M 240 and wide aperture lenses.

[Peter H]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Does the M 240 represent the end of wide aperture photography?

.................................

 

Not for me.

 

I'm finding it easier to get accurate focus with the M than with the M9 or M6.

[algrove]

When I have needed to shoot the 21/1.4 wide open due to low light and maxed out both low shutter speed for my hands and high ISO for my liking, I have had hardly any issues hitting focus on this lens. Have used the 24/1.4 and had similar experiences.

[250swb]

Ultimately, wide aperture lenses are meant to be shot wide open. I've never had a problem. Maybe you should check this or that?

 

Thank you, despite your feeble attempt to be sarcastic it makes my point, an 'I'm all right Jack' sense of non-comradeship instead of encouragment to manage expectations and work upwards from there.

 

Steve

[250swb]

When I have needed to shoot the 21/1.4 wide open due to low light and maxed out both low shutter speed for my hands and high ISO for my liking, I have had hardly any issues hitting focus on this lens. Have used the 24/1.4 and had similar experiences.

 

And you don't think the extreme DOF of a 21mm and a 24mm lenses might have helped?

 

 

Steve

[Luke_Miller]

I have no lenses faster than my Summicrons, so no experience with wide aperture lenses on my M9 and Monochrom.

 

With my Nikons I shoot with a manual focus 50 f1.2, and autofocus 50 f1.4 and 85 f1.4 lenses. I find it extremely challenging to nail focus on close subjects when shooting these lenses wide open. The depth of field on a close subject is so shallow that the slightest movement on my part is enough to pull the focus off its intended target. I find that I can't stand perfectly still. When I release the shutter I am often not in the exact same position that I was in when I focused. I'm not referring to "focus and re-compose". If I can brace myself against a solid object I can do much better. Of course a tripod solves the issue. I found that with my autofocus lenses I can get a much higher in-focus percentage by using continuous autofocus. Even though the subject is static the continuous autofocus corrects for MY motion.

[Etruscello]

Given my experience, and in my humble opinion, there never need be a wide-open-fast-lens focus problem on any digital M, if the RF is kept calibrated and one uses a shutter speed of 1/FL. Near perfect calibration is not difficult to maintain if you own a 2mm Allen wrench and learn how to do it yourself. (See the various threads.)

[algrove]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

And you don't think the extreme DOF of a 21mm and a 24mm lenses might have helped?

 

 

Steve

 

Of course. That's why I like using them.

[dugby]

My most demanding lens is likely the 35 Lux ASPH, pre-FLE. I had some trouble at 1.4, but solved the problem completely by getting a Walter Rx eyepiece about five months ago.

 

At age 51 I don't have to wear glasses driving or reading, but I clearly must correct my astigmatism to focus a Leica properly.

 

Thankyou for your response.

 

I too am starting to encounter the focussing issue of my two FLE Lux's (35mm and 50mm) on my 240 as per this thread. On good days, when my eyes are behaving, I can nail the RF focus.

 

But on other days, I've tried to use my specs whilst M240-RF focussing and have yet to find a optimal compromise as to whether or not I should use my specs (Which have been recently tested with my optomerist)

 

So I had a look at the Walter website.

 

I'm new to wearing prescription specs (for reading only). So I don't fully understand; if I get a Walter made up to my "reading prescription" as to whether this will improve my M240-RF-focussing ability of objects that are in distance, well beyond what my prescription is specified for.

[jaapv]

Walter will detirmine the correct dioptre strength from the data supplied by you - so if you send him your reading prescription, he will recalculate to 2/3 meters.

[algrove]

I have bought Walter eyepieces and they correct well for astigmatism as well as eyesight correction.

 

I now do not use my Walters as I prefer just wearing glasses instead with the M240.

[Herr Barnack]

Does the M 240 represent the end of wide aperture photography?

After taking lot of pictures at f1.4 on Summilux lenses and at f2 on Summicron ones, with very poor and unsatisfying results, I am now forced to use f2.8 on the first and at least f4 on the latter if I want my pictures to be as sharp as I want.

At these apertures, the M 240 is amazingly sharp (sometimes even a little bit too much, according with my 82 yo vain father).

But if used at f1.4 or f2, the focus is soft and sometimes it's even off. This often makes these expensive lenses, which are designed for this purpose, to be useless at their maximum aperture.

Is there any other member in the forum dealing with this frustration?

How do you fix this problem?

I have had some challenges with my Noctilux f/1 in this regard. My take on this issue is that the M240 is brutally honest and is able to reveal the technical weaknesses in lenses to a degree that far exceeds any previous M camera.

 

That having been said, it is also possible that the M240 and a lens that has a maximum aperture of f/1.4 or larger could perhaps benefit from being calibrated to each ther in order to deliver the maximum available in focusing accuracy.

 

The answer to the question, "Does the M 240 represent the end of wide aperture photography?" is a resounding no IMHO.

[algrove]

Agree, since the M240 expands using those SWA or WA lenses with greater ease.

[hoppyman]

With some trepidation about reopening previous discussions

There are several aspects to this.

 

dioptre correction shifts the plane where the viewfinder image appears to be. The camera standard of -0.5 dioptre means that the image appears to be 2 metres in front of you. That is a virtual image.

