LD_50 Posted December 18, 2016 Share #21 Posted December 18, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) I've also tested the 24-90 and would get rid of it (and the SL if I couldn't find a good sample of the lens) if I saw the same problems or had to wait until FW2.2 for a fix. I tried the same tests described including with various targets and could not replicate the issue described by Ming. I have had issues that he's seen in other equipment (Nikon AF point issues, Nikon AF fine tune being useless on several zooms). All that said I've conversed with both Ming and DL privately. Ming was very courteous, helpful, and I trust he found the issues he described. DL I will not converse with or support in any way again. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted December 18, 2016 Posted December 18, 2016 Hi LD_50, Take a look here Vario-Elmarit 24-90mm sort at 90mm. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
IkarusJohn Posted December 18, 2016 Share #22 Posted December 18, 2016 I don't think Ming and I are friends anymore. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted December 18, 2016 Share #23 Posted December 18, 2016 An issue has come up I'm confounded by. In an exchange elsewhere, the suggestion has been made that in AF the lens always focuses wide open, so at 90mm it focuses at f4. If you stop down to f11 the lens remains at f4; when you fire the shutter, the lens stops down without adjusting the focus (in AF), and this introduces focus shift. For some reason I don't understand, this isn't a problem in manual focus - even though in the samples above I did not refocus between shots. Leaving aside the unfathomable logic of that explanation, does anyone know if the first bit is true? In AF, the lens stays wide open for focusing, and stops down when you fire the shutter like an SLR lens? For the life of me, I cannot see why it would do this. It's a very strange thing for a mirrorless camera to do, and inconsistent with the preview function - pressing the fn button twice gives the final exposure. That would suggest that either the preview is just a processed simulation (an approximation, if you will), rather than reading directly off the sensor. Anyone care to elaborate? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LD_50 Posted December 18, 2016 Share #24 Posted December 18, 2016 Look into the lens while you focus. And then when you fire the shutter. Set to manual, set aperture f2.8, shoot at 2sec or long enough to watch the behavior. Shoot again at f22. You'll witness the lens stop down to shoot while staying wide open to focus. It is a common practice because the AF system (the sensor for the SL) receives more light with the larger aperture. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted December 18, 2016 Share #25 Posted December 18, 2016 Good idea. You're right, it does - so where's the focus shift. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramarren Posted December 18, 2016 Share #26 Posted December 18, 2016 The preview simulations have nothing to do with the camera's focusing/aperture behavior. In aperture simulation, the camera stops down the aperture just like an SLR does with DoF Preview. In exposure simulation, the camera stops down and accumulates the exposure so you're seeing what the sensor sees. The AF system doesn't change the optical character of the lens. Focus shift is an optical characteristic ... and testing the optical character of the lens, it has NO focus shift. I tested for this exhaustively. My conjecture is that the AF system in some cases when the subject is near infinity chooses to place the focus a little nearer the close edge in the focus zone than other AF systems do. As far as I'm concerned, this is actually a plus ... because who in their right mind uses AF to critically focus on infinity? You usually are interested in something just this side of infinity. But I'm long past caring what other people think of the SL24-90. I see the photos it makes for me with my own camera. And even at the supposedly "mediocre" 90mm focal length, the photos are excellent and as good as nearly any 90mm prime or zoom lens I've owned, Leica or not. I don't follow either MT or DL at all. Waste of time. I'd rather work on making photographs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
graeme_clarke Posted December 28, 2016 Share #27 Posted December 28, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) Well, I took the plunge and bought an SL and 24-80. Having read these comments I thought I'd do an unscientific comparison between two lenses: the 28-90 on a DMR and the 24-90 on an SL The image of Hawnby Hill on the North Yorkshire moors in the UK was taken with the DMR and the 28-90 last January (3s at F8, no info about focal length). It's a colour image taken on a grey day! Please look at the fence posts in the distance. The shot of Raby Castle in Co Durham was taken with the SL 24-90, hand held (90mm, 1/125 at F8 with IS on). Please look at the flag staff and details of the deer. Sadly the low resolution of the images here don't to them justice compared to looking at the full size TIFFs. I'm delighted with the resolving power of the 24-90 which is every bit as good as the 28-90. My R 28-90 is now off for sale in Scotland... Compliments of the season to all, Graeme Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/265678-vario-elmarit-24-90mm-sort-at-90mm/?do=findComment&comment=3174470'>More sharing options...
