Thanks for the clarification; but just due to the nature of this lens (having focus shift) it's going to be a little off except at the aperture Don optimized it for, right? Is it ON at any aperture?
Speaking for myself, it is amazing how much focus shift can be noticed with a digital camera when pixel peeping. Most of my F1.5 lenses are set for wide-open, and F4 shows a big shift. I've set a couple F1.5 J-3's to work best at F2. F1.5 is good-enough, F4 "just makes it". With the film, barely a difference can be noticed.
jamato8
Corroding tank M9 35 ASPH
Yeah, the good ole film days. lol
I love the smell of fixer. I worked in a lab for some time and then my own lab, oh well. What smell from digital? :^)
I don't know about the focus shift on the 35 yet. I have to do some experimenting. All I want to do is get everything dialed in. Everyone assumes that people just pixel peep. When doing a job I don't have time or the desire to do that. I need to shoot and concentrate on just that. So, I need to know what my equipment is doing and that is what I am attempting now. I don't like surprises that piss me off and all the more, a client because I screwed up by not knowing my own equipment.
I love the smell of fixer. I worked in a lab for some time and then my own lab, oh well. What smell from digital? :^)
I don't know about the focus shift on the 35 yet. I have to do some experimenting. All I want to do is get everything dialed in. Everyone assumes that people just pixel peep. When doing a job I don't have time or the desire to do that. I need to shoot and concentrate on just that. So, I need to know what my equipment is doing and that is what I am attempting now. I don't like surprises that piss me off and all the more, a client because I screwed up by not knowing my own equipment.
jamato8
Corroding tank M9 35 ASPH
I spoke with Leica NJ today. As the tech department stated, the sensor on the 8 and 9 is a 1000 times more precise in placement than film and therefore the shifts in focus that people are seeing. I spoke with Don of DAG again today also and he reaffirmed that he has had many 8's and now 9's that needed to have the lenses "fine tuned".
Mark at Leica did state that they felt that the lenses in question were adjusted to specs but since the advent of the sensor previous concepts are changing some (paraphrasing).
Mark at Leica did state that they felt that the lenses in question were adjusted to specs but since the advent of the sensor previous concepts are changing some (paraphrasing).
> What smell from digital? :^)
I had a Digital camera that "smoked" a mainboard. Pulled the batteries out of it real fast, at least it did not catch on fire. It was much worse than smelling Fixer. What you would get if pouring Fixer into a computer.
I had a Digital camera that "smoked" a mainboard. Pulled the batteries out of it real fast, at least it did not catch on fire. It was much worse than smelling Fixer. What you would get if pouring Fixer into a computer.
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
I have followed this thread with interest but can't comment directly about the M9 not owning one. At the start I was wondering if the problem the OP had was the reason that a lot of DSLRs have an AF Fine Tune option in their menu for the very reason Leica NJ stated. I would tend to believe that the tolerances are now tighter with digital than film as to what is in spec or not.
Bob
b.espahbod
Optophile
Well Focusing is an Art when your using Leica or any other RF camera.
Bill58
Native Texan
> What smell from digital? :^)
The smell of your money going out the door?
The smell of your money going out the door?
PeterV
Member
I desperately tried to align a war time LTM Sonnar 1,5 to my M9's RF - and thus discovered the Sonnar's focus shift. Brian, I'm really glad you're writing this - so it's not me, but my Sonnar! I thought I was too stupid for the job, or the lens was faulted. I knew there would be some focus shift but I didn't have an idea how much! Would it be possible that there is some curvature of field as well?
BTW, there has always been a discussion whether the original Voigtländer Nokton or the Sonnar was the "better" high speed 50 of its time (everybody seems to agree that the old Summarit was the worst of the early 1,5 lenses). Now, as I can compare the LTM versions of all three on the M9, it becomes obvious that focus shift very much influences image quality with the Sonnar, and the Nokton (as well as the Summarit) shows much less of it. Even if the use of film somewhat obstructs the effects of focus shift, the Nokton looks much like a winner to me. Stopped down a bit, even the Summarit is not so bad. As modern Sonnar-type lenses such as the new Zeiss Sonnar C 1,5/50 still show over-average focus shift, this seems to be a general property of the Sonnar design.
Peter
Last edited:
jamato8
Corroding tank M9 35 ASPH
Leica called back today.
If a lens is just a few years old they would consider adjusting it at no charge but if more then a few years old they would charge at least 90 dollars or so and the turn around time now is around 4 weeks. So one month. Then I was told that if I have someone else do it I would void the warranty of the camera!
Now I explained that if a repairman, like Don of DAG, of whom they are aware of, of course, adjusted the lens to the camera and not the camera to the lens, which would have to be done since I get both front and rear focus, how would this void the warranty? Well, adjusting the lens to film specs won't get them to the degree of accuracy needed for a sensor. I stated, I was sure he could adjust the lenses to the camera by adjusting them and then checking them on the camera, which would have nothing to do with the warranty of the camera.
If a lens is just a few years old they would consider adjusting it at no charge but if more then a few years old they would charge at least 90 dollars or so and the turn around time now is around 4 weeks. So one month. Then I was told that if I have someone else do it I would void the warranty of the camera!
Now I explained that if a repairman, like Don of DAG, of whom they are aware of, of course, adjusted the lens to the camera and not the camera to the lens, which would have to be done since I get both front and rear focus, how would this void the warranty? Well, adjusting the lens to film specs won't get them to the degree of accuracy needed for a sensor. I stated, I was sure he could adjust the lenses to the camera by adjusting them and then checking them on the camera, which would have nothing to do with the warranty of the camera.
