Purple Fringing on lux 35/f1.4 + M10R, is this normal?

[waigx]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hey there. I just got my new gadgets one week ago so far really enjoyed it.

Yesterday I was trying out in a park. The picture shows purple fringing at the top (see the bright sunshine and leave areas). As mentioned in the title. the lens is 11663 and the body is M10R, this particular photo shot 1/1000s ISO 200 f1.4. The JPG developed in lightroom 

Is this normal? I have zero proper camera experience before. I had only used smart phones.

I am under impression that purple fringing has not being a problem for good phones recent years - pretty surprised to see it appears in a camera system at this tier. 

Thanks.

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!

Edited October 11, 2021 by waigx

[Bangrossi]

It is 100% normal. My lux 35 fle also suffer from same chromatic abberation (CA) at wide open aperture. You need to stop it down at least 2 stop to eliminate it. It also writen on the user manual that the lens will have some CA wide open, and it suggest to stop down the aperture to eliminate the CA

If you absolutely need least ammount of CA wide open, you need to consider APO summicron 35mm.

This photo shot with my m6 + 35 fle wide open + portra 400. It is there, but for most of of the time it is well controled.

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!

Edited October 11, 2021 by Bangrossi
Some grammar corrections and add photos

[adan]

Unless you live on a planet with white sky - you blew out the sky when exposing for the shade under the tree.

Nothing wrong with that per se, but a blown sky will produce purple-blue fringes.

The 35mm f/1.4 Summilux does have some chromatic aberration at f/1.4, which adds some violet to the fringes - expect to see them anytime you overexpose any really bright "spot" of light, such as sun reflections off car or bike chrome or water droplets, or bright patches of sky through dark leaves, when using the largest apertures.

Solutions: stop down to the aperture of an iPhone 11 (f/2.4-2.8) in such lighting (that will reduce the CA)

- get a neutral-density filter that will cut back the light being projected even at f/1.4 (avoids the blown sky if used correctly)

- in general, learn about how to expose with a "real camera" that has all those dials and rings and knobs for you to be in control (it's what you paid Leica the big bucks for in the first place ).

[Yarosuav]

All fast lenses (1.4 and lower) will have purple fringing. Pretty easy to remove in Lightroom.

If you want a lens with no fringing, you need to look at any of the APO lenses (Leica, Voigtlander, etc.). APO lenses are specifically designed to eliminate fringing, but the fastest aperture (to my knowledge) they come in is f/2…

[otto.f]

Not only the Summilux 35 I guess, look at the upper right corner:

 

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!

[waigx]

Thanks everyone for prompt and informative replies!

At the bright side, I guess I am not having a "Lemon" lens so don't need to bother asking a replacement. At the another side. as a newbie I found it is interesting with one hundred+ years advance of optics this is still an issue, even with good lenses.

The Lightroom on iPad does have an option: `Remove CA`, however I found it does not help on my purple fringing at all 🤪. I will probably have to try it on macOS see if a desktop version helps. 

The new Leica APO 35mm f/2 just too expansive for me, also it's out of stock everywhere. Carrying extra ND filters just feels defeating the purpose of Leica M at some degree: minimalistic + portable.

I will learn to be more aware of the lighting environment to chose smaller apertures next time.

 

6 hours ago, carlosmcse said:

why you would take a photo like that at f1.4 … I have no idea. Were you testing? 

Just got this camera/lens, honestly I had little idea what it would yields to  . I was trying to show peoples at distance while blurring the front trees/lights.

But I actually found this issue happens quite often. In some cases I feel I have good reasons to use a wide aperture which causes LoCA.

See blow example.

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!

 

How would you suggest in this case? Shall I use a smaller aperture? Was thinking to focus on the gentleman.
.

 

Edited October 11, 2021 by waigx

[Gobert]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Fringing is unavoidable, but this is more than I’ve ever seen on my 35 Lux.

[waigx]

4 minutes ago, Gobert said:

Fringing is unavoidable, but this is more than I’ve ever seen on my 35 Lux.

Yeah, very interesting because I didn’t even notice on my other photos.

I just saw other people had worse fringing, they even returned to Leica Wetzlar for fully inspection but wetzlar told him it is normal……

[Photoworks]

Here are two photos with lens correction off in Lightroom 

I see that amount of CA occasionally, but not that strong.

Not sure what can make the difference, Are you using a filter, if yes what are you using?

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!

 

[Gobert]

2 hours ago, waigx said:

Yeah, very interesting because I didn’t even notice on my other photos.

I just saw other people had worse fringing, they even returned to Leica Wetzlar for fully inspection but wetzlar told him it is normal……

Is the 6bit recognition switched on?

[adan]

A couple of questions:

in your original post your say the picture was a "JPG developed in Lightroom." is that actually a .jpg original, and not .DNG (raw)?

Are you cropping these pictures from the full 35mm field of view?

.....................

...and a comment (separate from the purple problem).

A 35mm lens (a moderate wide-angle) is not the ideal lens for trying to create "subject separation" with focus.

Even at f/1.4, a 35mm still has far more depth of field (everything apparently sharp) than, say, a 50mm f/1.4 or 75mm f/1.4.

With a 35mm, one has to be within 1-2 meters/3-6 feet of the main subject to get enough "blur" to be effective. Picture below is with a 35mm at f/1.4 and has decent subject isolation at f/1.4 - but "my man" was only 3.5 feet away, not 40-60 feet away.

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!

[pgk]

You will find reams of 'information' about fringing if you search. The problem with tying down precise causes is that there are more than one and they, and their interaction, depend on the imaging and characteristics of the photograph taken. I have managed to get fringing on many excellent lenses and less, generally speaking, with lenses considered 'poorer'. This could of course be because they aren't as fast and don't image quite as precisely .......

[waigx]

2 hours ago, Photoworks said:

Not sure what can make the difference, Are you using a filter, if yes what are you using?

I did have a Leica clear UV filter on. But I thought that is supposed to reduce the fringing. Your photos looks gorgeous btw.

2 hours ago, Gobert said:

Is the 6bit recognition switched on?

Yes, the recognition was on, and the exif is correctly shows the lens info in Lightroom.

2 hours ago, adan said:

A couple of questions:

in your original post your say the picture was a "JPG developed in Lightroom." is that actually a .jpg original, and not .DNG (raw)?

Are you cropping these pictures from the full 35mm field of view?

The original was a .DNG, I exported a .JPG in Lightroom iPad version. And it is full 35mm field of view.

2 hours ago, adan said:

A 35mm lens (a moderate wide-angle) is not the ideal lens for trying to create "subject separation" with focus.

Even at f/1.4, a 35mm still has far more depth of field (everything apparently sharp) than, say, a 50mm f/1.4 or 75mm f/1.4.

With a 35mm, one has to be within 1-2 meters/3-6 feet of the main subject to get enough "blur" to be effective. Picture below is with a 35mm at f/1.4 and has decent subject isolation at f/1.4 - but "my man" was only 3.5 feet away, not 40-60 feet away.

Thanks, I think these are great points — I happened learned a bit theory of dof yesterday.

For this distance it was probability better  to use a smaller aperture. But as a new amateur I actually found 35mm is a bit narrow for me because I used to my iPhone (which claims a 26mm main camera) .

 

[waigx]

3 hours ago, Photoworks said:

 

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!

 

Did you use a ND filter or something for this one?

[farnz]

5 hours ago, waigx said:

The Lightroom on iPad does have an option: `Remove CA`, however I found it does not help on my purple fringing at all 

To add to what Andy (Adan) wrote, that's likely to be because they're blown highlights rather than Longitudinal Chromatic Aberration (LoCa).  If the problem was LoCa then you'd see magenta (purple) on one side of the branches and green on the other because the red and green wavebands are not effectively overlapping.  The "Remove CA" command  in LR can remove LoCa but not blown highlights because the cause is different.

I only see magenta in the highlights, which indicates to me that the sensels in your sensor are overloaded with photons (clipped) and causing the signal to avalanche into the neighbouring sensel, which display them as magenta and reduce detail.  For example, I can see that the edge detail in the brightly back-lit branches are indistinct.  This is likely to be "sensor bloom" (clipping) rather than LoCa and can be controlled by reducing exposure in the bright highlights.

Pete.

[LocalHero1953]

No harm in playing around as you learn, and you shouldn't get criticism for doing so. We've all been there (and some of us still are, years later.......). Far better to learn from our mistakes than just follow rules.

As has already been pointed out such colour problems often occur around blown highlights. Even if the highlights are not totally blown, the sensor will try to reconstruct the colour from the remaining data, and will usually get it wrong.

