Brightin Star XSLIM-M 28mm f/2.8 M Mount Lens

[BastianK]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

vor 17 Minuten schrieb Huss:

Those look great!  Thanks for posting.  And goodness they are so much better than the garbage samples posted by thefauxblographer.

Looking forward to seeing more given that my lens is apparently being delivered on foot from China…

Thanks! Will post some more when I get the chance to use it more. 

Should be noted, for many I added +9 Distortion correction, as there is a lot of barrel Distortion and especially the one with the glass in the center gave me a headache with bendy lines. 

[Advertisement]

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

[vsantos720]

6 hours ago, BastianK said:

Thanks! Will post some more when I get the chance to use it more. 

Should be noted, for many I added +9 Distortion correction, as there is a lot of barrel Distortion and especially the one with the glass in the center gave me a headache with bendy lines. 

Do you mind posting that photo sooc?  I'm super interested in this lens but don't do much post proc.

 

Victor

[pippy]

On 7/8/2023 at 5:18 PM, BastianK said:

...for many I added +9 Distortion correction, as there is a lot of barrel Distortion...

Ah!

In which case, Bastian, I would second Victor's request in the above post to have a peek, if we may, at the image without the +9(!) barrel-distortion correction in post-prod as you must have had to crop out a considerable percentage of the image from how it was shot originally. In the light of what you write I'm guessing the first and final images in the same post also required a fair amount of tweaking?

I'm very relaxed about any lens' 'peculiarities' where rendering is concerned but I do like their results to be as rectilinear as possible.

Philip.

Edited July 10, 2023 by pippy

[Huss]

If you consider the physical limitations imposed by such a tiny 28mm 2.8 lens, it is not surprising that there will be some optical compromises.  Adjusting for barrel or pincushion distortion is easy in LightRoom. And what was considered to be a small 28mm 2.8 lens - the Leica Elmarit - is huge in comparison!

Unless I am mistaken the ballyhooed lens on the Q2 has a huge amount of distortion that is automatically compensated for in camera after the shot has been taken.

I am very curious to see a comparison with the MS 28 lens which has a very similar physical form to the BrightinStar, to see what optical accommodations it has to suffer in return for the tiny size of the lens.

[BastianK]

vor 1 Stunde schrieb Huss:

Unless I am mistaken the ballyhooed lens on the Q2 has a huge amount of distortion that is automatically compensated for in camera after the shot has been taken.

This is actually correct. The distortion of the Brightin Star lens is absolutely nothing compared to the lens in the Q series.
That Leica Q lens does not even illuminate the sensor's corners...

By popular demand these are some straight lines taken with the BS lens without correction.

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!

 

vor 8 Stunden schrieb pippy:

as you must have had to crop out a considerable percentage of the image from how it was shot originally

Small note: when there is barrel distortion only a small part of the (after correction stretched) corners will be cropped.
There is no loss of vertical or horizontal viewing angle.
 

Edited July 11, 2023 by BastianK

[pippy]

2 hours ago, BastianK said:

...when there is barrel distortion only a small part of the (after correction stretched) corners will be cropped...There is no loss of vertical or horizontal viewing angle.
 

Thank you for posting this illustration, Bastian, and in fact there is nothing like the degree of distortion which I had imagined.

Philip.

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2 hours ago, BastianK said:

This is actually correct. The distortion of the Brightin Star lens is absolutely nothing compared to the lens in the Q series.
That Leica Q lens does not even illuminate the sensor's corners...

That is a wrong interpretation. You are comparing a complete lens with half a lens. The Q lens is a present-day optical design which is incomplete without the digital distortion correction. The design shifts residual aberrations (inevitable in any design) into distortion which is then corrected digitally. Many new designs by many brands work this way nowadays. The digital part acts as an extra lens element. Your lens is an old-fashioned purely optical design. To compare objectively you should screw off one lens element - or use the Q lens as designed.

The advantage of present day optical/digital design is that the lens can be smaller, lighter, less expensive with the same or higher quality.

[BastianK]

vor 9 Minuten schrieb jaapv:

That is a wrong interpretation. You are comparing a complete lens with half a lens. The Q lens is a present-day optical design which is incomplete without the digital distortion correction. The design shifts residual aberrations (inevitable in any design) into distortion which is then corrected digitally. Many new designs by many brands work this way nowadays. The digital part acts as an extra lens element. Your lens is an old-fashioned purely optical design. To compare objectively you should screw off one lens element - or use the Q lens as designed.

The advantage of present day optical/digital design is that the lens can be smaller, lighter, less expensive with the same or higher quality.

Wow. Rarely have I read something so much besides the point.

Calling my interpretation wrong is already something, but saying to be "allowed" to compare an interchangeable lens to the holy Q, one should do so by first
removing one of its elements is one of the most ridiculous arguments I came across in a long time. And this is the internet, so the bar was set really high to begin with.

Edited July 11, 2023 by BastianK

[jaapv]

Read again. The lens was designed to use digital corrections as an extra element  the distortion occurs in the half-way phase-  optical design is indeed a complicated subject and no longer about glass alone.

