CV 12mm/f5.6 on M8?

[delander †]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

CV 12mm/f5.6 on M8 I have a copy of the WATE but I am thinking of something wider.

 

Is anyone using this combo? Can I get away without filters?

 

Any advice appreciated,

 

Jeff

 

PS Sean Reid, I have read your write-up.

[Advertisement]

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

[carstenw]

Try using the search facility in the toolbar. There have been a number of in-depth threads about this very topic, which answer your questions.

[delander †]

Thanks Carsten, I forgot about doing a search. From what I've seen think I'll get one,

 

jeff

[sean_reid]

CV 12mm/f5.6 on M8 I have a copy of the WATE but I am thinking of something wider.

 

Is anyone using this combo? Can I get away without filters?

 

Any advice appreciated,

 

Jeff

 

PS Sean Reid, I have read your write-up.

 

Good idea <G>. You will need filters for "accurate" color and Cornerfix will be the best way to correct the cyan drift.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[robertwright]

There is a longish thread about this-ultimately it is up to you to decide for what you shoot if you need to use it filtered or not.

 

I have tried it both ways and concluded that for times when the magenta issue is not going to be "an issue" for me, ie; in architectural interiors, that it was better for me to shoot the lens unfiltered (coded, lens detection on but no uv/ir setting) and deal with any magental issues either via local corrections in photoshop or via Jamie's profile in Capture One which is very good. You can boost saturation afterwards. Also it changes red's a little to orange, but that is fixable also. Unfiltered there is a small bit of cyan contamination, but depending on subject may be acceptable.

 

In a landscape setting the cyan in the sky areas might be objectionable but it depends on exposure, it is less visible in bright sunny skies and more visible in overcast. Filtered is another story, the cyan is huge, but cornerfix will get rid of it with a few caveats: if capture one is you primary converter you will have to enable level compression in cornerfix which introduces its own problems and was not a solution for me. In Lr I can used cornerfix easily however. It is not hard to make a good profile for daylight against a white wall, or against a large sheet of foamcore. I found that the daylight cornerfix profile also worked in tungsten, as did my tungsten cpf. correction file in daylight. Weird...

 

downside to cornerfix is that if you are doing interiors and there is a lot of vignetting falloff cornerfix will add to the noise considerably in the corners bc it is effectively lifting shadows and underexposed channels. I set cornerfix to not correct for vignetting and this helps, in interiors I might add some fill light to make the corners cleaner and then if I want a little vignetting add it later in post. Less noisy.

 

bottom line is that you have to look at the kind of imagery you shoot and make a determination as to how you will use this lens and how it will fit with your post production. for me I am not going to shoot hundreds of images with it, so the added post production is not an issue. and outdoors, i would say unfiltered is the way to go.

[delander †]

I did look at the long recent thread but what you have written here is most helpful Robert. I shall use the lens outside for colour so will probably go without filters and see how I get on.

Cornerfix I have not yet used.

I am looking forward to the look that such a lens can give me.

 

Jeff

[robertwright]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

top to bottom, filtered, detection on, uvir on, same with cornerfix, last is unfiltered, detection on but no uvir.

 

you can see some cyan in the unfiltered one. cornerfix is the cleanest. You could use the Lr lens vignetting tool to help the unfiltered one be cleaner.

 

That said, if you had a neutral building on the edge of the frame it would be cyanish.

 

so the answer is ymmv. I am using a 55mm leica uvir in john milich's holder. I also carry the original voigtlander shade. For technical things where i have the time I will shoot it both ways actually, or do a focus bracket if time allows. But it is one of those lenses, if you need it, usually you absolutely need it, you are up against a wall. And it kicks the crap outa anything this wide in slr.

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!

[delander †]

Thank you Robert, again most useful. By 'detection on/no UV-IR' you mean the M8 thinks it is a WATE with an average 18mm focal length?

 

Jeff

[Nocti-Luchs]

And it kicks the crap outa anything this wide in slr.

 

I love my CV 12 but this is not true anymore. The CV 12 "becomes" a 16 mm in FF Terms. I tested my copy on the M8 against the new Canon EF 2,8/14 II (on 5D) which is clearly better by a good margin: Less vignetting, better sharpness in the corners etc. With that kind of price tag it should ... For best results stopping down at least 1 or 2 stops is still necessary.

 

I also saw pictures made with the EOS 1 Ds III and this lens (at f 8), absolutly amazing.

[jlm]

you might want to read Read Reviews' test of the canon 14; a bit different take

[Nocti-Luchs]

you might want to read Read Reviews' test of the canon 14; a bit different take

 

I am not (yet) a subscriber to his site. Did he test the new model of the 2,8/14 (II)? According to the listing of his tests on his website he tested the now outdated first version of the lens What is the bottom line of his findings? For my eyes with the respective copies of lenses I had the difference was obvious.

 

Here:

 

Canon EF 14mm f/2.8 L II USM Lens Review

 

You can compare the first and second version of the EF 2,8/14 (move the cursor over the image).