Guest VVJ Posted December 29, 2016 Share #28 Posted December 29, 2016 Ming was very courteous, helpful, and I trust he found the issues he described. If he was truly helpful he would go back and provide an update to his misleading articles, wouldn't he? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LD_50 Posted December 29, 2016 Share #29 Posted December 29, 2016 If he was truly helpful he would go back and provide an update to his misleading articles, wouldn't he? No I don't think a self employed reviewer is going to follow the updates and upgrades of every piece of gear tested to ensure the owners of that gear agree with his or her findings. If you follow the comments on his site he does answer questions and provides updates there. He has weighed in multiple times on the SL and his findings do not match my own. Oh well. I don't think you can judge whether he's "truly helpful" based upon your arbitrary standard. I am basing my assessment on personal correspondence. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest VVJ Posted December 29, 2016 Share #30 Posted December 29, 2016 No I don't think a self employed reviewer is going to follow the updates and upgrades of every piece of gear tested to ensure the owners of that gear agree with his or her findings. If you follow the comments on his site he does answer questions and provides updates there. He has weighed in multiple times on the SL and his findings do not match my own. Oh well. I don't think you can judge whether he's "truly helpful" based upon your arbitrary standard. I am basing my assessment on personal correspondence. No offense dude but his article is wrong and he seems to be keeping it on his website which confuses potential Leica buyers. That is misleading people in my book and therefore not helpful... Apologies if that does not match your definition of helpful... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LD_50 Posted December 29, 2016 Share #31 Posted December 29, 2016 Again, my definition of "helpful" from Mr. Thein comes from personal correspondence, not an article I don't agree with. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted December 29, 2016 Share #32 Posted December 29, 2016 Ming's review has to be viewed in the context in which it was written. Apparently, he passed his findings back to Leica and the problem appears to have been solved. Make of that what you will. Ming holds to the view that his test showed an accurate and repeatable issue. Having run his tests, it clearly isn't an issue any more. I have asked Ming if he would qualify his rather damning comments about the lens, but he has no access to the camera or lens and limited inclination to re-run his testing. I did suggest that he at least put his comments in context. To be honest, I think he has moved on, and so should we. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LD_50 Posted December 29, 2016 Share #33 Posted December 29, 2016 Ming's review has to be viewed in the context in which it was written. Apparently, he passed his findings back to Leica and the problem appears to have been solved. Make of that what you will. Ming holds to the view that his test showed an accurate and repeatable issue. Having run his tests, it clearly isn't an issue any more. I have asked Ming if he would qualify his rather damning comments about the lens, but he has no access to the camera or lens and limited inclination to re-run his testing. I did suggest that he at least put his comments in context. To be honest, I think he has moved on, and so should we. Well said. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua Lowe Posted December 29, 2016 Share #34 Posted December 29, 2016 If the article is an accurate account of his personal experience with the camera then it's not misleading. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest VVJ Posted December 29, 2016 Share #35 Posted December 29, 2016 He added the following to the article on December 18th: Focus shift update, 18 December 2016: This camera was first tested in October 2015. At that point, all samples clearly demonstrated the problem (which may have been due to AF or focus shift, but it was impossible to tell with the behaviour of that firmware). It was retested in early 2016 with several cameras and lenses supposedly handpicked by Leica and a beta version of FW2.0 – same behaviour. People on the various fora report that they can’t reproduce the test with current firmware and hardware, and therefore I must be wrong, a bad tester, a paid brand shill (even though the test predated any agreement with any company), a liar, the devil incarnate – it’s also possible that following my test report to Leica HQ, the problem was simply fixed. This whole saga smells the same as the D800’s focus asymmetry and the E-M1’s shutter shock, both eventually confirmed and remedied by the manufacturers – to the benefit of all users. A simple thank you would do. All I’m reporting is that at the time of both tests, it was a problem. People are finding that it’s not anymore, and it may well have been fixed, but I have no way of confirming this. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua Lowe Posted December 29, 2016 Share #36 Posted December 29, 2016 Ming would probably have served himself better without playing the martyr. Though I can understand his frustration as I'm certain he gets nitpicked to death over every review he writes, as the Internet is wont to do. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest VVJ Posted December 29, 2016 Share #37 Posted December 29, 2016 I agree on the martyr part. Simply presenting the facts would have been the better thing to do. Also December 18th is a bit late... and "may well have been fixed" could be interpreted as still deliberately leaving some kind of doubt... But that might just be me playing the nitpicking Internet... I hope it is clear enough for new people reading the article. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted December 29, 2016 Share #38 Posted December 29, 2016 He may be a bit fragile, but at least he clarified the position. Credit where it's due. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramarren Posted December 30, 2016 Share #39 Posted December 30, 2016 Didn't need the histrionics. A simple statement— "According to subsequent reports by users, this problem has been addressed by Leica with the latest firmware update by {date}. I don't have access to the SL body and lens to be able to confirm that." —would have sufficed. But at least he posted something. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott kirkpatrick Posted December 30, 2016 Share #40 Posted December 30, 2016 Well, I took the plunge and bought an SL and 24-80. Having read these comments I thought I'd do an unscientific comparison between two lenses: the 28-90 on a DMR and the 24-90 on an SL The image of Hawnby Hill on the North Yorkshire moors in the UK was taken with the DMR and the 28-90 last January (3s at F8, no info about focal length). It's a colour image taken on a grey day! Please look at the fence posts in the distance. The shot of Raby Castle in Co Durham was taken with the SL 24-90, hand held (90mm, 1/125 at F8 with IS on). Please look at the flag staff and details of the deer. Sadly the low resolution of the images here don't to them justice compared to looking at the full size TIFFs. I'm delighted with the resolving power of the 24-90 which is every bit as good as the 28-90. My R 28-90 is now off for sale in Scotland... Compliments of the season to all, Graeme Could you provide a link to the two images in original resolution? I can't even see the fence posts at LUF resolution. The older 28-90 has an outstanding word of mouth reputation, but MTFs that don't look all that great by comparison with the newer 24-90, so I'm curious but not enough so to want to own both. thanks, 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.