Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

8 hours ago, LocalHero1953 said:

I agree there should be no problem focusing a 75mm lens on a M (and had no trouble with the Apo-Summicron 75 and 90 when I had them). The Summilux is a peculiar beast, however, and cannot always be relied on for all distances and all apertures because of its focus shift. I know I can focus my lens accurately at portrait distances wide open (which is all I want it for), but I wouldn’t rely on it wide open at greater distances (though I know it is focused at infinity at the hard stop, whatever the rangefinder says). Stopped well down at long distance the DoF should mask errors of focus shift.

I had mine adjusted for optimal focus at f2 and never had any problems. If needed a slight movement backwards was sufficient. However the poster appears to have used it with EVF and on a Sony; that should eliminate any focus shift. Either the lens is off, or the fact that he has minimal experience with such lenses and only “tested” it for few minutes should explain the anomalous results.There is also the possibility that using it on a high resolution sensor enhanced motion blur. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Altair said:

As selfish as this is, I am using this thread to document my first three months in the world of Leica. So far the journey has been transformative.

It would be good to see some real-world images, rather than just words and test pics. Are you sharing these anywhere online?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, jaapv said:

Maybe, before embarking on such an undertaking, you should have a look at how it should be done: 

https://phillipreeve.net/blog/lenses/all-lens-reviews/#Leica

Yes, and no. One of the things I don't like at review sites is not providing full size pictures like on reeve, reidreviews. Despite reviews being very good, images provided at 1024 or 1600 resolution is simply not representative :(

Link to post
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Steadimann said:

Yes, and no. One of the things I don't like at review sites is not providing full size pictures like on reeve, reidreviews. Despite reviews being very good, images provided at 1024 or 1600 resolution is simply not representative :(

The review site that was linked to does provide full resolution images.

Link to post
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Altair said:

My wife likes the flattering effect that she has likened to an iPhone filter, I understand she means the lack of skin detail and creamy skin texture

So you spent significant money on a lens for it to be likened to an iPhone filter? 🤣

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

39 minutes ago, Steadimann said:

Yes, and no. One of the things I don't like at review sites is not providing full size pictures like on reeve, reidreviews. Despite reviews being very good, images provided at 1024 or 1600 resolution is simply not representative :(

I do not really pay too much attention to the images posted with reviews - they give a general impression, but there are too many variables like the light, the style of the photographer, the processing, etc. for full resolution to add much - after all, it is about what the lens will do in my hands. I trust the text by a respected reviewer more than the images.

Link to post
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Steadimann said:

Yes, and no. One of the things I don't like at review sites is not providing full size pictures like on reeve, reidreviews. Despite reviews being very good, images provided at 1024 or 1600 resolution is simply not representative :(

Providing raws would indeed be better.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • jaapv changed the title to Leica Lens template proposal
1 hour ago, DigitalHeMan said:

Yes, I found the second similar thread after I replied to this one. Maybe they should be merged together.......

Good idea - done

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that the sole focus of this proposal is concentrated on this thread we are left with the ultimate question: out of the 115,000 members of this forum, who is going to volunteer to start writing?

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

..... we are left with the ultimate question: out of the 115,000 members of this forum, who is going to volunteer to start writing?

42

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

vor 2 Stunden schrieb jaapv:

I do not really pay too much attention to the images posted with reviews - they give a general impression, but there are too many variables like the light, the style of the photographer, the processing, etc. for full resolution to add much - after all, it is about what the lens will do in my hands. I trust the text by a respected reviewer more than the images.

I am sure, you will have a lot of fun with the interpretation, when one of your "respected reviewers" delivers you a folder with 50 raw files or textually describes the out of focus blur / bokeh for different background textures / shape of bokeh bubbles from highlights at different focal distances, the type and of flares, the form and level of coma for astro-shots, the level of center-/mid-frame and edge-blurryness at 5 different aperture settings, the different types and levels of chromatic aberrations, the field curvature etc. This will be like rating the quality of wine based on the flowery descriptions that wine testers usually give in catalogues.

Link to post
Share on other sites

vor 3 Stunden schrieb DigitalHeMan:

Yes, I found the second similar thread after I replied to this one. Maybe they should be merged together.......

This particular thread was dedicated to proposals for templates, so it made sense to split it from the general project motivation.

But my impression after 6 pages is, that most are just looking for entertainment, so I do not really expect a constructive result in this place anymore.

Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, 3D-Kraft.com said:

I am sure, you will have a lot of fun with the interpretation, when one of your "respected reviewers" delivers you a folder with 50 raw files or textually describes the out of focus blur / bokeh for different background textures / shape of bokeh bubbles from highlights at different focal distances, the type and of flares, the form and level of coma for astro-shots, the level of center-/mid-frame and edge-blurryness at 5 different aperture settings, the different types and levels of chromatic aberrations, the field curvature etc. This will be like rating the quality of wine based on the flowery descriptions that wine testers usually give in catalogues.

That level of detail is for other photographers AFAIC, or digital imaging scientists. For my photography I have managed very well with less specialist, more anecdotal descriptions, plus a few images if something needs illustrating.

Clearly, everyone looks for different things in a lens - a challenge for the OP.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, LocalHero1953 said:

Now that the sole focus of this proposal is concentrated on this thread we are left with the ultimate question: out of the 115,000 members of this forum, who is going to volunteer to start writing?

I think @Altair had volunteered to start writing this when he introduced the idea in the original post. I imagine those who see value in such a publication or website will join in once the ball starts to roll. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, DigitalHeMan said:

I think @Altair had volunteered to start writing this when he introduced the idea in the original post. I imagine those who see value in such a publication or website will join in once the ball starts to roll. 

I thought he hoped those with more experience of the lenses would do the writing. We shall see!

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, pgk said:

42

😸

I'm sure someone will need to Have to Think About It but let's just hope that it doesn't take quite so long to reach the answer to this 'Ultimate Question'.....

Philip.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, DigitalHeMan said:

I think @Altair had volunteered to start writing this when he introduced the idea in the original post. I imagine those who see value in such a publication or website will join in once the ball starts to roll. 

The wiki here on this website used to have technical data about lenses, links to more technical data and links to relevant threads on this forum. Sadly, the effort to keep these 'live' and updated has clearly been too much. As a starting point it would probably be a very good idea for people to get this back up and running and up to date rather than reinventing the wheel yet again. It was a valuable resource, and still is, but takes a lot of motivation and effort to retain in a way that is current and relevant.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 3D-Kraft.com said:

I am sure, you will have a lot of fun with the interpretation, when one of your "respected reviewers" delivers you a folder with 50 raw files or textually describes the out of focus blur / bokeh for different background textures / shape of bokeh bubbles from highlights at different focal distances, the type and of flares, the form and level of coma for astro-shots, the level of center-/mid-frame and edge-blurryness at 5 different aperture settings, the different types and levels of chromatic aberrations, the field curvature etc. This will be like rating the quality of wine based on the flowery descriptions that wine testers usually give in catalogues.

Its an interesting problem. So, for example, I could post a perfectly adequate description of the performance of an early Leca M wide angle lens, which would be somethng along the lines of: "Performance is centrally good (although certainly not outstanding) with fall off of definition towards the edges becoming quite mediocre in the corners. As the lens is stopped down performance improves but the corners never reach that of the centre. Contrast is low relative to a modern lens." I could go on to post photos which would illustrate this. But some users will still rave about the beauty of the imagery produced by such lenses. How on earth do you reconcile poor performance with ecstatic users in a template combining objective and subjective (often imaginary) data which contradicts it?[Caveat; I'm not a subscriber to 'the Leica look' myself.]

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...