Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
willemvelthoven

Distagon 15 M8 IR filter test

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Well, it's of course also a matter of cost/benefit. Do you really need it and are you prepaired to pay for extra cost and weight?

 

The distagon 15's depth of field is rather considerable, even at full aperture. At 0,7 meter (closest focusing distance of a Leica RF) depth of field is about 30cm on an M8.

 

It depends on how concerned one is with ultimate resolution. HCB, as we can see again and again from many pictures, was certainly not obsessed with resolution and his pictures were very often out of focus. As a rule, the ZM 15 and CV 15 will almost never be in exact focus (at a chosen subject distance) but both will usually be close enough to satisfy most photographers (myself included). In terms of absolute resolution, with most real life work, the WATE will usually give the best performance specifically because it is RF-coupled. But, for most pictures and purposes, who cares about absolute resolution (at a set distance)?

 

That said, I prefer to have RF-coupling in all the lenses I use - when possible. The Zeiss is capable of exceptional resolution, the best of the 15/16s, but it will rarely reach that level at any set distance simply because one is always guessing at focus with it. I think it should have been RF-coupled but its a great lens nonetheless.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i am pretty sure that we will see a digital RF with a live view soon, and with this, an alternative focusing system in addition to that of the rangefinder one. until then, i guess people will have to endure the zeiss 15 as they have endured the SWC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the idea of the additional distance scale which (I assume) is intended to be visible through the aux finder. Haven't worked out why it only goes down to 1 metre though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Willem this was shot at 2.8 which would have the worst effect on vignetting , did you happen to try this at 5.6 say and see if it cleaned up better. I honestly would love to see just one shot with the leica filter on and IR on at 5.6 in this same setting just to see when it completly cleans up or doesn't .

 

At your service Guy.

 

please note that my wall is not illuminated perfecly. Refer so Seans testing for more reliable results.

 

these were taken with tungsten only. leica IR/UV filter detection on iso160 lightroom etc.

 

f 2.8: lots of vignetting

 

f 8.0: less vignetting

 

f 8.0 with vignetting correction +74 in LR. looks very acceptable but residue of cyan drift is visible. Probably only when taking pictures of white walls though.

 

 

I guess Sean is right, the only way to do this perfectly is cornerfix.

 

Untill Leica take a more open approach to in camera correction and lens detection that is.

 

I'll probably not use cornerfix that often since I'm trying to keep my workflow simple.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guy_mancuso

Thanks for running those shots for me. i tend to go with the cornerfix solution idea here and just make a profile and batch. Very tempting lens and the results really are awesome from what i seen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I guess Sean is right, the only way to do this perfectly is cornerfix.

 

Untill Leica take a more open approach to in camera correction and lens detection that is.

 

I'll probably not use cornerfix that often since I'm trying to keep my workflow simple.

 

 

Hi Willem,

 

I agree with the advantage of keeping a workflow simple. The test boards I shoot are useful as reference materials but, in reality (and as Guy mentioned) the variations in subject, tones, colors, etc. we see in normal pictures tend to hide minor cyan drift with many subjects. So "close enough" correction is often all we need. I haven't tried a 67 on the Zeiss 15. Has it worked for you with no hard vignetting?

 

Cornerfix is really the only way to really nail the WATE corrections as well but the in-camera corrections seem to work well enough, in practice, so long as one uses a Leica 49.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guy_mancuso

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I agree i have really yet to make a adjustment with the WATE outside of just using the 49mm Leica filter , many things will hide or you really just don't notice it being off a little. The Zeiss here looks like cornerfix maybe the best idea and really it would be a extra step for me that may not be so bad. here maybe a simple workflow off the top of my head that may work very easy. In a program like bridge you can go into the meta data and do a EXIF search with the find and put in focal length than 16mm which would than search and show all 16mm shots. than select them do a batch rename and than isolate them to a different folder and run a batch conerfix on the raws than put them back into the workflow and import into C1 or LR and than process normally. Pretty simple really

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With the WATE price increase, this lens is looking good value for money. 21mm Elmarit-M ASPH and this lens are an alternative to the WATE and, together, you don't pay so much for the extra stop.

 

I'd certainly like Leica to produce a 16mm f2.8 lens, rangefinder coupled, coded, half stop aperture increments, correct size UV/IR filter, red bump and sorted. Perhaps they should offer to licence the IP from their friends at Oberkochen to get them started.

