R-lenses vs modern M-lenses for the SL2

[Aktenschrank]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

@SrMi ok, got it. I oftentimes shoot at closer distances where even at for example f11 I can still clearly see if a specific point is in focus in magnified view. I never use focus peaking...way too unreliable in my personal experience, probably because I didn't do what you suggested until now😀

[Advertisement]

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

[SrMi]

11 minutes ago, Artin said:

When you have it set to A setting (aperture priority) as you set your aperture the auto brightness also will show you the depth of field ... and in manual setting also as you adjust your exposure the correct depth of field is visible as long as your exposure is correct 

you can clearly see the background and foreground change .. I have not had any issue with it 

My point is that it is hard to focus precisely with large depth of field, which is the case when you close the aperture while focusing. 

[SrMi]

1 hour ago, Artin said:

Tru you do lose majority of the focus peaking as it confuses the sensor ? In some lower light conditions.. but on the hindsight you really do not need that precise of focus point as your depth of field increases. But I do understand where you are coming from  

I find focus peaking annoying 🙂, I use magnified view when focusing manually. The appropriate technique may depend also on photographer's eyesight.

[dritz]

On 1/3/2020 at 8:01 AM, Artin said:

Some of the R lenses That I have which are very nice are the 35. and 50 summicrons ... they are softer in the corners then their modern counterparts , however they are exceptional portrait lenses. And quite affordable . the 80 lux is beautiful.. and the 60 macro is also a great value for its price. these lenses I think are a good starting point. 

 The one lens so far I am not impressed with, is my copy of the Apo 180 3.4, I have yet to see what all the hype is all about but given the limited time I have had with it I will take my time and give it a chance. 

You're right on the money.  I use the 35 Summicron-R and 80-Summilux-R as my favorite lenses on the SL. I like the 60 Elmar-R too, but not quite as lovely.... I'd rather switch to the 50 Summilux-M.

[BernardC]

On 1/6/2020 at 7:37 PM, SrMi said:

My point is that it is hard to focus precisely with large depth of field, which is the case when you close the aperture while focusing. 

I only find that to be true past a certain point, maybe F:8-F:11. Anything wider and I prefer to focus at shooting aperture. Even past F:8, I won't open-up all the way, but just to 5.6 or so.

As we all know, depth-of-field is an illusion. There's still only one plane of focus. Depending on the lens, that plane of focus may shift noticeably at different apertures.

[SrMi]

11 hours ago, BernardC said:

I only find that to be true past a certain point, maybe F:8-F:11. Anything wider and I prefer to focus at shooting aperture. Even past F:8, I won't open-up all the way, but just to 5.6 or so.

As we all know, depth-of-field is an illusion. There's still only one plane of focus. Depending on the lens, that plane of focus may shift noticeably at different apertures.

What do you mean by "depth-of-field is an illusion"? I can see it increase and decrease with changing aperture.

My understanding is that depth-of-field is the distance between the nearest and farthest objects that are in acceptable sharp focus in an image. Of course, only objects in the focal plane are in the best possible focus.

It probably depends on eyesight. Some may easily detect the plane of focus at f5.6. For me, it is easier and faster at f/2.0 or less. 

The focus shift of M lenses is typically not a problem (see Erwin Puts compendium for lenses that have that issue). One may decide what is the more significant issue of manual focusing with M-lenses: inability to place the focal plane at the correct distance, or potential issue of focus shift.

As you probably know, SL2 always focuses wide open (MF and AF mode) with L-mount lenses.

 

Edited January 12, 2020 by SrMi

[BernardC]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

19 hours ago, SrMi said:

As you probably know, SL2 always focuses wide open (MF and AF mode) with L-mount lenses.

On that topic, I know that I've read about AF systems that automatically adjust focus when they stop-down, but I do not know if that is part of the L-Mount specification.

I wouldn't be surprised if it was. It's just a look-up table in the lens firmware.