[Al Brown]

1 minute ago, jaapv said:

Read again. The lens was designed to use digital corrections as an extra element  the distortion occurs in the half-way phase-  optical design is indeed a complicated subject and no longer about glass alone.

But @BastianK wrote that very clearly:

 

3 hours ago, BastianK said:

The distortion of the Brightin Star lens is absolutely nothing compared to the lens in the Q series.

in response to

 

4 hours ago, Huss said:

the ballyhooed lens on the Q2 has a huge amount of distortion that is automatically compensated for in camera after the shot has been taken.

 

[BastianK]

vor 6 Minuten schrieb jaapv:

Read again. 

By your recommendation I read it again. Still ridiculous.

I think I made my point.

The Brightin Star lens has low, easy to correct barrel distortion (and plenty of other, bigger issues by the way) and that distortion is easy correct.
The Q has ridiculously high distortion as everyone can see e.g. here: https://diglloyd.com/prem/s/LEICA/LeicaM/LeicaQ-distortion-Dolls.html?dglyPT=true
And even that distortion can be corrected to give satisfactory results.

PS: for me personally it is irrelevant how much distortion a lens has as long as it can be corrected easily in post
because it is either uniform or a profile is available.

Edited July 11, 2023 by BastianK

[jaapv]

Yes - but my point is that it is not specifically "automatically corrected" but a deliberate part of the design. It is not like other (older) lenses corrected in-camera to hide design flaws, but an integral part of the optical formula. 

Digiloyd is the last place I would go for technical expertise - he has too many blunders to his name.

[Al Brown]

4 minutes ago, BastianK said:

By your recommendation I read it again. Still ridiculous.

I think I made my point.

The Brightin Star lens has low, easy to correct barrel distortion (and plenty of other, bigger issues by the way) and that distortion is easy correct.
The Q has ridiculously high distortion as everyone can see e.g. here: https://diglloyd.com/prem/s/LEICA/LeicaM/LeicaQ-distortion-Dolls.html?dglyPT=true
And even that distortion can be corrected to give satisfactory results.

Most lenses attached to digital compact cameras are like that, fisheye "look" that is brutally tweaked and corrected in post-production internally. The lens is designed for correction, it would be mocked and ridiculed if used optically adapted to, say,  a M camera but as a wholesome package attached and processed via Leica Q its tweaked images look awesome.

Edited July 11, 2023 by Al Brown

[jaapv]

Unfortunately you are fighting present day lens design.  Leica M lenses are corrected digitally nowadays as well, the newest designs do take that into account. The only thing holding Leica back for the M system is the retrocompatability with film Ms. All other new lenses for  other systems are hybrid designs to a lesser or greater extent.

That is why the SL lenses are so much better than M lenses.

[BastianK]

 

vor 8 Minuten schrieb jaapv:

Yes - but my point is that it is not specifically "automatically corrected" but a deliberate part of the design. It is not like other (older) lenses corrected in-camera to hide design flaws, but an integral part of the optical formula.

So to get this straight:
When a Leica Q's lens does not even illuminate the edges of the sensor this is part of the design and not a flaw.
When any interchangeable lens needs a correction profile applied on the other hand, this is just to "hide its design flaws".

You do notice this argumentation makes zero sense, right?

vor 8 Minuten schrieb jaapv:

Digiloyd is the last place I would go for technical expertise - he has too many blunders to his name.

I don't know you, but I do think that guy is able to post a picture without the digital corrections.
That is not exactly rocket science.
We don't need to discuss his reputation or knowledge for that.
And I don't need him to be either Ansel Adams or Mandler for that.

So far you on the other hand, come across as someone extremely arrogant with doubtful technical knowledge.

Edited July 11, 2023 by BastianK

[jaapv]

27 minutes ago, BastianK said:

u do notice this argumentation makes zero sense, right?

I. cannot explain it more clear to you, sorry

Edit: one more try: there is a very clear distinction between a deliberate design to improve the final result and an afterthought correction of a flaw. 

The Q lens without the digital design component is only half the lens. It is idiotic to remove  it, as the optical part is designed to optimize the  lens for the (digitized) part of the complete lens. 

It goes even further, the lens design is integrated with the shutter/ sensor to form one unit.

Edited July 11, 2023 by jaapv
few lines added

[Al Brown]

@BastianK is a respected author at https://phillipreeve.net/blog/author/bastiank/ and has reviewed tons of lenses since 2016, you both know your business very well, pointless to argue over some stupid unimportant matter regarding wording formulation to prove whose is longer, gentlemen (I mean lens, of course).

 

[DennisPT]

This forum is great because it contains different views.  Here are a few more shots with this lens on M10-P, jpeg adjusted with iPhone. 

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!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[DennisPT]

Shot at f/8, sorry don’t know why it shows in landscape.

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 July 11, 2023 by DennisPT

[DennisPT]

Another f/8

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!