 

Leica 16mm Elmarit-M ASPH. Sounds good to me. Then, a 24mm Summicron and a 28mm Summilux and we'd be in good shape.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guy_mancuso

I'm thinking and this is really dangerous. My latest thoughts are 28 down and i just got the 24mm and it is extremely sharp but i love the look of my 28 cron and i think the 21mm is more like it than that idea throws in the WATE usefullness and what to do below 21mm. What i love is this two for one lens look like the 75 lux and the 28 cron. i like the sharp wide open than falloff and i like when you stop it to f4 and it is extremely sharp, I just like that charactor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guy_mancuso

Back to the 15mm. Now i am lazy sometimes and going in and changing the UV/IR setting is something i do NOT want to change. i would rather shoot with the IR on. So maybe the best solution is not code this lens at all put the IR filter on than use cornerfix.

 

 

I had another question , there is a center filter for this lens. Are folks using this without that center filter or with it because i would think this controls the vignetting on this lens and with it maybe a better idea but than you have a IR filter also and running 2 filters not such a great idea. Thoughts on this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those who still have their R glass rather than spring for the super expensive Zeiss 15 try using the Novoflex R to M adapter with either the Leica R15 3.5 or the stupendous R 15 2.8. Granted these are large lenses but then so is the Zeiss.

 

Try it ..........you"ll like it!

 

Woody Spedden

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guy_mancuso

Well i have the zeiss 15mm here to test . Now Seans test was with strict white board and will be more accurate overall. But running this test with menu options, on , off, On Ir i see no difference at all in the corners with regards to any cyan from the sensor itself , no filter on yet. I find this very strange but this lens is not coded either so the firmware maybe saying absolutely nothing with the menu options , becuase it does not have a vlue what lens is on there. It actually maybe better not to code this lens , Explain that in a minute. Now i bought a 72mm to 67 stop down ring and put the B+W 486 cut on and first off it works there is no additional vignetting from filter. That is good news . Let me show you a 2.8 with filter on and off. yes there is the cyan drift but no hard vignetting I can see.

 

Now both shot at 2.8 . BTW check out magenta luggage bag on top left

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guy_mancuso

Now at 5.6 it will be less cyan drift so let's look at that with filter on and off. BTW i have the menu set for ON IR/UV and reason is I want to work like this all the time becuase i have filters on every lens. I am lazy and don't want to change the damn menu option every 5 minutes and remember i am NOT coded here for a WATE and will get into that after this showing at 5.6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guy_mancuso

Looking at 2.8 and 5.6 there is not a big difference at all.

 

So now comes the options . i could stay pat and use cornerfix and make the profiles and be done with it with the B+W filter and not code the lens and just run Zeiss 15mm and batch it with profiles and be good to go and you may even be able to get away with a f4 profile for every aperture, not sure have not doneit yet but i am always looking for a way to cheat on this kind of stuff to make the process faster.

 

 

Option number 2 , Since the 72mm to 67mm stop down works as you have just seen than we could actually Code the lens for the WATE and try the Leica 67mm filter and it may clean up as well as the WATE at 16mm , maybe still a touch of cyan cast for the 1mm difference . This is something we don't know yet becuase no one has tried the Leica 67 coded for a WATE .

 

OPINION now for WATE owners sitting there going what the hell is Guy doing with a Zeiss 15mm when he has a WATE. It's a excellent question , i don't have a answer but the first thing is speed and the rest we will figure out. LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guy_mancuso

And just for the record here is the WATE at 5.6 filter on using the Milch approach at 16mm setting and everything on as normal for me . pretty clean. Leica 49mm filter inside the adapter..

BtW seting is AWB and i did NOT WB these. ISO 160 and tripod and cable release . I also set the camera up with aspirit level for plumb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guy_mancuso

The WATE looks like it may have very slightly less distortion but there is a 1mm difference also .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sell the WATE. Sell the 24 Asph. Get the 21 Asph and the Z 15.

 

ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guy_mancuso

You dog. LOL

 

I knew you would say that. LOL

 

Need to see that 21 /24 test my friend.

 

The 15mm is pretty apealing . The size and weight again does not bother me much. Sean that lens you tested those corners were bad , i got equal or better with the WATE so far. I was exteremly careful in my focusing too measured it , LCD it and checked it against the WATE. The killer is there both screaming good and the WATE has 18 and 21mm to boot. This is NOT a rash decision by any means. BTW I'm glad you do the lens testing stuff, i still hate it. LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the WATE photo looks better. Since the 15mm is not rangefinder coupled, any extra resolution it may have on the WATE is lost in out of focus pictures.

 

The Zeiss also has a lot more distortion. You shoot a lot of people. Shoot the same scen with one of your kides on the edge of the frame and see which lens makes them look more streached. I bet it would be the Zeiss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...