We already know that T-Stops are part of the specification, so there's little doubt that the camera has access to a lot more information than we think it does.

 

As far as "depth-of-field is an illusion" is concerned, it's an old saying. I am not sure where it originated. Things appear to be sharp, until you look closer. Of course, sharpness is also an illusion...

The thing about depth-of-field is that it's a very slippery illusion, and it behaves nothing like the simple rule that beginner photographers are taught. It is not evenly distributed around the plane of focus, it is not consistent throughout he image plane, it is not the same for two lenses with similar specifications, it can be razor-thin even at "infinity," no two people agree on how far it extends.

One nice thing about mirrorless is that you can easily focus at working aperture, and put the plane with the highest contrast where it needs to be. This technique is not exclusive to mirrorless, it's the same thing photographers were doing with a ground glass and a magnifier 150 years ago. It's just much much simpler with an EVF.

 

Anyway, that's all theoretical. If you prefer to focus wide-open, that's OK. My main point was that I personally prefer not to open-up all the way to focus. Opening up a stop or two is enough, and it's more accurate. I don't open-up at all if I am shooting at 5.6 or wider.

[SrMi]

1 hour ago, BernardC said:

On that topic, I know that I've read about AF systems that automatically adjust focus when they stop-down, but I do not know if that is part of the L-Mount specification.

I wouldn't be surprised if it was. It's just a look-up table in the lens firmware.

We already know that T-Stops are part of the specification, so there's little doubt that the camera has access to a lot more information than we think it does.

 

As far as "depth-of-field is an illusion" is concerned, it's an old saying. I am not sure where it originated. Things appear to be sharp, until you look closer. Of course, sharpness is also an illusion...

The thing about depth-of-field is that it's a very slippery illusion, and it behaves nothing like the simple rule that beginner photographers are taught. It is not evenly distributed around the plane of focus, it is not consistent throughout he image plane, it is not the same for two lenses with similar specifications, it can be razor-thin even at "infinity," no two people agree on how far it extends.

One nice thing about mirrorless is that you can easily focus at working aperture, and put the plane with the highest contrast where it needs to be. This technique is not exclusive to mirrorless, it's the same thing photographers were doing with a ground glass and a magnifier 150 years ago. It's just much much simpler with an EVF.

 

Anyway, that's all theoretical. If you prefer to focus wide-open, that's OK. My main point was that I personally prefer not to open-up all the way to focus. Opening up a stop or two is enough, and it's more accurate. I don't open-up at all if I am shooting at 5.6 or wider.

The optimal approach likely depends on the photographer. If one has difficulty with manually focusing M-lenses on SL/SL2 cameras, one thing to try is to focus wide open. It seems easier and more precise to me.

Unfortunately, it is not possible to focus at working aperture with SL2 and L-mount lenses. Some DSLRs allow focusing at working aperture using live view.

 

Edited January 12, 2020 by SrMi

[scott kirkpatrick]

Ok, bear with me for a minute on the subject of "modern M lenses on the SL2."  (warning -- ugly pictures) The toughest test for a small lens on a big machine like the SL or SL2 is a scene at infinity, bringing the lens all the way back, and a good trick is to tilt the camera so the horizon runs from corner to corner, pushing salient detail as far from center as possible.  A favorite lens is the M 24 Elmarit-asph, designed just before the digital changeover.  On center in this test, it looks great at 47 MPx.  I tested from 2.8 to 5.6, and all were equally crisp.  Here's a crop from f/5.6, since the light was changing and this looked nicest:

 

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!

