35 lux asph - sharpening

[huwge]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I haven't been able to find a similar thread, so apologies if this has been covered before. Do the different lens have different sharpening requirements. I have a 35 lux asph that constantly looks much softer on in-camera review than any other lens, to the extent that I feel that I have muffed the focus. Is this normal?

 

I guess I should not complain, as they sharpen fine but it is a minor irritant as pictures from this lens need sharpening whereas with some others it is almost not necessary. I hope web compression allows this to be seen: full image and then crops, unsharpened and sharpened (f2.8 or 4, can't remember) EDIT: Doesn't seem to look so obvious with web compression

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!

[MP3]

Hi Huw

 

35 lux asph exhibit significant backfocus at f2.8 and f4, could be around 2 inches backfocus. Try your lens at 1.4 to see if it is tack sharp at what you focused. If yes, then try to shot the same object at 5.6 and 8. If all these pics are sharper compared to the pics at 2.8 or 4, then what you mentioned is just normal for this 35 lux asph. Try out.

 

Cheers

Matthew

[huwge]

Matthew - thanks for your reply, it's not really a back focus issue as the subject is focused where I focus. Mind you in this picture posted, it was difficult as I wanted the rose to be in focus and so there is an element of compromise in where you focus as the rose is inevitably outside the patch.

 

What I see is that the image in the viewfinder with the 35 always looks much softer in the viewfinder that with other lenses. This also applies to the full size DNG as well, when viewed on my monitor. I don't think you can see that here, as the compressed images look different - unsharpened seems plenty sharp and sharpened a little too much.

 

I might be making a mountain out of a mole hill but was just wondering whether others experiece the same thing.

[charlesphoto99]

If at f2.8 or f4 it may very well be a backfocus issue (mine does). That has nothing to do with where you wanted the focus to be or what the rangefinder patch tells you - the lens focus drifts back of its own accord. Do a search on the forum to find out about backfocusing and in particular with the 35mm Summ Asph.

[huwge]

Charles - I am fairly convinced that it is not back focus as I have played about with the lens and it does not seem to drift significantly (tripod, cable release, ruler, fixed object, etc.). Used Sean Reid's findings as a benchmark.

 

Also, if it was back focus, why would the picture sharpen up so well? I had a 50 lux asph with back focus that no amount of sharpening could correct.

 

The images just look soft, a little tweak in USM and they are fine. Maybe it's me.

 

Thanks anyway.

 

Huw

[Jamie Roberts]

Huw,

 

I don't think it's backfocus either. Mine does not backfocus in the slightest, and it's tack sharp.

 

But your statement that it looks less sharp on the in-camera review is pretty telling.

Less sharp than what? Wider lenses, or longer lenses?

 

Of course longer lenses will look sharper because they generally have more subject area on the screen. With a wider angle, the subjects are often too "small" for the LCD to tell exact focus without zooming, and without a large-ish JPEG, zooming in will actually look soft.

 

But before we can really tell, I'd want to know

 

1) how are you shooting, RAW or JPEG?

2) What resolution are you shooting?

3) If RAW, how are you converting?

 

Anyway, all those things make a difference. However, I don't have one lens on any digital camera that doesn't require some sharpening for print. So there you go.

[huwge]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Jamie,

 

I typically shoot DNG and it wouldn't bother me if the wider lenses exhibited the same trait, but 24 elmarit and 34 'cron are all sharper on review at 2.8 through 5.6. Once they get into C1, the unprocessed files from the 35 lux still look soft. Sharpen at 45 / 2 and then they look great. For the 'cron and elmarit it is 35/2, sometimes not even that for the 24. With my 50 'cron, 75 lux and apo 90 I often don't even need to sharpen - only if I am printing, and then use Nik Pro.

 

It is important to note that the final images from the 35 lux, once they have been through processing, are all fine.

 

Huw

[wlaidlaw]

Huw,

 

Maybe your 35 Lux is angling for a holiday in Solms. If you look at the MTF's of the 35 Lux, it should be very sharp. Are you 100% sure that what you are seeing is a lack of sharpness or could it be a lack of contrast. Sharpening the image increases edge contrast. If you look at Sean's 35mm review, you can see what you should be getting. If your Lux does not measure up to this, it must need servicing. Even the battered example Sean had at first was not too shabby a performer.

