DOF scales on Leica lenses outdated in digital era?

[Michael Geschlecht]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello Luigi,

In addition, a number of earlier Leitz lenses with focal lengths of 90mm & longer had minimum apertures of F28, F32 & F45.

Best Regards,

Michael

[Advertisement]

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

[Pyrogallol]

I have an uncoupled 135mm f4.5 Elmar that goes down to f36.

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!

[Guest Nowhereman]

The DOF settings were also calculated for relatively small prints, 8X10 inches or A4 size, weren't they?  And photographers were aware that they would have to reduce the aperture by two stops if they wanted to printed at, say, 60 x 40 inches (150 x 100 cm). So, it's nothing new that the higher resolution of digital also requires reducing the aperture if you want the same overall look.
________________________
Frog Leaping photobook 

[capo di tutti capi]

The voigtlander 21mm f 3.5 by m8 has a very shallow depth of field. So small that the ear is already out of focus. Zone focusing does not work at all. Even with aperture 11 and a difference in distance of half a meter. For example, the distance is 2 meters. I put 1.5m or 2.5m on the lens. Aperture 11. Sharpness is clearly in a different place. I would say voigtlander 21mm f3.5 has a depth of field like on f1.8

Edited May 13, 2021 by capo di tutti capi

[Michael Geschlecht]

Hello Capo di tutti capi,

Welcome to the Forum.

If you put a meter measuring stick on the floor with the "1" pointing to you & the "100" pointing away from you.

And then you focus on the "50" with the lens set to F11.

And then take a photo with you looking down at the "50cm" center of the meter stick from a distance of about 1 meter behind the "1cm". Yes, I know this is not the same distance that you are asking about.

At what numbers in front of & behind the "50" does the image go out of focus?

Best Regards,

Michael

 

[01af]

Am 6.5.2021 um 19:26 schrieb luigi bertolotti:

... one of the well-known manufacturers of that era (Vivitar? Tamron? Sigma?) once introduced a "normal" tele (135 or 200) which had the  exclusiveness of an exaggerated top closure (f/64, I'd say) ... for the DOF passionates ... I think it was an unsuccesful, short-lived product ...

That's the Sigma Pantel series of lenses. 'Pan' for panfocus, 'tel' for telephoto. There was a 135 mm 1:2.8, a 200 mm 1:3.5, and a 300 mm 1:5.6. One source also mentions a Pantel 200 mm 1:2.8 which allegedly preceeded the Pantel 200/3.5—but I suppose that's an error. Sigma did have a 200 mm 1:2.8 lens in their line-up at that time but that was no Pantel if I remember correctly. Anyway, the Pantel 135/2.8 was the most popular among these. The Pantel series wasn't too successful indeed but it was not short-lived. It started in the 1960s and was discontinued in the early or mid-'80s. However I think not all three (or four) Pantel lenses were available all the time; in particular, the 300 mm was added in the '70s.

The smallest aperture was f/64. However there was no continuous aperture range all the way down to f/64. Instead, the regular aperture range went down to f/22, and then there was one single additional click-stop for f/64. The range between f/22 and f/64 was inaccessible. The overall performance of these lenses was ... umm, acceptable but not really good. And at f/64, of course, diffraction blur was very obvious. So the Pantel feature was widely considered a gimmick for inexperienced hobbyists, not a useful tool for seasoned photographers. No other lens manufacturer ever tried to copy it, and for good reason.

[capo di tutti capi]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi Michael! the depth of field in such an experiment strongly depends on the angle of the camera

Edited May 13, 2021 by capo di tutti capi

[M11 for me]

vor 6 Minuten schrieb capo di tutti capi:

vor 5 Stunden schrieb Michael Geschlecht:

Привет, Capo di tutti capi,

Добро пожаловать на форум.

Если вы положите измерительную линейку на пол так, чтобы цифра «1» была направлена на вас, а цифра «100» - от вас.

А затем вы фокусируетесь на «50» с объективом, установленным на F11.

А затем сделайте снимок, на котором вы смотрите вниз на центр «50 см» измерителя с расстояния примерно 1 метр позади «1 см». Да, я знаю, что это не то расстояние, о котором вы спрашиваете.

При каких цифрах перед и после "50" изображение выходит из фокуса?

Наилучшие пожелания,

Майк

Expand  

🤣

[jaapv]

Note that DOF is a subjective measure.
After all it is the zone of acceptable sharpness. The catch is in the word acceptable, as that is an assessment by the photographer that cannot be caught in scales or numbers.
Note also that the falloff in sharpness outside the focal plane is not only a function of focal length (well, not really of focal length - of the perspective created by the magnification of a given focal length) but also of lens design. Thus two lenses of the same focal length at the same subject distance may well produce a different apparent DOF.

