7artisans 50mm F1.1 Leica M Mount

[pico]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

6 minutes ago, DezFoto said:

I never said YOU were whinging, did I? 

My digital rangefinders have gotten knocked out of calibration on a regular basis, my M6 has only been calibrated once and that was when I did the MP rangefinder upgrade. Again, as I already posted, film is much more forgiving of calibration and focus errors. 

My point is about body calibration is that unless you make sure both your lens AND your body are calibrated within spec, you're likely to run into problems. The calibration on bodies drifts out of spec over time, unless the camera lives in a display case and is never used. 

When you post you generalize to the group, and I am one of the group. Carefully compose.

The rest of your message has earned you a place in the Ignore bin.

 

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[DezFoto]

1 minute ago, pico said:

When you post you generalize to the group, and I am one of the group. Carefully compose.

The rest of your message has earned you a place in the Ignore bin.

 

Live on in blissful ignorance and the fulfilling enjoyment of finding offence on the internet at every reference that could possibly be self-applied.

[carbon_dragon]

15 hours ago, DezFoto said:

I find it doubtful that an old Jupiter-8 lens focussed correctly on a digital body without being calibrated and likely the cams re-ground to current specs at some point. That being said, and f/2 lens would have an almost 2-stop DOF advantage over an f/1.1 lens and therefore would be much more forgiving of small focus calibration problems and focus shift. Furthermore, because of the Jupiter-8's somewhat telecentric design, the falloff between in-focus to out-of-focus is more gradual, which again makes it more forgiving of small calibration or focus errors. 

Well, it's certainly possible you are much more particular than I am, but as a matter of fact I used that jupiter 8 at full aperture just to see how bad it was from a distortion standpoint (and it gave an interesting glowy sort of look actually) but the focus seemed right on. Now this wasn't a scientific test. But that's kind of the point. In normal use, I took a lot of pictures with that lens in that one outing and it actually performed well. I was using it on a M8 at the time, so the 50mm lens was effectively a 65mm equivalent. 

And if I believed that I needed tolerances so close that I was afraid to use any of my interchangeable lenses because they had all not been calibrated for that particular camera, I'd just use a fixed lens camera (like the Q or the RX1R or even the X113). But as far as I can tell, when I get an out of focus image, it's typically because I just don't nail the focus properly, or focus on the wrong thing (user error in other words). Any lens I've put on my M2s, or M digitals seems to focus fine assuming they HAVE a focus cam. 

Now on a lens like this Artisan lens (or the Noctilux lenses or even the Voigtlander Noct lenses), focus is harder. The brightest lens I have is f/1.5 (which is ironically the Jupiter). My better Leica lenses are f/2. And if you DID have some massive focus issue with the lens or the camera, you'd find it out with f/0.95 or f/1 or f/1.1. Nailing focus with that lens would seem to be a very hard thing to do without a tripod and a non-moving subject. I will also accept that more care may be needed if you have lenses that fast. But with f/1.5 lenses or slower, I've never had a focus problem with a Leica M which I have decided is the camera or the lens' fault. 

Note that I have used a variety of other lenses on the M2s in the past, including my 50/2 Summitar, some Nikon LTM lenses (including a 50/1.4) and none of those ever gave me any issues.I suspect you may just be more critical of your results, or perhaps you're running actual scientific tests rather than just shooting wide open (hand held most of the time). 

What made me post was that this is the first lens I've ever seen which comes with a focus adjustment kit. It seems like the makers of this lens could use their own directions and just adjust the focus of the lens (as other manufacturers do) to be in focus. Now maybe you can't adjust it to be in perfect focus at all distances, but I would expect they could do as well as other manufacturers do and that would be sufficient for most people. Now if they then, in addition, included the kit because it's f/1.1 and maybe with lenses that wide, adjusting focus yourself to the exact distance you use (maybe for portraits?) would be worthwhile. If that's what is happening, maybe that's OK. I would not expect them to be as precise as the leica Noctilux f/0.95 (or even the earlier ones). That lens is built to a much higher, more expensive standard. I'm just saying I should be able to (without adjustment) bolt it on to the M, go around and take pictures as normal, even a portrait, and come back with a pretty good result. Maybe that is the case and I just don't understand why they provide the kit.

[Simone_DF]

On 11/29/2018 at 2:39 PM, carbon_dragon said:

Can you explain to me why Leica and Zeiss and Voigtlander (Cosina) and others can deliver a lens that works properly rangefinder coupled where 7 Artisans gives you instructions on doing your own calibration? Maybe you could do bench testing on a lens and find out there were minor imperfections on the focus but it hasn't been too obvious to me, even with Russian lenses. What exactly is going on with the 7 artisans lenses? I mean it looks like an easy process, but why is it necessary for those lenses? I'd really like to understand this.

It's not "necessary". My 7A 50mm was perfectly calibrated out of the box.

Way I see it, they are giving you an extra option should the lens not match your body perfectly. Or you never picked a "lemon"?

[jdlaing]

I have two of the 7 artisans lenses and both were right on with focus as well. It is nice to have the option to adjust.

[Naampje]

And I think 95% of experiences I read said it's focus was spot on, it's just like Erwin Puts said, ' I used my M8.2 and MM2 and both required different settings. The smart choice was to settle for a position between both cameras.'

Read his review here, he's quite enthusiastic I think;

http://photo.imx.nl/blog/files/8482d7cd2a98a633910c47415b8d35ff-92.html

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Sample variation is a fact of life and has more chances to happen on cheap than expensive lenses IMHO. Hence the smart idea to let us tweak calibration i suspect.

[TomB_tx]

20 minutes ago, lct said:

Sample variation is a fact of life and has more chances to happen on cheap than expensive lenses IMHO. Hence the smart idea to let us tweak calibration i suspect.

Logical, but also the complexity of the lens focus mechanics come into the equation - lenses with floating elements, etc. have more to go out of whack, as well as more moving surfaces to add friction. One reason why I have avoided them in favor of more "classic" lenses. I've bought many inexpensive Voigtlander lenses that have been spot-on.

Some of the 1950s-60s Leica lenses I have are perfect at one stop down, and DAG indicated that is how they were originally set up to minimize focus shift effects. If you want a lens that has focus shift in its design to be "perfect" you need to know at what aperture it was adjusted for.

[Ecar]

I have the 50/1.1 and the 35/2 from 7a.

Th first one was virtually spot on out of the box, while the 2nd one needed adjustment - a rather straightforward 10-15 min process.

Another advantage of DIY adjustment is that you can minimise focus shift by setting focus according to your preferred aperture - especially with a Sonnar-based formula - without sending the lens back to the mother ship. Think about the numerous discussions on this forum around optimum calibration for the Zeiss ZM 50/1.5.... 

[DezFoto]

17 hours ago, carbon_dragon said:

Well, it's certainly possible you are much more particular than I am, but as a matter of fact I used that jupiter 8 at full aperture just to see how bad it was from a distortion standpoint (and it gave an interesting glowy sort of look actually) but the focus seemed right on. Now this wasn't a scientific test. But that's kind of the point. In normal use, I took a lot of pictures with that lens in that one outing and it actually performed well. I was using it on a M8 at the time, so the 50mm lens was effectively a 65mm equivalent. 

And if I believed that I needed tolerances so close that I was afraid to use any of my interchangeable lenses because they had all not been calibrated for that particular camera, I'd just use a fixed lens camera (like the Q or the RX1R or even the X113). But as far as I can tell, when I get an out of focus image, it's typically because I just don't nail the focus properly, or focus on the wrong thing (user error in other words). Any lens I've put on my M2s, or M digitals seems to focus fine assuming they HAVE a focus cam. 

Now on a lens like this Artisan lens (or the Noctilux lenses or even the Voigtlander Noct lenses), focus is harder. The brightest lens I have is f/1.5 (which is ironically the Jupiter). My better Leica lenses are f/2. And if you DID have some massive focus issue with the lens or the camera, you'd find it out with f/0.95 or f/1 or f/1.1. Nailing focus with that lens would seem to be a very hard thing to do without a tripod and a non-moving subject. I will also accept that more care may be needed if you have lenses that fast. But with f/1.5 lenses or slower, I've never had a focus problem with a Leica M which I have decided is the camera or the lens' fault. 

Note that I have used a variety of other lenses on the M2s in the past, including my 50/2 Summitar, some Nikon LTM lenses (including a 50/1.4) and none of those ever gave me any issues.I suspect you may just be more critical of your results, or perhaps you're running actual scientific tests rather than just shooting wide open (hand held most of the time). 

What made me post was that this is the first lens I've ever seen which comes with a focus adjustment kit. It seems like the makers of this lens could use their own directions and just adjust the focus of the lens (as other manufacturers do) to be in focus. Now maybe you can't adjust it to be in perfect focus at all distances, but I would expect they could do as well as other manufacturers do and that would be sufficient for most people. Now if they then, in addition, included the kit because it's f/1.1 and maybe with lenses that wide, adjusting focus yourself to the exact distance you use (maybe for portraits?) would be worthwhile. If that's what is happening, maybe that's OK. I would not expect them to be as precise as the leica Noctilux f/0.95 (or even the earlier ones). That lens is built to a much higher, more expensive standard. I'm just saying I should be able to (without adjustment) bolt it on to the M, go around and take pictures as normal, even a portrait, and come back with a pretty good result. Maybe that is the case and I just don't understand why they provide the kit.

Thank you for your considered response and details of your experiences. I agree with most, if not all of your points and I think it's safe to say that DJ Optical is cutting corners when it comes focus calibration and I assume that is why they are providing a means for users to adjust their lenses on their own. That being said, I do understand why they would and the result is that we can purchase this lens for around $300, which I think is a reasonable trade-off.

As for your Jupiter-8 experiences, your lens must have already been shimmed to work with Leica bodies, as the physical flange distance is different between Leica cameras and Russian bodies they were originally designed for, so any unadjusted Jupiter lens would back-focus by default. 

[carbon_dragon]

19 hours ago, Naampje said:

And I think 95% of experiences I read said it's focus was spot on, it's just like Erwin Puts said, ' I used my M8.2 and MM2 and both required different settings. The smart choice was to settle for a position between both cameras.'

Read his review here, he's quite enthusiastic I think;

http://photo.imx.nl/blog/files/8482d7cd2a98a633910c47415b8d35ff-92.html

That was an interesting review of the lens. When I see it on youTube, it's typically being used as a portrait lens, where wide open it's trying to put the subject in the middle and let the edges fend for themselves. It certainly looks pretty good with all that nice chrome. I guess I'll stick with my 50/2 summicron for now! I don't do many portraits, mostly landscapes. But I guess I'm glad they're trying. Who knows what they'll come up with? 

I found this discussion very helpful. Thanks.

[cp995]

vor 8 Stunden schrieb DezFoto:

...As for your Jupiter-8 experiences, your lens must have already been shimmed to work with Leica bodies, as the physical flange distance is different between Leica cameras and Russian bodies they were originally designed for, so any unadjusted Jupiter lens would back-focus by default. 

No, especially the J-8 is an exception for this problem

 

[caugustin]

Am 29.11.2018 um 22:19 schrieb pico:

As if Leica's prices are nor great enough. Leica supposedly builds body and lenses to a standard. I would expect Leica if it  standardizes their platforms to proof them. Leica Germany clearly does not do an adequate job on all products as evinced by their corrections for returned items. Are the defectives from Portugal or Germany? Does it matter when Leica is responsible? I suspect some serious compromises are being made.

I only rarely had focussing problems with Leica lenses on my bodies (one old, used Summilux 1.4/35 comes to mind), but I had a problem with a used Leica M9 body – after calibration all was fine with all (!) my lenses. So, as far as I can tell, Leica does a good job overall, but fast lenses do pose a problem to the rangefinder coupling mechanism, which was not so apparent in the old film days (film coating is thicker than the light sensitive layer of a sensor, sharpness and resolution were far worse).

[caugustin]

Am 29.11.2018 um 22:39 schrieb carbon_dragon:

I'm not  whining about focus problems. I've never had any focus problems. Ok, maybe I'll accept that it's possible that selling a lens with a decent focusing cam is harder than I'm thinking it is. I guess it's a good thing that those master craftsmen in Russia and the Ukraine did such an amazing job on all their screwmount lenses. I'll have to appreciate my Jupiter 8 lens more.

When it comes to Russian and Ukrainian lenses I would not applaud their craftsmanship – I have very mixed experiences with lenses of this origin (and from the GDR). If I got a good one, it could be a real marvel, and my Jupiter 8 of later production is just fine too, but I can remember other lenses from there that could be thrown away without remorse (just the waste of money had hurt). Modern Voigtländer lenses can be really bad too (I never found a really good 4/21, not screw mount, not M mount, and the 4/25 screw mount I have is just okay, not really good). With new Leica lenses I never had any issues, with used ones only very few (besides those they had due to their age).

[carbon_dragon]

Well I can 't disagree with that sentiment. I have had bad russian lenses, but not one with bad focus yet. And I've had a horrible Voigtlander. I think it was the 50/2.5 but I don't remember for sure. I do have the 25/4 and that one is pretty good (except for the fact that it is not rangefinder coupled). 

[stephengv]

I'm currently interested on this lens. Read almost all pages of this thread. Do you guys think its worth it? 

[jdlaing]

Every penny.

[rscheffler]

On 11/30/2018 at 4:49 PM, Ecar said:

I have the 50/1.1 and the 35/2 from 7a.

Th first one was virtually spot on out of the box, while the 2nd one needed adjustment - a rather straightforward 10-15 min process.

Another advantage of DIY adjustment is that you can minimise focus shift by setting focus according to your preferred aperture - especially with a Sonnar-based formula - without sending the lens back to the mother ship. Think about the numerous discussions on this forum around optimum calibration for the Zeiss ZM 50/1.5.... 

I just got both the 35/2 and 50/1.1 as well. I haven't used them enough to really form strong opinions (though I am a fan of Sonnar lenses), but completely agree that the ability to tune focus is a brilliant feature to include, precisely because it lets one decide on the fly which aperture to select for perfect focus to account for focus shift. Out of the box both lenses worked well wide open with my M240 at all the distances I tested. While one copy of each is not a broad sampling, I didn't get the feeling 7artisans was cutting corners and forcing final calibration on me.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[stephengv]

Guys, any more sample photos at 1.1? thanks 

[stephengv]

I just read this, http://www.overgaard.dk/7artisans-for-Leica-M-rangefinder-and-Sony-Canon-and-Fujifilm-50mm-f-1-1-Sonnar-review-and-user-report.html. Interesting.