 

viewfinder magnifiers increase the size of the whole viewfinder image (but you see less of it of course).

 

Astigmatism effectively means that you don't see round points as round but rather as mis-shaped or with tails for example (think comets).

 

As our eyes age they lose some of their ability to accommodate shifting to where the apparent image is and that is affected by light levels and tiredness too. However the theoretical calculation from where your vision at 2 metres is corrected by your spectacles is not necessarily the best choice for a dioptre correction eyepiece. This gets hard to understand despite the attempts to help me do so by optometrists I have asked at least.

 

The Leica dioptre correction eyepieces and magnifiers are spherical and cannot correct for astigmatism.

 

I don't have any knowledge of the Walter products. If those are made to correct for astigmatism too they represent quite a different thing.

 

All of that is before we consider how your camera RF is calibrated and your lenses! It's a wonder we can ever take a sharp photo.

 

I can comment that the current processes used for the M (typ 240) are the most accurate ever and my camera and Summilux 50 ASPH came back from Solms (after impact damage) adjusted to perfection.

[algrove]

Hoppyman

 

Yes, Walter eyepieces correct for astigmatism. You send them your prescription and it comes back you with your eyepiece inserted into the Walter eyepiece. Pretty nifty idea in fact.

[flyalf]

Does the M 240 represent the end of wide aperture photography?

After taking lot of pictures at f1.4 on Summilux lenses and at f2 on Summicron ones, with very poor and unsatisfying results, I am now forced to use f2.8 on the first and at least f4 on the latter if I want my pictures to be as sharp as I want.

At these apertures, the M 240 is amazingly sharp (sometimes even a little bit too much, according with my 82 yo vain father).

But if used at f1.4 or f2, the focus is soft and sometimes it's even off. This often makes these expensive lenses, which are designed for this purpose, to be useless at their maximum aperture.

Is there any other member in the forum dealing with this frustration?

How do you fix this problem?

 

 

Hi,

 

In my limited experience the Lux and Cron in combination with M gives exelent results wide open. The sharpness will of course only aply to the plane of focus.

 

With all due respect; you should check the focus accuracy by use of tripod and then compare without tripod. In this way you can determine iwhere the possible error is.

 

Best of luck!

[epand56]

With all due respect; you should check the focus accuracy by use of tripod and then compare without tripod. In this way you can determine iwhere the possible error is.

 

 

Alf, I did it and had almost the same result.

My lenses were all perfectly spot on on my M8, with an unbelievably sharp focus at widest apertures.

On the M, they are all off focus at widest apertures and become razor sharp when stepping down to 2.8 with the exception of the Elmarit 90/2.8 that is completely off.

I think I will have to have all my lenses adjusted by Leica on my new camera.

I will use them as they are during the summer and will send the whole kit for adjustment in September. I never had problems nailing focus before, and my RF is perfectly aligned.

It is just a matter of the lenses adjusted on the RF or vice-versa.

[wlaidlaw]

I am having no problems with my 35 ASPH Summilux on the M240 but with my 0.95 Noctilux, as soon as the ambient light drops even a little bit, I switch to using the EVF. I am in my late 60’s and obviously, my visual acuity, especially in low light, is not what it was. With its 24mp sensor, the M240 is going to be more critical on focus that cameras with lower pixel counts or than film. I do find that the M240 shows up camera shake worse than any previous M. I have to use probably 2 EV higher speed than I would on a film M. I also have ended up using the brilliant camera shake reducer on PS CC on quite a few shots. I suspect a future M will incorporate image stabilisation.

 

Wilson

[kdriceman]

Alf, I did it and had almost the same result.

 

My lenses were all perfectly spot on on my M8, with an unbelievably sharp focus at widest apertures.

 

On the M, they are all off focus at widest apertures and become razor sharp when stepping down to 2.8 with the exception of the Elmarit 90/2.8 that is completely off.

 

I think I will have to have all my lenses adjusted by Leica on my new camera.

 

I will use them as they are during the summer and will send the whole kit for adjustment in September. I never had problems nailing focus before, and my RF is perfectly aligned.

 

It is just a matter of the lenses adjusted on the RF or vice-versa.

 

 

You should be able to focus your lenses first using the rangefinder, then using Live View (of course on a tripod) to determine if the rangefinder is in need of adjustment.

 

Try it side by side with the same lens on the M8 and then compare M8, M240 rangefinder focus, M240 LV focus. I think to truly compare apples to apples you should even downrez and crop the M240 images to match the size and resolution of the M8 images.

[wlaidlaw]

I agree. The discrepancy between RF and EVF/Focus Peaking instantly showed up that the new Noctilux I got last December was out of adjustment. I was more than a little cross, as if I, a non-expert, could detect this in a few seconds, I was puzzled why the man who signed off on the inspection certificate could not have done likewise.

 

Wilson

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[jdlaing]

I agree. The discrepancy between RF and EVF/Focus Peaking instantly showed up that the new Noctilux I got last December was out of adjustment. I was more than a little cross, as if I, a non-expert, could detect this in a few seconds, I was puzzled why the man who signed off on the inspection certificate could not have done likewise.

 

Wilson

 

Did you pick up the lens at the factory in Solms?