Jump to content

M lens performance on the SL


IkarusJohn

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

edwardkaraa, on 19 Nov 2015 - 04:05, said:

I have not tried the SL yet but my experience with other excellent EVF is that it is as inaccurate as with manual focusing on the ground glass of a DSLR. Manual focusing requires focusing aids, be it a rangefinder patch, or a microprism/split image on a focusing screen, or image magnification with an EVF. Failing to have that, AF is your friend in my opinion. That's why my main interest in the SL is AF lenses not M, which I can focus faster and more accurately on an M body.

Depends on the length of the lens. Long lenses do much better on  plain ground glass. I suspect that a good EVF is no different. Even the EVF2 is at its best on long glass.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Depends on the length of the lens. Long lenses do much better on  plain ground glass. I suspect that a good EVF is no different. Even the EVF2 is at its best on long glass.

That is my experience with all the EVF I have used so far. Wide angles are almost impossible to focus accurately without 10x magnification. I'm hoping the SL will be better due to the larger EVF size, but I won't be too disappointed if it isn't.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

My impression after shooting the SL with Leica M lenses is that it's generally very similar to focusing on ground glass (Matt screen) with a DSLR and judging depth of focus is even better than using aperture stop down and judging from the matt screen on a DSLR.

 

Lenses with a slim depth of focus in relation to the field of view are very easy to focus.

 

Lenses like 35mm 1,4 and 50mm 1.4 and 75mm 2.4 are very similar to focusing a Leica M9 via the contrast patch

 

The added possibility to zoom in to see the focus peaking makes it possible to see the depth of focus even for wide angle lenses like 24mm 3.8 quite impressive!

 

DSLR can't do this, even the Nikon Df witch has a matte screen quite good for MF, can compete with the SLs view finder.

If I use Live view on the rear display of the D3X and the Zacuto finder I can do the same of course...

Edited by Erik Gunst Lund
Link to post
Share on other sites

Some further ramblings;

 

I was really surprised by the high performance of this camera! I see no issues with the price compared to similar products; Top Pro cameras.

 

The diopter adjustment dial is smooth and,,, it just works.

 

Battery doesn't drop completely out when you tip the release leaver, you need to give it an extra small push to get it fully out, very well thought out.

 

Weather sealing is really cleverly designed, and the door for SD and connections are very well sealed and looks durable in use.

 

Full size HDMI for the video guys and standard screw thread flash sync plug.

 

This camera can do all the stuff I can think of... Except there is no AFS adapter for all of my Nikkors and I don't know if there will ever bee one...

I can only use MF via; Nikon F to Leica M-mount adapter on the 'Leica M Adapter T'

Anyway - I have decided not to buy it, I'll wait and see how the new Leica M will look like, I still love the simplicity of the Leica M system.

Novoflex also makes a Nikon F to Leica T mount adapter if you want to use your MF Nkon glass. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Regarding VR and or IBIS

[...]

Sure it can come in handy for some applications especially long lenses >300mm but it's not something I would recommend to have switched On all the time on wider/normal lenses.

 

As a long time user of Canon IS, and lately Sony IBIS, I strongly disagree.

Image stabilization is a new great technology, and people just need to learn how to use it properly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

,,,, and people just need to learn how to use it properly.

We can agree on that point! ;)

 

Maybe I was not clear, sorry about that; I can only state how it works or doesn't work for my work and what my customers like, the sharpness, look and feel in my images.

 

I know VR and IBIS is fantastik for some applications I just don't see it as a dealbreaker that the SL does't have IBIS...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, so I did the ruthless brick wall test. Nothing scientific, just handheld, ISO 100. Tested APO50, 35FLE, 21lux, started fully open, stepped down a bit. Check EXIF, slower shutter step means one aperture down, but the aperture estimate is not bad.

 

Fairly impressed by them all, especially the APO50, the two others struggle a bit with corner sharpness (which they may do also on M) at full aperture , stopped down 1-2 stops they are fine. 

 

 

Full size JPEGs here, no processing: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/t3173mqbkyfeqkb/AAASHlOA6tI-1l07Wl7aAwdSa?dl=0

Edited by erlingmm
Link to post
Share on other sites

We can agree on that point! ;)

 

Maybe I was not clear, sorry about that; I can only state how it works or doesn't work for my work and what my customers like, the sharpness, look and feel in my images.

 

I know VR and IBIS is fantastik for some applications I just don't see it as a dealbreaker that the SL does't have IBIS...

 

I've had cameras with both OIS and IBIS for years (presently, IBIS in the Pentax K-01, Olympus E-PL7 and E-M1; OIS in the SL, Nikon D750). I've also had cameras with neither for years (presently, none in the Leica M-P, and of course none in most of my film cameras unless I buy a Nikon VR lens for the F6). I've mostly found it useful in relatively good light with longer lenses: it extends their hand-holdable range by minimizing camera motion. It's useless in any situation where subject motion is a factor, that's when a fast lens and high sensitivity is a boon. I have not found it particularly useful with wide lenses, static subjects, or macro work: a rigid camera support is far superior to IS in those circumstances. 

 

I have no problem with the SL having only OIS. I don't depend on IS for general purpose shooting, and I'm used to not having it with the M-P or any of my other Leicas. In the cases where I would find it useful per the above, the solution (just like with the Nikon) would be to buy the lens that has it and use that when needed. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Novoflex also makes a Nikon F to Leica T mount adapter if you want to use your MF Nkon glass. 

 

I have both Zeiss Otus lenses lying dormant, in F mount, and the Zeiss 2/135 in F mount. I'd be interested to know how these perform on the SL. The biggest appeal for the SL for me is as a unifying camera for these and some R lenses. M lenses sub/=50mm I think I would stick to the M for. 

 

This is has been a very useful thread, thanks folks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

R and M Lens Testing

 

... Probably my last lens testing stint ... 

 
I was interested in the color shifting behavior with various R and M lenses after discussions here, and the light in the living room today provided a nice, evenly lit, white wall to work with. So I pulled out four R wide to normal lenses (Elmarit 19, Elmarit 24, Summicron 35, Summilux 50) and four M wide to normal lenses (Elmar 24, Color Skopar 28, Color Skopar 35, Nokton 50). The three Voigtländer lenses I exposed without lens code and then with lens code. 
 
SL was set to manual exposure, fixed WB, ISO 200. I made three exposures per lens: one at f/4, one at wide open (whatever it might be), and one at fully stopped down (f/16 or f/22) compensating with exposure time to maintain as best possible an even exposure across the series. I picked f/4 as my reference "normal" aperture because, as it turns out, I tend to be shooting at around f/4 a great deal of the time. I could have just as easily picked f/5.6 or f/8, but I don't think it really matters much given what I see in the results. 
 
Once all the exposures were made, I rolled them into LR and leveled the exposure at the center of all the exposures to bring them all in line (within .3 stop) with the histogram peak at about 3/4 towards the white side. I also made a cursory WB exposure adjust at the same point for each exposure—in most cases, the changes were trivial to small, but there was some drift as the light varied a bit. This normalizes everything and makes evident the differences between the lenses.
 
To me, bad color shifting is when the color shifts polychromatically; in other words, if the whole frame shifts to a little blue or a little magenta, that's easy to manage. It's when the color shift goes blue in the middle and magenta on the edges, or vice versa, or one side green and the other side red, etc, that it's a problem. 
 
