hatu Posted September 3, 2013 Share #341 Posted September 3, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) You won't get the highest level of sharpness at f/16 because of diffraction..... I aggree: Why does sb. buy an APO50 and then closes the apperture to values that cause diffraction ?!?!!? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 3, 2013 Posted September 3, 2013 Hi hatu, Take a look here APO Summicron 50/2 ASPH: Central veiling flare / fogging. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Rick Posted September 3, 2013 Share #342 Posted September 3, 2013 I aggree: Why does sb. buy an APO50 and then closes the apperture to values that cause diffraction ?!?!!? To create depth of field? Or, why does sb buy an APO 50 and open the aperture to values that cause loss of contrast and sharpness?!?!! Or, are we creating or are we stroking? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
skuromis Posted September 3, 2013 Share #343 Posted September 3, 2013 I'm sorry for my statement, maybe it is just because I never took a picture with f11 or smaller, but a Leica M with a f2.0 stopped down to f16 sounds a bit like a Ferrari with caravan. It works, but I don't get it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted September 3, 2013 Share #344 Posted September 3, 2013 but a Leica M with a f2.0 stopped down to f16 sounds a bit like a Ferrari with caravan. It works, but I don't get it. I don't get what is hard to understand about why a photographer might, for compositional reasons, want to use f11 or f16. Is the photographer obliged to take the photo using what might be an inappropriately open aperture just because the lens can open up to f2? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
otto.f Posted September 3, 2013 Share #345 Posted September 3, 2013 I don't get what is hard to understand about why a photographer might, for compositional reasons, want to use f11 or f16. Is the photographer obliged to take the photo using what might be an inappropriately open aperture just because the lens can open up to f2? Yes of course you can. But I just don't get it that you want to add more contrast by stopping down beyond F8.0, where nearly all lenses are going down in contrast. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
skuromis Posted September 3, 2013 Share #346 Posted September 3, 2013 I don't get what is hard to understand about why a photographer might, for compositional reasons, want to use f11 or f16. Is the photographer obliged to take the photo using what might be an inappropriately open aperture just because the lens can open up to f2? Don't get me wrong, please. The artist may take pictures as he likes with the camera of his choice, no question here. Now coming back to mostly shoot f16 or something like this to create depth of field: From my point of view it is actually better to use a camera with a smaller sensor or lenses which are especially made for taking pictures with small apertures. Because lenses constructed for a wide open, big aperture won't be at their optimum at f16 or f22, never. The lens will simply perform bad. Yes it works with an M and an APO 50/2, but it wouldn't be the optimal choice for shooting all the time with such small aperture. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
algrove Posted September 4, 2013 Share #347 Posted September 4, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) It really depends on your artistic style wanted, your camera and your lens. Then further IMHO, it depends on how you will use the image-monitor, print. email, etc. Since I print and they are often landscapesIi would normally want everything in focus. I am not good enough yet to use bokeh in landscape images like I saw on a Noctilux thread. Now I have another goal to reach. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted September 4, 2013 Share #348 Posted September 4, 2013 Now coming back to mostly shoot f16 or something like this to create depth of field: From my point of view it is actually better to use a camera with a smaller sensor or lenses which are especially made for taking pictures with small apertures. Because lenses constructed for a wide open, big aperture won't be at their optimum at f16 or f22, never. It's a fair point regarding using cameras with a smaller sensor (and consequent greater apparent DOF for a given f-stop) but doesn't diffraction set in earlier with the small(er) sensor lenses? In other words, isn't some (or all) of what you gain by having a smaller sensor (and a shorter lens for an equivalent field of view) offset by having to use a wider aperture to avoid the 'dreaded' diffraction? My personal view is that a little bit of diffraction induced softness is a small price to pay for the greater perceived depth of field that may be required for a given composition. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