 

Wilson

[Jamie Roberts]

Huw--

 

Hmmm.... that is a puzzler, though I will say that--very generally speaking--the luxes sometimes have less overall contrast than the crons (and especially the wide elmarits). So maybe that's why?

 

So I don't know--that's not a lot of sharpening in C1 at any rate!

 

Anyway, my 35 lux seems stupidly sharp to me in prints through f5.6, but I always apply sharpening (and some more in PS when printing).

 

But the 35 lux certainly has less contrast than the 28 Elmarit (new one) or the 24. I don't have a wide cron to compare with, only the CV28 1.9, which is relatively low contrast even compared to the 35 lux. Maybe that's the issue?

[sean_reid]

Huw,

 

Maybe your 35 Lux is angling for a holiday in Solms. If you look at the MTF's of the 35 Lux, it should be very sharp. Are you 100% sure that what you are seeing is a lack of sharpness or could it be a lack of contrast. Sharpening the image increases edge contrast. If you look at Sean's 35mm review, you can see what you should be getting. If your Lux does not measure up to this, it must need servicing. Even the battered example Sean had at first was not too shabby a performer.

 

Wilson

 

 

Hi Wilson,

 

Those should provide fairly good reference points because they were made with extensive focus-bracketing to be sure that misfocus wasn't a confounding variable. As a rule, the 35 Lux Aspherical has fairly good resolution wide open. If a given example doesn't, something might be off in the camera or the lens.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[huwge]

Guys,

 

It could be the contrast. It just looks like soft edges when you review the image in-camera - more so than any of my other lenses. The lens has just come back from coding and servicing and the images once they go through workflow are great.

 

If you look at the rose crops, in the unprocessed DNG file the petal edges just seem soft both in-camera and on my monitor, but when you use the sharpening lupe in C1 at a setting of 35 and 2, then it looks great and I think it's almost a psychological reaction to the seemingly soft original that makes me add a little more sharpness.

 

It's not really a problem, it's cure is relatively easy - don't chimp! It's just that sometimes you want to be sure that you got the focus right, especially where in a busy image the subject that you want in focus is outside the rangefinder patch. With the 35 lux I sometimes wonder, but then when I get home it seems OK.

 

Thanks anyway.

Huw

[Jamie Roberts]

Huw--

 

Here's a tip; shoot DNG plus JPEG fine, at around 2.5 MP JPEG. Turn sharpening on (it will only affect the JPEG).

 

When you review in the LCD, the camera will use the JPEG when you zoom in, and you'll be able to get a much better sense of how sharp your 35 shots will be.

 

Try it and see if it works for you--it does for me

[wlaidlaw]

Guys,

 

It could be the contrast. It just looks like soft edges when you review the image in-camera - more so than any of my other lenses. The lens has just come back from coding and servicing and the images once they go through workflow are great.

 

Thanks anyway.

Huw

 

Huw

 

Ahah! You did not say your lens had just come back from coding and servicing. If it was returned to you in the same state as my Noctilux after coding and servicing (heap of dog poo), absolutely anything could be wrong with it. My Nocti was 2 meters wrong in focus at 8 meters, although correct at infinity and only 3cm out at 1 meter. How it passed final technical checking totally beats me. Of course Leica was very apologetic and has rushed it through re-service but after 6 weeks, I still have not got it back. Edmund, one of our profile experts, had a similar experience with his 35 Lux and had been waiting for over 3 months for its return. Is there any chance you can try it on another member's M8, just to see if that gives similar results?

 

Wilson

[huwge]

Wilson - sorry to hear of your problems with the service. I tested the lens once it came back and it is certainly better than before it went away. Given that the pictures that it produces look fine once they go through my workflow, I can only assume it is not a problem of the lens. I will try and find another M8, better would be another 35 lux to see whether it does the same thing.

 

Jamie, thanks for the tip. I had done that, but I think in unfair circumstances. I will try again.

 

I would like to repeat that the picture above is focused, where I focused and has not been subjected to excessive sharpening or benefited from downsizing. At full size it is plenty sharp, tweaked in C1 at 40 / 2. My grumble is really that the small LCD images in-camera always look soft, and the unprocessed DNG also somewhat softer than the files from other lenses.

