15/2.8, the WATE is collecting dust. On a long trip in May/June I decided to take the R15 and M SEM21. Based on Stephen's suggestion regrading the pricey ONA backpack, it is amazing how many Leica lenses it will accommodate--even snuck in a 70-180 with all my other stuff including Monochrom and 28-90 R and M. Second trip the WATE again collected dust. For European and other longer distance trips, the WATE is much more practical, but everywhere I go without the R15 I feel naked at some point and yearn to try it here and there. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkP Posted October 29, 2013 Share #60 Posted October 29, 2013 Thanks. Only just saw your post in this thread but we have of course been discussing this elsewhere. ps: I hope you're making a speedy recovery. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.