U1000862 1 copy by scott kirkpatrick, on Flickr  SL2 with M24 Elmarit-asph @f/5.6

this quality held for the center half of the frame, but at the far corners, things definitely fell apart:

U1000861 2 copy by scott kirkpatrick, on Flickr SL2 with M24 @ f/2.8

Stopping down to f/5.6 helps a lot, as does rendering at 24 MPx rather than at 47 MPx:

U1000862 1 by scott kirkpatrick, on Flickr SL2 with M24 Elmarit-asph @ f/5.6

I didn't subject my M10 to the same indignity, but here is a cityscape picture taken with the 24 that can be compared:

L1002638 by scott kirkpatrick, on Flickr M10-D, M24 EL-asph @ either f/2.8 or f/4.0

And here are center and edge full-resolution crops:

L1002638 1 copy 2 by scott kirkpatrick, on Flickr

L1002638 1 copy by scott kirkpatrick, on Flickr

So I think I'll keep my 24 on an M10 and wait for the SL 24 to come along in 2021.  I do like the focal length.

[davidmknoble]

Late to this thread, but I have spent the last 8 months using some R lenses on both the SL2 and SL2-S along with my R9 and R6.2.  Similar to the early 2000’s shooting an M-4 with film and the 50 Summicron (v 4) and 35 Summicron ASPH, I shoot many of the R lenses at f/4 or f/5.6.  In this range the R lenses are superb.  No, they are not crisp on the corners like the SL primes, but they are 20 to 30 years older.  The fact that they hold up now is incredible (IMHO).

I even played with the (R’s) 50 cron at 2.8 and 28mm v1 at 2.8 and they were excellent in the middle.  If I am concerned with corners, I use newer R lenses at f/8 or so.  For example, the 35-70 f/4 lens (a lot like the M MATE) is great at f/8 for crisp outlines.  The APO 90 is incredible, but one of the newest R lenses and like the M.  The 35 elmarit v2 has a lot of distortion, so I shoot it level, but the 28 elmarit v1 is so incredibly small that I prefer it over the v2 larger with the unwieldy lens hood that pulls out and doesn’t lock.

Other incredible lenses are the APO 180 f/2.8 at all f/stops.  I like the 280 f/2.8, early version with the APO 1.4x for wildlife, again not for landscapes and corners, but middle focus.

The best part about R lenses is the color correction.  It was originally set for slide film and I actually set the saturation in lightroom to zero or negative just a little.  Also, because it is set for slide film, my opinion is the shadows are a little darker and harder to recapture. But I know that going in and set my exposure accordingly.  The colors are just super.

I think this is what translated over to the S glass, because of the OVF of the S system, distortion was a priority as was color rendition.  What you see is what you get (after the sensor plays with it of course).

Overall, I echo the 60mm f/2.8 macro is a great lens and much sharper corner to corner than the 50 cron, but a little harsher on bokeh.  For a great, inexpensive R lens the 90 Elmarit v2 is great and just about the same as the M lens (which I also love).  It’s harder to find ROM lenses now, but the ROM adds a lot to using with the SL series because it records the lens.  I got lucky and found a really clean version of the 28 Elmarit v1 lense with ROM.  I want a 280 f/2.8 with ROM but its too expensive just to get the ROM.

I have a 70-180 AP f/2.8, which is “affordable” compared to the 35-70 f/2.8 (crazy expensive) and that lens is really nice with colors at the beach.  

I’d say, if you can give up weather sealing., autofocus and absolute corner sharpness wide open, the R lenses are great alternatives.  I mix and match and bring a film camera along lot keep the kit fairly small (larger than M, but still efficient).

Nice thread!  Thanks for letting me tag in so late.

[Jcurry]

 

On 1/6/2020 at 10:22 AM, SrMi said:

It's not about light, but about depth-of-field.

With closed aperture, the depth of field is too large for precise manual focusing. To see the difference, you can try focusing (with magnification) wide open and with f/8. An angle viewfinder on SL2 would be great. I could check the aperture value while looking through the EVF.

Can't you just use the focus peaking tool to solve this annoyance or is that only available on the sl2-s?

[jaapv]

Focuspeaking shows you DOF and is as inaccurate. The way to use it is to “walk” the plane of  focus and position it somewhere in the middle.