Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > 35mm Film Range Finders > Leica M -- Konica RF

Leica M -- Konica RF This forum is about the Konica RF, Konica' s idea of what a M camera should be.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes

Very interesting results with a 50/1.5 ZM Sonnar on a Hexar RF, a heavenly match!
Old 02-15-2008   #1
awilder
Registered User
 
awilder is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,298
Very interesting results with a 50/1.5 ZM Sonnar on a Hexar RF, a heavenly match!

I recently purchased a ZM 50/1.5 C Sonnar (f/1.5 optimized) to use on my Hexar RF as discusssed earlier in this thread: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/foru...ad.php?t=54418

Results greatly exceeded my expectations, making this potentially one of the best camera-lens matches I've ever used. First, regarding near focus accuracy, I couldn't ask for much better. The following images are taken at 1 meter at f/2, f/2.8 and f/4. There is a slight amount of front focus at f/2, possibly related to the slightly deeper film channel of the Hexar RF but it's not very bad at all. By f/2.8 and f/4, things really improve and there is no nasty focus shift well behind the subject.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 50 f1.5-C-Sonnar-f2-@-1m.jpg (234.1 KB, 198 views)
File Type: jpg 50-f-1.5-C-Sonnar-f-2.8-@1-.jpg (200.9 KB, 139 views)
File Type: jpg 50-1.5-C-Sonnar-f4-@-1-m.jpg (225.7 KB, 113 views)
__________________
<a href='http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=2121'>My Gallery</a>

Last edited by awilder : 02-15-2008 at 20:55.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-15-2008   #2
aizan
Registered User
 
aizan's Avatar
 
aizan is offline
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Torrance, CA
Age: 31
Posts: 3,198
looks like the lens is optimized for f2.8. you sure it's been optimized for f1.5?
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-15-2008   #3
awilder
Registered User
 
awilder is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,298
Next I shot some pictures at a long distance to make sure there were no front focus issues at wider apertures with the Hexar RF and this lens. Image sharpness was great and as good or better than my former 50 Summilux on my MP. Here is a full frame image at f/2 with the Sonnar on my Hexar, a center crop and a left edge crop.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 50 1.5 C Sonnar f2 full frame.jpg (150.7 KB, 140 views)
File Type: jpg 50 1.5 C Sonnar f2 center crop.jpg (269.8 KB, 112 views)
File Type: jpg 50-f1.5-Sonnar-f2,-left-cro.jpg (197.1 KB, 97 views)
__________________
<a href='http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=2121'>My Gallery</a>

Last edited by awilder : 02-16-2008 at 08:05.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-15-2008   #4
awilder
Registered User
 
awilder is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,298
Same setup at f/4 shown as a center crop, tight center crop (for additonal detail) and left crop.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 50 1.5 C Sonnar f4 center crop.jpg (268.8 KB, 46 views)
File Type: jpg 50 f1.5 C Sonnar @ f4 tight center crop.jpg (149.9 KB, 52 views)
File Type: jpg 50-f1.5-C-Sonnar-f4,-left-c.jpg (193.9 KB, 46 views)
__________________
<a href='http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=2121'>My Gallery</a>
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-15-2008   #5
awilder
Registered User
 
awilder is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,298
For comparison, here are 50 mm Summilux crops at f/2 of the same subject earlier in 2007. The lighting is different especially on the house at the left edge but the idea is to compare sharpness.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 50-Summilux-f2-center-crop.jpg (257.3 KB, 69 views)
File Type: jpg 50-Summilux-f2,-left-edge.jpg (220.8 KB, 55 views)
__________________
<a href='http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=2121'>My Gallery</a>

Last edited by awilder : 02-18-2008 at 23:12.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-15-2008   #6
awilder
Registered User
 
awilder is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,298
Lastly, here are the Summilux crops at f/4 as shown in a similar setup.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 50-Summilux-f4-center-crop.jpg (293.3 KB, 31 views)
File Type: jpg 50-Summilux-f4,-tight-cente.jpg (180.1 KB, 32 views)
File Type: jpg 50-Summilux-f4-left-edge-cr.jpg (239.6 KB, 30 views)
__________________
<a href='http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=2121'>My Gallery</a>
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-15-2008   #7
awilder
Registered User
 
awilder is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,298
Azian, the lens was ordered from Tony Rose as f/1.5 optimized and I believe he checks them out on an M8 to verify this. The front focus at f/2 is probably a result of the design of the Hexar with it's 0.04 mm deeper film channel allowing for motorized advance but effectively allowing the film extra room to move backward against the pressure plate. As seen here with a comparison between the f/2.8 and f/1.5 optimized Sonnars: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/foru...ad.php?t=51742, mine seems to front focus less at f/2 than the f/2.8 optimized version at the same opening shown in the above post.
__________________
<a href='http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=2121'>My Gallery</a>

Last edited by awilder : 02-16-2008 at 08:38.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-16-2008   #8
Krosya
Konicaze
 
Krosya's Avatar
 
Krosya is offline
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 3,676
Summilux shots look better to me.
__________________
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
35mm Rangefinders : Hexar RF , Leica M5 and RD1S w/ many M and LTM lenses

Folders
:
Welta Weltur 6x6/645, Welta Weltur 6x9/645


flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-16-2008   #9
mfogiel
Registered User
 
mfogiel's Avatar
 
mfogiel is offline
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Monaco
Posts: 2,642
This is a "f2.8" lens, but due to the Hexar you have about 3 cm front focus at f2.0 and 1 cm of backfocus - totally covered by the dof- at f4.0. I'd suggest to shoot it at f 2.8 onwards at infinity, and for the close subjects just remember about the rule to focus slightly behind at the widest apertures. I find that this lens has such an "abrupt" oof passage at close distances, that the effect while shooting at f2.8 is ideal: you get a very sharp plane of focus and a superb and creamy background blur. For best portraits shoot BW400CN or Portra 400 NC.
__________________
MY PORTFOLIOS


WTB: TAKUMAR 58/2.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-16-2008   #10
awilder
Registered User
 
awilder is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,298
Mfogiel, I agree that on the Hexar RF, the lens behaves more like your the f/2.8 version albeit with a little less front focus at f/2 than with your M7. However, I suspect that once I get my MP back from service and repeat the test, the narrower film channel will push the film slightly more forward resulting in focus similar to your f/1.5 version. I did briefly try what I thought was an f/2.8 optimized version, but on my Hexar it front focused quite alot at all distances and needed to be stopped down to f/4 and smaller for good results. Sharpness compared to the pre-asph. Summilux was similar at f/2 and f/4 but the Sonnar appears to be a bit sharper at the left edge shot at f/4 due to better correction of astigmatism.
__________________
<a href='http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=2121'>My Gallery</a>

Last edited by awilder : 02-25-2008 at 05:52.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-17-2008   #11
awilder
Registered User
 
awilder is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,298
I reshot the same test chart on my MP and the results are pretty much the same. This tell me it's more correctly an optimized f/2.8 version. Also other test shots demonstrate the Hexar's film plane focus matches that my Leica MP spot on. To be honest, if it were an f/1.5 optimized version, sharpness would suffer from f/2.8 through f/5.6 at all distances since focus shift affects all focused distances, not just close ones. That's because the lens cam is perfectly parallel rather than a hand finished slope like the Leica C lenses for the CL. This means that there is no extra focus compesation at near, only what normally occurs when the lens and cam move in unison with close focus.
__________________
<a href='http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=2121'>My Gallery</a>

Last edited by awilder : 03-17-2008 at 07:32.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 19:13.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.