skuromis Posted September 4, 2013 Share #349 Posted September 4, 2013 I don't know, where the break even would be, though I think it depends more on the lens. Anyway, on a m4/3 with 25mm (=50mm on M9) you've got a DoF of 5.96 to 31.0 m, when using 2.8 and focus 10 m away. With 2.8 most lenses should work okay. On Leica M with 50 mm you'd need f 5.6 for the almost same effect. And I find 6 to 30m already quite a huge DoF. to play around: Depth of Field Table Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted September 4, 2013 Share #350 Posted September 4, 2013 From my point of view it is actually better to use a camera with a smaller sensor or lenses which are especially made for taking pictures with small apertures. Because lenses constructed for a wide open, big aperture won't be at their optimum at f16 or f22, never. The lens will simply perform bad. Yes it works with an M and an APO 50/2, but it wouldn't be the optimal choice for shooting all the time with such small aperture. I know from your statements here that you don't actually take and print pictures that are meant to be experienced for the joy of art. So, I can forgive you for believing that f16 actually looks "bad." Maybe, it seems that way for some, I will for sure concede, if you are talking about the theoretical. But, I believe that the Leica M lenses are designed to be used for all apertures. The liabilities and assets are to be balanced with your creative intention. Otherwise, we ignore the depth of the world in front of us. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
platypus Posted September 4, 2013 Share #351 Posted September 4, 2013 I know from your statements here that you don't actually take and print pictures that are meant to be experienced for the joy of art. So, I can forgive you for believing that f16 actually looks "bad." Maybe, it seems that way for some, I will for sure concede, if you are talking about the theoretical. But, I believe that the Leica M lenses are designed to be used for all apertures. The liabilities and assets are to be balanced with your creative intention. Otherwise, we ignore the depth of the world in front of us. Yes! Thank you! That is perfectly put. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
skuromis Posted September 5, 2013 Share #352 Posted September 5, 2013 But, I believe that the Leica M lenses are designed to be used for all apertures. The liabilities and assets are to be balanced with your creative intention. Otherwise, we ignore the depth of the world in front of us. Again, yes you can take shots at f16 & f22. My point was, that even from a Leica M lens, you cannot expect the gear to be working optimal at this aperture. That's no believe, it is actually measurable. (the central flare is not normal though) There might be cameras and lenses, giving you a similar effect at a more optimal level and without cutting your artist freedom. It is a bit like Gaugin would have painted the south sea girls with the same brush, Duerer used for his young hare. You choose. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted September 5, 2013 Share #353 Posted September 5, 2013 It is a bit like Gaugin would have painted the south sea girls with the same brush, Duerer used for his young hare.You choose. Again, I don't think you understand. I'm pretty sure Gauguin was less interested in which brush he was going to paint his prepubescent Polynesia girls with and was more interested in the experience. Duerer, on the other hand painted rabbits. You choose. What I'm saying is, give or take a line pair here or there, I'd rather enjoy the experience. You take the perfectly painted rabbits. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
algrove Posted September 6, 2013 Share #354 Posted September 6, 2013 prepubescent Polynesia girls Now that is a classic RickLeica phrase. Like Chicken Veiling Flare (CVF). My gosh what wine did you have tonight in London? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MediaFotografie Posted September 15, 2013 Share #355 Posted September 15, 2013 there's something new: Leica's CEO confirms flare issues with the APO Summicron 50mm f/2.0 Asph lens | Leica News & Rumors Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
algrove Posted September 15, 2013 Share #356 Posted September 15, 2013 Hey RickLeica did you read this? There's hope. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbl Posted September 15, 2013 Share #357 Posted September 15, 2013 Interesting. I wonder why the problem was not more systemic. It seems some copies have the issue, some don't. Anyone find a reliable way to trigger it? I just got mine this week. Just shoot into the sun and see? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
algrove Posted September 15, 2013 Share #358 Posted September 15, 2013 Sort of like a darkish center with a bright border all the way around as much as possible. Not necessarily into the sun from what I understand. Keep us informed, please. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
helged Posted September 15, 2013 Share #359 Posted September 15, 2013 Although (still) very happy with my copy, I may send it in for a check... Anyone find a reliable way to trigger it? I just got mine this week. Just shoot into the sun and see? Based on other reports in this thread you will see whether you have an ill-behaved copy after a few shots; there will be a significant loss of contrast near the center of the image. It's not needed (nor advised) to direct the lens towards the sun - it's sufficient to have some sort of highlights in/near the scene. A light cloudy sky covering the upper 1/3-1/4 of the image and darkish trees below should do the job. Another check that has been proposed is to put a black paper onto a window, let the paper cover 1/3-1/2 half of the image, and shoot from inside out. With live view on M240 you easily see flaring or loss of contrast (if present); with the other digital or film Leica you may play a little. It's a fantastic lens - but it should certainly not flare in non-flare-prone situations... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill W Posted September 15, 2013 Share #360 Posted September 15, 2013 The article does not say much. You wonder what they did not do on some and did on others that was the cause. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.