A lot of lens characteristics were borne out by this test, but to cut to the color shifting results ... 
  • The only one that I would simply find unusable for color work is the Color Skopar 28mm f/3.5. It color shifts blue on center and magenta red on the edges, both with no profile and with the profile that previous experience has shown works best with it. 
  • All of the M-mount lenses shows more and deeper monochromatic color shift than any of the R lenses. Most also show more edge/corner darkening throughout the range, with only the Nokton 50 getting close to the R lenses in terms of even illumination at f/4. 
  • The only one of the R lenses that showed much corner/edge darkening is the Elmarit-R 19, and even there it is an acceptable amount given the extreme wide angle nature of the lens. 
  • All the Rs and the Elmar-M 24 show only a small amount of monochromatic color shift and both f/4 and fully stopped down are both very even illumination. 
 
My take on all this: By and large, most M lenses work well enough to use for non-color critical work. But, given the option, I'll pick an R lens over nearly any M lens in the sub-50mm focal length range for the SL and not worry about the extra bulk. They work noticeably better overall. The Summicron-R 35 and Summilux-R 50 @ f/4 and f/16 produce nearly perfect illumination across the entire field with no noticeable color shift. 
 
I'm done with that. My lenses work well enough, and I'll pick R over M lenses for this camera.  From this point on, I'm going to make photographs and let everyone else debate the minutiae of specific lens performance, color shift, cover glass thickness, etc. :-)
Edited by ramarren
  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

That sucks.  I was hoping that with the large and supposedly brilliant EVF the SL will allow you to focus wide angle lenses effortlessly at the working aperture without aid.  Magnification and focus peaking are fine but they really slow down the process,

 

I used the SL in Wetzlar using the 28 mm elmarit and was unable to focus accurately without magnification.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That sucks.  I was hoping that with the large and supposedly brilliant EVF the SL will allow you to focus wide angle lenses effortlessly at the working aperture without aid.  Magnification and focus peaking are fine but they really slow down the process,

 

The EVF is brilliant but does eventually have limits. For me I don't need assistance for lenses longer than 50mm or faster than f28. So the WATE needs assistance but the R80-200 f4 doesn't. The MATE needs assistance but the 50'lux and Noctilux do not.

 

On the other hand lenses like the Noctilux, the 135 APO and the 90 cron are a doddle to focus wide open. Keeper rate is over 95% with these lenses. All my M's a perfectly calibrated and I couldn't get that hit rate with those lenses wide open.

 

The SL is worth it just for the Noctilux. They are a joy to use together.

 

Gordon

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is obviously a topic of great interest. I must admit I cringe at the short range tests.

 

Nobody has a little hill over a town, or a roof top to shoot a real infinity landscape with 240 and SL side by side?

 

This is my regular test range:

 

23137919726_bdaeeabf67_b.jpg

Canon_35_2_f56 by unoh7, on Flickr

 

It's not perfect, and not really checking centering, but it's very good for general across the frame evaluations, provided one checks focus carefully from center to edge. This level of detail allows very precise evaluations and mid-zone dips jump on a close look. Uploaded to flickr all are free to examine the fulls.

 

The brick walls and furniture are really awful for general testing, because there are many small variables, and anyway the main cover glass issues are far more acute at infinity.

Edited by uhoh7
Link to post
Share on other sites

Were any of the M lenses coded?

 

The reason I ask is that I understand the SL does considerable corrections for coded M lenses in camera.

 

The Elmar-M 24mm f/3.8 ASPH is coded. The SL picks the code and locks it in; it's the only way to test it. It is what it is ... I really don't care if the camera does corrections or not, all I care about is whether it produces the results I want.  B)

 

The use of codes vs no codes with the Color Skopars and Nokton helped a little bit in the case of the Nokton, but hardly at all with the CS 28 and 35. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

That sucks.  I was hoping that with the large and supposedly brilliant EVF the SL will allow you to focus wide angle lenses effortlessly at the working aperture without aid.  Magnification and focus peaking are fine but they really slow down the process,

 

That's up to the lens and your eyes. Wide lenses are never easy as easy to focus critically as normal to portrait teles due to their increased DoF. It's just much harder to see the focus transition point. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...