thighslapper Posted December 15, 2015 Share #41 Posted December 15, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) It all looks to me like Leica have been lazy and just added some fairly generic corner correction based loosely on focal length but not actually a lens specific correction...... for some it is ok and for others it over-corrects.... I would hope they would be sufficiently embarrassed to sort it out ....... although whether this a priority for them or not remains to be seen ........ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted December 15, 2015 Posted December 15, 2015 Hi thighslapper, Take a look here R-M-L Adapters stacked. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
helged Posted December 15, 2015 Share #42 Posted December 15, 2015 whether this a priority for them or not remains to be seen Possibly not the highest priority - but it shouldn't be too difficult and/or time consuming for Leica to sort this out. And if Leica is serious with the SL being the modern R-solution, it's far from unreasonable to request decent lens profiles for the R-optics . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leicaiste Posted December 15, 2015 Share #43 Posted December 15, 2015 I think it is clear that this lens is being handled differently than your pre-APO 90 R. So for now, I recommend not using the lens ID for the two APO teles, the 90 and the 100, until Leica fixes this. scott What about using the pre-APO 90 R setting with the APO 90 R ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott kirkpatrick Posted December 15, 2015 Share #44 Posted December 15, 2015 What about using the pre-APO 90 R setting with the APO 90 R ? Worth trying. I'll check it out. scott Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott kirkpatrick Posted December 15, 2015 Share #45 Posted December 15, 2015 What about using the pre-APO 90 R setting with the APO 90 R ? This works pretty well. There is no ring of excessive lightening around the image. If I make the centers of each frame shot with the diffuser in place neutral and about 150,150, 150 in value, then wide open the light falls off to about 90 in the corners and at f/8 it's only about a 10% drop. So everything looks natural. My suspicion is thus that during development there were requests to "tune" the pre-APO 90 Summicron, but that no attention was given to the (less common) APO, leaving some default table in place. I hope this will change. Jono wanted to know if the characteristics were less dramatic when this lens is focused closer. I checked at 5', and the vignetting wide open had decreased but only by a percent or two. The effect doesn't seem big. scott Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott kirkpatrick Posted December 15, 2015 Share #46 Posted December 15, 2015 One more thing to check... The nice thing about lens protocols in software is that you can apply them to other lenses. So I checked the APO 180 Elmarit with the older product number (fine) and then switched to the newer product number (not good, with a bright ring around the frame), doing this with a real 180 APO Elmarit. Then I checked the APO 280/4 product code 11360 (bad lens profile). Then it occurred to me to put my regular 90 APO Summicron on and try all the profiles in the menu. The bad ones are rare, but avoid APO 280/4 11360 or 11261 APO Summicron 180 11354 APO Elmarit 180 11357 (really horrid) APO Macro Elmarit 100 11210/11352 and the APO Summicron 90 11350 These need attention. Would someone like to check the next 30 of the profiles? And I wonder if any of the M lens profiles have problems? It takes just one shot to check for the really bad stuff. scott Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leicaiste Posted December 15, 2015 Share #47 Posted December 15, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) One more thing to check... The nice thing about lens protocols in software is that you can apply them to other lenses. So I checked the APO 180 Elmarit with the older product number (fine) and then switched to the newer product number (not good, with a bright ring around the frame), doing this with a real 180 APO Elmarit. Then I checked the APO 280/4 product code 11360 (bad lens profile). Then it occurred to me to put my regular 90 APO Summicron on and try all the profiles in the menu. The bad ones are rare, but avoid APO 280/4 11360 or 11261 APO Summicron 180 11354 APO Elmarit 180 11357 (really horrid) APO Macro Elmarit 100 11210/11352 and the APO Summicron 90 11350 These need attention. Would someone like to check the next 30 of the profiles? And I wonder if any of the M lens profiles have problems? It takes just one shot to check for the really bad stuff. scott Thank you. I hope Leica will solve this problem before releasing the R-L adapter, if it reads the ROM. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramarren Posted December 15, 2015 Share #48 Posted December 15, 2015 One more thing to check... The nice thing about lens protocols in software is that you can apply them to other lenses. So I checked the APO 180 Elmarit with the older product number (fine) and then switched to the newer product number (not good, with a bright ring around the frame), doing this with a real 180 APO Elmarit. Then I checked the APO 280/4 product code 11360 (bad lens profile). Then it occurred to me to put my regular 90 APO Summicron on and try all the profiles in the menu. The bad ones are rare, but avoid APO 280/4 11360 or 11261 APO Summicron 180 11354 APO Elmarit 180 11357 (really horrid) APO Macro Elmarit 100 11210/11352 and the APO Summicron 90 11350 These need attention. Would someone like to check the next 30 of the profiles? And I wonder if any of the M lens profiles have problems? It takes just one shot to check for the really bad stuff. This is useful. Four or five bad profiles out of several dozen isn't too bad. Leica should take an interest in fixing them. Be sure to file a bug report. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott kirkpatrick Posted December 15, 2015 Share #49 Posted December 15, 2015 I continued the scan from 80 mm down to 15 mm, the rest of the R-profiles listed in the SL, without finding anything obviously wrong with any. Above where I started are some very long lenses, and the collection of zooms that are supported. The 35-70/4 is pretty good. Haven't looked at the rest. This doesn't mean that any of the profiles are really optimized. Past experience with the Ms suggests that this can take a year or so. But the rest of the prime profiles, except for the five listed above, look quite usable. scott Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramarren Posted December 15, 2015 Share #50 Posted December 15, 2015 That's a pretty good showing. What I've seen with the profiles for my lenses is that, in general, they help out with wide open exposures most and after that come asymptotically close to the rendering of the lens with no profile chosen. My conclusion from looking at that is that, by and large, most R lenses don't seem to need all that much correction and work fine with the SL's sensor. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rick_dykstra Posted December 15, 2015 Share #51 Posted December 15, 2015 Scott, this is very similar to what I saw with the apo 90. I also saw a lot of coma near the periphery and am wondering if you have noticed this as well. Maybe it's just a crap lens? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rick_dykstra Posted December 15, 2015 Share #52 Posted December 15, 2015 ... if Leica is serious with the SL being the modern R-solution, it's far from unreasonable to request decent lens profiles for the R-optics . It all looks to me like Leica have been lazy and just added some fairly generic corner correction based loosely on focal length but not actually a lens specific correction...... for some it is ok and for others it over-corrects.... I would hope they would be sufficiently embarrassed to sort it out ....... although whether this a priority for them or not remains to be seen ........ Maybe Leica don't have the lenses to test and can't afford to buy them from us afishyanardoes. I mean, have you seen the prices for R lenses lately? Good, twenty year old ones are going for more than new! Part of me is happy about that, but not the part that wants an 80mm Summilux. How good would that lens be on an SL, for stills and in particular, wide open with video?! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramarren Posted December 15, 2015 Share #53 Posted December 15, 2015 Maybe Leica don't have the lenses to test and can't afford to buy them from us afishyanardoes. I mean, have you seen the prices for R lenses lately? Good, twenty year old ones are going for more than new! Part of me is happy about that, but not the part that wants an 80mm Summilux. How good would that lens be on an SL, for stills and in particular, wide open with video?! Prices on R lenses have been rising since the Leica SL announcement. I was lucky to have acquired the bulk of my R lenses while they were still an "orphaned" lens series. Even then, I concentrated on acquiring not the latest APO ROM models but the older 3cam models, both for compatibility with my Leicaflex SL and to save on costs. They're all fantastic, and in general I prefer the older models' rendering qualities. These lenses are going to be the basis of my photography for years to come. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Likaleica Posted December 16, 2015 Share #54 Posted December 16, 2015 Maybe it's just a crap lens? No definitely not. Reputedly one of the best R lenses ever made. More likely an adapter or software problem. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott kirkpatrick Posted December 16, 2015 Share #55 Posted December 16, 2015 Prices on R lenses have been rising since the Leica SL announcement. I was lucky to have acquired the bulk of my R lenses while they were still an "orphaned" lens series. Even then, I concentrated on acquiring not the latest APO ROM models but the older 3cam models, both for compatibility with my Leicaflex SL and to save on costs. They're all fantastic, and in general I prefer the older models' rendering qualities. These lenses are going to be the basis of my photography for years to come. I started acquiring a few R lenses when the M[240]'s capabilities were announced. I find recently (and in the doldrums that will follow the Christmas buying season) one can get about 30% off the advertised prices from an EBay seller for these. KEH took off 30% for "Black Friday" on its store listings, and simply listed the same lenses on EBay at the lower prices. So it is still a pretty thin buyers' market. I don't have a Leicaflex; almost all of my R's are ROM-equipped. And none of them are in the mainstream range (18-50) where rangefinder focusing is still more precise than the SL's EVF permits. No zooms except the 35-70/4. I'm just now trying to feel out how different it is to work with the wide angle lenses from 18 to 24 mm on each camera. And yes, I got an Ex+ 80 SX-R, which is still in transit. scott Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramarren Posted December 16, 2015 Share #56 Posted December 16, 2015 I started acquiring a few R lenses when the M[240]'s capabilities were announced. I find recently (and in the doldrums that will follow the Christmas buying season) one can get about 30% off the advertised prices from an EBay seller for these. KEH took off 30% for "Black Friday" on its store listings, and simply listed the same lenses on EBay at the lower prices. So it is still a pretty thin buyers' market. I don't have a Leicaflex; almost all of my R's are ROM-equipped. And none of them are in the mainstream range (18-50) where rangefinder focusing is still more precise than the SL's EVF permits. No zooms except the 35-70/4. I'm just now trying to feel out how different it is to work with the wide angle lenses from 18 to 24 mm on each camera. And yes, I got an Ex+ 80 SX-R, which is still in transit. While it may be heresy on this forum, it's never been my experience that RF focusing was ever more precise than SLR/TTL focusing. Just faster and easier in dim light with wides, until EVFs came along... But this is an ancient debate. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted December 16, 2015 Author Share #57 Posted December 16, 2015 Properly coding the APO Elmarit-R 180/2.8 solved the problem. I do look forward to the R-L adapter reading the ROM chip. I tend to agree with Michael Reichman over on LuLa that adapters are the future, Heath Robinson or not. The lenses are the key, and the camera just a digital capture device - long term, being able to use any lens using adapters will be more common place. Having to buy new glass because there's a new body from a different manufacturer will become a thing of the past. Sony opened the door to this, as did Leica with the Hasselblad adapter for the S. The SL takes any Leica lens with an adapter - that's a first, and I see that as a positive rather than a negative. Paul and many others see this as a camera with one lens and adapters as a negative. I'm not so sure. The stacked adapters actually work very well, though you do need the coding right. In my bag, I can carry the 24-90 zoom and 180 R prime with adapters and an extender. That covers 24 to 360mm with acceptable gaps. I can add a 21 if I want wider. In practice, I don't see the adapters as a problem for what I do. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott kirkpatrick Posted December 16, 2015 Share #58 Posted December 16, 2015 While it may be heresy on this forum, it's never been my experience that RF focusing was ever more precise than SLR/TTL focusing. Just faster and easier in dim light with wides, until EVFs came along... But this is an ancient debate. Yes, an ancient debate, a steady source of employment to those who provide lens calibration services. I must have pretty good eyesight (still), since I find matching up lines pretty easy and quick. I'm getting better with the thumb-only focus path on the SL, however. If my thumb gets really good, I'll try composing long emails on my phone. scott Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramarren Posted December 16, 2015 Share #59 Posted December 16, 2015 Properly coding the APO Elmarit-R 180/2.8 solved the problem. I do look forward to the R-L adapter reading the ROM chip. I tend to agree with Michael Reichman over on LuLa that adapters are the future, Heath Robinson or not. The lenses are the key, and the camera just a digital capture device - long term, being able to use any lens using adapters will be more common place. Having to buy new glass because there's a new body from a different manufacturer will become a thing of the past. Sony opened the door to this, as did Leica with the Hasselblad adapter for the S. The SL takes any Leica lens with an adapter - that's a first, and I see that as a positive rather than a negative. Paul and many others see this as a camera with one lens and adapters as a negative. I'm not so sure. The stacked adapters actually work very well, though you do need the coding right. In my bag, I can carry the 24-90 zoom and 180 R prime with adapters and an extender. That covers 24 to 360mm with acceptable gaps. I can add a 21 if I want wider. In practice, I don't see the adapters as a problem for what I do. Good to hear that! And I also find the use of adapters a non-issue. It's impossible to deliver a whole new "full" system of body and lenses all in one go without compromising something, and I'd rather Leica didn't compromise. Meanwhile, I have acquired all the lenses I want or need, and I like having this great new SL body that they can all be used with, whether they are M, R, or SL mount. Obviously, there are more features to take advantage of by using the new SL mount lenses, but I'm so happily using R lenses on the adapter stack I haven't had much time or motivation to take the Vario-Elmarit-SL 24-90mm out of the cupboard yet. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott kirkpatrick Posted December 16, 2015 Share #60 Posted December 16, 2015 Scott, this is very similar to what I saw with the apo 90. I also saw a lot of coma near the periphery and am wondering if you have noticed this as well. I don't have bubbles in ice to test for coma, but maybe I can do better. Here's a not very beautiful night scene with lots of distant lights. At f/2 on the APO-90, there are funny smears around the biggest lights, but stopped down (here to f/5.6) I get nice stars from the aperture edges. L1000381 by scott kirkpatrick, on Flickr L1000384 by scott kirkpatrick, on Flickr scott Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.