 

I think I need to understand the term "contrast" better, I just tend to take pictures and see if they look right and concentrate less on terminology. I recognise that the use of false vocabulary whilst trying to explain a problem is probably not helping if I am not correctly differentiating between sharpness and contrast.

 

Thanks for the advice.

 

Huw

[huwge]

Wilson - I spoke too soon. I was doing too much at f4+ and probably had not paid enough attention to detail when reviewing wide open images at further distances. At 1.4 the focal point now seems to be ca. 35cm behind where the camera focuses at 3-4 m distance from camera. At 1m where things had been problematic, there is an improvement.

 

I did some comparisons with a cron 35 asph at f2 and that is spot on at the same focal length from 1m to infinity. The lens is back in the bag for a return to Solms. A shame as the pictures at f4+ have been improved since the service. Ho hum.

 

This can't be the M8 is 6 other lenses are fine.

[wlaidlaw]

Wilson - I spoke too soon. I was doing too much at f4+ and probably had not paid enough attention to detail when reviewing wide open images at further distances. At 1.4 the focal point now seems to be ca. 35cm behind where the camera focuses at 3-4 m distance from camera. At 1m where things had been problematic, there is an improvement.

 

I did some comparisons with a cron 35 asph at f2 and that is spot on at the same focal length from 1m to infinity. The lens is back in the bag for a return to Solms. A shame as the pictures at f4+ have been improved since the service. Ho hum.

 

This can't be the M8 is 6 other lenses are fine.

 

Huw,

 

Just to give me 100% peace of mind, I took my Nocti to my local dealer when I was back in the UK for a couple of weeks. I got him to focus the Nocti on another M8 body - same results - phew I thought it might have been me. Sorry to hear about your Lux. I think you need to write a polite but extremely firm letter to accompany the lens, particularly in view of holiday season coming up, asking for priority since it was their error. The factory must start getting these lenses right first time - it is stunningly frustrating, not to say expensive in view of extra post and insurance costs. In reality the factory ought to reimburse us for these additional costs we have incurred (GBP50 for a Noctilux - weight + value). In addition we have lost the use of an expensive and maybe vital lens for weeks, if not months. It is not our fault these lenses are not being put right first time. In compensation for post costs plus an ex-gratia gesture of goodwill, maybe they could offer us a GBP100/EUR140/USD200 voucher against any Leica goods - are you listening/reading Solms?

 

Wilson

[carstenw]

I recently had a discussion with a Leica technician who was visiting Leica Camera Berlin, as did Holger, and it has supposedly become apparent to Leica that the equipment and processes they have used in the past to tune the rangefinders is not sufficiently accurate for the M8, leading to these "within spec" comments, while the camera was clearly focusing badly.

 

I presume that Leica will now overhaul their adjustment procedures, and hopefully they will also look at their lens procedures, especially with frequently problematic lenses like the 35 Summilux ASPH. I have confidence enough in Leica to expect that once they understand the problem, they will find a solution. We might have to be patient once again though.

[huwge]

Carsten - I am prepared to be patient, but for €440, I expect the lens to come back better not worse. Fortunately I have a well functioning 35 cron and so I am not totally disadvantaged. Also, it's not my livelihood. Wilson's point is valid, however, in that current turnaround time and a delinquent QC process wrt the M8 are not what Leica nor, more importantly, its loyal customers want right now. Also, the constant analysis to try and determine what is wrong can be a real drag. You start off thinking that you have done something wrong, unlearned how to focus, and then you find it is the mechanics that are at fault.

 

It would be so much simpler if the camera was a dog.

 

Huw

[carstenw]

If you want a dog of a camera, I have a couple of recommendations

 

With patience, I mean that these last few months, some of us have repeatedly sent stuff back to Solms for repairs and adjustments, but it doesn't always come back fixed. Leica has just mechanically been putting the equipment through their existing pipeline, checking when things are within spec, and this works most of the time, but not always, and this is what they have finally started to realise. The patience that we need to show starts now, when they are finally realising that the processes need an overhaul to handle the required accuracy of digital.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[huwge]

So - Geduld, und nochmals geduld

 

Patience is a virtue, I guess.

 

Huw