Another complicating factor: DOF depends on subject matter: Take a high-contrast photograph and a low- contrast one : the high contrast one will give a more shallow DOF than the low-contrast one. Or take one with bold shapes and one with a busy subject.

 

[Michael Geschlecht]

3 hours ago, capo di tutti capi said:

Hi Michael! the depth of field in such an experiment strongly depends on the angle of the camera

Hello Capo di tutti capi,

Yes , I realize that. For what I am trying to do, this is not a problem.

I have also taken into consideration what Jaap was nice enough to write.

If it is possible, please use a tripod. Yes, I know that this changes things again.

Best Regards,

Michael

Edited May 13, 2021 by Michael Geschlecht

[luigi bertolotti]

6 hours ago, 01af said:

 

The smallest aperture was f/64. However there was no continuous aperture range all the way down to f/64. Instead, the regular aperture range went down to f/22, and then there was one single additional click-stop for f/64. The range between f/22 and f/64 was inaccessible. The overall performance of these lenses was ... umm, acceptable but not really good. And at f/64, of course, diffraction blur was very obvious. So the Pantel feature was widely considered a gimmick for inexperienced hobbyists, not a useful tool for seasoned photographers. No other lens manufacturer ever tried to copy it, and for good reason.

I wonder if nowadays, thanks to super-high  ISO becoming rather "normal", someone could revive the idea...  "a FF digital with the DOF of a cellphone"😁 ... a lens with f64 (why not 90 or 128...) and a PS plugin to adjust diffraction blur... 😁

Edited May 13, 2021 by luigi bertolotti

[Jean-Michel]

On 5/6/2021 at 2:11 PM, Michael Geschlecht said:

Hello Luigi,

In addition, a number of earlier Leitz lenses with focal lengths of 90mm & longer had minimum apertures of F28, F32 & F45.

Best Regards,

Michael

My 135 Elmarit closes to f/32. Kind of hard hand-holding that lens steady at that  aperture 🙂

[Michael Geschlecht]

6 hours ago, Jean-Michel said:

My 135 Elmarit closes to f/32. Kind of hard hand-holding that lens steady at that  aperture 🙂

Hello Jean-Michel,

If your 135mm F2.8 is 1 of the 3 versions of this lens that was made for "M" cameras you will notice a tripod mount under the lens, at the point of best balance. Remember in the Field a Large Ball Head & Cable Release is usually better. Other types of Tripod Heads are usually better used  for Studio Work.

Best Regards,

Michael

[Jean-Michel]

HI Michael,

Yes, the lens (the 1972 version) does have a tripod mount. My comment was in jest, as this lens is on the heavy side. It s not the greatest of lenses but it has its uses. I do regret selling a 135 Tele-Elmar, which was more useful. 

[Michael Geschlecht]

13 minutes ago, Jean-Michel said:

HI Michael,

Yes, the lens (the 1972 version) does have a tripod mount. My comment was in jest, as this lens is on the heavy side. It s not the greatest of lenses but it has its uses. I do regret selling a 135 Tele-Elmar, which was more useful. 

Hello Jean-Michel,

If you put the camera on a tripod using the lens mount on the Lens & stop it down to F5.6 or F8 of F11, I think that you will see an improvement.

Best Regards,

Michael

 

Edited May 13, 2021 by Michael Geschlecht

[Jean-Michel]

18 minutes ago, Michael Geschlecht said:

Hello Jean-Michel,

If you put the camera on a tripod using the lens mount on the Lens & stop it down to F5.6 or F8 of F11, I think that you will see an improvement.

Best Regards,

Michael

 

Hi again Michael,

Yes, that does work, and do use a tripod for work requiring its use. Even wide open, the lens produces fine images.

[rramesh]

The DOF scale is a guide, nothing more. Great for street photography. For accurate focusing, we have the rangefinder patch. 

And I do think, it gives a nice design touch to the barrel. 😀

[a.noctilux]

6 hours ago, Jean-Michel said:

Hi again Michael,

Yes, that does work, and do use a tripod for work requiring its use. Even wide open, the lens produces fine images.

This Elmarit 135mm is quite usable from wide open, I use it that way "a lot", having also the Tele-Elmar 135 which is my main 135mm.

Two things depart them : the viewing with x1.5 ( + 90 frame lines) is much more comfortable in use and the tripod post on which I use with monopod or shoulder stocks for active pics.

 

As side note, I used the 2.8/135mm at f/32, out of curiosity, but the results were deceptive for "diffraction" I think, so I limit it's use to max f/11 after that.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[luigi bertolotti]

Here's a respectable top closure  😎

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!

(but... 480mm f9 - for Large Format...)