Avoiding blown highlights, especially from skies but also from white shirts, white walls and shiny sweaty skin (bald heads, cheek bones....), is what I spend most of my exposure thinking time thinking about. Digital sensors are far more likely to blow highlights than negative film (which is much more likely to give blocked shadows). My solutions are:

• Avoiding the sort of dappled-sky-through-the-trees effect in your first shot, because it often causes trouble. As the brightest part of the image, it will draw the eye, so it is a problem in composition as well as in exposure.
• Plain sky is just boring, and, as commented above, it is the brightest part of the image so draws the eye away from the main interest. If it is a typical English grey sky I try to avoid having it in the frame at all. 
• If the sky is interesting because of its colour or clouds, then I use whatever exposure metering technique I have to stop it being blown. Many people here underexpose by a stop or more from the Leica M centre-weighted exposure reading. I use the histogram or the 'blinkies' on the EVF to avoid blowing highlights. This may mean the rest of the image is under exposed, often severely - but the latest Leica cameras are excellent at recovering shadows in post processing.
• If all else fails, I use the Defringing tool in Lightroom; I'm not above trying to get away with local Desaturating as well. 

Edited October 11, 2021 by LocalHero1953

[Photoworks]

3 hours ago, waigx said:

Did you use a ND filter or something for this one?

No, the sun was almost gone. most of the time I will shoot with auto ISO and A on the time selectors . I have exposure compensation at -0.3 to -0.7 most or the time on the M10-R

The Noctilux 50 .95 has a ND filter all the time. I like to shoot wide open, but that is not necessary all the time. Some time it is good to try to close the F-stop 1 or 2 clicks. 1 Click is 1/2 stop and it makes a bid difference in CA .

another thing I like to suggest is to try to develop in a different way..  Many people have the tendency to  highlight and shadow recovery in Lightroom to 90-100% and the pull the blacks. and the apply clarity.  When I teach editing I will suggest to shoot DNG + JPG, look at the JPG file how it rendered and how a Leica interprets colors. Then go edit starting from the top slowly down only when it is needed. Many time not so much correction is needed and the picture became more brilliant with diminution .

I am just saying it at this point because some of the corrections can amplify the CA effect in Lightroom , your original JPG probably has some, but not so extreme.

Then try Lightroom lens correction and simple the purple to remove the color. again moderate use as it can give you horrible desaturated borders all around.

this are just some tips, but you will see that the 35 FLE is a wonderful lens and CA is not always there.

 

PS the image I have loaded this morning have lens correction turned off in Lightroom and sharpening and NR off. just to see what is possible

 

[Yarosuav]

10 seconds edit in Lightroom...

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!

Edited October 11, 2021 by Yarosuav

[maxfairclough]

On 10/12/2021 at 12:07 AM, waigx said:

Thanks everyone for prompt and informative replies!

At the bright side, I guess I am not having a "Lemon" lens so don't need to bother asking a replacement. At the another side. as a newbie I found it is interesting with one hundred+ years advance of optics this is still an issue, even with good lenses.

The Lightroom on iPad does have an option: `Remove CA`, however I found it does not help on my purple fringing at all 🤪. I will probably have to try it on macOS see if a desktop version helps. 

The new Leica APO 35mm f/2 just too expansive for me, also it's out of stock everywhere. Carrying extra ND filters just feels defeating the purpose of Leica M at some degree: minimalistic + portable.

I will learn to be more aware of the lighting environment to chose smaller apertures next time.

 

Just got this camera/lens, honestly I had little idea what it would yields to  . I was trying to show peoples at distance while blurring the front trees/lights.

But I actually found this issue happens quite often. In some cases I feel I have good reasons to use a wide aperture which causes LoCA.

See blow example.

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!

 

How would you suggest in this case? Shall I use a smaller aperture? Was thinking to focus on the gentleman.
.

 

To be honest had my 35mm for 2 years and never seen it at all. You seem to be getting it... a lot.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[artjom.kutuzov]

On 10/11/2021 at 9:22 AM, carlosmcse said:

If you can find an f1.4 lens without any purple fringing I’ll give you a Nobel prize 😅
 

for what is worth I haven’t noticed any on my Voigtlander 28f2 or 50f1.5. 
 

I hear the 35f1.4 Voigtlander has it. 
 

my favorite Panasonic lens the Pana/Leica 25f1.4 was fringing heaven. 
 

the best Fuji lens the 16f1.4. Yep. You guessed it. Fringing. 
 

that’s how you know they’re good. Find me an f1.4 lens without any fringing and I’ll find you a lens that is clinical and stale. 
 

why you would take a photo like that at f1.4 … I have no idea. Were you testing? 

If I would suggest 0.95 lens with virtually no fringing do I get Nobel Prize from you ;)?
Jokes aside there is pretty good example Argus 35mm 0,95 for full frame systems which controlls fringing really good