[AlanJW]

RobertWright's results are in accord with mine. I have a WATE and wanted something wider but not outrageously expensive because my needs on this score are sporadic. I have gotten John Milich's adapter, and his screw to M mount adapter too. The lens is coded as a WATE and I use a 55mm uv/ir filter. I leave the filter on the lens; too much bother to keep taking it off and putting it back. I use the CV 15mm finder. I had Grimes fashion a lens cap to fit over the hood. I sold my CV 15mm as it was too close to what I had on the WATE.The whole kit for the 12mm even with all the stuff added is still quite reasonable.

[sean_reid]

I am not (yet) a subscriber to his site. Did he test the new model of the 2,8/14 (II)? According to the listing of his tests on his website he tested the now outdated first version of the lens What is the bottom line of his findings? For my eyes with the respective copies of lenses I had the difference was obvious.

 

Here:

 

Canon EF 14mm f/2.8 L II USM Lens Review

 

You can compare the first and second version of the EF 2,8/14 (move the cursor over the image).

 

I recently tested the 14/2.8 II. It's better than the previous model but its still soft in the corners. I use Canon DSLRs for professional interiors photography so this lens range is always of particular interest to me.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[robertwright]

maybe I shoulda said it kicks the crap outa anything at 600 bucks:)

 

I think the thing is tho it needs some attention in focusing for best results, and when I say "best" results I am talking about 100% pixel peeping time wasting. I think in prints you would never see it.

 

I tested for myself the various focus distances at f11 and the lens has two "gears" so to speak, if you set the lens to the click stop of 1m you get excellent sharpness from near objects all the way to the distance, but not good infinity focus. In other words if you want to pop the foreground at the expense of the background use the 1m mark. the .5m mark did not seem to useful to me, nor any of the closer focusing distances. You would have to nail it and it is easier just to set 1m and stop down a little.

 

for best balance of near and distant object, infinity, I found the 2m mark to be best at f11, near objects are pretty sharp and infinity is sharp. for a landscape I would just set infinity. things from 2m will be good.

 

and its frick'n rec-tuh-lin-e-ar!

 

Again, in a print, you might not tell the difference between the various settings.

[photorunner]

I too have the John Milich LTM adapter coded to WATE, Leica 55mm IR using Milich adapter on my CV 12. I tried making profiles using Cornerfix but always get a

 

"Warning - Reference image contains saturated highlights.Your profile may not be accurate"

 

I've tried shooting outdoors in daylight against a plain white wall using f5.6 asa 160 AWB. I meter the wall and shoot at 2.5 to 3 stops over. I shot several exposures with lens selection off, lens selection on, lens on + UV/IR. I also shot indoors with same settings with similar results. Is there something I'm not doing?

 

I've tried using the .cpf profiles that I downloaded and the results are actually worse than my original uncorrected picture.

 

Firmware 1.10

1st shot lens on + UV/IR f5.6 AWB no corrections opened in CS3

2nd shot after Cornerfix with generic CV 12 486 profile

3rd shot thought I'd just throw this in WATE set at 16 lens on+ UV/IR f5.6 Leica IR filter JLM filter holder. Anyone know why there's magenta in the bottom?

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!

[jklotz]

I too have the John Milich LTM adapter coded to WATE, Leica 55mm IR using Milich adapter on my CV 12. I tried making profiles using Cornerfix but always get a

 

"Warning - Reference image contains saturated highlights.Your profile may not be accurate"

 

I've tried shooting outdoors in daylight against a plain white wall using f5.6 asa 160 AWB. I meter the wall and shoot at 2.5 to 3 stops over. I shot several exposures with lens selection off, lens selection on, lens on + UV/IR. I also shot indoors with same settings with similar results. Is there something I'm not doing?

 

I have been doing this type of thing with phase one backs for some time now. Thier solution is similar to cornerfix, however they supply a semi opaque plastic piece that one holds directly over the lens, makes an exposure, usually one or two stops over the exposure of the picture, then saves as what they call a Lens Cast Calibration. That LCC is then applied to the picture, much like cornerfix. I just realized this feature is not available in C1 pro for any camera other than a phase one, which is a shame. It works quite well.

 

I tried using the same piece of plexiglass with on the M8, using cornerfix, and it workd well also. I posted an example in this forum yesterday. The plastic piece is basicly a piece of white plexi glass, however I'm told expo disks work also. Might want to give it a try.

[photorunner]

I've thought about using the expodisc which I have used on my DMR to set customwhite balance. However, I hesitated after reading in one of the posts here that using the Expodisc might cause vignetting and or some other problem that I can't recall now. Anyway, since it's worked for you, I'll give it a shot. Thanks.

 

Herb

[robertwright]

seems like you might be overexposing too much? The warning is telling you you have clipped channels.

 

For some reason I was able to use profiles made indoors under tungsten as well as profiles made outdoors under daylight, they both did about the same. Sean Reid said eventually he will offer his profiles for his subscribers, I am awaiting those!

 

Outdoors as my examples show you might be better off shooting without the filter, detection on, uv/ir off. But it depends on subject. A neutral building at the edge of the frame will reveal cyan.

 

I think a piece of white plexi should work well also.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M