Beemermark
Mentor
I never understood all this "back focus" stuff until I sold a 135/2.0 AF lens to a guy with a D3. He explain he would take the lens if it focused correctly. So I met him, he put it on the digital camera (I'm an old film guy) and proceeded to enlarge the picture on the screen about 10,000x. I was really impressed. If I want to blow a picture up to bill board size I use my 5x7 view camera.
jamato8
Corroding tank M9 35 ASPH
Sure and if you want something in focus and it back focusses 2 feet behind the subject you get the lens or the camera fixed or state that it was whatever is in focus that was the subject to begin with. :^)
ampguy
Mentor
I've observed this phenomenon as well
I've observed this phenomenon as well
Brian has made my J8 usable by adjusting it for spot on at F2, heck, it's even great at 2.8 and ok at F4! and I have a J3 coming that was adjusted by him at some time in the past that I'm looking forward to using in low light.
Even non Sonnar lens have focus shift, my old zoom Nikkors for example, but the shift could be seen when manually stopped down through the VF and adjusted for without wasting film.
I don't think film users want to take 10 shots to focus bracket, so they are generally in denial about focus shift. For digital users who can pixel peep 100% crops with a couple of button presses, they notice it readily.
Here's one thought - with 4/3rds, and using the LCD or EVFs (not the optical VF) to focus through the lens, these older lenses won't necessarily need any adjustment as they do on RFs, you'll see the focus at 7x, 10x or whatever magnification through the lens.
I've observed this phenomenon as well
Brian has made my J8 usable by adjusting it for spot on at F2, heck, it's even great at 2.8 and ok at F4! and I have a J3 coming that was adjusted by him at some time in the past that I'm looking forward to using in low light.
Even non Sonnar lens have focus shift, my old zoom Nikkors for example, but the shift could be seen when manually stopped down through the VF and adjusted for without wasting film.
I don't think film users want to take 10 shots to focus bracket, so they are generally in denial about focus shift. For digital users who can pixel peep 100% crops with a couple of button presses, they notice it readily.
Here's one thought - with 4/3rds, and using the LCD or EVFs (not the optical VF) to focus through the lens, these older lenses won't necessarily need any adjustment as they do on RFs, you'll see the focus at 7x, 10x or whatever magnification through the lens.
Lord Fluff
Established
In this instance, an 'art' akin to having a paintbrush apply paint either slightly to the left, or at other times slightly to the right, of where you actually wanted it.
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
...with the paintbrush strapped to a 5-foot pole, in the case of a high-speed lens, or an M9 apparently. Certainly possible, doable and learnable, but "easy" isn't the first word I'd have thought of. (M user here.)
ampguy
Mentor
haha, well in the big picture, perhaps the random focus could be a tool for certain kinds of art photography.
In the mid to late '80s, adding "swing" to robotized drum machines was a cool feature.
The difference is, you could set the amount of swing you were willing to tolerate, or turn it off completely...
In the mid to late '80s, adding "swing" to robotized drum machines was a cool feature.
The difference is, you could set the amount of swing you were willing to tolerate, or turn it off completely...
jamato8
Corroding tank M9 35 ASPH
Art to the focus. No thank you. Sure you can get creative with it, if you want, but what I need to do is concentrate on the image and not on whether the focus is set just a tad back on the focus ring after it has come together on the split image finder.
PeterV
Member
IMHO, the whole point is that many used or new RF lenses still on the market today have been designed without regard for the specific needs of digital imaging with ff digital RF cameras (flat field, no focus shift, high resolution wide open to the far corners of the frame). I now understand why Leica have made an almost complete modernisation of the RF lens offerings. The old ones were good enough for almost everything, back to the lens designs of the 50's of last century; nowadays focus shift and curvature of field can be seen by every amateur who pixel peeps at 100%; these being the same fine art enthusiasts who - before digital - hardly ever considered an enlargment of 35mm negs exceeding a factor of 8x acceptable.
In a way, it was a very courageous decision of Leica to maintain downwards compatibility with all those old lenses (that now show that what was before considered a specific character - call it "glow" -, sometimes was nothing but simple unsharpness caused by focus shift); maybe they should have changed the lens mount so that only newly designed lenses would fit, so no one could complain.
Just my 2 cents...
Peter
Good point, and Leica did just that with the new S2 SLR. In contrast, the Pentax 645D has legacy lenses to deal with, though not so very far back.
jamato8
Corroding tank M9 35 ASPH
When I spoke to Leica NJ, they made it clear that the older lenses can be adjusted to the M9. They also stated that it was the latitude of compensation that film affords over the sensor that is the problem. And I have spoken with a Leica trained repairman that stated he has seen the calibration of Leica lenses getting worse not better. While the lenses are finely made the last step seems to have slipped a bit but at least it can be corrected.
Canon pissed off a lot of people when they changed their mount but they were a large enough company to absorb the dissatisfaction. I think Leica would have had a more difficult time so it was and is to their advantage to keep the same mount, thus making their smaller market share, still a share and not turning away many possible upgraders to the new bodies and eventually, new lenses.
Canon pissed off a lot of people when they changed their mount but they were a large enough company to absorb the dissatisfaction. I think Leica would have had a more difficult time so it was and is to their advantage to keep the same mount, thus making their smaller market share, still a share and not turning away many possible upgraders to the new bodies and eventually, new lenses.
Last edited: